Volume 43, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper focuses on ‘clause’, a celebrated structural unit in linguistics, by comparing Finnish and Japanese, two languages which are genetically, typologically, and areally distinct from each other and from English, the language on the basis of which this structural unit has been most typically discussed. We first examine how structural units including the clause have been discussed in the literature on Finnish and Japanese. We will then examine the reality of the clause in everyday talk in these languages quantitatively and qualitatively; in our qualitative analysis, we focus in particular on what units are oriented to by conversational participants. The current study suggests that the degree of grammaticization of the clause varies cross-linguistically and questions the central theoretical status accorded to this structural unit.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Auer, Peter
    2014 Sentences and their symbiotic guests. Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax. Pragmatics24(3). 533–560. 10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky, Noam
    1957Syntactic Structures. London: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clancy, M. Patricia
    1980 Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. InWallace L. Chafe (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Comrie, Bernard
    1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 What does grammar tell us about action. Pragmatics24(3). 623–648. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2007 Incrementing in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics17(4). 513–552. 10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft, William
    1990Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crystal, David
    1998A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language63. 805–855. 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014 Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Cognitive Linguistics25(3). 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  14. Etelämäki, Marja, Markku Haakana & Mia, Halonen
    2013 Keskustelukumppanin kehuminen suomalaisessa keskustelussa. [Complimenting in Finnish conversation.] Virittäjä117. 461–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
    2002The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 Units and/or action trajectories? The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. InBeatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  17. Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Interaction and grammar, 135–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fox, Barbara A.
    2007 Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies9. 299–318. 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fromkin, V., R. Rodman & N. Hyams
    2011An Introduction to Language, 9th ed.Boston: Cengage Learning Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Givón, Talmy
    1984Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.17 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. InGeorge Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1981Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Greenberg, Joseph
    (ed.) 1978Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hakulinen, Auli & Fred, Karlsson
    1979Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hakulinen, Auli & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2009 Designing utterances for action: Verb repeat responses to assessments. InMarkku Haakana, Minna Laakso & Jan Lindström (eds.), Talk in Interaction. Comparative Dimensions, 124–151. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010a Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2010b The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language86(3). 696–699. 10.1353/lan.2010.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0004 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hayashi, Makoto
    1999 Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Human Studies22. 475–499. 10.1023/A:1005492027060
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005492027060 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2003Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.12 [Google Scholar]
  31. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
    2001Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversational discourse (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hida, Yoshifumi
    2007 Bun. InYoshihide Endo, Masanobu Kato, Takeyoshi Sato, Kiyoto Hachiya & Tomiyoshi Maeda (eds.), Nihongogaku Kenkyu Jiten (Encyclopedia of Research in Japanese Linguistics). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hinds, John
    1980 Japanese conversation, discourse structure, and ellipsis. Discourse Processes, 263–286. 10.1080/01638538009544490
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538009544490 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1982 Japanese conversational structures. Lingua57(2–4). 301–326. 10.1016/0024‑3841(82)90007‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90007-9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoye, Masako
    2008 Exploration of the notion of subject in Japanese. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Ph.D. dissertation.
  37. Ikola, Osmo, Ulla Palomäki & Anna-Kaisa Koitto
    1989Suomen murteiden lauseoppia ja tekstikielioppia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    1993 The structure of the Intonation Unit in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics3. 39–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2014 Grammar of the Internal Expressive Sentences in Japanese: Observations and Explorations. InKaori Kabata & Tsuyoshi Ono (eds.), Usage-based Approaches to Japanese Grammar, 55–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.156.07iwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.156.07iwa [Google Scholar]
  40. Jahnsson, Adolf Waldemar
    1871Finska språkets satslära. Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kärkkäinen, Elise & Tiina Keisanen
    2012 Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies14(5). 1–25. 10.1177/1461445612454069
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454069 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kinsui, Satoshi
    1997Kokubunpoo [Japanese grammar]. InTakashi Masuoka, Yoshio Nitta, Takao Gunji & Satoshi Kinsui (eds.), Bunpoo, 119–157. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kuno, Susumu
    1973The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Laakso, Minna & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2010 Cut-off or particle. Devices for initiating self-repair in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42. 1151–1172. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Laury, Ritva
    2018 The Finnish verb repeat response: Elliptical ‘fragment’, fixed expression, or independent unit?Journal of Pragmatics123. 139–150. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Laury, Ritva and Tsuyoshi Ono
    2014 The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation, Pragmatics24(3). 561–592. 10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau [Google Scholar]
  47. Lerner, Gene
    1991 On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society20. 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  48. Linell, Per
    2005The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203342763
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203342763 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2009Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2013 The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. InBeatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 57–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.03lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.03lin [Google Scholar]
  51. Martin, Samuel Elmo
    2004 (1975)A Reference Grammar of Japanese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Masuoka, Takashi & Yukinori, Takubo
    1992Kiso Nihongo Bunpoo: Kaiteiban [Basic Japanese grammar: A revised edition]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Matsumoto, Kazuko
    2003Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation: Syntactic, Informational and Functional Structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.65 [Google Scholar]
  54. Matthews, P. H.
    2014 (Online version) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 3 ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Maynard, Senko K.
    1989Japanese Conversation: Self-contextualization Through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 1990 Conversation Management in Contrast: Listener Response in Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics14. 397–412. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90097‑W
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90097-W [Google Scholar]
  57. Minami, Fujio
    1974Gendai nihongo no koozoo [The Structure of Modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Nakayama, Toshihide
    2002Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Morphosyntax (UC Publications in Linguistics 134). Oakland: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2013 Emergent nature of linguistic units. Workshop ‘Linguistic and interactional units in everyday speech: Cross-linguistic perspective’, University of Alberta.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Nitta, Yoshio
    2007 Ku. InEndo Yoshihide, Kato Masanobu, Sato Takeyoshi, Hachiya Kiyoto & Maeda Tomiyoshi (eds.), Nihongogaku Kenkyu Jiten [Encyclopedia of Research in Japanese Linguistics]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Okamoto, Shigeko
    1985 Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation.
  62. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko, Suzuki
    2018 The use of frequent verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese everyday talk: Formulaicity, florescence, and grammaticization. Journal of Pragmatics123. 209–219. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  63. Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson
    1995 What can conversation tell us about syntax?InPhilip W. Davis (ed.), Descriptive and theoretical modes in the new linguistics, 213–271. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
    1997 Deconstructing “Zero Anaphora” in Japanese. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, 481–491. 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1259
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1259 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson & Ryoko Suzuki
    2000 The Pragmatic Nature of the So-called Subject Marker ga in Japanese: Evidence from Conversation. Discourse Studies2(1). 55–84. 10.1177/1461445600002001003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002001003 [Google Scholar]
  66. Otsuki, Fumihiko
    1897Koonihonbunten. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Hanshichi.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Payne, Thomas
    1997Describing Morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805066
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805066 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  69. Setälä, Eemil Nestor
    1926 [1880]Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Otava.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Shimojo, Mitsuaki
    2005Argument Encoding in Japanese Conversation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230505384
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505384 [Google Scholar]
  71. Shopen, Timothy
    2007Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd ed., vol.I, Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena & Minna Laakso
    2005 Katko vai eiku. Itselkorjauksen aloitustavat ja vuorvaikutustehtävät. Virittäjä109. 244–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Suzuki, Ryoko
    2016 Kaiwa ni okeru dooshi yurai no han’noo Hyogen: Aru to iru o chuushin ni [Reactive expressions of verb origin: with focus on aru and iru]. InYoko Fujii & Hiroko Takanashi (eds.), Komyunikeeshon no dainamizumu: Shizen hatsuwa deeta kara [Dynamics of Communication: Analyses of Natural Discourse]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Teramura, Hideo
    1982Nihongo no Shintakusu to imi [Syntax and semantics of Japanese], vol.1. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies7. 481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  76. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  77. Trask, Robert L.
    1997A student’s dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Tuomikoski, Risto
    1969 Lauseiden ja virkkeiden terminologiasta. [Clause and sentence terminology in Finnish Grammars] Virittäjä73(1). 62–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Vatanen, Anna
    2014 Responding in overlap. Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, PhD thesis.
  80. Watanabe, Minoru
    1953Jojutsu to chinjutsu: Jutsugo bunsetsu no koozoo [Predication and modality: The structure of predicates]. Kokugogaku13–14. 20–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 1974Kokugo Bunpooron [A Study of Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Yamada, Yoshio
    1924Nihon Bunpoo Koogi [Lectures on Japanese Grammar], 3rd ed.Tokyo: Tokyo Hobunkan.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 1978 Ku. Published in Nihon Bunpougaku Gairon (1936). Reprinted inShiro Hattori, Suzumu Oono, Atsuyoshi Sakakura & Akira Matsumura (eds.), Nihon no gengogaku 3 Bunpoo I (Linguistics in Japan vol. 3 Grammar I), 73–96. Tokyo: Taishukan.
    [Google Scholar]
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