Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:40:51.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Being perceptible: Animacy, existentiality and intersubjectivity in constructions with the Finnish verb kuulua ‘to be perceptible (through hearing)’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2018

Rea Peltola
Rea Peltola*
Affiliation:
Université de Caen Normandie, CRISCO – EA 4255, Esplanade de la Paix, CS 14032, 14032 CAEN Cedex 5, France. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper deals with the grammatical differences and overlaps between the uses of the Finnish kuulua as a verb of auditory perceptibility (‘to be audible’) and as a verb of appearance, when employed in negative clauses (‘to be imperceptible (through unspecified sensory input)’). Both meanings entail perceptibility, existentiality and motion from the experienced towards the experiencer. However, they differ significantly in regard to the nature of the motion as well as the degree of animacy of the subject referent. As a verb of auditory perceptibility, kuulua accepts mainly inanimate subjects referring to a perceivable sound. As a verb of appearance, kuulua is mostly used with animate subjects. The semantic difference between the two constructions is accounted for in terms of objective and intersubjective meaning construal. The potential movement of a sound towards the experiencer concerns the relationship between the world and the subject of conceptualization, whereas the non-appearance of an animate being is viewed on the level of intersubjective cognitive coordination, with regard to interactional expectations. The results of this study shed light on the complex semantics of perceptibility. The analysis is based on 1,528 occurrences of kuulua in dialectal and literary data.

Keywords

animacydynamic modalityexistentialityfictive motionFinnishintersubjectivitynegationperceptibilitysubjecthood
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , May 2018 , pp. 39 - 74
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Storch, Anne. 2013a. Linguistic expression of perception and cognition: A typological glimpse. In Aikhenvald & Storch (eds.), 1–46.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Storch, Anne (eds.). 2013b. Perception and Cognition in Language and Culture. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald. 1997. L'argumentation dans la langue, 3rd edn. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2010. Reference and clausal perception-verb complements. Linguistics 48, 391–430.Google Scholar
Caballero, Rosario & Paradis, Carita. 2015. Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and cultures. Functions of Language 22, 1–19.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2014. Existential predication in typological perspective. Presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split, 18–21 September 2013. http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-Exist.Pred.pdf (accessed 27 June 2017).Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2008. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua 118, 141–150.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Fraurud, Kari. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Fretheim & Gundel (eds.), 47–64.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon & Hengeveld, Kees. 1991. The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements. Linguistics 29, 231–259.Google Scholar
DMA Research Project. 2008–2010. University of Helsinki, Research Portal Tuhat. https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/portal/en/projects/digital-morphology-(ab85fb5a-7678-49c6-bba7-0067e486913a).html (accessed 10 March 2017).Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 2010. Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropological Theory 10, 1–20.Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi. 2009. Exprimer son identité par des moyens grammaticaux: la mise en scène du ‘moi’. Cahiers de la Nouvelle Europe: Langues et identités finlandaises, 67–87.Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi. Forthcoming. Pluralité indéfinie et individuation de la référence: Les quantifieurs finnois moni et monta ‘plusieurs’. In Christine Bonnot, Outi Duvallon & Hélène de Penanros (eds.), Individuation et référence nominale à travers les langues.Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata. 2007. Les modalités de perception visuelle et auditive. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind's ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76, 546–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraurud, Kari. 1996. Cognitive ontology and NP form. In Fretheim & Gundel (eds.), 65–88.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein & Gundel, Jeanette K. (eds.). 1996. Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Häkkinen, Kaisa. 1987. Nykysuomen sanakirja: Etymologinen sanakirja [Dictionary of Modern Finnish: Etymological dictionary]. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1979. Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys [The structure and evolution of Finnish language], 4th edn. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. Incremental existence: The world according to the Finnish existential sentence. Linguistics 41, 461–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2010. Is perception a directional relationship? On directionality and its motivation in Finnish expressions of sensory perception. Linguistics 48, 49–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2015. On the subject of subject in Finnish. In Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas (eds.), Subjects in Constructions: Canonical and Non-canonical, 13–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Lindström, Liina. 2014. Partitives across constructions: On the range of uses of the Finnish and Estonian “partitive subjects”. In Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive Cases and Related Categories, 153–175. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Anni. 2013. Todisteena äänen kuva: Suomen kielen imitatiivikonstruktiot [Imitations of sounds as evidence: The constructions of imitatives in the Finnish language]. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-8860-5 (accessed 27 June 2017).Google Scholar
Jakobi, Angelika & El-Guzuuli, El-Shafie. 2013. Perception verbs and their semantics in Dongolawi (Nile Nubian). In Aikhenvald & Storch (eds.), 193–215.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 2014. On the “zero consonant” phoneme in modern standard Finnish: Toward a coherent paradigmatic interpretation. In Inaba, Nobufumi, Luutonen, Jorma, Arja Hamari & Ahola, Elina (eds.), Juuret marin murteissa, latvus yltää Uraliin (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia – Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 270), 129–140. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust270/13_janhunen.pdf (accessed 27 April 2017).Google Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri. 1940. Suomen murteet III A. Murrekartasto [The Finnish dialects III A: Dialect map]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. http://kettunen.fnhost.org/html/kett119.html (accessed 27 April 2017).Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Västi, Katja & Ylikoski, Jussi. 2011. Introduction to case, animacy and semantic roles. In Kittilä, Seppo, Västi, Katja & Ylikoski, Jussi (eds.), Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KKS = Karjalan kielen sanakirja [The dictionary of Karelian language]. 2009. Helsinki: Institute for the languages of Finland. http://kaino.kotus.fi/cgi-bin/kks/kks_etusivu.cgi (accessed 28 June 2017).Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627–672.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lockwood, Hunter T. & Macaulay, Monica. 2012. Prominence hierarchies. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/7, 431–446.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2017. Meanings of constructions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. http://linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-309 (accessed 11 December 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahajec, Lisa. 2014. Negation, expectation and characterization: Analysing the role of negation in character construction in To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee 1960) and Stark (Eltoon 1989). In Chapman, Siobhan & Clark, Billy (eds.), Pragmatic Literary Stylistics, 111–131. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2016. Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In Olmen, Daniel, Cuyckens, Hubert & Lobke Ghesquière (eds.), Aspects of Grammaticalization: (Inter)Subjectification and Directionality, 19–46. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NS = Nykysuomen sanakirja [Dictionary of Modern Finnish]. 1951–1961. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
Nykänen, Elise & Koivisto, Aino. 2016. Introduction: Approaches to fictional dialogue. Literary Linguistics 5 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.15462/ijll.v5i2.56 (accessed 10 March 2017).Google Scholar
Ono, Haruhiko. 2004. On the semantic difference between the do-form and the doing-form in perception verb complements: From the viewpoint of ‘perception’ and ‘cognition’. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 407–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. 2003. The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy in the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 215–231. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Borschev, Vladimir. 2004. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. In Young, Robert B. (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, May 14–16, 2004, 212–234. http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2908 (accessed 17 March 2017).Google Scholar
SAOB = Svenska Akademiens ordbok [The Swedish Academy Dictionary]. https://www.saob.se (accessed 8 February 2018).Google Scholar
Schneider-Blum, Gertrud & Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.. 2013. Excite your senses: Glances into the field of perception and cognition in Tima. In Aikhenvald & Storch (eds.), 217–249.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, Robert M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Neukom-Hermann, Anja. 2010. Quantifier-negation interaction in English: A corpus linguistic study of all . . . not constructions. In Horn, Laurence R. (ed.), The Expression of Negation, 149–185. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Wilkins, David P.. 1996. The case for ‘Effector’: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Ariel. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Ariel. 2008. Intersubjectivity and the architecture of the language system. In Zlatev et al. (eds.), 307–331.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya: A Typologically Based Analysis of a Functional Domain in a Mayan Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2014. Thematic prominence and animacy asymmetries: Evidence from a cross-linguistic production study. Lingua 143, 129–161.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2013. Negative existentials: A cross-linguistic study. Italian Journal of Linguistics 25, 107–145.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21, 123–163.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 2008. Swedish verbs of perception from a typological and contrastive perspective. In de los Ángeles Gómez González, Maria, Mackenzie, J. Lachlan & Álvarez, Elsa M. González (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison, 123–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 2015. Sensation, perception and cognition: Swedish in a typological-contrastive perspective. Functions of Language 22, 96–131.Google Scholar
= Auli Hakulinen, VISK, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi (verkkoversio) [The comprehensive grammar of Finnish (online version)]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.php (accessed 12 December 2017).Google Scholar
Von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. 2012. Finnish antaa and Russian davat’ ‘to give’ as causatives: A contrastive analysis. In Leino, Jaakko & von Waldenfels, Ruprecht (eds.), Analytical Causatives: From ‘Give’ and ‘Come to ‘Let’ and ‘Make’, 187–220. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2009. Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua 119, 1083–1095.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and Reference: A Cognitive Approach to Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris & Itkonen, Esa. 2008a. Intersubjectivity: What makes us human? In Zlatev et al. (eds.), 1–14.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris & Itkonen, Esa (eds.). 2008b. The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar