Optimizing Display Other Formats:      PDF - 521k

Volume 12 Issue 1 (2014)        DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.438

Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page.

Serial Verbs in Finnish^[1]

Solveiga Armoskaite and Päivi Koskinen

University of Rochester and Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Serial verb construction (SVC) phenomena pose challenges to descriptivists and theoreticians alike (Newmayer 2004, Aikhenvald & Dixon 2006, among many others). One recurring question is whether SVC is a language specific characteristic (cf. Stewart 2001) or whether it is a universally available construction utilized under specific conditions (cf. Déchaine 1993, Newmayer 2004, Muysken & Veenstra 2006). This study contributes to the debate with evidence from Finnish (Uralic language family), which has not previously been analyzed as a serializing language (contra Jarva & Kytölä 2007). Based on distributional facts as well as semantic and syntactic characteristics, we argue that the so called ‘colorative construction’ in Finnish is a SVC.

1. Introduction

Finnish has a verbal construction (underlined in (1)-(3)) called colorative construction which combines two verbs: a non-finite verb (henceforth Vi) and a finite verb (Vii). The structure is said to fulfill stylistic and aesthetic functions (Rytkönen 1937, Jarva & Kytölä 2007).

The construction obeys a particular morphosyntactic restriction: the Vii must be inflected for tense and person, while Vi has to be in infinitive form. If the restriction is violated, i.e., if Vi is inflected for tense and person while Vii is put in the infinitive, the construction becomes ungrammatical:

However, when the two verbs are used independently of each other, either verb can be tensed or infinitivized:^[3]

The ungrammaticality observed in (4) has neither been noted nor explained in previous analyses of the colorative construction (Rytkönen 1937, Ojutkangas 1998, Luttinen 2000, Jarva & Kytölä 2007). Our focus in this paper is the syntactic structure of and well-defined grammatical restrictions on the Finnish colorative construction, based on our own database. Specifically, we argue that the colorative constructions are serial verb constructions (henceforth, SVC). To our knowledge, there is no prior study that addresses the syntax of Finnish coloratitve constructions in detail or offers a survey of restrictions that pertain to this constriction.

Thus, our claims contribute both to the study of SVC and to the study of the colorative construction.^[4] We add a Uralic language to the stock of SVC languages; moreover, we provide further evidence for a particular type of SVC, namely manner SVC (cf. Aikhenvald 2006:29). From the perspective of Finnish, we add a grammatically driven analysis (cf. Ojutkangas 1998) to pragmatically or stylistically motivated interpretations of colorative constructions (cf. Jarva & Kytölä 2007).

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we outline our assumptions with respect to what counts as a SVC (section 2). In section 3 we then describe our corpus, and define the scope of our data, Finnish manner of motion SVC. In section 4 we examine the morphosyntactic, phonological and semantic characteristics of Finnish SVC and conclude by proposing an event type analysis of Finnish SVC. Earlier alternative approaches to colorative constructions are considered in section 5. Finally, we review questions still to be addressed (section 6).

2. What Counts as SVC, and Why

In determining the criteria for identifying SVC cross-linguistically, we must take into account the context of the larger debate on such constructions. Typological or theoretical inclinations notwithstanding, it is now recognized that both the empirical descriptions and theoretical analyses of SVC vary greatly: see Newmayer (2004), Aikhenvald & Dixon (2006) and Muysken & Veenstra (2006) for detailed overviews of general descriptive and theoretical issues. To avoid unnecessary repetition of content available in these excellent overviews, we simply briefly identify the issues disputed and the consensus attained as they pertain to the study at hand.

There are two main reasons for the disparity in the views on SVC: vagueness of the definition of what constitutes a SVC and the diversity in data. As Aikhenvald (2006:2) aptly puts it: “Serial verb constructions are grammatical technique covering a wide variety of meanings and functions.” Diverse means may be used to construct “a technique,” and, therefore, it has been easy to assume that “serial verbs are so called because they, or at least the primary examples of them, involve verbs in series” (Zwicky 1990:2). As Zwicky (1990) is quick to point out, however, vastly diverse data fall under such a definition. This is exactly what has happened.

Over the years, distinct types of SVC have been analyzed in numerous languages, using narrower, language specific definitions that may or may not be applicable to data crosslinguistically. Now the studies on SVC cover a vast amount of cross-linguistic data, ranging, e.g., from Niger Kongo Kwa languages to Carribean creoles (Awóyalé 1988, Sebba 1987, among many others). Moreover, the types of data vary: there is no one universally attested SVC; rather, SV constructions may be found in a range of domains from the functional (e.g., they may change aspectual or event type of a verb) to the lexical (e.g., they add a descriptive quality). Thus, diversity in data has led to diversity in perspectives on what constitutes a SVC. This proliferation has led some researchers to question even the existence of SVC (e.g., Delplanque 1998), while others have tried to isolate some abstract, cross-linguistically attested characteristics of SVC and argue for a universal SVC parameter (e.g., Stewart 2001). Currently, a consensus to disagree has been reached, acknowledging that the interpretation of SVC data and their analysis depend on the criteria chosen, be it descriptive or theoretical. Summarizing a number of pre-theoretical, typologically driven studies, Aikhenvald posits a multidimensional continuum, with several types, of SVC (2006:56-58). Newmayer (2004:15) sums up the status quo in the theoretical camp, stating that there is no one serialization parameter that everyone agrees upon, even within the same school of thought. We view this consensus to disagree as a temporary truce. We interpret the truce as an implicit working hypothesis: SVC do not form a homogeneous class; however, a principled overarching account of what the possible sub-classes there are, and, more importantly, how these sub-classes emerge, is yet to be proposed.

Given this context of agreement to disagree, for our study on Finnish we sought testable criteria rooted in the behaviour of SVC. In essence, we take the stance that a given language has SVC as long as it can be identified by properties distilled as being particular to the construction. We assume diagnostic criteria for SVC outlined in Muysken & Veenstra (1995; 2006).^[5] To our knowledge, these criteria have not been contested. Moreover, the criteria have been applied to cross-linguistic data and used to identify SVC in sign languages (Benedicto et al. 2008). Thus, a “series of verbs” are SVC if they have:

Based on these criteria, one can test candidate sets of “verbs in series” and establish whether they behave as a SVC unit in terms of argument structure, functional projections and prosody. The two verbs must share their arguments, whether the arguments are in subject and object position. Only one functional projection of tense/aspect and negation are allotted per SVC. The prohibitions on coordination and subordination rule out the interpretation of SVC as two independent phrases. Finally, the lack of pause between the two verbs within a SVC establishes that the verbs behave as a single prosodic constituent.^[6]

In section 4, we show how the Finnish colorative constructions follow the assumed criteria, i.e., are SVC. We also discuss earlier analyses of the colorative construction. Before we delve into the analysis of the constructions, however, we explain what constitutes the corpus of our data.

3. The Data Corpus

In this section, we introduce our data corpus. In 3.1, we show the wealth of colorative constructions that are used in Finnish, and then limit our data set to the manner of motion colorative constructions. In Section 3.2., we explain the sources of our data collection, and the arrangement of the data sets. We conclude the section with a table of representative examples.

3.1 The broad range of Finnish colorative constructions

The colorative construction is typically used in narrative contexts, and its most common use is to indicate the manner of motion (cf. e.g. Ikola et al. 1989, Airola 2007):

In manner of motion we also include examples that describe manner of non-motion:

There are also plenty of colorative constructions that depict sensory experience, most often auditory (13), but also visual (14) or tactile (15).

It is not easy or even possible to separate ideophones that would be specific to each of these distinct categories. This is due to the fact that the same ideophone may be used to express a number of different sensory experiences. For instance, the ideophone täristävät in (15) simultaneously refers to a rattling sound, a shaky movement and an uncomfortably bouncy feel of driving a small scooter on cobbled stones.

Besides the manner of motion or non-motion, colorative constructions may also indicate manner of ingesting (16), manner of speaking (17)-(18), bodily processes (19), manner of throwing (20), contact by impact (21), and even a change of possession (22) and so on (verb classes based on Levin 1993). Typically, there is either an auditory or visual aspect included in the implied meaning.

3.2 Corpus

The data for our present study consist of 720 tokens collected manually from diverse sources. The published sources are: a recent Finnish grammar, two dictionaries, classical and modern works of fiction, print magazines, folk songs, and traditional children’s rhymes. Online sources are: newspapers and journal articles, discussion forums and blog posts, advertising, and YouTube clips. In addition, we elicited data from native speakers. Although our data base is not large, it shows (i) most importantly, that the construction is productively used in modern Finnish^[7]; and (ii) that it can be found in formal and semi-informal registers alike.

Approximately half of examples in our data base were retrieved from two dictionaries of standard Finnish: 262 tokens from the electronic version of Kielitoimiston sanakirja (2007, The Dictionary of the [Finnish] Language Office); and 81 tokens from the first and second parts (A-I, J-K) of Nykysuomen sanakirja (1996, Dictionary of Modern Finnish). The dictionaries were systematically searched for occurrences of the colorative construction. For the electronic dictionary, for each letter of the alphabet, we extracted all words ending in aa, ää, ta or tä, which are markers of the infinitival dictionary entry forms of Finnish verbs. Each of these lists were then manually combed through for instances of the colorative constructions. For the printed dictionary Nykysuomen sanakirja, entries were searched page by page in alphabetical order. In both sources, bare dictionary entries of ideophones were not considered; only instances where the colorative construction was used in a provided example were collected.

