1887

Definitely indefinite

Negotiating intersubjective common ground in everyday interaction in Finnish

image of Definitely indefinite

This chapter concerns expressions which seem internally contradictory because they consist of both a recognitional and a non-recognitional element. They contain both the Finnish demonstrative se ‘that, the’, a recognitional, as in se ihminen ‘that/the person’, and one of the indefinite determiners yksi ‘one’, semmonen ‘such’, and joku ‘some’, all of which are non-recognitionals, resulting in expressions such as se joku ihminen ‘that/the some person’. The chapter shows that each of these expressions has its own home environment and expresses a distinct epistemic stance. The main findings are that these expressions constitute a fine-grained resource for the negotiation of relative epistemic status and are tools for building intersubjective common ground in interaction.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Helsinki

References

  1. Ariel, Mira
    1990Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Penelope
    2007 “Principles of Person Reference in Tzeltal Conversation.” InPerson Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 172–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Du Bois , Bois W.
    1980 “Beyond Definiteness: The Trace of Identity in Discourse.” InThe Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe , 203–274. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Enfield, N. J. , and Tanya Stivers
    (eds) 2007Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746 [Google Scholar]
  7. Erringer, Anu
    1996 “The Functions of Demonstrative Adjectives. Semmoinen, tämmöinen and tuommoinen in Finnish Conversations.” Master’s thesis. Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Etelämäki, Marja
    2005 “Context and Referent in Interaction. Referential and Indexical Dimensions of the Finnish Demonstrative Pronouns.” InMinimal Reference. The Use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse, ed. by Ritva Laury , 12–37. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2006Toiminta ja tarkoite: Tutkimus suomen pronominista tämä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ford, Cecilia E. , and Barbara A. Fox
    1996 “Interactional Motivations for Reference Formulation: He had. This Guy Had, a Beautiful, Thirty-Two O:lds.” Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox , 145–168. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.06for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.06for [Google Scholar]
  11. Frege, Gottlob
    1892 ”Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosphie und philosophische Kritik100: 25–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by G. Psathas , 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1981Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hacohen, Gonen , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    2006 “On the Preference for Minimization in Referring to Persons: Evidence from Hebrew Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 1305–1312. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanks, William
    1990Referential Practice. Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1992 “The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference.” InRethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. by Charles Goodwin , and Alessandro Duranti , 43–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007 “Person Reference in Yucatec Maya Conversation.” InPerson Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 149–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hakulinen, Auli , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2009 ”Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Answers to Assessments.” InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana , Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström , 122–151. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hakulinen, Auli , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen , and Irja Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
    1988 “Subjekteina ja objekteina toimivat nominilausekkeet puhutussa suomessa.” Licentiate thesis. University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, John
    2007 ”Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2012a “The Epistemic Engine: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012b “Epistemics in Conversation.” InHandbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 370–394. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch18
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jakobson, Roman
    1990[1971] “Shifters and Verbal Categories.” InRoman Jakobson on Language, ed. by Linda Waugh , and Monique Monville-Burston , 386–392. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jespersen, Otto
    1922Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Juvonen, Päivi
    2005 “On the Pragmatics of Indefinite Determiners in Spoken Finnish.” InMinimal Reference. The use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse, ed. by Ritva Laury , 190–211. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Koivisto, Aino
    2016 "Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news receipts "aijaa" and "aha(a)"." Journal of Pragmatics104: 163-179.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Labov, William , and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Laury, Ritva
    1995 “On the Grammaticization of the Definite Article se in Spoken Finnish.” InHistorical Linguistics 1993, ed. by Henning Andersen , 239–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.124.19lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.124.19lau [Google Scholar]
  31. 1996 ”Sen kategoriasta. Onko suomessa jo artikkeli? [Regarding the category of se: does Finnish have an article yet?]”Virittäjä100 (2): 162–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1997Demonstratives in Interaction. The Emergence of a Definite Article in Spoken Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2009 “Definiteness.” InGrammar, Meaning and Pragmatics. Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5, ed. by Frank Brisard , Jan-Ola Östman , and Jef Verschueren , 50–65. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5.03lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.03lau [Google Scholar]
  34. Lepäsmaa, Anna-Liisa
    1978 “Tunnettuuden ilmaisemisesta Helsingin puhekielessä.” Master’s thesis. Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lerner, Gene H.
    1989 “Notes on Overlap Management in Conversation: The Case of Delayed Completion.” Western Journal of Speech Communication53: 167–177. 10.1080/10570318909374298
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318909374298 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Socicety20: 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lerner, Gene
    1996 “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction. ‘Second Person’ Reference in Multiparty Conversation.” Pragmatics6 (3): 281–294. 10.1075/prag.6.3.02ler
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.02ler [Google Scholar]
  38. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    1955[1940]Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by Justus Buchler . New York: Dover Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pekarek Doehler, Simona , Elwys De Stefani , and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
    2015Time and Emergence in Grammar: Left-Disclocation, Right-Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.28 [Google Scholar]
  40. Prince, Ellen
    1981 “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information.” InRadical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole , 223–253. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Russel, Bertrand
    1905 “On Denoting.” MindXIV (4): 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of Systematics.” InStudies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara Fox , 437–485. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  45. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 “Shifters, Verbal Categories, and Cultural Description.” InMeaning in Anthropology, ed. by Keith H. Basso , and Henry A. Shelby , 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena , and Auli Hakulinen
    2009 “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.010 [Google Scholar]
  48. Stivers, Tanya
    2007 “Alternative Recognitionals in Initial References to Persons.” Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vatanen, Anna
