Cover not available
Part of
(Non)referentiality in Conversation
Edited by Michael C. Ewing and Ritva Laury
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 344] 2024
► pp. 56–79

Chapter 4
The (non)referentiality of the word raha ‘money’ in Finnish conversation

| University of Helsinki
This chapter concerns the use of the word raha ‘money’ in Finnish everyday conversation. The main findings are that raha is most often used non-referentially in singular form in predications where only the category of money is at issue. When the word is used to create referential mentions of some specific money with continuity of identity, a plural form is used. The study shows that the singular-plural distinction is a manipulable resource exploited by participants in conversation for interactional purposes to create stance and to accomplish actions.
Keywords: Finnish, divisible noun, number, specificity, stance, continuity of identity, emergence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.Raha in Finnish grammars
  • 4.Raha in Finnish everyday conversation
    • 4.1Raha in non-referential use
    • 4.2Referential uses of raha
    • 4.3Shifting uses of raha in conversation
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.344.04lau
References (33)
References
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, John W. 2007. “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 140–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert. 2007. “Stancetaking in Discourse. Introduction.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 1–25. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Häkkinen, Kaisa. 2004. Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja [The etymological dictionary of modern Finnish]. Juva: WSOY, electronic version retrieved 11/15/21 at [URL]
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the Making: The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversational Discourse. Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, and Lea Laitinen. 2006. “Person in Finnish: Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Relations in Interaction.” In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Lyle Campbell, CILT 277, 173–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56: 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1990. “List Construction as a Task and a Resource.” In Interaction Competence, ed. by George Psathas, 63–92. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas, and Marja-Liisa Helasvuo. 2015. “On the subject of subject in Finnish.” in Subjects in Constructions - Canonical and Non-Canonical, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Tuomas Huumo, 15–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2016. “Receipting Information as Newsworthy vs. Responding to Redirection: Finnish News Receipts aijaa and ahaa.” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 163–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
KTS. Kielitoimiston sanakirja. [Dictionary of Modern Finnish] 2021. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten keskus. URN:NBN:fi:kotus-201433. [URL], retrieved November 19, 2021.
Laitinen, Lea. 1995. “Nollapersoona [Zero Person].” Virittäjä 99 (3): 337–358.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2019. “Usage-Based Grammar.” In Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook, ed. by András Kertész, Edith Moravcsik, and Csilla Rákosi, 241–262. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurminen, Tuula. 1998. “Sähköisen rahan kuvaus sanomalehdissä.” [Description of electronic money in newspapers].” In Puolin ja toisin [On both sides], AFinLA Yearbook 1998, ed. by Minna-Riitta Luukka, Sigrid Salla, and Hannele Dufva, 235–246. Jyväskylä: Finnish Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
NS = Nykysuomen sanakirja. [The dictionary of Modern Finnish], v. 4, ed. O–R. 1956. Porvoo/Helsinki: WSOY. [URL]
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson. 1994. “Unattached NPs in English Conversation.” Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 2014. “The Role of Pragmatic Function in the Grammaticalization of English General Extenders.” Pragmatics 24:1.105–129.Google Scholar
Posio, Pekka. 2021. “A pessoa and uma pessoa: Grammaticalization and Functions of a Human Impersonal Referential Device in European Portuguese.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 20 (2):1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. 2007. “Lists as Embedded Structures and The Prosody of List Construction as an Interactional Resource.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3):483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siro, Paavo. 1943. “Jaolliset ja jaottomat substantiivit. [Divisble and non-divisible nouns].” Virittäjä 47:276–290.Google Scholar
. 1957. “Suomen kielen subjektista kielen rakenteen osana. [The Finnish subject as part of the structure of the language].” Virittäjä 61:181–190.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita, and Mikael Varjo. 2020. “When Personal Is Interpersonal. Organizing Interaction with Deictically Open Personal Constructions in Finnish Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 168: 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Paul J. Hopper. 2001. “Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan Bybee and Paul J. Hopper, 28–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tunkelo, Eemil Aukusti. 1915. “Vanhaa ja uutta raha sanasta [Old and new about the word raha].” Virittäjä 19 (6):91–99.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1992. Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. [Reference and definiteness in the interpretation of Finnish language texts.] Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar