In:Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 55–86
Chapter 3The emergence and routinization of complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and
tietää ‘know’ in Finnish talk-in-interaction
Published online: 17 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.03lau
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.03lau
Abstract
Our paper concerns two Finnish cognitive verbs, ajatella ‘think’, and tietää ‘know’. We
show that both verbs are most likely to occur in the first person singular form but behave differently with respect to polarity:
tietää occurs most commonly in the negated form (56%), while ajatella is only rarely negated (less
than 4%). The verbs also differ with respect to their sequential emergence and complementation, with tietää ‘to know’
occurring nearly half of the time in responsive position and without complements. Each of the most common formats of the verbs builds
or projects a specific social action. The patterns of clause combining, in this case, complementation or lack of it, are closely
connected to the locally contingent employment of action.
Keywords: cognitive verb, complementation, Finnish, fixedness
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Data and methodology
- 3.Complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and tietää ‘know’
- 3.1Morphosyntactic profiles
- 3.2Ajatella ‘think’
- 3.3Tietää ‘know’
- 4.Discussion: Comparison and implications
- 5.Conclusions
Notes Data source References
References (64)
Arkisyn. 2018. 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 Archive at the University of
Turku. Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.
Aho, E. (2010). Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu. [The prosodic sequencing of spontaneous speech.] Ph.D. Dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. [URL]
Aijmer, K. (2007). The interface between discourse and grammar. The fact is that
. In A. Celle, & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks (pp. 31–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bolinger, D. (1957). Interrogative structures of American English. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Bybee, J. & W. Pagliuca, W. (1987). The evolution of future meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp.109–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82.4: 529–551.
Bybee, Joan. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S. (2017). Epistemische Praktiken und ihre feinen Unterschiede: Verwendungen von ich dachte in gesprochener
Sprache. In A. Deppermann, N. Proske, & A. Zeschel (Eds.), Verben in interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.
Deppermann, A. & Reineke, S. Frthc. Practices of indexing discrepant assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in
talk-in-interaction. In Functions of Language.
Du Bois, J. W. et al.. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English. Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistics Data Consortium.
Endo, T. (2013). Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of wo juede (I
feel/think). In Y. Pan, & D. Kádár (Eds.), Chinese discourse and interaction: Theory and practice (pp. 12–34). London: Equinox.
Englebretson, R. (2007) Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Günthner, S. (2011). N be that-constructions in everyday German conversation: a reanalysis of die Sache ist/das Ding ist
(‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.11–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hakulinen, A. (2012). Näkökulmia suomen kieltolauseen sanajärjestyksen määräytymiseen. [Perspectives on word order in the Finnish negated clause]. In R. Argus, R. Hussar, & T. Rüütmaa (Eds.), Pühendusteos emeriitprofessor Mati Hindi 75. sünnipäevaks [Festschrift for the 75th birthday of Prof.Emer. Mati Hint] (pp. 20–44). Tallinna Ülikooli eesti keele ja kulttuuri instituudi toimetised 14. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press.
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Helasvuo, M.-L. (2014a). Agreement or crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and verbs of cognition in Finnish
conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 63, 63–78.
(2014b). Searching for motivations for grammatical patternings. Pragmatics 24(3), 453–476.
Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1427–1446.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and a resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 63–92). New York: Irvington.
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2012). I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15), 2194–2210.
Keevallik, L. (2003). From interaction to grammar. Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala.
(2011a). The terms of not knowing. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 184–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2011b). Interrogative “complements” and question design in Estonian. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.37–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2016). Abandoning dead ends: the Estonian junction marker maitea ‘I don’t know’. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 115–128.
Keevallik, L., & Hakulinen, A. (2018). Epistemically reinforced kyl(lä)/küll-responses in Estonian and Finnish: word order and social
action. Journal of Pragmatics 123, 121–138.
Laury, R. (1997). Demonstratives in interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Laury, R., and Seppänen, E.-L. (2008). Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The
Finnish että
. In R. Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Laury, R., & Helasvuo, M.-L. (2016). Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 80–96.
Laury, R., Helasvuo, M.-L., & Rauma, J. Frthc. Use of the verb ajatella ‘think’ as a fixed expression in spoken Finnish. Submitted.
Laury, R., & Ono, T. (2010). Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do. In: H. van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and human language. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Pp. 69–92.
(2014). The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 24(3), 561–592.
Lindström, J., & Karlsson, S. (2016). Tensions in the epistemic domain and claims of no-knowledge: A study of Swedish medical interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 126–147.
Lindström, J., Maschler, Y., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.) (2016). Grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction: Cross-linguistic studies. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 106.
Maschler, Y. (2012). Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4), 785–847.
(2017). The emergence of Hebrew loydea/loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from
interaction. In A. Sansò, & C. Fedriani (Eds.), Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives (pp. 37–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Maschler, Y., & Dori-Hacohen, G. (2018). Constructing a genre: Hebrew lo yode’a / lo yoda’at ‘(I) don’t know’ on Israeli political radio
phoneins. Text & Talk 38(5), 575–604.
Miestamo, M. (2011). A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34(2), 83–104.
Ogden, R. (2001). Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31(1), 139–152.
Overstreet, M. (2014). The role of pragmatic function in the grammaticalization of English general extenders. Pragmatics 24:1.105–129.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: projector constructions in French conversation. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 103–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2016). More than an epistemic hedge: je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential
organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 148–162. .
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “limited access” as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry 50: 3–4. 186–198.
Scheibman, J. (2000). I dunno. A usage-based account of the reduction of don’t in American
English. Journal of Pragmatics 32(1), 105–124.
(2002). Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Selting, M. (2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3), 483–526.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Constructing a proposal as a thought: A way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish
workplace interaction. Pragmatics 23(3), 519–544 .
Tao, H. (1996). Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2003). A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1), 75–95.
Thompson, S. A. (2002). “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26, 125–163.
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In P. J. Hopper, & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 2 (pp. 313–339). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Travis, C. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19, 101–135.
Vatanen, A. (2014). Responding in overlap. Agency, epistemicity and social action in interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
(2018). Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(2), 107–126. ()
Vatanen, A., Suomalainen, K., & Laury, R. Frthc. The Finnish projector phrase se että as a fixed expression.
Vilkuna, M. (1984). Voiko -kin-partikkelia ymmärtää? [Can the particle -kin be understood?] Virittäjä 88: 393–408.
(1992). Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. [Reference and definiteness in the interpretation of Finnish texts]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Zeyrek, Deniz
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. 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.