Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:57:46.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From zero to ‘you’ and back: A mixed methods study comparing the use of two open personal constructions in Finnish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

Mikael Varjo  and
Karita Suomalainen
Mikael Varjo
Affiliation:
Mikael Varjo, Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages (Hämeenkatu 1), 20014 University of Turku, Finland. mavarj@utu.fi
Karita Suomalainen
Affiliation:
Karita Suomalainen, Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages (Hämeenkatu 1), 20014 University of Turku, Finland. karita.m.suomalainen@utu.fi
Get access

Abstract

This article focuses on two Finnish personal constructions which can be used to create indexically open reference, i.e. they can be used to refer to generalized or shared human experiences. These two constructions are the zero-person construction and the open 2nd person singular construction. Using Finnish everyday conversational data, we (i) statistically analyze the distributional semantico-grammatical differences in the use of the zero-person and open 2nd person singular constructions, and (ii) examine these differences on a clausal and sequential level in interactional contexts. In our analysis, we integrate quantitative and qualitative methods. Our aim is to show that by mixing methods it is possible to both reveal the recurring semantico-grammatical patterns of the constructions across a large corpus and analyze how these patterns are shaped by the ongoing interaction.

Keywords

corpus linguisticseveryday conversationinteractional linguisticsopen 2nd person singularperson referencezero-person
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 2018 , pp. 333 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altenberg, Bengt. 2005. The generic person in English and Swedish: A contrastive study of ‘one’ and ‘man’. Languages in Contrast 5 (1), 93–120.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
Biq, Yung-O. 1991. The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun in conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 307–321.Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula. 2002. “You can say you to yourself”: Establishing perspectives with personal pronouns. In Friedrich Graumann, Carl & Kallmeyer, Werner (eds.), Perspectives and Perspectivation in Discourse, 167–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Harald Baayen, R.. 2007. Predicting the Dative Alternation. In Bouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Beckner, Clay. 2010. Usage-based theory. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 827–855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Etelämäki, Marja. 2015. Nominated actions and their targeted agents in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 78, 7–24.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret. 2001. Introducing interactional linguistics. In Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Cock, Barbara & Kluge, Bettina. 2016. On the referential ambiguity of personal pronouns and its pragmatic consequences. Pragmatics 26 (3), 351–360.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic, Baten, Kristof & Rawoens, Gudrun. 2014. A corpus-based analysis of the Swedish passive alternation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37 (2), 199–223.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Tarenskeen, Sammie. 2015. It's all about you in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 88, 163–175.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Expression of pronominal subjects. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/101 (accessed 4 August 2017).Google Scholar
Fremer, Maria. 2000. Va e du då. Generiskt du hos ungdomar och vuxna talare [What are you then: Generic you among adoloscent and adult speakers]. In Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt, Stenström, Anna-Brita & Drange, Eli-Marie (eds.), Ungdom, språk og identitet. Rapport fra et nettverksmøte [Youth, language, and identity: A report from a network meeting], 133–147. Copenhagen: Nordic Ministry.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, Deringer, Lisa, Haas, Florian & Rudolf, Olga. 2015. Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization and empathy effects. Journal of Pragmatics 88, 148–162.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. Quantitative Linguistics. In Wright, James D. (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn., vol. 19, 725–732. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1987. Avoiding personal reference in Finnish. In Verschueren, Jef & Bertuccelli Papi, Marcella (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, 141–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Missing persons: On generic sentences in Finnish. In Corum, Claudia W., Cedric Smith-Stark, T. & Weiser, Ann (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 9), 157–171. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja Riitta & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The big grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk, URN:ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7 (accessed 9 April 2018).Google Scholar
