Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:28:16.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marking one’s own viewpoint: The Finnish evidential verb+kseni ‘as far as I understand’ construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2020

Minna Jaakola
Minna Jaakola*
Affiliation:
Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, 00014University of Helsinki, Finland
*
Email for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines evidentiality in the frame of inferential adverbs in written interaction from the perspective of Finnish, a language that does not have evidentiality as a grammatical category. The analysis focuses on six adverbs, such as käsittääkseni ‘as far as I understand’ and tietääkseni ‘to my knowledge, as far as I know’. Evidentiality and epistemic modality intertwine in their semantics, as these adverbs represent a writer’s access to information, but also indicate her evaluation of its reliability. First, this article offers a description of the interactional functions of these adverbs such as marking a writer’s opinion in contrasts, expressing slight hedging in order to anticipate corrections, to allow space for other opinions, or to create irony. Second, in the framework of cognitive grammar, the analysis focuses on the meaning of the evidential verb+kseni construction and the effect of different verb stems on it. These adverbs share similar functions in texts, which is due to their flexible constructional meaning. While varying from lexeme to lexeme, specific evidential and epistemic dimensions can either be foregrounded and relevant in a situation or remain backgrounded and not activated.

Keywords

cognitive grammarepistemic modalityevidentialityFinnishhedginginferentialityonline newspapersreader comment
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , December 2021 , pp. 255 - 280
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. 2009. Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 16(1), 63–88.10.1075/fol.16.1.05aijCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles & Wetherell, Margaret. 1999. Show concession. Discourse Studies 1(1), 7–27.10.1177/1461445699001001002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti. 2005. The role of morphological features in distinguishing semantically similar words in Finnish: A study of cognitive verbs. Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series 1(1). https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/corpus/publications/conference-archives/2005-conf-e-journal.aspx (accessed 8 October 2020).Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981[1935]. Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Holquist, Michael; translated by Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2003. Concession in Spoken English: On the Realization of a Discourse-Pragmatic Relation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship of two different categories. Functions of Language 16(1), 44–62.10.1075/fol.16.1.04corCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert & Gras, Pedro. 2015. On the interactional dimension of evidentials: The case of the Spanish evidential discourse markers. Discourse Studies 17(2), 141–161.10.1177/1461445614564518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2005. A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive Repair’. In Auli, Hakulinen & Margret, Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, 257–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.17.14couCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2009. I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language 21(1), 67–94.10.1075/fol.21.1.05fetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad, de Hoop, Helen & Mulder, Gijs (eds.). 2018. Evidence for Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In Kaltenböck et al. (eds.), 15–34.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1992. Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review 99, 572–577.10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.572CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja Riitta & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive Finnish grammar]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk (accessed 10 May 2020).Google Scholar
Hanks, William. 2012. Evidentiality in social interaction. Pragmatics and Society 3(2), 169–180.10.1075/ps.3.2.02forCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1), 1–29.10.1080/08351813.2012.646684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaakola, Minna. 2012. Displaying knowledge in journalistic texts: A contrastive analysis of an evidential particle in Estonian and Finnish. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 22, 43–70.10.5128/LV22.02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaakola, Minna. 2018. Finnish evidential adverbs in argumentative texts. In Foolen et al. (eds.), 121–141.Google Scholar
Johansson, Marjut. 2014. Reading digital news: Participation roles, activities and positioning. Journal of Pragmatics 72, 31–45.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Marjut. 2017. Everyday opinions in news discussion forums: Public vernacular discourse. Discourse, Context & Media 19, 5–12.10.1016/j.dcm.2017.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juvonen, Riitta. 2011. Tietämisen tasot. Tiedän-rakenteet ylioppilasaineissa. [‘I know’ constructions in matriculation essays]. In Anneli Kauppinen, Hanna Lehti-Eklund, Henna Makkonen-Craig & Riitta Juvonen (eds.), Lukiolaisten äidinkieli: suomen- ja ruotsinkielisten lukioiden opiskelijoiden tekstimaisemat ja kirjoitustaitojen arviointi [Mother tongue of high school students: Text landscapes and assessment of writing skills of Finnish- and Swedish-speaking high school students], 239–264. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2010. Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think. In Kaltenböck et al. (eds.), 237–266.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud & Schneider, Stefan (eds.). 2010. New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald.10.1163/9789004253247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. Fact. In Steinberg, Danny D. & Jakobovits, Leon A. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakaniemi, Markus. 2019. Luulla-verbin polysemia [Polysemy of Finnish luulla ‘suppose’]. MA thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In Hans Christian, Boas & Mirjam, Fried (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, 157–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.4.11lanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2017. Evidentiality in Cognitive Grammar. In Marín Arrese & Carretero (eds.), 13–55.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 2005. Kun tarkoitus häviää – finaalisesta infinitiivistä temporaaliseksi [From purpose infinitive to temporal]. In Ilona, Herlin & Laura, Visapää (eds.), Elävä kielioppi. Suomen infinittisten rakenteiden dynamiikkaa [The dynamics of the Finnish non-finite constructions], 194–230. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Marín, Arrese, Juana, I. 2013. Stancetaking and intersubjectivity in the Iraq Inquiry: Blair vs. Brown. In Marín Arrese, Juana I., Marta, Carretero, Jorge Arus, Hita & Johan, van der Auwera (eds.), English Modality, 411–445. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110286328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marín, Arrese, Juana, I. 2017. Multifunctionality of evidential expressions in discourse domains and genres: Evidence from cross-linguistic case studies. In Marín Arrese & Carretero (eds.), 195–223.Google Scholar
Marín, Arrese, Juana, I. & Marta, Carretero (eds.). 2017. Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-pragmatic Perspectives, 195–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. & White, Peter R. R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2017. Evidentiality reconsidered. In Marín Arrese & Carretero (eds.), 57–223.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.. 1971. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 349–357.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahtu, Toini. 2011. Irony and (in)coherence: Interpreting irony using reader responses to texts. Text and Talk 31(3), 335–354.10.1515/text.2011.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs (Topics in English Linguistics 56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, White, Peter R. R. & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. Presupposition and ‘taking-for-granted’ in mass communicated political argument. In Anita, Fetzer & Gerda, Lauerbach (eds.), Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-cultural Perspectives, 31–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.160.05simCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 2008. Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian. Linguistics 46(5), 917–947.10.1515/LING.2008.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2011. Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Tanya, Stivers, Lorenza, Mondada & Jakob, Steensig (eds.), The Morality of Knowing in Conversation, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: The Mind–Body Metaphor in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir A.. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79–124.10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voutilainen, Eero. 2008. Nykysuomen translatiivin polysemiaa [Polysemy of the Finnish translative case]. MA thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
White, P[eter] R. R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2), 259–284.Google Scholar