Four examples derive from the Finnish online grammar Iso Suomen Kielioppi (2004). These were discovered by searching for the term koloratiivikonstruktio (colorative construction). 138 samples were found in literary works of fiction, both Finnish classics and more contemporary works (cf. list of sources in the reference section at the end of the paper). 24 examples appeared in newspapers or professional journal texts, seven in magazines, and three come from traditional Finnish folk songs and children’s rhymes. Four tokens appeared in a speech given by the author Laila Hirvisaari (2004, available online, cf. data sources). Five instances were found on YouTube, either as video clip titles or in spoken dialogue. Finally, 152 occurrences were collected from blogs, web forums, or websites.

All the examples from online and print sources other than the dictionaries and the grammar are ones that the native Finnish speaking author has come across inadvertently. We have yet to come up with a systematic method of searching for these constructions in fiction or online other than example by example. The difficulty is due to the lack of means for data screening. Recall that the first verb is neutral and, hence, can be found on its own or in numerous other constructions. The ideophonic verb in each case is unique, and it is nearly impossible to predict in what combination the two verbs might occur.

42 tokens were obtained from a discussion-elicitation session with a group of native Finnish speakers. Eighteen participants (all female, between ages 26 and 78, from various dialect areas) were presented with ten sentences, each of which included a neutral verb that frequently occurs in the colorative construction. From a list of ten ideophonic verbs chosen by one of the authors, the participants were asked, in groups of three, to create colorative constructions for the sentences. Participants were also invited to propose ideophones that they might use outside of the original ten. The sentences were then discussed one at a time among the full group, allowing speakers to compare their choices and to assess how the choice of ideophone affected the meaning of the sentence. While no one outright challenged the grammaticality of others’ choices, there were instances where clarification of meaning was requested. The author collected all tokens produced during the session. (23) shows a sample sentence frame and (24) lists the ideophones chosen by participants for this specific example.

Table 1 below provides an overview of types of examples used in the study.

Table 1

4. Finnish Manner of Motion SVC

This section presents evidence to support our claim that Finnish colorative constructions are SVC. Specifically, we argue that assuming the set of criteria outlined in section 2, the two verbs that appear in the colorative construction can be identified as a single constituent, SVC (section 4.1). Furthermore, in section 4.2 we show that there are language specific properties associated with both V_i and V_ii (cf. also Rytkönen 1937, Ikola et al. 1989, Jarva & Kytölä 2007). At the end of the section 4.2 we go over the views alternative to our proposal. In 4.3, we outline our proposed syntactic structure for Finnish SVC.

4.1 Finnish manner of motion colorative constructions meet SVC criteria

Finnish SVC have only one expressed subject, mummu ‘granny’ in (25a). If another subject is added, e.g., vaari ‘grampa’, the expression becomes ungrammatical, as illustrated in (25b):

Two subjects are possible, but only if the SVC is broken apart. Then the two verbs become independent, coordinated predicates with individual tense marking:^[8]

The second property ascribed to SVC is that they have at most one expressed direct object. This is true of Finnish SVC, too. In (27a), ikkunan ‘the window’ is the only object. The insertion of a second object, lasin ‘the glass’, is ungrammatical, as (27b) shows.

Once the SVC is transformed into two consecutive events, two objects are possible:

The third property of SV, only one specification for tense betweent the two verbs, also holds for the Finnish SVC. The first verb in the colorative construction appears in the infinitive form, and the second verb in a tensed form, as we have seen in all the grammatical examples hitherto. If one attempts to inflect both verbs for tense, the expression becomes ungrammatical.^[9] For example, in (29) and (30), one verb is inflected for present, the other past tense, and the resulting sentences are ungrammatical.

In addition to one specification for tense, only one specification for aspect - the internal time of event- per SVC is allowed. To demonstrate how this applies to Finnish data, we used the adverbial ‘for x time/in x time’ test (Verkuyl 1972). In (31), the SVC is an activity predicated without an inherent endpoint, therefore it is felicitous with the ‘for x time’ adverbial, and ungrammatical with the ‘in x time’ adverbial which picks out predicates with endpoints.

Conversely, in (32), the SVC predicate iskeä täräytti is an achievement type predicate with an inherent endpoint which makes it ungrammatical with the ‘for x time’ adverbial:

If the two verbs do not form a SV construction, their aspectual classes may differ. For example, käveli and täräytti are of different aspectual classes, yet they can be coordinated:

Finnish SVC also meet the fourth criterion: only one negator is allowed per SVC. In (34) we see that ei suffices to express negation of the event.

More than one negator is not allowed. If another negator is inserted as in (35), it renders the expression ungrammatical:

With verbs that express separate events and do not form a SVC, one may have more than one negator:

Neither an intervening coordinating nor subordinating conjunction is allowed in SVC. Finnish is no exception to the rule: if either type of conjunction is inserted, the result is ungrammatical as we can see in (37). 1n (37a), the coordinating ja is used, while in (37b), the subordinating niin että.

With the insertion of the conjunctions the SVC is dissolved, and one event is transformed into a sequence of two events. This requires each verb to bear its own tense:

The final property of SVC to be considered is their prosodic status. An intervening pause is not allowed between the two verbs, i.e., a SVC construction is one constituent in terms of prosody. Finnish SVC again meet this criterion, as shown in the examples below: insertion of a pause (indicated by |) is ungrammatical.

If the SVC is deconstructed by separating the two verbs into individually tensed events, then a pause can set the verbs apart, too.

We have shown how Muysken & Veenstra’s (1995; 2006) criteria for SVC apply to the Finnish colorative construction. Thus, we conclude that the ‘colorative constructions’ are best analyzed as SVC. Note that, conversely, Finnish verbs that are not SVC have not met the set criteria. To date, this is the first study that compares what we call serial verbs versus non-serial verbs in Finnish. Table 2 provides a summary of the SVC properties in contrast to verbal constructions that are not SVC.

Table 2. Properties of Finnish SV versus non-SV construction

The Finnish colorative construction has previously been an object of study by a small number of Finnish linguists (Rytkönen 1937, Luttinen 2000, Hamunen 2007, Jarva & Kytölä 2007; cf. also Ikola et al. 1989, Sivula 1989, Airola 2007, Jomppanen 2009).^[11] Although the idea of treating them as a SVC has been entertained by Ojutkangas (1998), Airola (2007), and Jarva & Kytölä (2007), no full-fledged, syntactically motivated account has ever been offered.

Airola (2007: 91-92) pointed out that the colorative constructions display semantic properties associated with SVCs; however, her study addresses verb-verb sequences coordinated with ja ‘and’. On one hand, our account is not limited to semantic properties as we seek to reveal grammatical restrictions. On the other hand, we specifically rule out any coordinated verb-verb sequences. Thus, neither Airola’s exclusively semantic point of view nor the data focus make the two analyses comparable. Ojutkangas (1998: 115–117) observed that the colorative construction is a “serial verb-like” construction, in that the two verbs encode a single event – they permit only one subject and share a single tense. However, as Ojutkangas’ thesis investigated numerous asyndetic verbal expressions in different Finno-Ugric languages, it did not offer a detailed account of the syntactic properties of CC.

Jarva & Kytölä (2007: 240) rule out the Finnish colorative construction being a SVC for two reasons: the presence of infinitive marking, and the particular descriptive function that the colorative construction serves. Under our view, the infinite affixation is not problematic, because the infinitive is simply a non-finite citation form needed to construct a CC (bare verb roots cannot stand alone in Finnish). We still adhere to one-finite-form-per-SVC constraint, i.e., one tense/aspect criterion: only one finite form is allowed. The issue of the descriptive function of the construction does not concern us either. We assume that SVCs have a diversity of functions across languages, and descriptive function is not excluded (cf. Aikhenvald 2006 and references therein). The point of divergence is the perspective taken. Jarva & Kytölä (2007; see also Ojutkangas 1998:115-117), crucially, assume Givón’s (1991) functional approach to what counts as a SVC, while we look for grammatical constraints (both the ones listed in Muysken & Veenstra (1995; 2006) as well as language internal ones). Under our view, the diversity of functions is not problematic as long as the assumed grammatical constraints are obeyed.

In sum, the purely functional or semantic accounts have thus far excluded the morphosyntactic facts. In contrast, our analysis of the Finnish colorative constructions as SVC is rooted in morphosyntax, with complementing semantic and phonological evidence.

Having shown the properties of SVC as a single constituent, we now turn to a discussion of its internal make up. In the following section we examine further properties of V_i and Vii, and show how the individual properties of each verb are in line with our proposal.

4.2 Language specific properties of SVC

In this section we explore properties specific to verbs that constitute manner of motion SVC. We demonstrate that Vi is usually - but not exclusively - a verb denoting an event devoid of manner. We then identify Vii as ideophone.

Let us first discuss the nature of Vi as an event without manner. While compiling the data corpus for our study, we observed that some verbs are allowed in Vi position, while others, although similar in their lexical meaning, are not allowed in Vi. For example, the verb ‘to come’ of example (42a) may not be substituted by the verb ‘to appear’ of (42b):

In a non-SVC environment ‘to appear’ may substitute for ‘to come’:

Similarly, ‘to topple over’ is not accepted instead of ‘to fall’ in the SVC, as example (44) shows.

Again, in a non-SVC environment the substitution is possible:

There are two reasons for the observed ungrammaticality. One reason is semantic: in the Finnish SVC, there is a strong preference to have the Vi slot filled by verbs that denote events without manner. In other words, the description of manner - how an event takes place - usually does not form a part of the lexical entry for Vi. The manner of the event is usually encoded by Vii (Airola 2007:91, footnote 1 has a similar observation).

There is independent evidence that many of the Vi are, in fact, ‘bleached’ in their meaning. Verbs found in Vi slot are also encountered in verb-adjective constructions that utilize mannerless verbs, exemplified in (46)-(47):

In the (47a)-(48a) examples, the verb tulla ‘to come’ appears either with adjectival objects in the translative case or nominal objects in illative. In the (47b)-(48b) sentences, the tulla + Adj/N constructions are replaced with deadjectival or denominal verbs. The meanings of the (a) and (b) sentences are identical.

The mannerless Vi examples are the dominant tendency. There are, however, some instances where a semantically more specific verb surfaces as Vi. There are about thirty such examples in our corpus, i.e., approximately four percent of the data. For example, the following constructions involve two entries for ‘lick’. With respect to manner, the entry in (49) is more neutral than the entry in (50):

The lexical entries for these two verbs in Nykysuomen sanakirja (1996) are:

Examples such as those above show that mannerless semantics of the Vi cannot be the only constraint on verbs appearing as Vi. In section 4.3, we argue that the mannerless-ness of the Vi falls out as an expected (but not obligatory) property of the SVC construction as a whole, once we take into account the properties of Vii. Before we propose what bond holds Vi and Vii as a unit, let us take a look at the Vii.

As is true of the Vi position, in the Vii position also only a subset of verbs may appear. We argue that this is a syntactic restriction, in that verbs in this position exhibit particular properties. The properties we have identified are: flexibility in sound, elasticity of semantics and co-occurrence with –ise/-inA affixes.

Example (53) exemplifies that not all verbs can be used as Vii of Finnish SVC. The two verbs in (a) and (b) placed in Vii are identical in their grammatical form, and, therefore, would be expected to be equally acceptable, yet this is not the case: example (b) is ungrammatical.

The reason for ungrammaticality is the choice in Vii. We argue that only ideophonic verbs can be used as Vii in Finnish. We define ideophones as linguistic elements that highlight sensual perception of the world by sound, vision, or touch from a speaker’s perspective. The range of expressive senses encoded by ideophones differs across languages. The grammatical status and lexical category of ideophones may also vary, and often are language-specific (for more discussion, see Bodomo 1998, 2006, Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz 2001). In Finnish, various morphophonological, semantic, and syntactic-pragmatic tendencies have been proposed to identify ideophones.

Mikone (2001) examines the phonological structure of Finnish ideophones. Citing research on the Kihtelysvaara dialect of Finnish, she observes that the vowel ö appears unusually frequently (more than 80% of the Kihtelysvaara dictionary words beginning with ö or Cö are ideophones). Mikone also points out a difference in the occurrence of initial consonant clusters in nonideophonic and ideophonic words. While older Indo-European loan words have reduced such clusters to a single consonant, in ideophones clusters are relatively common. At the same time, only a very reduced number of initial consonant clusters are permitted in ideophones. While recent Indo-European loan words permit twelve possible clusters: [fl-], [fr-], [kl-], [kn-], [kr-], [pl-], [pr-], [sl-], [sm-], [sn-], [sp-], [sr-], [st-], [sv-], only four of these clusters appear in ideophones: [kl-], [kr-], [pl-], [pr].

Mikone (2001) as well as Jarva (2008) remark on an unusual characteristic of this word type. In ideophones meaning is not necessarily affected by a change in sound structure. For instance, löyhöttää – löyhyttää – leyhyttää – leyhytellä – leuhuttaa – leuhottaa all mean the same thing (Mikone 2001:227). Such variation is not normally permitted in the language: mökkiä ‘hut’ and mykkiä ‘(the) dumb (ones)’; kuva ‘picture’ vs. kova ‘hard’ etc. form minimal pairs. This phonological trait has semantic consequences, as Jarva (2003:72) remarks: the meanings of Finnish ideophones are flexible. More or less the same meaning can be expressed with a number of ideophones, as seen above, and the same ideophone can be used in various contexts. For example, the ideophone jumputtaa can appear in very dissimilar circumstances:

The non-ideophonic Vi verbs in these sentences do not display the same kind of semantic elasticity:

Due to this semantic fuzziness of ideophonic interpretation, Jarva (2003: 75) observes that such terms are context-bound within the clause, i.e. their exact meaning is determined by the infinitival verb in a CC. The definition of jumputtaa in Kielitoimiston sanakirja (2009) is:

‘of monotonous, even doing or of a relatively loud, throbbing, low sound’

While a number of such phonological, semantic and morpho-syntactic traits have been associated with Finnish ideophones by Mikone (2001) and Jarva (2003), no criteria have been identified that apply to all ideophones; rather, stronger or weaker tendencies have been documented (as also commented by Jarva 2003: 70). Moreover, the boundaries between ideophonic and nonideophonic roots are not clear. Semantically, ideophonic roots are often onomatopoeic (based on sound) or descriptive in some other way (of movement, light, position). This is what a typical dictionary entry looks like:

While we take the descriptive entries into account, we do not rely on a dictionary list alone. We use additional tests to ascertain that a particular verb is an ideophonic one. Specifically, we rely on the fact the roots that appear with the verbalizing suffix -ise and the nominalizing suffix –inA are always ideophonic (cf. Jarva 2003), here exemplified in (61):

While not all ideophonic verbs in Vii position bear these suffixes, crucially, non-ideophonic verbs never accept either suffix, as can be seen in (62). This is yet another piece of data evidence revealing morpho-syntactic behavior particular to ideophones. Here we attempted use of -ise and -inA with the non-ideophonic verb juosta ‘to run’.

Thus, in conlusion, we have argued that the Vii position is restricted to ideophonic verbs that exhibit the following properties:

Table 3

Note that we rule out the possibility that the Vii is some sort of an adverbial. If adverbials were to occur in this position, we would expect any adverb to surface in a finite tensed form. This is not the case. Consider the following data. When adverbials modify verbs, they are formed from adjectives with the help of suffix -sti (akin to English adverbial suffix -ly):

However, if we try to use these adverbials with tense inflection in the Vii position of the SVC, the result is ungrammatical:

4.3 Proposal: Vi is Aktionsart

In the previous sections, we have looked at Vi and Vii in detail, as two distinct elements with distinct properties within a SVC. In this section, we introduce our working hypothesis on what holds the two verbs together and makes them a syntactic atom.

We have already shown that Vii in Finnish SVC provides rich descriptive information, i.e., the manner of an event (hence the colorativeness of the construction). A hithereto overlooked fact is that Vii lacks specificity of an event kind. Namely, Vii may be compatible with events of different kinds as illustrated in the examples below, where the same Vii retostaa co-occurs with two distinct Vi, kävellä ‘to walk’ and elää ‘to live’:

While the manner instantiated by Vii remains constant, ‘to show off’ in this particular example, the event instantiated by Vi changes from ‘walk’ to ‘live’. To put it schematically, Vi provides the event, while Vii describes it. Based on examples of this kind we propose that Vi is a spell-out of an aspectual head, namely Aktionsart. Aktionsart is defined as lexical aspect: it classifies verbs based on their inherent event type (Rothstein 2004, among others). Four event types are recognized as Aktionsart: activity (e.g., walk), state (e.g., live), achievement (e.g., blink) and accomplishment (e.g., climb a mountain). The event types are usually considered inherent to verbs in the sense that there is no overt morpheme on the verb that would indicate a particular Aktionsart class. However, (67) shows that Finnish Vii is comparable with more than one event type, i.e., it is underspecified for a particular event class. Thus, we propose that Vi introduces an event to complement the Vii: the entire SVC obtains the Aktionsart specification of Vi. Structurally, a Finnish SVC would look as follows:

As indicated above, SVC spans across two heads, V and Aktionsart, where manner is encoded by Vii and event type is provided by Vi. This working hypothesis captures our data well and is in line with observations about the properties of both Vi and Vii.

If we argue that the two verbs form an atomic unit spanning two heads, then we need to explain how it is posible that both verbs are inflected: Vi is in an infinitive form while Vii inflects for tense, person and number. It has been observed for other constructions identified as SVC that typically one of the verbs is in some uninflected form (see typological data in Aikhenvald 2006, Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz 2001). Thus, the presence of the infinitive affixation appears to be a problem. We argue, however, that the infinitive form is the only available citation form that is grammatical in Finnish. We observe that Finnish does not allow bare verbs roots, as illustrated in (69).

In other words, Finnish verbs must bear some sort of inflection. We conclude that the –a (traditionally known as the first) infinitive is the most neutral verb form. It is the form of a verb found in dictionary and grammar entries. Finnish has two other infinitival forms: -e and –ma infinitives. While the -a infinitive appears in a wide range of functions (in dictionary and grammar entries, following auxiliary verbs, in a wide range of embedded nonfinite complement clauses, and in rationale adjunct clauses), the other two infinitives have more restricted distribution: the -e infinitive is used in temporal and manner adjunct clauses, and the –ma infinitive in a small number of complement and adjunct clauses and as a prenominal modifier. It is also worth noting that the -a infinitive is the most verbal of the three nonfinite forms in Finnish in that the -a verb never bears nominal inflection. The -e and -ma infinitives always appear with number, case and possessive marking (cf. e.g. Koskinen 1998). If the infinitive within the SVC were more than citation form, we could expect the other infinitive types to appear in the construction. This is not possible. Only the least marked -a form may appear in the SVC, as illustrated in (70).

