Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause

Eeva-Leena Seppänen and Ritva Laury

Abstract

This paper examines the use of että-clauses in Finnish everyday conversation for extending a speaker’s turn after a possible point of turn completion for the purpose of pursuing uptake from a turn recipient. Although että-clauses are considered complements in most grammatical descriptions of Finnish, the paper questions their status as subordinate clauses. We show that they nevertheless could be considered to function as increments, as either Extensions (Glue-ons, in terms of Couper-Kuhlen & Ono, this volume) or Free Constituents. This is interesting in view of Ford, Fox & Thompson’s (2002) definition of increments as “nonmain-clause continuations after a possible point of turn completion.” We also show that what makes että-clauses ideal for the pursuit of uptake is that both as a conjunction and particle, että functions to open up the participation framework and import new voices to the conversation.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Chafe, Wallace
(1994) Discourse, consciousness and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
(1986) Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert
(2003) Searching for structure. The problem of complementation in colloquial Indonesian conversation. Studies in Discourse and Grammar 13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson
(2002) Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14-38.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
(1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York : Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Fred Karlsson
(1979) Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli
(1989) Partikkelit ja muut kiteymät vuoroissa. In Auli Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja 1. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen
(1992) Finnish kato: From verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 527-549. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riita Korhonen, Vesa, Koivisto, Tarja Riita Heinonen, and Irja Alho
(2004) Iso suomen kielioppi [The big grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri
(1979) Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
(1977) X’ Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kangasniemi, Heikki
(1997) Sana, merkitys, maailma. Katsaus leksikaalisen semantiikan perusteisiin. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
(2000) Keelendid et ja nii et vestluses. Keel ja Kirjandus 5: 344-358.Google Scholar
Kuiri, Kaija
(1984) Referointi Kainuun ja Pohjois-Karjalan murteissa. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 405. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea
(2002) From logophoric pronoun to discourse particle. A case study of Finnish and Saami. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva
(2006) On subordination, Finnish style. Questioning the category of finite clausal complementation in Finnish. In Mickael Suominen, Antti Arppe, Anu Airola, Orvokki Heinämäki, Matti Miestamo, Urho Määttä, Jussi Niemi, Kari K. Pitkänen & Kaius Sinnemäki (eds.), A man of measure. Festschrift in honor of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday. Turku: The Linguistic Association of Finland, pp. 310-321.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen
to appear.) Clause combining. Interaction, evidentiality, participation structure and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että . Ritva Laury (ed.) Crosslinguistic studies of Clause Combining Crossref
Lindström, Jan
(2003) Syntaksia suomenruotsalaisittain [Syntax Finland Swedish style]. Virittäjä 4/2003: 545-567.Google Scholar
Mayes, Patricia
(1990) Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language 14: 325-63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela
(1982) On the transitivity of ’say’ verbs. In Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Studies in transitivity. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press, pp. 301-318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raussi, Anne
(1992)  Et(tä)-partikkelilla alkavat lausumat keskustelussa. Unpublished thesis, Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.
Routarinne, Sara
(2003) Tytöt äänessä. Parenteesit ja nouseva sävelkulku kertojan vuorovaikutuskeinoina. [Girls Speaking. Parentheses and rising intonation as interactive tools of the teller.] Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden SeuraGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
(2001) Responding in conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A
(2002) ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26.1: 1125-164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria
(1996) Suomen lauseopin perusteet. [Fundamentals of Finnish Syntax]. Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 90. Helsinki: Edita.Google Scholar