Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:37:35.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Finnish tail construction as a first mention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2020

Katri Priiki Open the ORCID record for Katri Priiki [Opens in a new window]
Katri Priiki*
Affiliation:
School of Languages and Translation Studies, FI-20014University of Turku, Finland
*
Email for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the Finnish tail construction (right dislocation) used as a first mention of a referent and the variation of the demonstrative pronouns tämä ‘this’, tuo ‘that’, and se ‘it’ in the construction. Many previous studies have suggested that tail construction (TC) referents are highly active and thus already mentioned and salient in a conversation. However, in Finnish, the TC may introduce new referents into a conversation, and this article provides an empirical analysis of how and why this is done. First-mention TCs are often evaluations or questions in which the proposition links the utterance to the preceding context. When presenting new information, the TC allows the speaker to present a potentially lengthy lexical definition of a new referent at the end of the utterance, avoiding the additional emphatic meanings or unwanted implications a simply inverted word order might create.

Keywords

demonstrativesdislocationFinnishtailword order
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , October 2020 , pp. 181 - 203
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Nordic Association of Linguistics

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

Aijmer, Karin. 1989. Themes and tails: The discourse functions of dislocated elements. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amon, Marri. 2015. Initial and Final Detachments in Spoken Estonian: A Study in the Framework of Information Structuring. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J. 1988. The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French. Lingua 75, 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco-Dulbecco, Mylène. 1999. Les dislocations en français contemporain. Etude syntaxique. Paris: Champollion.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael. 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16(2), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 485–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John.1980. Beyond defineteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, Wallace (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, 230–274. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja. 2006. Toiminta ja tarkoite: Tutkimus suomen pronominista tämä [Activity and referent: A study of the Finnish pronoun tämä]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja. 2009. The Finnish demonstrative pronouns in light of interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 41(1), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja & Jaakola, Minna. 2009. “Tota” ja puhetilanteen todellisuus. [‘Tota’ and the reality of speech situation]. Virittäjä 113(2), 188–212.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein 1995. Why Norwegian right-dislocated phrases are not afterthoughts. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1987. Tails (right dislocations) as a repair mechanism in English conversational discourse. In Nuyts, Jan & de Schutter, George (eds.), Getting One’s Words into Line: On Word Order and Functional Grammar, 119–129. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1996. Transparent vision. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel & Thompson, Sandra (eds.). Interaction and Grammar (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13), 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessment. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja Riitta & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [A comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part II. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William. 1992. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the Making: The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karhu, Anna. 1994. Suomen itämurteiden oikealle lohkeavat rakenteet ja niiden lähirakenteet: dislokaatioita, korviketopiikkeja, diskurssinmerkitsimiä ja pragmaattisia partikkeleita [The right-dislocated constructions and constructions close to them in the Eastern dialects of Finnish: Dislocations, topic substitutes, discourse markers and pragmatic particles]. Licenciate thesis, University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Kielitoimiston sanakirja [A new dictionary of modern Finnish]. 2018. Helsinki: Institute for the Languages of Finland.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2005. Hän, the third speech act pronoun in Finnish. In Laury (ed.), 75–106.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larjavaara, Matti. 1990. Suomen deiksis [Finnish deixis]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 1997. Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 2005a. First and only: Single mention pronouns in spoken Finnish. In Laury (ed.), 56–74.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva (ed.). 2005b. Minimal Reference: The Use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas. 1980. Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30(3), 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael & Carter, Ronald. 1997. Grammar, tails, and affect: Constructing expressive choices in discourse. Text 17(3), 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1995. Recasting the deictic foundation, using physics and Finnish. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra (eds.), Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore, 247–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, de Stefani, Elwys & Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie. 2015. Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-interaction (Studies in Language and Social Interaction 28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priiki, Katri. 2015. Se oli ihan hullu se hammaslääkäri. Kaakkois-Satakunnan henkilöviitteiset se, hän, tää ja toi eteenpäin lohkeavan konstruktion osina ja ensimainintoina [Third-person pronouns se, hän, tää and toi in right-dislocation constructions and as a first mention of a person]. Puhe ja kieli 35(2), 47–71.Google Scholar
Priiki, Katri. 2017a. Hän, se, tää vai toi? Vuorovaikutussosiolingvistinen tutkimus henkilöviittauksista Kaakkois-Satakunnan nykypuhekielessä [An interactional sociolinguistic study of third-person references to people in contemporary spoken Finnish in southwestern Satakunta]. Ph.D. thesis, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Priiki, Katri. 2017b. The Finnish logophoric pronoun hän: A quantitative approach. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 8(2), 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reile, Maria, Taremaa, Piia, Nahkola, Tiina & Pajusalu, Renate. 2019. Reference in the borderline of space and discourse: A free production experiment in Estonian, Finnish and Russian. Linguistica Uralica 55(3), 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction. In Fox, Barbara (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 1998. Läsnäolon pronominit: tämä, tuo, se ja hän viittaamassa keskustelun osallistujaan [Pronouns of presence: tämä, tuo, se and hän referring to a participant of a conversation]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2018. Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-linguistic Context (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timmis, Ivor. 2009. ‘Tails’ of linguistic survival. Applied Linguistics 31(3), 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna. 2014. Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free Word Order in Finnish: Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1992. Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa [Reference and definiteness in interpreting Finnish texts]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Information packaging. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1363–1448. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkle, Claudia. 2015. Non-canonical Structures, they Use Them Differently: Information Packaging in Spoken Varieties of English. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael & Grosz, Barbara. 1998. Centering, global focus, and right dislocation. In Walker, Marilyn A., Joshi, Aravind K. & Prince, Ellen F. (eds.), Centering Theory in Discourse, 293–307. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar