Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


In this article I analyze subject expression in conversational Finnish, identifying the home environments for zero and pronominal subjects in the 1st and 2nd person singular. Based on a syntactically coded database, I show that there is a clear preference, in both 1st and 2nd person, for pronominal subjects over zeros; in other words, double-marking is preferred over single-marking. This clearly contravenes the general preference for minimization or economy in person reference in conversation, as suggested by Sacks and Schegloff (1979) and Levinson (2007; see also Hacohen and Schegloff 2006). The home environments for zero and pronominal subjects are analyzed in terms of the micro-level social actions performed by participants, in order to find motivations for the choice of the form of subject. The analysis of the Finnish data shows that the choice between zero vs. pronominal subject is sensitive to features in the sequential context. It affects turn projection. The article shows that a systematic analysis of the data can provide important insights regarding global patterns. The deeper motivations that lie behind these patternings, however, cannot be understood without close microanalysis of the local contexts of subject expression.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ariel, Mira
    (1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, Joan L
    (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  3. Clayman, Steven E
    (2012) Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.150-166.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Erman, Britt , and Beatrice Warren
    (2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text20.1: 29-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dixon, R.M.W
    (2005) A New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dryer, Matthew S
    (2011) Expression of pronominal subjects. In Matthew S. Dryer , and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 101. Available online: wals.info/chapter/101. Accessed on2012-04-02.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Duvallon, Outi , and Antoine Chalvin
    (2004) La réalisation zéro du pronom sujet de première et de deuxième personne du singulier en finnois et en estonien parlés. Linguistica UralicaXL.4: 270-286.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Duvallon, Outi
    (2006) Milloin pronominisubjekti jää pois puhutussa suomessa?In A. Pajunen , and H. Tommola (eds.), XXXII Kielitieteen päivät Tampereella 19.–20.5.2005. Tampere: Tampere University Press, pp.203-217.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Givón, Talmy
    (1983) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hakulinen, Auli , and Lea Laitinen
    (2008) Anaforinen nolla: Kielioppia ja affekteja. Virittäjä112: 162– 185.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hakulinen, Auli , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen , and Irja Alho
    (2004) Iso suomen kielioppi. SKST 950. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hakulinen, Lauri
    (1979) Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys. 4th edition. Helsinki: Otava.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
    (2001a) Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Margret Selting (eds.), Studies in Interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.25-50. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.04hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.04hel [Google Scholar]
  15. (2001b) Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversational discourse. Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.9 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) Agreement or crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and verbs of cognition in Finnish conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics63: 63-78. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa , and Lea Laitinen
    (2006) Person in Finnish: Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in interaction. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo , and Lyle Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish. CILT 277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.173-207. doi: 10.1075/cilt.277.14hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.277.14hel [Google Scholar]
  18. Keevallik, Leelo
    (2003) From interaction to grammar. Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kibrik, Andrej A
    (2011) Reference in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    (2003) Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2007) The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.183-219. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.08kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.08kar [Google Scholar]
  22. (2012) I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics44: 2194-2210. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. König, Ekkehard , and Peter Siemund
    (2007) Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.276-324.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lappalainen, Hanna
    (2004) Variaatio ja sen funktiot. Erään sosiaalisen verkoston jäsenten kielellisen variaation ja vuorovaikutuksen tarkastelua. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2006) Pronominisubjektin käytöstä ja poisjätöstä Kelan asiointikeskusteluissa. In Taru Nordlund , Tiina Onikki-Rantajääskö , and Toni Suutari (eds.), Kohtauspaikkana kieli. Näkökulmia persoonaan, muutoksiin ja valintoihin. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, pp.37-64.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Stephen C
    (2004) Deixis. In Laurence R. Horn , and Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.97-121.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2007) Optimizing person reference – perspectives from usage on Rossel Island. In N.J. Enfield , and Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.29-72.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindström, Liina , Mervi Kalmus , Anneliis Klaus , Liisi Bakhoff , and Karl Pajusalu
    (2009) Ainsuse 1. isikule viitamine eesti murretes. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat54: 159-185.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Oh, Sun-Young
    (2005) English zero anaphora as an interactional resource. Research on language and social interaction38: 267-302. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_3 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2006) English zero anaphora as an interactional resource II. Discourse studies8.6: 817– 846. doi: 10.1177/1461445606067332
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606067332 [Google Scholar]
  31. Östman, Jan-Ola
    (1981) You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sacks, Harvey , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp.15-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Scheibman, Joanne
    (2002) Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Studies in Discourse and Grammar 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  34. Siewierska, A
    (1999) From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica33.1–2: 225-251. doi: 10.1515/flin.1999.33.1‑2.225
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.225 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    (2001a) Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Margret Selting , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.405-431. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.18sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.18sor [Google Scholar]
  36. (2001b) Responding in conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sulkala, Helena , and Merja Karjalainen
    (1992) Finnish. Descriptive Grammars. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tao, Hongyin
    (1996) Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.5 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2001) Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember. In Rita Simpson , and John Swales (eds.), Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp.116-144.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Thompson, Sandra A
    (2002) ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26.1: 125-164. doi: 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, Sandra , and A. Anthony Mulac
    (1991) A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Traugott , and Bernd Heine (eds.), Grammaticalization II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.313-339. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  42. Torres Cacoullos, Rena , and Catherine Travis
    (2011) Testing convergence via code-switching: Priming and the structure of variable subject expression. International Journal of Bilingualism15: 241-267. doi: 10.1177/1367006910371025
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006910371025 [Google Scholar]
  43. Weber, Elizabeth G. , and Paola Bentivoglio
    (1991) Verbs of cognition in spoken Spanish: A discourse profile. In Suzanne Fleischman , and Linda Waugh (eds.), Discourse pragmatics and the verb: Evidence from Romance. London: Routledge, pp.194-213.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Economy; Person marking; Projection; Subject expression; Subject omission
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