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. 167–202

Chapter 7
The Finnish projector phrase se että as a fixed expression

| University of Oulu
| University of Turku
| University of Helsinki
This chapter shows that the Finnish expression se että ‘it (is) that’, consisting of a demonstrative followed by a complementizer, is a fixed projective element in talk-in-interaction both on its own and with collocating elements. It shares features with projector phrases identified for other languages: it is used both to prepare the addressee for the nature of the upcoming and to underline the upcoming as central to the ongoing interaction. The analysis of se että having grammaticized into a projector phrase is supported by prosodic evidence: the two elements are most often produced as one prosodic word. The findings support the idea that se että emerges in interaction with a fixed form rather than being generated by a syntactic rule.
Keywords: conversation analysis, dialect interview, emergence, everyday conversation, Finnish, interactional linguistics, projector phrase, prosodic reduction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3. Data and methods
  • 4.Elements collocating with the se että expression
    • 4.1Elements in the pre-se että position
    • 4.2Elements in the mid-se että position
    • 4.3Elements in the post-se että position
    • 4.4Expansions of the se että expression
    • 4.5 Collocating elements: Summary and discussion
  • 5.Interactional functions of the se että expression
  • 6.Prosodic features of se että
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • Data sources
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.07vat
References (55)
Data sources
Arkisyn: 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.
Corpus of Finnish Dialects. Syntax Archives, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Studies, University of Turku.
References
Aho, Eija. 2010. Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu [The prosodic segmentation of spontaneous speech]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. “The Interface between Grammar and Discourse: The Fact Is That .” In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, ed. by Agnès Celle, and Ruth Huart, 54–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Margaret Wetherell. 1999. “Show Concessions.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 7–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text & Talk 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Stefan Pfänder (eds). 2011. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2018. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Version 6.0.37, retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta. 1998. Allmän och svensk prosodi. [General and Swedish prosody.] Praktisk lingvistik 16. Lund University: Institutionen för lingvistik.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen Wheatley (eds). 2009. Formulaic Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2000. “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., and Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. “Taking a Stance on Emotion: Affect, Sequence, and Intersubjectivity in Dialogic Interaction.” Text & Talk 32 (4): 433–451.Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi, and Rea Peltola. 2017a. “Deontic Readings of the Imperative through the Prism of Force Dynamic Relations: Permissive and Preventive Utterances with the Discourse Marker vaa(n) in Finnish.” Journal of Pragmatics 120: 17–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. “Voimadynaaminen VAAN: Odotusten, intentioiden ja kerrottavuuden partikkeli [Finnish VAAN: the force dynamic particle of expectations, intentions and tellability].” Virittäjä 121 (4): 500–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren. 2000. “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle.” Text 20 (1): 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1979. “On Fluency. In Individual Differeces in Language Ability and Language Behavior, ed. by Charles Fillmore, Daniel Kempler, and William S-Y. Wang, 85–102. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2002. “Time in Action.” Current Anthropology 43: 19–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2008. “‘Die Sache ist…’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27 (1): 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 Ryoko Suzuki, and Ritva Laury, 11–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Mirja Saari. 1995. “Temporaalisesta adverbista partikkeliksi [From temporal adverb to discourse particle].” Virittäjä 99: 481–500.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2001. “On Some Uses of the Discourse Particle kyl(lä) in Finnish Conversation.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margaret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 171–199. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent grammar.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. DOI logoGoogle 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, 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: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalliokoski, Jyrki. 1989. Ja. Rinnastus ja rinnastuskonjunktion käyttö [‘And’. Coordination and the use of the coordinating conjunction]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino, Ritva Laury, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen. 2011. “Syntactic and Actional Characteristics of the Finnish Että-Clause. In Subordination in Conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 69–102. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko. 1999. ”Mitä tarkoittaa se, että: Se-pronominista subjektina ja objektina toimivan että-lauseen yhteydessä [On using the pronoun se with an että clause as subject or object].” Virittäjä 103 (1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan K., and Anne-Marie Londen. 2013. “Concession and Reassertion: on a Dialogic Discourse Pattern in Conversation.” Text & Talk 33 (3), 331–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Jarkko. 2015. Myönnyttelyn käytänteitä: Erimielisyys ja yhteisymmärryksen rakentaminen vuorovaikutuksessa [Practices of conceding: Disagreement and the negotiation of mutual understanding in conversation]. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Arts, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies.Google Scholar
Nordlund, Taru. 2002. “Retention of Abstract Meaning: The Essive Case and the Grammaticalization of Polyphony in Finnish.” In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer, and Gabriele Diewald, 293–307. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Perustelevasta referoivaksi: Suomen partikkelin muka merkityksenmuutos 1800-luvun tekstiaineistojen valossa [From an explanatory particle to a marker of reported speech. The semantic shift of the Finnish particle muka; ‘apparently, as if’].” Virittäjä 115 (4): 484–514.Google Scholar
NS = Nykysuomen sanakirja [Dictionary of modern Finnish]. Helsinki: WSOY.
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In Language and Communication, ed. by Jack J. C. Richards, and Richard R. W. Schmidt, 191–225. London: Longman.Google 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 Ryoko Suzuki, and Ritva Laury, 103–148. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mirka. 2007. “Stance markers in spoken Finnish. Minun mielestä and minusta in assessments.” In Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 221–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. ed. by Gail Jefferson. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salminen, Taru. 2000. Morfologiasta moniäänisyyteen: suomen kielen kvasirakenteen merkitys, käyttö ja kehitys [From morphology to polyphony: Meaning, function and evolution of the quasi-construction in Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google 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 (1): 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1990. “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of 'Coherence' in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Conversational Organization and its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siro, Paavo. 1968. “Suomen kielen että-lauseen ongelmasta [Concerning the problem of the Finnish että clause.]” In Fenno-Ugrica. Juhlakirja Lauri Postin kuusikymmenvuotispäiväksi 17.3.1968, 203–205. Publications of the Finno-Ugrian Society 145. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 1989. “Vuoronalkuiset konnektorit: mutta .” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 162–176. Kieli 4. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish.Google Scholar
. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita, Anna Vatanen, and Ritva Laury. 2016a. “ Se että -rakenne keskustelupuheessa: mihin sitä käytetään ja miten.” Paper given at the XLIII Kielitieteen päivät, Oulu, Finland, May 25-27.
. 2016b. “The Finnish se että as an emerging and emergent construction.” Paper given at the Symposium on the emergence of units in social interaction University of Helsinki, August 4-5.
. In press. “The Finnish se että initiated expressions: NPs or not?” In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages: An emergent unit in interaction [Typological Studies in Language 128], ed. by Tsuyoshi Ono, and Sandra A. Thompson, 12–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vilkuna, Maria. 1984. “Voiko -kin partikkelia ymmärtää? [Understanding conventional implicature: The clitic -kin/-kAAn in Finnish].” Virittäjä 88 (4): 393–407.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.