Cover not available
Part of
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan K. Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 41–60

Definitely indefinite

Negotiating intersubjective common ground in everyday interaction in Finnish

| University of Helsinki
This chapter concerns expressions which seem internally contradictory because they consist of both a recognitional and a non-recognitional element. They contain both the Finnish demonstrative se ‘that, the’, a recognitional, as in se ihminen ‘that/the person’, and one of the indefinite determiners yksi ‘one’, semmonen ‘such’, and joku ‘some’, all of which are non-recognitionals, resulting in expressions such as se joku ihminen ‘that/the some person’. The chapter shows that each of these expressions has its own home environment and expresses a distinct epistemic stance. The main findings are that these expressions constitute a fine-grained resource for the negotiation of relative epistemic status and are tools for building intersubjective common ground in interaction.
Keywords: definite, indefinite, recognitional, specific, identifiable, determiner, epistemic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on referring and the use of referential forms in interaction
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Definite indefinites in Finnish conversation
    • 4.1 Se yks in negotiations of epistemic access
    • 4.2 Se semmonen in category negotiations
    • 4.3 Se joku in mentions of unimportant referents
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.03lau
References (51)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2007. “Principles of Person Reference in Tzeltal Conversation.” In Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 172–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, Bois W. 1980. “Beyond Definiteness: The Trace of Identity in Discourse.” In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe, 203–274. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2007. Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erringer, Anu. 1996. “The Functions of Demonstrative Adjectives. Semmoinen, tämmöinen and tuommoinen in Finnish Conversations.” Master’s thesis. Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Etelämäki, Marja. 2005. “Context and Referent in Interaction. Referential and Indexical Dimensions of the Finnish Demonstrative Pronouns.” In Minimal Reference. The Use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse, ed. by Ritva Laury, 12–37. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
. 2006. Toiminta ja tarkoite: Tutkimus suomen pronominista tämä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Barbara A. Fox. 1996. “Interactional Motivations for Reference Formulation: He had. This Guy Had, a Beautiful, Thirty-Two O:lds.” Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox, 145–168. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. ”Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosphie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by G. Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hacohen, Gonen, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2006. “On the Preference for Minimization in Referring to Persons: Evidence from Hebrew Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1305–1312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William. 1990. Referential Practice. Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. “The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. by Charles Goodwin, and Alessandro Duranti, 43–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Person Reference in Yucatec Maya Conversation.” In Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 149–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2009. ”Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Answers to Assessments.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 122–151. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 1988. “Subjekteina ja objekteina toimivat nominilausekkeet puhutussa suomessa.” Licentiate thesis. University of Helsinki.
Heritage, John. 2007. ”Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. “The Epistemic Engine: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “Epistemics in Conversation.” In Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 370–394. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1990[1971]. “Shifters and Verbal Categories.” In Roman Jakobson on Language, ed. by Linda Waugh, and Monique Monville-Burston, 386–392. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Juvonen, Päivi. 2005. “On the Pragmatics of Indefinite Determiners in Spoken Finnish.” In Minimal Reference. The use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse, ed. by Ritva Laury, 190–211. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2016. "Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news receipts "aijaa" and "aha(a)"." Journal of Pragmatics 104: 163-179.Google Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 1995. “On the Grammaticization of the Definite Article se in Spoken Finnish.” In Historical Linguistics 1993, ed. by Henning Andersen, 239–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. ”Sen kategoriasta. Onko suomessa jo artikkeli? [Regarding the category of se: does Finnish have an article yet?]” Virittäjä 100 (2): 162–181.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Definiteness.” In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics. Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5, ed. by Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 50–65. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lepäsmaa, Anna-Liisa. 1978. “Tunnettuuden ilmaisemisesta Helsingin puhekielessä.” Master’s thesis. Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.
Lerner, Gene H. 1989. “Notes on Overlap Management in Conversation: The Case of Delayed Completion.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 167–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Socicety 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1955[1940]. Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by Justus Buchler. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Elwys De Stefani, and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher. 2015. Time and Emergence in Grammar: Left-Disclocation, Right-Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen 1981. “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223–253. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Russel, Bertrand. 1905. “On Denoting.” Mind XIV (4): 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of Systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Shifters, Verbal Categories, and Cultural Description.” In Meaning in Anthropology, ed. by Keith H. Basso, and Henry A. Shelby, 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Auli Hakulinen. 2009. “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. “Alternative Recognitionals in Initial References to Persons.” Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna. 2014. Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Delayed Completions of Unfinished Turns. On the Phenomenon and its Boundaries.” In Linking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction, ed. by Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 153–174. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1992. Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar