Cover not available
Part of
(Non)referentiality in Conversation
Edited by Michael C. Ewing and Ritva Laury
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 344] 2024
► pp. 35–55

Chapter 3
First and second person forms as resources for open reference and participation in Finnish everyday conversations

 | University of Turku
 | Åbo Akademi University
Based on data from Finnish conversational interaction, this article explores the use of 1st and 2nd person forms in creating deictically non-specific, open reference. We focus on the linguistic and embodied features of turns that contain these open personal forms and examine their sequential positioning. We show that the 1st and 2nd person forms that receive a deictically open interpretation typically occur in assessments, accounts of personal experience, and imaginary descriptions. They function as deictic displacements, shifting the origo of the speech situation, and causing a change of footing in the discourse roles, thus modulating the participation framework of the speech situation.
Keywords: Finnish, everyday conversation, first person singular, open reference, person expressions, participation framework, second person singular, referential index, deixis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Open reference forms in grammar and interaction
    • 2.2Reference and participation
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Sequential contexts and interactional functions
    • 4.2Linguistic features and embodied conduct
    • 4.3Modulating the participation framework
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 1 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.344.03hel
References (47)
References
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.
Auer, Peter, and Anja Stukenbrock. 2018. “When ‘You’ Means ‘I’: The German 2nd Ps.Sg. Pronoun du Between Genericity and Subjectivity.” Open Linguistics 4: 280–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biq, Yung-O. 1991. “The Multiple Uses of the Second Person Singular Pronoun in Conversational Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 16: 307–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bredel, Ursula. 2002. “’You Can Say You to Yourself’: Establishing Perspectives with Personal Pronouns.” In Perspectives and Perspectivation in Discourse, ed. by Carl Friedrich Graumann, and Werner Kallmeyer, 167–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buber, Martin. 1962 [1923]. I and Thou. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1965 [1934]. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2012. “Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 113–146. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabet, and Selting, Margret. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fremer, Maria. 2000. “Va e du då. Generiskt du hos ungdomar och vuxna talare [Generic use of “du” in adolescent and adult speech].” In Ungdom, språk og identitet: Rapport fra et nettverksmøte [Youth, language, and identity: A report from a network meeting], ed. by Ulla-Britt Kotsinas, Anna-Brita Stenström, and Eli-Marie Drange, 133–147. Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1990. “Context, Activity and Participation.” In The Contextualization of Language, ed. by Peter Auer, and Aldo di Luzio, 77–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2008. “Minä ja muut: Puhujaviitteisyys ja konteksti [Speaker reference and contextual interpretation].” Virittäjä 112: 186–206.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1957]. “Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb.” In Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson 2, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel, and Frans Gregersen. 2016. “What Do(es) You Mean? The Pragmatics of Generic Second Person Pronouns in Modern Spoken Danish.” Pragmatics 26: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2008. “Conjunction and Sequenced Actions: The Estonian Complementizer and Evidential Particle Et.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato, and Adrienne Lehrer. 1990. “Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 739–759. DOI logoGoogle 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
Laitinen, Lea. 2006. “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Lyle Campbell, 209–231. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen. 2008. “Clause Combining, Interaction, Evidentiality, Participation Structure, and the Conjunction-Particle Continuum: The Finnish Että.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 153–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1988. “Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman’s Concept of Participation.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. by Paul Drew, and Anthony Wootton, 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Mikesell, Lisa, Galina Bolden, Jenny Mandelbaum, Jeffrey Robinson, Tanya Romaniuk, Alexa Bolaños-Carpio, Darcey Searles, Wan Wei, Stephen M. DiDomenico, and Beth Angell. 2017. “At the Intersection of Epistemics and Action: Responding with I Know.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (3): 268–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Søren Beck, Christina Fogtmann Fosgerau, and Torben Juel Jensen. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Patrick Gonzales, and Sally Jacoby. 1996. “‘When I Come Down I’m in the Domain State’: Grammar and Graphic Representation in the Interpretive Activity of Physicists.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 328–369. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 1 & 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 1996. “Ways of Referring to a Knowing Co-Participant in Finnish Conversation.” SKY Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland: 135–176.Google Scholar
. 1998. Läsnäolon pronominit [Pronouns of participation]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description.” In Meaning in Anthropology, ed. by Keith H. Basso, and Henry A. Selby, 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Minna Laakso. 2005. “Katko vai eiku? Itsekorjauksen aloitustavat ja vuorovaikutustehtävät [Cut-off, the particle eiku and other practices for initiating self-repair, and the interactional functions of self-repair].” Virittäjä 109: 244–271.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley, and Lenore Manderson. 2011. “About You: Empathy, Objectivity and Authority.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1581–1602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014. “Pointing to an ‘Empty’ Space: Deixis am Phantasma in Face-to-Face Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 74: 70–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita. 2018. Sinä, konteksti ja monitulkintaisuus: Yksikön 2. persoonan viittaukset arkikeskustelussa [Sinä ‘you’, context, and ambiguity: Second-person singular reference in everyday Finnish conversation].” Virittäjä 122 (3): 320–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Kuka sinä on? Tutkimus yksikön 2. persoonan käytöstä ja käytön variaatiosta suomenkielisissä arkikeskusteluissa [Who is ‘you’? On the use of second person singular in Finnish everyday conversations]. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 499. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita, and Mikael Varjo. 2020. “When Personal is Interpersonal: Organizing Interaction with Deictically Open Personal Constructions in Finnish Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 168: 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uusitupa, Milla. 2017. Rajakarjalaismurteiden avoimet persoonaviittaukset [Open person constructions in Border Karelian dialects]. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology 117. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.
Varjo, Mikael. 2019. “It Takes All Kinds to Make a Zero: Employing Multiple Correspondence Analysis to Categorize an Open Personal Construction in Conversational Finnish.” Corpus Linguistics Research 5, 55–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varjo, Mikael, and Karita Suomalainen. 2018. “From Zero to ‘You’ and Back: A Mixed Methods Study Comparing the Use of Two Open Personal Constructions in Finnish.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41 (3): 333–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna. 2018. “Resisting an Action in Conversation by Pointing out Epistemic Incongruence: Mä tiedän ‘I know’ Responses in Finnish.” Journal of Pragmatics 123: 192–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Lawrence, and Rémi van Compernolle. 2009. “On Versus Tu And Vous: Pronouns with Indefinite Reference in Synchronous Electronic French Discourse.” Language Sciences 31: 409–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zobel, Sarah. 2016. “A Pragmatic Analysis of German Impersonally Used First Person Singular ‘Ich’.” Pragmatics 26 (3): 379–416.Google Scholar