    2014Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2017 “Delayed Completions of Unfinished Turns. On the Phenomenon and its Boundaries.” InLinking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction, ed. by Ritva Laury , Marja Etelämäki , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 153–174. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Vilkuna, Maria
    1992Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Ariel, Mira
    1990Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Penelope
    2007 “Principles of Person Reference in Tzeltal Conversation.” InPerson Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 172–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Du Bois , Bois W.
    1980 “Beyond Definiteness: The Trace of Identity in Discourse.” InThe Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, ed. by Wallace L. Chafe , 203–274. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Enfield, N. J. , and Tanya Stivers
    (eds) 2007Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746 [Google Scholar]
  7. Erringer, Anu
    1996 “The Functions of Demonstrative Adjectives. Semmoinen, tämmöinen and tuommoinen in Finnish Conversations.” Master’s thesis. Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Etelämäki, Marja
    2005 “Context and Referent in Interaction. Referential and Indexical Dimensions of the Finnish Demonstrative Pronouns.” InMinimal Reference. The Use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse, ed. by Ritva Laury , 12–37. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2006Toiminta ja tarkoite: Tutkimus suomen pronominista tämä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ford, Cecilia E. , and Barbara A. Fox
    1996 “Interactional Motivations for Reference Formulation: He had. This Guy Had, a Beautiful, Thirty-Two O:lds.” Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox , 145–168. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.06for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.06for [Google Scholar]
  11. Frege, Gottlob
    1892 ”Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosphie und philosophische Kritik100: 25–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by G. Psathas , 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1981Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hacohen, Gonen , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    2006 “On the Preference for Minimization in Referring to Persons: Evidence from Hebrew Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 1305–1312. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanks, William
    1990Referential Practice. Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1992 “The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference.” InRethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. by Charles Goodwin , and Alessandro Duranti , 43–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007 “Person Reference in Yucatec Maya Conversation.” InPerson Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by N. J. Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 149–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hakulinen, Auli , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2009 ”Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Answers to Assessments.” InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana , Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström , 122–151. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hakulinen, Auli , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen , and Irja Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
    1988 “Subjekteina ja objekteina toimivat nominilausekkeet puhutussa suomessa.” Licentiate thesis. University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, John
    2007 ”Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2012a “The Epistemic Engine: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012b “Epistemics in Conversation.” InHandbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 370–394. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch18
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jakobson, Roman
    1990[1971] “Shifters and Verbal Categories.” InRoman Jakobson on Language, ed. by Linda Waugh , and Monique Monville-Burston , 386–392. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jespersen, Otto
    1922Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Juvonen, Päivi
    2005 “On the Pragmatics of Indefinite Determiners in Spoken Finnish.” InMinimal Reference. The use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse, ed. by Ritva Laury , 190–211. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Koivisto, Aino
    2016 "Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: Finnish news receipts "aijaa" and "aha(a)"." Journal of Pragmatics104: 163-179.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Labov, William , and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Laury, Ritva
    1995 “On the Grammaticization of the Definite Article se in Spoken Finnish.” InHistorical Linguistics 1993, ed. by Henning Andersen , 239–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.124.19lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.124.19lau [Google Scholar]
  31. 1996 ”Sen kategoriasta. Onko suomessa jo artikkeli? [Regarding the category of se: does Finnish have an article yet?]”Virittäjä100 (2): 162–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1997Demonstratives in Interaction. The Emergence of a Definite Article in Spoken Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2009 “Definiteness.” InGrammar, Meaning and Pragmatics. Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5, ed. by Frank Brisard , Jan-Ola Östman , and Jef Verschueren , 50–65. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5.03lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.03lau [Google Scholar]
  34. Lepäsmaa, Anna-Liisa
    1978 “Tunnettuuden ilmaisemisesta Helsingin puhekielessä.” Master’s thesis. Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lerner, Gene H.
    1989 “Notes on Overlap Management in Conversation: The Case of Delayed Completion.” Western Journal of Speech Communication53: 167–177. 10.1080/10570318909374298
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318909374298 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Socicety20: 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lerner, Gene
    1996 “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction. ‘Second Person’ Reference in Multiparty Conversation.” Pragmatics6 (3): 281–294. 10.1075/prag.6.3.02ler
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.02ler [Google Scholar]
  38. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    1955[1940]Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by Justus Buchler . New York: Dover Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pekarek Doehler, Simona , Elwys De Stefani , and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
    2015Time and Emergence in Grammar: Left-Disclocation, Right-Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.28 [Google Scholar]
  40. Prince, Ellen
    1981 “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information.” InRadical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole , 223–253. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Russel, Bertrand
    1905 “On Denoting.” MindXIV (4): 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of Systematics.” InStudies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara Fox , 437–485. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  45. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 “Shifters, Verbal Categories, and Cultural Description.” InMeaning in Anthropology, ed. by Keith H. Basso , and Henry A. Shelby , 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena , and Auli Hakulinen
    2009 “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.010 [Google Scholar]
  48. Stivers, Tanya
    2007 “Alternative Recognitionals in Initial References to Persons.” Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick Enfield , and Tanya Stivers , 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vatanen, Anna
    2014Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2017 “Delayed Completions of Unfinished Turns. On the Phenomenon and its Boundaries.” InLinking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction, ed. by Ritva Laury , Marja Etelämäki , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 153–174. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Vilkuna, Maria
    1992Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027259035-pbns.326.03lau
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027259035
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error