Cover not available
Part of
The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages: An emergent unit in interaction
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono and Sandra A. Thompson
[Typological Studies in Language 128] 2020
► pp. 11–42

Chapter 2
The Finnish se että initiated expressions

NPs or not?

| University of Turku
| University of Oulu
| University of Helsinki
This paper concerns the grammatical category of Finnish expressions initiated with se että (lit. ‘it that’). In earlier studies based on written data, they have been considered clausal NPs functioning as subjects, objects and complements. In our spoken data, both present-day and older, se että initiated expressions have a wider range of functions. We show that some se että expressions have characteristics of NPs, but others are unlike NPs in certain ways, concluding that the category of NP is not binary, but rather a continuum with fuzzy boundaries. We also show that se että has been grammaticized into a projector phrase which does not initiate complement clauses but rather functions as a sedimented formula in the service of interactional practices.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
  • Data and methods
  • The status of se että initiated expressions as NPs
    • NP-like features of se että initiated expressions
    • Non-NP-like features of se että initiated expressions
    • Summary: Se että initiated expressions as NPs
  • A diachronic perspective on se että initiated expressions
  • Towards the grammaticization of se että
  • Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Data sources
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.128.02suo
References (40)
Data sources
Arkisyn: 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 Archives at the University of Turku. Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.
Corpus of Finnish Dialects. Syntax Archives, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Studies. University of Turku.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The interface between discourse and grammar. The fact is that. In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 161], Agnès Celle & Ruth Huart (eds), 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1992. The neverending sentence. Rightward expansion in spoken language. In Studies in Spoken Languages: English, German, Finno-Ugric, Miklós Kontra (ed.), 41–59. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan. 2011. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars, Forsberg, Markus & Roxendal, Johan. 2012. Korp – The corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. <[URL]>
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A. 2006. “You know it’s funny.” Eine Neubetrachtung der ‘Extraposition’ im Englischen. In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds), 23–58. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, Ritva Laury (ed.), 12–37. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, M. M. Jocelyne. 2015. Detachments for Cohesion. Toward an Information Grammar of Oral Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2008. “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist. Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es.” Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 9, 86–114. <[URL]>
. 2011. N be that constructions in everyday German conversation. In Subordination in Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 24], Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja Riitta & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi (Great Finnish Grammar). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 1996. A discourse perspective on the grammaticization of the partitive case in Finnish. In SKY 1996 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, Timo Haukioja, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Elise Kärkkäinen (eds), 7–35.Google Scholar
. 2001a. Syntax in the Making: The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversation [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10], Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas. 2010. Mikä subjekti on? (On the subject of subject in Finnish). Virittäjä 114(2): 165–195.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed.), 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo & Hakulinen, Auli. 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
Kuiri, Kaija. 1999. Ilmaus “x on sellainen että” suomen puhekielessä [The expression “x on sellainen että” in spoken Finnish]. Virittäjä 103(3): 378–401.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 1995. Nollapersoona [Zero person]. Virittäjä 99(3): 337–358.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 1982. Object Case Marking in Finnish. MA Thesis, California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
. 1997. Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Taking a stance and getting on with it: The form and function of the Finnish finite clausal extraposition construction. Text & Talk 4(7): 503–524.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2016. Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 106: 80–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko. 1999. Mitä tarkoittaa se, että. Se-pronominista subjektina ja objektina toimivan että-lauseen yhteydessä (What does se että mean. About the pronoun se in että clauses functioning as subject and object). Virittäjä 103(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Mayes, Patricia & Tao, Hongyin. 2019. Linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of categorizing as a sociocultural practice. Studies in Language 43(2): 329–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Clause combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French conversation. In Subordination in Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 24], Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 103–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, De Stefani, Elwys & Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie. 2015. Time and Emergence in Grammar. Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talki-in-interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 28]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Priiki, Katri. 2017. Hän, se, tää vai toi? Vuorovaikutussosiolingvistinen tutkimus henkilöviittauksista Kaakkois-Satakunnan nykypuhekielessä (Hän, se, tää or toi? An Interactional Sociolinguistic Study of Third-person References to People in Contemporary Spoken Finnish in Southwestern Satakunta). PhD dissertation. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja C432, Turku.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Siro, Paavo. 1968. Suomen kielen että-lauseen ongelmasta. In Fenno-Ugrica. Juhlakirja Lauri Postin kuusikymmenvuotispäiväksi 17.3.1968 [Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 145], 203–205. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena & Laakso, Minna. 2005. Katko vai eiku? Itsekorjauksen aloitustavat ja vuorovaikutustehtävät (Cut-off or eiku? The initiation and the interactional functions of self repair). Virittäjä 109(2): 224–271.Google Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita, Vatanen, Anna & Laury, Ritva. 2016. The Finnish se että as an emerging and emergent construction. Paper given at the Symposium on the emergence of units in social interaction. University of Helsinki, 4–5 August.
Suzuki, Ryoko. 1999. Grammaticization in Japanese: A Study of Pragmatic Particle-ization. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varjo, Mikael & Suomalainen, Karita. 2018. From zero to ‘you’ and back: A mixed methods study comparing the use of two open personal constructions in Finnish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41(3): 333–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna, Suomalainen, Karita & Laury, Ritva. Forthcoming. The Finnish projector phrase se että as a fixed expression. In Fixed Expressions: Building Social Action from Language Structure, Ritva Laury & Tsuyoshi Ono (eds).