Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T18:45:45.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosody and grammar of other-repetitions in Finnish: Repair initiations, registerings, and affectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2020

Melisa Stevanovic ,
Auli Hakulinen  and
Anna Vatanen
Melisa Stevanovic*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
Auli Hakulinen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland
Anna Vatanen
Affiliation:
University of Oulu and University of Helsinki, Finland
*
Address for correspondence: Melisa Stevanovic, University of Helsinki, Havutie 13, 32210Loimaa, Finlandmelisa.stevanovic@helsinki.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine how other-repetitions in Finnish are used for repairing interactional problems in hearing and understanding and for registering what another has just said, describing how prosody and grammar interact in accomplishing these goals. In the repair-initiating repetitions, the pitch contours build a continuum of different degrees of falling pitch from moderate to steep, the latter being associated with some type of an affective stance. In the registering repetitions, the pitch fall is generally narrower than in the repair-initiations, the pitch span of the repetition turn typically matching that of the original turn. A notable feature of other-repetitions in Finnish is the use of particles (mostly ai and vai), which deal specifically with the informational aspects of other-repetitions, thus contributing to the design of both repair-initiating and registering repetitions. The article illustrates the complex layering of actions that Finnish as a ‘particle language’ affords. (Conversation analysis, other-repetition, prosody, grammar, Finnish, repair, registering, affectivity, response particle)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Other-Repetition in Conversation across Languages , September 2020 , pp. 553 - 584
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Aaltonen, Olli, & Wiik, Kalevi (1979). Suomen jatkuvuuden intonaatiosta. In Hurme, Pentti (ed.), Puheentutkimuksen alalta 1: Fonetiikan päivät – Jyväskylä 1978, 7–31. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Ahlqvist, August (1877). Suomen kielen rakennus. Vertaavia kieliopillisia tutkimuksia I. Nominien synty ja taivutus. Suomalainen runo-oppi. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor M., & Walker, Traci (2013). Managing problems of acceptability through high rise-fall repetitions. Discourse Processes 50(2):107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 366–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. In Haakana, Markku, Laakso, Minna, & Lindström, Jan (eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, & Enfield, Nicholas J. (2015). Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1:96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku; Kurhila, Salla; Lilja, Niina; & Savijärvi, Marjo (2016). Kuka, mitä, häh? Korjausaloitteet suomalaisessa arkikeskustelussa. Virittäjä 120:255–93.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli (1976/2001). Liitepartikkelin -han/-hän syntaksia ja pragmatiikkaa. In Laitinen, Lea, Nuolijärvi, Pirkko, Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, & Vilkuna, Maria (eds.), Lukemisto: Kirjoituksia kolmelta vuosikymmeneltä, 44–90. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, & Karlsson, Fred (1979). Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, & Laitinen, Lea (2008). Anaforinen nolla: Kielioppia ja affekteja. Virittäjä 112(8):162–85.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, & Seppänen, Eeva-Leena (1992). Finnish kato: From verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics 18:527–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri (1941/1979). Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys. 4th revised edn. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirvonen, Pekka (1970). Finnish and English communicative intonation (Publication Nr. 8). Turku: Department of Phonetics, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Iivonen, Antti (1998). Intonation in Finnish. In Hirst, Daniel & di Cristo, Albert (eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, 311–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jännes, Arvi (1890). Suomen kielioppi. 3rd edn.Helsinki: Weilin & Göös.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, David N. (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 294–338. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Kallioinen, Vilho (1968). Suomen kysymyslauseen intonaatiosta. Virittäjä 72:35–54.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 123:121–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon (2002). The form and function of next-turn repetition in English conversation. Language Research 38(1):51–81.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino (2012). Sanomattakin selvää? Ja, mutta ja että puheenvuoron lopussa. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino (2016). Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news receipts ‘aijaa’ and ‘aha(a)’. Journal of Pragmatics 104:163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino (2017a). Uutta tietoa vai oivallus? Eräiden diskurssipartikkeleiden tehtävistä. Virittäjä 111(4):473–99.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino (2017b). On-line emergence of alternative questions in Finnish with the conjunction/particle vai ‘or’. In Laury, Ritva, Etelämäki, Marja, & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Linking clauses and actions in social interaction, 131–50. (Studia Fennica Linguistica 20.) Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Kurhila, Salla, & Lilja, Niina (2017). Toisto ja korjauksen rajat. Virittäjä 121(2):213–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennes, Mietta; Stevanovic, Melisa; Aalto, Daniel; & Palo, Pertti (2016). Comparing pitch distributions using Praat and R. Phonetician 111–112:35–53.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard (2016). Iconicity in spoken conversation [Ikonicita v Mluveném Rozhovoru]. Naše Řeč 99(1):2–18.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard; Hakulinen, Auli; & Tainio, Liisa (2004). Indexing ‘no news’ with stylization in Finnish. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Ford, Cecilia E. (eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation, 299–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard, & Routarinne, Sara (2005). The communicative functions of final rises in Finnish intonation. Phonetica 62:160–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penttilä, Aarni (1958). Intonaatiotutkimuksia. Virittäjä 62:1–18.Google Scholar
Persson, Rasmus (2015). Registering and repair-initiating repeats in French talk-in-interaction. Discourse Studies 17(5):583–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillet-Shore, Danielle (2012). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4):375–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa (1993). Kysyminen toimintana: Kysymys–vastaus–vieruspareista arkikeskustelussa. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., & Kevoe-Feldman, Heidi (2010). Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction 43(3):232–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Routarinne, Sara (2003). Tytöt äänessä: Parenteesit ja nouseva sävelkulku kertojan vuorovaikutuskeinoina. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson;, Gail & Sacks, Harvey (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2):361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (1994). Emphatic speech style: With special focus on the prosodic signaling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 22:375–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (1996). Prosody as an activity-type signaling cue in conversation. The case of so-called ‘astonished questions’ in repair-initiation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 231–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (1996). On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, & Laakso, Miina (2005). Katko vai partikkeli? Itsekorjauksen aloitustavat ja vuorovaikutustehtävät. Virittäjä 109:244–71.Google Scholar
Sovijärvi, Antti (1956). Über die phonetischen Hauptzüge der finnischen und der ungarischen Hochsprache. Ural-Altaische Bibliothek 2:1–26.Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan (2004). Other-repetition as display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance. Discourse Studies 6(4):489–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1987). Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language 63(3):574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.; Fox;, Barbara A. & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiittula, Liisa (1985a). Vuoron vaihtuminen keskustelussa. Puheenvuoron alkamista ja päättymistä ilmaiseva verbaalinen ja ei-verbaalinen viestintä ja sen vaikutus vuorojen vaihtumiseen. Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja B.79.Google Scholar
Tiittula, Liisa (1985b). Puheenvuorojen vaihtuminen keskustelussa. Virittäjä 89:319–36.Google Scholar
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli; Vilkuna, Maria; Korhonen, Riitta; Koivisto, Vesa; Heinonen, Tarja Riitta; & Alho, Irja (2008). Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Online: http://www.kotus.fi/julkaisut/kielioppi-_ja_kielenhuoltokirjat/iso_suomen_kielioppi.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue, & Kitzinger, Celia (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2):150–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina (2006). Initiating repair and beyond: The use of two repeat-formatted repair initiations in Mandarin conversation. Discourse Processes 41(1):67–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina (2009). Repetition in the initiation of repair. In Sidnell, Jack (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 31–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar