Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish☆
Introduction
This paper concerns the use of the Finnish verbs tietää ‘to know’ and muistaa ‘to remember’ in everyday Finnish conversation. The article shows that the use of these verbs is formulaic and often phonetically reduced, and that the use of particular formats is closely connected to the sequential contexts in which the verbs occur, and to the activities underway in the conversation. Besides disclaiming epistemic access, each expression emerges in the accomplishment of particular tasks in interaction; for example, the negative-initial format for the verb tietää ‘to know’, en mä tiedä, is most likely to occur as a response to something said just prior, such as in answers to questions, while the use of muistaa ‘to remember’ is connected with the activity of collective reminiscing. Therefore, they can be considered “social action formats” (e.g. Kärkkäinen, 2012), “emergent discourse patterns” (Scheibman, 2002) or “prefabs” (Erman and Warren, 2000, Bybee, 2010).
Many prior studies have shown that cognition verbs crystallize into fixed units in a range of languages (e.g. Östman, 1981, Thompson and Mulac, 1991, Tao, 2003, Kärkkäinen, 2003 on English; Keevallik, 2003, Keevallik, 2008, Keevallik, 2011 on Estonian; Günthner and Imo, 2004, Imo, 2011 on German; Karlsson, 2006 on Swedish; Laury and Okamoto, 2011 on English and Japanese; Endo, 2010, Endo, 2013, Tao, 2013 on Mandarin; Maschler, 2012 on Hebrew; Helasvuo, 2014 on Finnish; Posio, 2014 on Peninsular Spanish and Portuguese). The study of expressions of lack of epistemic access have further shown that such claims of access are used by participants to accomplish a number of interactional tasks beyond simple denial of knowing or remembering something, as we also show for tietää and muistaa (e.g., Goodwin, 1987, Kärkkäinen, 2003, Tao, 2013, Weatherall, 2011, Keevallik, 2011; Pekarek Doehler, in press).
In the literature on cognitive verbs and crystallization, there are several studies concerning the crystallization of patterns containing verbs of knowing (e.g. Östman, 1981, Weatherall, 2011 on the English know; Keevallik, 2003, Keevallik, 2006, Keevallik, 2011 on the Estonian teada; Karlsson, 2006 on the Swedish veta; Maschler, 2012 on the Hebrew yada; Posio, 2015 on the Spanish sé). However, there is far less literature on verbs of remembering and their patterning in discourse (see, however, Tao, 2003 on the English remember and Tao, 2013 and this issue on the Mandarin jìdé and similar expressions, Helasvuo, 2014 on the Finnish muistaa).
While linguists have been interested in issues of knowledge and its reflection in language structure for a long time (e.g. Chafe, 1976), the topic of epistemics has been of interest to conversation analysts as well; for a useful summary of this research, see Heritage (2013). As Goodwin showed in his early work (1979), participants in conversation are attentive to the distribution of knowledge among their addressees, and tailor their utterances accordingly. A useful distinction developed by Heritage is the one between epistemic status, i.e. participants’ relative access to a particular domain of knowledge, including their rights and responsibilities to know something, and, on the other hand, epistemic stance, which concerns the expression of epistemic status in turns at talk through different linguistic formats. In this paper, we are concerned primarily with epistemic stances expressed in conversation, but also epistemic status.
Some basic background on Finnish grammar will be helpful to those readers who are unfamiliar with the language. The basic word order in Finnish is SVX; subjects are usually clause-initial and objects and other complements come after the verb (e.g. Helasvuo, 2001), although word order is also free in the sense that other word orders also occur and are not ungrammatical (Vilkuna, 1989). Relevantly for this paper, clausal negation involves the use of a negation auxiliary which takes person markers but not tense or mood. In connection with the negation auxiliary, the main verb takes a special connegative form. The negation auxiliary has features of both a verb and a particle; it has been observed that Uralic languages manifest a drift involving the gradual change from verbal to particle negation (e.g. Miestamo, 2011: 90). Under certain semantic and pragmatic conditions, especially in spoken Finnish, the negation auxiliary can occur clause-initially. This occurs when the speaker is denying some claim or implication in prior talk rather than denying something upcoming in her own current turn (Hakulinen, 2012).
This article is structured as follows. We first discuss our data and methodology in Section 2. Section 3 is the core of the paper in which we first present some initial, general and quantitative findings on Finnish verbs of cognition (Section 3.1) and then analyze the use of tietää (Section 3.2) and the use of muistaa (Section 3.3) in our corpus of Finnish conversations. Section 4 summarizes our findings.
Section snippets
Materials and method
The study is based on more than seven hours of everyday conversation from corpora housed at the Universities of Helsinki and Turku. The data contained in all 278 occurrences of tietää ‘to know’ and 111 occurrences of muistaa ‘to remember’. These data are referred to as the “larger dataset” below. The data show that the majority of occurrences of both tietää ‘to know’ and muistaa ‘to remember’ are in the negative, and that both verbs also show a preference for first person singular (see
Frequency and general patterns
The two verbs in focus in this study are among the most frequently occurring cognitive verbs in Finnish conversation. Table 1 illustrates the distribution of cognitive verbs across person forms in our data (the table is modified from Helasvuo, 2014, who uses the same data). The table shows that Finnish cognitive verbs show significant skewing with respect to person, number and polarity.
