Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:12:47.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causative purpose adjuncts in Estonian and Finnish: A non-linear approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2019

Geda Paulsen Open the ORCID record for Geda Paulsen [Opens in a new window]  and
Urpo Nikanne
Geda Paulsen*
Affiliation:
Institute of the Estonian Language, Roosikrantsi 6, Tallinn 10119, Estonia
Urpo Nikanne*
Affiliation:
Åbo Akademi University, Finnish Language, Fabriksgatan 2, Åbo 20500, Finland
*
Emails for correspondence: [email protected] and [email protected]
Emails for correspondence: [email protected] and [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In this article, we examine the form and meaning of a subtype of causative adjuncts, purpose adjuncts, in Estonian and Finnish. The analysis is based on the micro-modular approach of Conceptual Semantics (Nikanne 1990, 2005, 2018; Pörn 2004; Paulsen 2011a, 2011b; Petrova 2011). It provides a non-linear approach to linguistic causation, alternative to the linear models. By the term ‘non-linear’ we mean the involvement of separate levels of conceptual structure that influence the causative reading, and a separation of causation from the temporal flow of the situation. We propose two causative operators for subordinate causative structures, BECAUSE OF and LEAD TO. According to their temporal structures, we separate two types of purpose adjuncts: reason-purpose adjuncts and avoidance adjuncts. The causative effect of purpose is in our analysis related to the notion of intentionality.

Keywords

adjunctscausationconceptual structureEstonianFinnishpurpose
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , December 2019 , pp. 263 - 289
Copyright
© Nordic Association of Linguistics 2019 

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

Borin, Lars, Forsberg, Markus & Roxendal, Johan. 2012. Korp: The corpus infrastructure of språkbanken. Proceedings of LREC 2012, 474–478. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, James (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1998a. Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 21–63. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1998b. The structure of events and the structure of language. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 67–92. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2009. Aspectual and causal structure in event representations. In Gathercole, Virginia (ed.), Routes to Language Development: In Honor of Melissa Bowerman, 139–66. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, EKG II = Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja & Vare, Silvi. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Lisa: kiri [The grammar of the Estonian language II: Syntax]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati. 2017. Otstarbelause [Purpose clause]. In Erelt, Mati & Metslang, Helle (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks [Estonian syntax], 723–727. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in the linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 369–411.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2007. Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Rychlý, Pavel, Smrž, Pavel & Tugwell, David. 2008. The Sketch Engine. In Fontenelle, Thierry (ed.), Practical Lexicography: A Reader, 297–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 1990. Zones and Tiers. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 1995. Action Tier formation and Argument Linking. Virittäjä 3, 338–357.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 1997a. Suomen infiniittisten adjunktien temporaalinen tulkinta [On temporal interpretation of Finnish infinite adjuncts]. Virittäjä 3, 338–357.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 1997b. Lexical conceptual structure and syntactic arguments. SKY Journal of Linguistics 10, 81–118.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 2000. Some restrictions in linguistic expressions of spatial movement. In van der Zee, Emile & Nikanne, Urpo (eds.), Cognitive Interfaces: Constraints on Linking Cognitive Information, 77–93. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 2005. Constructions in Conceptual Semantics. In Östman, Jan-Ola & Fried, Mirjam (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, 191–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 2006. Aspectual case marking of object in Finnish. Research in Language 4, 215–242.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 2008. Conceptual Semantics. In Östman, Jan-Ola, Verschueren, Jef & Versluys, Eline (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 2018. Conceptual Semantics: A Micro-modular Approach (Constructional Approaches to Language 23). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsen, Geda. 2011a. Causation and Dominance: A Study of Finnish Causative Verbs Expressing Social Dominance. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press. [Ph.D. dissertation, Åbo Akademi University, 2011]Google Scholar
Paulsen, Geda. 2011b. The dynamics of Finnish causative verb derivation: Prototypes and constructions. Linguistica Uralica 47(4), 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Oksana. 2011. Of Pearls and Pigs: A Conceptual-semantic Tiernet Approach to Formal Representation of Structure and Variation of Phraseological Units. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press. [Ph.D. dissertation, Åbo Akademi University, 2011]Google Scholar
Plado, Helen. 2013a. Eesti keele otstarbelausest [The Estonian clause of purpose]. Keel ja Kirjandus 4, 269–284.Google Scholar
Plado, Helen. 2013b. Kausaalsuhete adverbiaallaused eesti keeles. [Adverbial clauses expressing cause–effect relationship in Estonian] Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. [Ph.D. dissertation, Tartu University, 2013]Google Scholar
Pörn, Michaela. 2004. Suomen tunnekausatiiviverbit ja niiden lausemaiset täydennykset [The Finnish emotive causative verbs and their sentence-like complements]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. [Ph.D. dissertation, Åbo Akademi University, 2004]Google Scholar
Pörn, Michaela. 2008. Psychophysical and physical causative emotion verbs in Finnish: The temporal structure of causative emotion verb + infinitive 1 – Constructions within Conceptual Semantics. SKY Journal of Linguistics 20, 345–366.Google Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 1991. Causal and purposive clauses. In von Stechow, Arnim & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 623–631. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6), 43–116. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar