Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:54:15.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How far out is ‘out’? On the grammatical functions of the Estonian välja ‘out’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Tuomas Huumo  and
Kersten Lehismets
Tuomas Huumo
Affiliation:
University of Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected]
Kersten Lehismets
Affiliation:
University of Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Among the typologically agglutinative Finno-Ugric languages, Estonian is in many ways exceptional since it has developed a long way towards the analytic type. One indicator of this is the extensive use of particles and adverbs to indicate grammatical relations such as aspect. Our paper discusses, in a Cognitive Grammar framework, the grammatical functions of the adverb välja ‘out’, which is originally an illative (‘into’) case form of the lexical noun väli ‘field’. Our study shows how the meanings evolve along a continuum from concrete senses to more abstract ones, and we set out to find motivations for the development. The form välja has developed numerous usages as an adverb and a verb particle. Its concrete spatial meaning is that of indicating a relation where a mover exits a (typically three-dimensional) container and moves from its inside to its outside. The abstract functions of this multi-functional gram include the following ones: 1) a change in the cognitive state of an animate participant (e.g., as the result of acquiring information), 2) changes-of-state metaphorically represented as motion out of a container, 3) terminative direction or distance (‘all the way to X’) and 4) perfective aspect. We argue that a crucial factor in the development of these functions is the placement of the conceptualizer's viewpoint either inside or outside the container which the mover exits. A viewpoint outside the container means that in the initial configuration the mover is hidden from the conceptualizer's view, and when exiting the container it becomes accessible to the conceptualizer. This meaning motivates abstract functions where välja indicates incipient availability or accessibility of the mover. On the other hand, a viewpoint situated inside the container results in the meaning where the mover (that exits the container) escapes from the conceptualizer's view, or, in abstract expressions, its cognitive dominion. This motivates the use of the gram in many expressions of a change of state, and in particular builds a link to its aspectual functions where it indicates the spatiotemporal extent of an event or an entity by measuring the distance from the starting point of such (concrete or metaphorical) motion.

Keywords

Cognitive GrammarEstonian languagegrammaticalizationsubjectivityconceptualizationviewpoint
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 375 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alhoniemi, A. 1978. Suomen kielen terminatiiveista [On Finnish terminatives]. In Rakenteita. Juhlakirja Osmo Ikolan 60-vuotispäiväksi 6.2.1978 [Structures: A Festschrift for Osmo Ikola on the occasion of his 60th birthday, February 6th 1978]. Publications of the department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku 6, 188–206. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Erelt, M., Kasik, R., Metslang, H., Rajandi, H., Ross, K., Saari, H., Tael, K. & Vare, S. (1993).Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. [Grammar of Estonian II. Syntax]. Tallinn: Institute of the Estonian Language.Google Scholar
EKSS = Eesti kirjakeele seletav sõnaraamat [Explanatory dictionary of literary Estonian]. Tallinn: Institute of the Estonian Language.Google Scholar
Grünthal, R. 2003. Finnic adpositions and cases in change. Mémoires de la Société Finnoougrienne 244. Helsinki: Société Finno-ougrienne.Google Scholar
Huumo, T. 2003. Incremental Existence: The World According to the Finnish Existential Sentence. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 41 (3), 461–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T. 2006. ‘I woke up from the sofa’: Subjective directionality in Finnish expressions of spatio-cognitive transfers. In Campbell, Lyle & Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa (eds.) Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish, 41–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huumo, T. & Helasvuo, M.-L.. Forthcoming. On the subject of subject in Finnish. To appear in Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas (eds.), Canonical and non-canonical subjects in constructions. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huumo, T. & Ojutkangas, K.. 2006. The Finnish system for expressing spatial relations: local cases and adpositions. In Campbell, Lyle & Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa (eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish, 11–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huumo, T. & Sivonen, J.. 2010. Conceptualizing change as deictic abstract motion: metaphorical and grammatical uses of ‘come’ and ‘go’ in Finnish. In Turner, M., Parrill, F. & Tobin, V. (eds.). Meaning, Form, and Body, 111–128. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Karjus, A. 2012. Outdoors on the shores of the Baltic: gradience in the grammaticalization of the exterior-region. – Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 3(1), 209–225. http://jeful.ut.ee/public/files/Karjus%20209-226.pdf. Accessed 26 November, 2012.Google Scholar
Kay, P. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 59–111.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1996. Sorry, I'm not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E. (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, 91–123. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehismets, K. 2012. ‘The church is visible into the hand’: Grammaticalization of the Estonian word käsi (‘hand’) and its usage with verbs of perception. In Hart, C. (ed.), Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, 301–322. http://www.uk-cla.org.uk/files/proceedings/Lehismets.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2012.Google Scholar
Metslang, H. 1997. Eesti prefiksaaladverbist ära soome keele taustal [On the Estonian prefixal adverbs against the background of Finnish]. In Kasik, , Reet, & Grünthal, Riho (eds.), Lähivertailuja 9, 31–46. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Metslang, H. 2001. On the Developments of the Estonian Aspect: The Verbal Particle ära. In Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 2: Grammar and typology. (Studies in Language Companion Series 55.), 443–479. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Metslang, H. 2002. Grammatikalisatsiooniteooriast eesti keele taustal [On the grammaticalization theory against the background of Estonian]. In Pajusalu, , Renate, , Tragel, Ilona, Hennoste, Tiit & Õim, Haldur (eds.), Teoreetiline keeleteadus Eestis.[Theoretical linguistics in Estonia]. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Ojutkangas, K. 2001. Ruumiinosannimien kieliopillistuminen suomessa ja virossa. [The grammaticalization of body-part terms in Finnish and Estonian]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Ojutkangas, K. 2012: Ikkuna ulos. Suomen ulko-grammit ja huomion ikkunoiminen [A window out: The grammaticalization of the ulko ‘out’ gram in Finnish and windowing of attention]. Virittäjä 116/2, 169–197.Google Scholar
Ojutkangas, K. & Huumo, T.. 2010. Mikä erottaa muodot sisällä ja sisässä? “Synonyymisten” muotojen analyysi. [What distinguishes the forms sisällä and sisässä? An analysis of the “synonymous“ forms]. Sananjalka 52, 19–45.Google Scholar
Päiviö, P. 2007. Suomen kielen asti ja saakka. Terminatiivisten partikkelien synonymia, merkitys, käyttÖ ja kehitys sekä asema kieliopissa. [The Finnish asti and saakka: The synonymy, meaning, usage, development and grammatical status of terminative particles]. Publications of the department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku 75. Turku: The University of Turku.Google Scholar
Svorou, S. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Typological Studies in Language 25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tiits, M. 1982. Seisundiadverbidest [On adverbs of state]. Keel ja kirjandus 1: 17–21.Google Scholar