Cover not available
Article published In:
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Studies in Language 43:2] 2019
► pp. 301–328

Free NPs as units in Finnish

ORCID logo | University of Turku

This article focuses on free NPs, i.e. noun phrases that are grammatically not part of any clause but form units of their own. Using the methodology of discourse-functional and interactional linguistics, I analyze the morphosyntactic, prosodic and interactional features of free NPs in conversational Finnish. With its rich morphological marking, Finnish provides an interesting perspective on free NPs: Morphosyntactic features, together with semantics, are crucial in determining the status of an NP as a clausal constituent or a free NP. The prosodic analysis shows that the majority of free NPs show clear prosodic boundaries, signalled for example by speaker change, coherent intonation contour, pause or pitch reset. Free NPs serve various interactional functions, such as making assessments or disambiguating referents. These are functions which operate on something already established in the discourse. Free NPs, however, can also initiate something new for example by making requests or introducing new topics.

Keywords: Finnish, free NP, interactional linguistics, prosody, syntax, morphosyntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Morphosyntactic features of free NPs
  • 4.Prosodic features of free NPs
  • 5.Interactional functions of free NPs
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16064.hel
References
Aho, Eija
2010: Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Doctoral dissertation. [URL] [retrieved December 28, 2015].
Antaki, Charles
2012 Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies 14(5). 531–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkisyn = Arkisyn
A morphosyntactically coded database of conversational Finnish. Data-base 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
2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1). 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Betsy K.
1985 The pragmatics of left detachment in spoken standard French (Pragmatics and Beyond VI, 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
(2019) Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1, retrieved 13 July 2019 [URL]
Bruce, Gösta
2005 Intonational prominence in varieties of Swedish revisited. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 410–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grouding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Linking Intonation Units in Spoken English. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 10–27. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan
1986 Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cummings
1992 Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. 41. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren
2000 The idiom principle and open choice principle. Text 20(1). 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
2002 Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
1991 Syntaktiset rakenteet kertomuksen jäsentiminä. Virittäjä 951. 33–47.Google Scholar
1997 Functions of case-marking vs. non-marking in conversational Finnish. In Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse & Dirk Noël (eds.), Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. CILT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Syntax in the Making. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Nobufumi, Inaba
2013 Functions of free NPs in Old Finnish texts. Paper presented at the Grammar and Context Conference, June 2013. University of Tartu.
Heritage, John
1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012 The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 Emergent grammar. In John Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas
2013 On the many faces of incompleteness: Hide-and-seek with the Finnish partitive object. Folia Linguistica 47(1). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2015 On the subject of subject in Finnish. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non-canonical, 13–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laakso, Minna & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2010 Cut-off or particle: Devices for initiating self-repair in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 421. 1151–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lagae, Véronique
2007 Left-detachment and topic-marking in French: The case of quant à and en fait de . Folia Linguistica 41(3). 327–355.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2015 Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics. Special Issue. Pragmatics 24(3).Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2016 Detached NPs with relative clauses in Finnish conversations. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 149–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
1994 Unattached NPs in English Conversation. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2011 Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: the online formatting of left- and right dislocations in French conversation. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 45–87. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Elwys de Stefani & Anne-Sofie Horlacher
2015 Time and emergence in grammar. Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2001 Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena
1997 Vuorovaikutus paperilla. In Liisa Tainio (ed.), Keskustelunanalyysin perusteet, 18–31. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Siro, Paavo
1964 Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja.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 & Liisa, Raevaara
2014 On the grammatical form of making requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction, 243–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin
1996 Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. K.
2004 Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voronov, Mikhail
forthcoming). Kielellinen muutos ja sen ymmärtäminen. Tapaustutkimuksena totaaliobjektin merkinnän tasoittuminen Pohjois-Norjan kainun murteissa. Turku: University of Turku doctoral dissertation.
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2020. Chapter 4. The noun phrase as an emergent unit in Finnish. In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Stoenica, Ioana-Maria, Simona Pekarek Doehler & Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
2020. Chapter 3. Emergent complex noun phrases. In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 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.