Hashemi, Mohammad R. 2012. Reflections on mixing methods in applied linguistics research. Applied Linguistics 33 (2), 206–212.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2008. Minä ja muut. Puhujaviitteisyys ja konteksti [Speaker reference and contextual interpretion]. Virittäjä 112, 186–206.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2014. Agreement or crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and verbs of cognition in Finnish conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 63, 63–78.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Campbell, Lyle (eds.). 2006. Grammar from the Human Perspective: Ccase, Space and Person in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani. 2016. Choosing between zero and pronominal subject: Modeling subject expression in the 1st person singular in Finnish conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12 (2), 216–245.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Laitinen, Lea. 2006. Person in Finnish: Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in interaction. In Helasvuo & Campbell (eds.), 173−207.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Vilkuna, Maria. 2008. Impersonal is personal: Finnish perspectives. Transactions of the Philological Society 106 (2), 246–289.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2011. Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza & Steensig, Jakob (eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hiietam, Katrin & Manninen, Satu. 2005. Some thoughts on Balto-Finnic passives and impersonals. In Heinat, Fredrik & Klingvall, Eva (eds.), The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 5, 65–90.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo. 2002. Expletives, subjects and topics in Finnish. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, 71–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–299.Google Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel. 2009. Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 41, 83–115.Google Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel & Gregersen, Frans. 2016. What do(es) you mean? The pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish. Pragmatics 26 (3), 417–446.Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 2001. English generic we, you, and they: An analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1111–1124.Google Scholar
Kangasniemi, Heikki. 1992. Modal expressions in Finnish. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Kauppinen, Anneli. 1998. Puhekuviot, tilanteen ja rakenteen liitto. Tutkimus kielen omaksumisesta ja suomen konditionaalista [Figures of speech, the alliance of the situation and structure]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna. 2008. Impersonals in Polish: An LFG perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 106 (2), 246–289.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato & Lehrer, Adrienne. 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 739–759.Google Scholar
Kluge, Bettina. 2016. Generic uses of the second person singular: How speakers deal with referential ambiguity and misunderstandings. Pragmatics 26 (3), 501–522.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino, Laury, Ritva & Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 2011. Syntactic and actional characteristics of the Finnish että-clause. In Laury, Ritva & Suzuki, Ryoko (eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, 69–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 1995. Nollapersoona [The zero-person]. Virittäjä 99, 337–358.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2006. Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Helasvuo & Campbell (eds.), 209–231.Google Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna. 2015. Omaa vai yhteistä? Nollapersoona, itseen viittaamisen rajat ja kategorisointi [Private or shared? Zero-person, the limitations of referring to oneself and categorization]. In Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Anu Rouhikoski & Heini Lehtonen (eds.), Helsingissä puhuttavat suomet. Kielen indeksisyys ja sosiaaliset identiteetit [The Finnish language in Helsinki: The indexicality of language and social indentities], 403–443. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2016. Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 103, 80–96.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 2008. Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että. In Laury, Ritva (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 153–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehtinen, Tapani. 1983. Suomen konditionaalin morfologisesta ja semanttisesta motivaatiosta [On morphologic and semantic motivation of the conditional mood in Finnish]. Virittäjä 87, 482–507.Google Scholar
Leino, Jaakko. 2015. The syntactic and semantic history of the Finnish genitive subject: Construction networks and the rise of a grammatical category. In Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas (eds.), Subjects in Constructions: Canonical and Non-canonical, 231–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti & Östman, Jan-Ola. 2008. Language change, variability, and functional load: Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In Leino, Jaakko (ed.), Constructional Reorganization, 37–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leinonen, Marja. 1985. Impersonal Sentences in Finnish and Russian (Slavica Helsingiensia 3). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Malamud, Sophia. 2012. Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man, and du. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15 (1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Søren Beck, Fosgerau, Christina Fogtmann & Jensen, Torben Juel. 2009. From community to conversation – and back: Exploring the interpersonal potentials of two generic pronouns in Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 41, 116–142.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Patricia. 1994. “You could feel it through the skin”: Agency and positioning in prisoners’ stabbing stories. Text 14 (1), 45–75.Google Scholar
