Cover not available
Part of
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social action
Edited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 133–166

Chapter 6
When an expression becomes fixed

mä ajattelin että ‘I thought that’ in spoken Finnish

 | University of Helsinki
 | University of Turku
 | University of Turku
This chapter concerns the first person past tense form of the verb ajatella ‘to think’ as a semi-fixed expression in spoken Finnish. We examine this expression in present-day conversation and in older dialect interviews, focusing on its interactional functions, the types of complements it takes, and its patterns of morphosyntactic fixedness and morphophonetic erosion in our two datasets. We show that the verb ajatella is most frequently used in its first person past tense form, mä ajattelin että [1sg + think-pst-1sg + comp] ‘I thought that’, and as has been shown for ‘think’ verbs in many other languages, it is commonly used to frame stance expressions, but another frequent use in our Finnish data is in prefacing the speaker’s expression of her own plans as well as proposals of joint action. Most commonly, mä ajattelin että is followed by clausal complements in our older data, while the complements are more diverse in the newer data, and the expression can also occur without any complements. We also show that while mä ajattelin että ‘I thought that’ occurs in our data in drastically reduced form and shows signs of morphosyntactic fixedness especially in the newer data, it cannot yet be said to have become an epistemic particle.
Keywords: ‘think’ verbs, semi-fixed expression, spoken Finnish, stance expression, planning, proposal for joint action, complementation, phonetic reduction, past tense, first person
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Background
  • 4.Interactional functions of mä ajattelin että
    • 4.1 Planning and proposing function
    • 4.2Expression of stance
    • 4.3Expression of speaker’s own thoughts
    • 4.4Interim summary
  • 5.Complementation
  • 6.Fixedness
    • 6.1Erosion
    • 6.2 Comparison of fixedness with a consensus analysis
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Acknowledgements
  • Data sources
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.06lau
References (57)
Data sources
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 Archives at the University of Turku. Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.Google Scholar
LaX. 2018. Corpus of Finnish dialects. Syntax Archives, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.Google Scholar
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. “The Interface between Discourse and Grammar: The fact is that .” In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, ed. by Agnes Celle, and Ruth Huart, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1992. “The Neverending Sentence: On Rightward Expansion in Spoken Syntax.” In Studies in Spoken Languages: English, German, Finno-Ugric, ed. by Miklós Kontra, and Tamas Váradi, 41–60. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2018. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.37, retrieved 3 February 2018 from [URL]Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2007. “The Development of ;I mean: Implication for the Study of ;Historical Pragmatics.” In Methods in Historical Pragmatics, ed. by Susan M. Fitzmaurice, and Irma Taavitsainen, 37–80. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Does Grammar Tell Us About Action.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2001. “Introducing interactional linguistics.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2005. “A Linguistic Practice for Retracting Overstatements: Concessive Repair.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 257–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Silke Reineke. 2017. “Epistemische Praktiken und ihre feinen Unterschiede: Verwendungen von ich dachte in gesprochener Sprache.“ In Verben in interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske, and Arne Zeschel, 337–375. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Practices of Indexing Discrepant Assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in Talk-in-Interaction.” Functions of Language 27 2 (2020): 113–142. DOI logo
Endo, Tomoko. 2010. “Epistemic Stance Marker as a Disagreement Preface: wo juede ‘I feel/think’ in Mandarin Conversation in Response to Assessments.” Kyoto University Linguistic Research 29: 43–76.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Epistemic Stance in Mandarin Conversation: The Positions and Functions of wo juede (I feel/think).” In Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice, ed. by Yuling Pan, and Daniel Kádár, 12–34. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Evans, Nick. 2007. “Insubordination and Its Uses.” In Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, ed. by I. Nikolayeva, 366–431. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2011. N be that-constructions in Everyday German Conversation: A Reanalysis of die Sache ist/das Ding ist (‘the thing is’) Clauses as Projector Phrases.” In Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku. 2005. ”Sanottua, ajateltua ja melkein sanottua: Puheen ja ajatusten referointi valituskertomuksissa. [Thought, said and almost said: Quoting talk and thought in complaint stories].” In Referointi ja moniäänisyys, ed. by Markku Haakana, and Jyrki Kalliokoski, 114–149. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Reported Thought in Complaint Stories.” In Reporting talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1993. “The Grammar of Opening Routines.” In Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, ed. by Susanna Shore, and Maria Vilkuna, 149–170. Helsinki: The Finnish Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Hardison, Ross. 2003. “Comparative Genomics.” PLOS Biology 1 (2): e58. DOI logo.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. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, and Aki-Juhani Kyröläinen. 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): 263–299. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1988. “Emergent Grammar and the A Priori Grammar Postulate.” In Linguistics in context, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 117–134. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2011. “Online Changes in Syntactic Gestalts in Spoken German. Or: Do Garden Path Sentences Exist in Everyday Conversation?” In Constructions: emerging and emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 127–155. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “I Thought It Was Pretty Neat. Social Action Formats for Taking a Stance.” In From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’. In Studies in Linguistics, ed. by Stef Slembrouk, Miriam Taverniers, and Mieke Van Herreweghe, 293–304. Gent: Academia.Google Scholar
. 2012. “I Thought It Was Very Interesting. Conversational Formats for Taking a Stance.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (15): 2194–2210. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2003. From interaction to grammar: Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Clauses Emerging as Epistemic Adverbs in Estonian Conversation.” Linguistica Uralica XLVI(2): 81–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Abandoning Dead Ends: the Estonian Junction Marker maitea ‘I don’t know’.” Journal of Pragmatics 106: 115–128. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo, and Ann Weatherall. 2020. “‘I understand’-Initiated Formulations of the Other: A Semi-Fixed Claim to the Intersubjective.” This volume.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 2012. “Syntactically Non-Integrated jos ‘if’ Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49: 213–242. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Marja-Liisa Helasvuo. 2016. “Disclaiming Epistemic Access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish.” Journal of Pragmatics 123: 80–96. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Shigeko Okamoto. 2011. “ Teyuuka and I mean as Pragmatic Parentheticals in Japanese and English.” In Subordination in Conversation, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 209–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2010. “Recursion in Conversation. What Speakers of Finnish and Japanese Know How to Do.” In Recursion and Human Language, ed. by Harry van der Hulst, 69–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, and Ritva Laury. 2016. “The Interactional Emergence of Conditional Clauses as Directives: Constructions, Trajectories, and Sequences of Actions.” Language Sciences 58: 8–21. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. “Clause-Combining and the Sequencing of Actions: Projector Constructions in French Talk-in-Interaction.” In Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Routarinne, Sara, and Outi Duvallon. 2005. “Parenthesis as a Resource in the Grammar of Conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 45–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. “ I dunno… A Usage-Based Account of the Phonological Reduction of don’t in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Local Patterns of Subjectivity in Person and Verb Type in American English Conversation.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan Bybee, and Paul Hopper, 61–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne, and Joan Bybee. 1999. “The Effect of Usage on Degrees of Constituency: The Reduction of don’t in English.” Linguistics 37 (4): 576–596. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2000. “Argumente für die Entwicklung einer interaktionalen Linguistik.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 1: 76–95. [[URL]]Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 2003. “A Usage-Based Approach to Argument Structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘Forget’ in Spoken English.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (1): 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object Complements and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26 (1): 125–163. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991a. “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticalization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 313–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991b.“The discourse conditions for the use of complementizer that in conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tommola, Hannu. 1992. “The Marking of Future Time Reference in Finnish.” In Future time reference in European Languages II. Eurotyp Working Papers VI: 3, ed. by Östen Dahl, Caspar de Groot, and Hannu Tommola, 12–28. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar