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. 71–92

Chapter 4
The noun phrase as an emergent unit in Finnish

| University of Turku
The article focuses on the use of noun phrases in Finnish conversation as arguments, contrasting these uses with the use of free NPs. I show that several grammatical processes characteristic of Finnish contribute to making the internal structure of NPs relatively stable. Agreement in case and number, together with the relatively fixed ordering of elements within the NP, help the co-participants to project the future course of the turn. In the construction of NPs as referring expressions, recipient design is an important preference. A close examination of the use of argument NPs and free NPs in interaction reveals different clusterings of features characteristic of NPs as units. Based on these findings, the NP emerges as a robust unit in Finnish.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Grammatical characteristics of noun phrases in Finnish
  • 4.Argument NPs vs. free NPs in interaction
    • 4.1Grammatical features
    • 4.2Noun phrases from the perspective of reference
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Data source
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.128.04hel
References (32)
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.Google Scholar
References
Barnes, Betsy K. 1985. The Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French [Pragmatics & Beyond VI:3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret. 2001. Introducing interactional linguistics. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10], Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E. & Ashby, William J. (eds). 2003. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erringer, Anu. 1996. The Functions of Demonstrative Adjectives semmoinen, tämmöinen and tuommoinen in Finnish Conversation. MA thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, M. M. Jocelyne. 2016. Detachment linguistics and information grammar of oral languages. In Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-linguistic perspective [Trends in Linguistics 283], M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds), 7–32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 14–38. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol (ed.). 2015. How Languages Work. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Karlsson, Fred. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riita, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 1997. Functions of case-marking vs. non-marking in conversational Finnish. In Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 154], Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse & Dirk Noël (eds), 213–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax in the Making. The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversation [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Argument splits in Finnish grammar and discourse. In Du Bois, Kumpf & Ashby (eds), 247–272.Google Scholar
. 2019. Free NPs as units in Finnish. Special issue on Usage-based Approaches and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units , Ritva Laury, Tsuyoshi Ono & Ryoko Suzuki (guest eds). Studies in Language 43(2): 301–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60: 703–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2007. Kvantiteetti ja aika II: Nominaalinen aspekti ja suomen predikatiivin sijavaihtelu. Virittäjä 111(1): 3–23.Google Scholar
Lagae, Véronique. 2007. Left-detachment and topic-marking in French. Folia Linguistica 41(3): 327–355.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2006. Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space, and Person in Finnish [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 203], Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds), 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 1997. Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2016. Detached NPs with relative clauses in Finnish conversations. In Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds), 149–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leino, Jaakko. 2015. The syntactic and semantic history of the Finnish genitive subject. In Subjects in Constructions [Constructional Approaches to Language 16], Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Tuomas Huumo (eds), 231–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. 1994. Unattached NPs in English conversation. BLS 12.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita & Heritage, John. 2012. Preference. In Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds), 210–228. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 2, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka. 1977. Itämerensuomalaisten kielten kieltoverbi, Osa 1: Suomi (The negative verb in the Baltic-Finnic languages. Part 1: Finnish). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. The hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages [Linguistic Series No. 22], Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001a. Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Articles in Finnish [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10], Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation. Studies in Discourse and Grammar, vol. 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free Word Order in Finnish: Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar