Cover not available
Part of
Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan K. Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 55–86

Chapter 3
The emergence and routinization of complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and tietää ‘know’ in Finnish talk-in-interaction

Our paper concerns two Finnish cognitive verbs, ajatella ‘think’, and tietää ‘know’. We show that both verbs are most likely to occur in the first person singular form but behave differently with respect to polarity: tietää occurs most commonly in the negated form (56%), while ajatella is only rarely negated (less than 4%). The verbs also differ with respect to their sequential emergence and complementation, with tietää ‘to know’ occurring nearly half of the time in responsive position and without complements. Each of the most common formats of the verbs builds or projects a specific social action. The patterns of clause combining, in this case, complementation or lack of it, are closely connected to the locally contingent employment of action.
Keywords: cognitive verb, complementation, Finnish, fixedness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and tietää ‘know’
    • 3.1Morphosyntactic profiles
    • 3.2Ajatella ‘think’
    • 3.3Tietää ‘know’
  • 4.Discussion: Comparison and implications
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Data source
  • References
Published online: 17 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.03lau
References (64)
Data source
Arkisyn. 2018. A morphosyntactically coded database of conversational Finnish. Database compiled at the University of Turku, with material from the Conversation Analysis Archive at the University of Helsinki and the Syntax Archive at the University of Turku. Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.
References
Aho, E. (2010). Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu. [The prosodic sequencing of spontaneous speech.] Ph.D. Dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. [URL]Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2007). The interface between discourse and grammar. The fact is that . In A. Celle, & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks (pp. 31–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1957). Interrogative structures of American English. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & W. Pagliuca, W. (1987). The evolution of future meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp.109–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82.4: 529–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S. (2017). Epistemische Praktiken und ihre feinen Unterschiede: Verwendungen von ich dachte in gesprochener Sprache. In A. Deppermann, N. Proske, & A. Zeschel (Eds.), Verben in interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Reineke, S. Frthc. Practices of indexing discrepant assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in talk-in-interaction. In Functions of Language.
Du Bois, J. W. et al.. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English. Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistics Data Consortium.
Endo, T. (2013). Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of wo juede (I feel/think). In Y. Pan, & D. Kádár (Eds.), Chinese discourse and interaction: Theory and practice (pp. 12–34). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Englebretson, R. (2007) Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011). N be that-constructions in everyday German conversation: a reanalysis of die Sache ist/das Ding ist (‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.11–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A. (2012). Näkökulmia suomen kieltolauseen sanajärjestyksen määräytymiseen. [Perspectives on word order in the Finnish negated clause]. In R. Argus, R. Hussar, & T. Rüütmaa (Eds.), Pühendusteos emeriitprofessor Mati Hindi 75. sünnipäevaks [Festschrift for the 75th birthday of Prof.Emer. Mati Hint] (pp. 20–44). Tallinna Ülikooli eesti keele ja kulttuuri instituudi toimetised 14. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L. (2014a). Agreement or crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and verbs of cognition in Finnish conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 63, 63–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Searching for motivations for grammatical patternings. Pragmatics 24(3), 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1427–1446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and a resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 63–92). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15), 2194–2210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2003). From interaction to grammar. Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala.Google Scholar
(2011a). The terms of not knowing. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 184–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Interrogative “complements” and question design in Estonian. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.37–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Abandoning dead ends: the Estonian junction marker maitea ‘I don’t know’. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L., & Hakulinen, A. (2018). Epistemically reinforced kyl(lä)/küll-responses in Estonian and Finnish: word order and social action. Journal of Pragmatics 123, 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., and Seppänen, E.-L. (2008). Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että . In R. Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., & Helasvuo, M.-L. (2016). Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 80–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., Helasvuo, M.-L., & Rauma, J. Frthc. Use of the verb ajatella ‘think’ as a fixed expression in spoken Finnish. Submitted.
Laury, R., & Ono, T. (2010). Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do. In: H. van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and human language. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Pp. 69–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 24(3), 561–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., & Karlsson, S. (2016). Tensions in the epistemic domain and claims of no-knowledge: A study of Swedish medical interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 126–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Maschler, Y., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.) (2016). Grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction: Cross-linguistic studies. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 106.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2012). Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4), 785–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The emergence of Hebrew loydea/loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from interaction. In A. Sansò, & C. Fedriani (Eds.), Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives (pp. 37–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y., & Dori-Hacohen, G. (2018). Constructing a genre: Hebrew lo yode’a / lo yoda’at ‘(I) don’t know’ on Israeli political radio phoneins. Text & Talk 38(5), 575–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, M. (2011). A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34(2), 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2001). Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31(1), 139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: projector constructions in French conversation. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 103–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). More than an epistemic hedge: je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 148–162. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “limited access” as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry 50: 3–4. 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2000). I dunno. A usage-based account of the reduction of don’t in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 32(1), 105–124. 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
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, H. (1996). Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1), 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2002). “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26, 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In P. J. Hopper, & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 2 (pp. 313–339). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, C. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19, 101–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, A. (2014). Responding in overlap. Agency, epistemicity and social action in interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
(2018). Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(2), 107–126. (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, A., Suomalainen, K., & Laury, R. Frthc. The Finnish projector phrase se että as a fixed expression.
Vilkuna, M. (1984). Voiko -kin-partikkelia ymmärtää? [Can the particle -kin be understood?] Virittäjä 88: 393–408.Google Scholar
(1992). Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. [Reference and definiteness in the interpretation of Finnish texts]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Weatherall, A. (2011). I don’t know as a prepositioned epistemic hedge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(4): 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Floyd, Simeon
2021. Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.