Pajunen, Anneli. 2001. Argumenttirakenne [Argument structure]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Posio, Pekka. 2016. You and we: Impersonal second person singular and other referential devices in Spanish sociolinguistic interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 99, 1–16.Google Scholar
Ragnarsdóttir, Hrafnhildur & Strömqvist, Sven. 2005. The development of generic maður/man for the construction of discourse stance in Icelandic and Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 143–155.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Ochs, Elinor & Thompson, Sandra. 1996. Introduction. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel & Thompson, Sandra (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13), 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 2000. Sinä ja suomalaiset: yksikön toisen persoonan yleistävästä käytöstä [You and Finns: On the use of generic 2nd person singular]. Kielikello 3/2000, 16–18.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2008. Ways of impersonalizing: Pronominal vs verbal strategies. In de los Ángeles Gómez González, María, Lachlan Mackenzie, J. & González Álvarez, Elsa M. (eds.), Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 60), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley & Manderson, Lenore. 2011. About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1581–1602.Google Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita. 2015. Kenen ääni, kenen kokemus? Yksikön 2. persoona vuorovaikutuksen välineenä [Whose voice, whose experience? The interactional use of 2nd person singular]. Master's thesis, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2015092514052 (accessed 4 October 2018).Google Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita. 2018. Sinä, konteksti ja monitulkintaisuus. Yksikön 2. persoonan viittaukset arkikeskustelussa [Sinä ‘you’, context, and ambiguity: Second person singular reference in Finnish everyday conversation]. Virittäjä 3/2018, 356–392.Google Scholar
Surakka, Anne. 2011. Yleistävän yksikön 2. persoonan käyttö inkerinsuomessa [The use of generic 2nd person singular in Ingrian Finnish]. Master's thesis. Finnish language studies, University of Eastern Finland. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uef-20110436(accessed 4 October 2018).Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Harald Baayen, R.. 2012. Model, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24 (2), 135–178.Google Scholar
Tuomikoski, Risto. 1971. Persoona, tekijä ja henkilö [Person, agent and individual]. Virittäjä 75, 146–152.Google Scholar
Uusitupa, Milla. 2011. Avoimet persoonaviittaukset rajakarjalaismurteissa [Open personal reference in Border Karelian dialects]. Master's thesis, University of Eastern Finland, Finnish Language.Google Scholar
Uusitupa, Milla. 2017. Rajakarjalaismurteiden avoimet persoonaviittaukset [Open person reference in Border Karelian dialects] (Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology 117). Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Milja. 2016. Subjektin ilmaiseminen yksikön ensimmäisessä persoonassa. Tutkimus suomen vanhoista murteista [Expressing 1st person singular subject: A study of old Finnish dialects] (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 430). Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
van Hell, Janet G., Verhoeven, Ludo, Tak, Marjan & van Oosterhout, Moniek. 2005. To take a stance: A developmental study of the use of pronouns and passives in spoken and written narrative and expository texts in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 239–273.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free Word Order in Finnish: Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1992. Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa [Reference and definiteness in the interpretation of Finnish texts]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Walsh, Steve. 2013. Corpus Linguistics and Conversation Analysis at the interface: Theoretical perspectives, practical outcomes. In Thompson, Sandra A. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013, 37–51. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Williams, Lawrence & van Compernolle, Rémi. 2009. On versus tu and vous: Pronouns with indefinite reference in synchronous electronic French discourse. Language Sciences 31, 409–427.Google Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma. 1986. Suomen kieliopillisten muotojen toissijainen käyttö [The secondary functions of grammatical forms in Finnish] (Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics 28). Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg & Ogiermann, Eva. 2011. How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (“one needs to x”). Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (3), 263–287.Google Scholar
Zobel, Sarah. 2016. A pragmatic analysis of German impersonally used first person singular ‘ich’. Pragmatics 26 (3), 379–416.Google Scholar