In our data, tietää ‘to know’ is the most frequent cognitive verb (N = 278), and muistaa ‘to remember’ the third
Conclusion
We have discussed uses of two Finnish cognitive verbs, tietää ‘to know’ and muistaa ‘to remember’ in ordinary everyday conversations. Our data show that both of these verbs are likely to occur in the first person singular negated form, with tietää showing a strong preference for negative polarity and muistaa showing a strong preference for first person use. Both verbs occur overwhelmingly in the present tense (94–95% are in the present tense). Thus Finnish speakers tend to talk mostly about
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the organizers, participants and audience at the panel on Disclaiming Knowledge at the 2014 ICCA conference at UCLA for their comments on an earlier version of this paper, as well as the editors of this special issue and the two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. Ritva Laury is also grateful for the opportunity to present the early beginnings of this research at a meeting of the doctoral school Talk, Action and Interaction in January 2011, and for
References (55)
Agreement or crystallization: patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and verbs of cognition in Finnish conversational interaction
J. Pragmat.
(2014)I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance
J. Pragmat.
(2012)- et al.
Cut-off or particle: devices for initiating self-repair in conversation
J. Pragmat.
(2010) Compliment responses: notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints
Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: the case of creo and acho ‘I think’ in Spanish and Portuguese
J. Pragmat.
(2014)- et al.
A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English
Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu
(2010)Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests. Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax
Pragmatics
(2014)- et al.
Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 5.4.17
(2015) Allmän och svensk prosodi. Praktisk lingvistik 16
(1998)
Language, Usage and Cognition
Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view
Epistemic stance marker as a disagreement preface: Wo juede ‘I feel/think’ in Mandarin conversation in response to assessments
Kyoto Univ. Linguist. Res.
Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: the positions and functions of wo juede “I think”
The idiom principles and the open choice principle
Text
Keskustelukumppanin kehuminen suomalaisessa keskustelussa
Virittäjä
The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation
Forgetfulness as an interactive resource
Soc. Psychol. Q.
Die Reanalyse von Matrixsätzen als Diskursmarker: ICH MEIN-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch
Näkökulmia suomen kieltolauseen sanajärjestyksen määräytymiseen
Syntax in the Making. The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversation
Formulaicity and prosodic nature of ‘remember’ and ‘know’ in Finnish conversation
Epistemics in conversation
Emergent grammar
The openness of grammatical constructions
Online changes in syntactic gestalts in spoken German. Or: do garden path sentences exist in everyday conversation?
Cited by (16)
Resisting an action in conversation by pointing out epistemic incongruence: Mä tiedän ‘I know’ responses in Finnish
2018, Journal of PragmaticsCitation Excerpt :In other words, a speaker does not take into account the recipient's knowledge and this is pointed out and thus the wrong assumption is repaired. Utterances concerning lack of knowledge are shown to be used for various purposes such as hedging (see Keevallik, 2011; Weatherall, 2011; Laury and Helasvuo, 2016 and other articles in the same special issue), but fewer studies focus on utterances that claim knowledge. However, the Estonian ma tean, ‘I know’ and its emergence as an epistemic adverb has been examined (Keevallik, 2010), but in that data, the object of knowing occurs in the speaker's own turn.
Disputed memory and the social interactive functions of remembering/forgetting expressions in Mandarin conversation
2016, Journal of PragmaticsCitation Excerpt :Finally, by using Mandarin Chinese data, I hope to contribute to a growing body of literature on the role of interaction in understanding cognition-related linguistic phenomena by bringing in data from a non-Western language. As indicated above, while there is a strong interest in semantics, discourse pragmatics, and general linguistics in the language of memory, few have analyzed the interactive functions of memory-related language phenomena (but see Laury and Helasvou, 2016, for an analysis of collective remembering in Finnish conversation). In this paper I adopt the interactional linguistic approach, which is informed by combining the principles and methodology of discourse analysis, Emergent Grammar (Hopper, 1988), and CA, among others.
Tensions in the epistemic domain and claims of no-knowledge: A study of Swedish medical interaction
2016, Journal of PragmaticsCitation Excerpt :The three forms of the epistemic disclaimer – jag vet inte, inte vet jag, and det vet jag inte-have different distributions in the data. The first variant, with the subject first, is clearly the most frequent and general form, whereas the second variant (with negation first) only occurs in the consultations recorded in Finland (compare Laury and Helasvuo, 2016, on negation-first disclaimers in Finnish). However, this variant is not as frequent as has been reported in everyday Finland-Swedish conversation.
Sequential positions and interactional functions of negative epistemic constructions in Japanese conversation
2023, Journal of Japanese LinguisticsDiscourse Markers in Doctoral Supervision Sessions: A Multimodal Perspective
2023, Discourse Markers in Doctoral Supervision Sessions: A Multimodal PerspectiveManaging students’ insufficient answers in oral examinations
2023, Classroom Discourse
- ☆
Ritva Laury and Marja-Liisa Helasvuo acknowledge the support of the Academy of Finland grant for the project ‘The Question of Units in Grammar and Interaction’ in the preparation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this manuscript, Ritva Laury has also received support from the Finnish Center of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction, funded by the Academy of Finland, which she gratefully acknowledges.