We conclude that the presence of the infinitive marking on the Vi verb is not a counterargument against our Aktionsart head proposal. For a more detailed account of the internal structure of Finnish SVC and the theoretical implications of the proposal, see Armoskaite & Koskinen (in prep).

5. Conclusions and Further Questions

The main empirical goal of the paper has been to argue for Finnish colorative constructions as SVC. Our analysis is based on an examination of the morpho-syntactic properties of the structure in relation to criteria outlined for serial verbs by Muysken & Veenstra (1995; 2006). We have also discussed the nature of the two verb types that appear in the construction, identifying the first one as a neutral verb unspecified for manner, and the second as an ideophone that supplies such manner specification. Moreover, we have proposed that the existence of this serial verb structure is due to a deficiency in the event type of the ideophonic Vii: they lack Aktionsart specification, which, in turn, is provided by Vi.

We have shown that a SVC account of the constructions is in line with their morphosyntactic behavior. Such an account offers insight into the morpho-syntax of Finnish that goes beyond the stylistic impact that has been the usual focus of studies on this structure (cf. e.g. Rytkönen 1937, Luttinen 2000). Moreover, our study is supported by the data corpus compiled from a range of sources, which has not been done before.

This study also contributes to the discussion on the grammaticalization of ideophones. Although the range of grammatical guises of ideophones has been observed (Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz, 2001; Newman 1968), the use of non-ideophonic verbs for Aktionsart specification has not been discussed, to the best of our knowledge (note the discussion of grammatical rather than lexical aspect in ideophones of Pastaza-Quechua in Nuckolls 1996). Thus, our analytical contribution is the proposed analysis of the grammatical roles within Finnish SVC: event and Aktionasart heads. The following questions will be the goal of our on-going research.

With respect to colorative constructions, we have limited our data to motion predicates. It remains to be seen whether our observations extend to other classes of verbs. If they do not, we will investigate what it tells us about the heterogeneity of the colorative constructions and the reasons behind any variation.

With respect to the SVC account, the internal structure of SVC construction requires further elaboration. As a working hypothesis, we have posited that the first verb in the Finnish SVC can be analyzed as an overt head of Aktionsart aspect. The data introduced hitherto is in line with such a hypothesis. However, we need to find independent evidence in support of spelling out an Aktionsart head, as well as to ascertain what implications this proposal has for Finnish grammar as a whole (see Armoskaite & Koskinen in prep). To that end, we will compare Aktionsart behaviour of regular verbal predicates with that of the SVC predicates, exploring similarities and differences. We will also test the effect of aspectual affixes on SVC: which affixes do and do not select for SVC, and why. Yet another venue to explore will be the shift from one Aktionsart type into another. This will provide valuable insight into the mechanics of Aktionsart, given that overtly spelled out Aktionsart heads are rare.

References

Aikhenvald, Aleksandra. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Aikhenvald and Dixon, 1-68.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Robert Dixon (eds.). 2006. Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Airola, Anu. 2007. Coordinated Verb Pairs in Texts. University of Helsinki: PhD Dissertation.

Armoskaite, Solveiga and Päivi Koskinen. (in prep.) Spell out of Aktionsart head in Finnish SVC.

Awóyalé, Yíwolá. 1988. Complex Predicates and Verb Serialization. MIT Lexicon Project Working Papers 28.

Benedicto, Elena, Sandra Cvejanov and Josep Quer. 2008. The morphosyntax of verbs of motion in serial verb construction: A crosslinguistic study in three signed languages. Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR 8, ed. by Josep Quer, 111-132. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.

Bodomo, Adams. 1998. Serial verbs as complex predicates in Dagaare and Akan. Language History and Linguistics Description in Africa: Trends in African Linguistics, vol. 2, ed. by Ian Maddieson and Thomas Hinnebusch, 195-204. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

-----. 2000. A comparative study of English small clauses and Dagaare serial verbs. Languages and Linguistics 6. 37-56.

Cardinaletti, Anna, and Ur Shlonsky. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 519-557.

Collins, Christopher. 1997. Argument sharing in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 461- 497.

Crowley, Terry. 2002. Serial Verbs in Oceanic. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates Across Categories: Toward a Category Neutral Syntax. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: PhD dissertation.

Delplanque, Alain. 1998. Le Mythe des 'Séries Verbales'. Faits de Langues 11/12. 231-250.

Foley, William, and Robert Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gardemeister, Riikka-Maija. 2005. Sataa tihmoi. A drizzling rain was coming down. University of Joensuu: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Givón, Talmy. 1991. Serial verbs and the mental reality of ‘event’: grammatical vs. cognitive packaging. Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. I. Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, ed. by Elisabeth Traugott and Bernd Heine, 81-127. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Haapamaki, S. 1983. Verbaaliset koloratiivirakenteet Anni Swanin tuotannossa. University of Helsinki: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Hamunen, Markus. 2007. Mee sai juosta lirputtaa. Koloratiivirakenne konstruktiona ja kieliopillistumana. University of Helsinki: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Havo, Kirsi. 1966. Verbaaliset koloratiivirakenteet Pentti Haanpään tuotannossa. University of Helsinki: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Heikkinen, Vesa, and Eero Voutilainen. 2009. Koloratiivirakenne Hirventappopaikkaromaanissa. Vesa Heikkinen (ed.). Kielen piirteet ja tekstilajit. Vaikuttavia valintoja tekstistä toiseen, 135-169. Tietolipas 229. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Iisa, Pekka 1965. Verbaalisen koloratiivikonstruktion käytöstä F. E. Sillanpään tuotannossa. University of Helsinki: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Ikola, Osmo, Ulla Palomäki and Anna-Kaisa Koitto. 1989. Suomen murteiden lauseoppia ja tekstikielioppia. Helsinki: SKS.

Jarva, Vesa. 2001. Some expressive and borrowed elements in the lexicon of Finnish dialects. In Voeltz and Kilian-Hatz, 111-119.

-----. 2003. Venäläisperäisyys ja ekspressiivisyys suomen murteiden sanastossa. Jyväskylä studies in humanities 5. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

-----. 2008. Suomen kielen ekspressiivisten sanojen ominaispiirteitä. Folia Uralica Debrecensiensia 15. 13-34.

Jarva, Vesa, and Samu Kytölä. 2007. The Finnish colorative construction and expressivity. SKY Journal of Linguistics 20. 235-272.

Kapanen, L. 1990. Verbaaliset koloratiivirakenteet Maiju Lassilan, Seppo Lappalaisen ja Heikki Turusen tuotannossa. University of Joensuu: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Kohtamäki, Ilmari. 1936. Sanastajan havaintoja tyyliseikoista. Virittäjä 40. 8-15.

Korhonen, Leena. 1967. Koloratiivirakenne Joel Lehtosen tuotannossa. University of Helsinki: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335-391.

Leskinen, Heikki. 1993. Quantitative Untersuchung der expressive Lexik im Finnischen und seinen nächsterwandten Sprachen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 51. 87-124.

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Luttinen, Saara. 2000. Verbaaliset koloratiivikonstruktiot eräissä pohjoissavolaisissa murteissa. University of Jyväskylä: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Mikone, Eve. 2001. Ideophones in the Balto-Finnic languages. In Voeltz and Kilian-Hatz, 223- 233.

Muysken, Pieter, and Tonjes Veenstra. 1995. Serial verb constructions. Pidgins and Creoles: an introduction, ed. by Jacques Arends, Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith, 289-301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

-----. 2006. Serial verb constructions. The Syntax Companion, ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 234-271. Oxford: Blackwell.

Newman, Paul. 1968. Ideophones from a syntactic point of view. In Journal of West African Linguistics, volume 2. 107-117.

Newmayer, Frederick. 2004. Some thoughts on the serial verb construction. Actes de l’atelier du 9 décembre 2004, EHESS, Paris. La notion de "construction verbale en série" est-elle opératoire? Fédération TUL. Online: http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1237

Nukolls, Janis. 1996. Sounds like life: sound-symbolic gramar, performance, and cognition in Pastaza Quechua. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ojutkangas, Krista. 1998. Asyndeettisistä verbi-ilmauksista suomalais-ugrilaisissa kielissä. Kieliopillistumisesta, analogiasta ja typologiasta, ed. by Anneli Pajunen, 110-143. Suomi 185. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.

Pursiainen, Raija. 1967. Verbaaliset koloratiivirakenteet Juhani Ahon tuotannossa. University of Helsinki: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Blackwell: Oxford.

Rytkönen, Arto. 1937. Koloratiivinen konstruktio. Virittäjä 41. 95-104.

Rääpysjärvi, Teija. 2005. Näkökulmia verbaaliseen koloratiivikonstruktioon. University of Oulu: unpublished Master’s thesis.

Sebba, Mark. 1987. The Syntax of Serial Verbs. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Sivula, Jaakko. 1990. Jolkuttelua ja sonninpolkuja: kuvailevia ilmauksia ja kuvailmauksia. In Sana kiertää: kirjoituksia suomen kielestä, ed. by Maija Länsimäki, 310-318. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 80.

Stewart, Osamuyimen. 2001. The Serial Verb Construction Parameter. New York / London: Garland.

Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Voeltz, K.F. Erhard and Christa Kilian-Hatz. 2001. Ideophones. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wurmbrand, Suzie. 2004. Two types of restructuring - lexical vs. functional. Lingua 114. 991- 1014.

Zwicky, Arnold. 1990. What are we talking about when we are talking about serial verbs? OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 1990. 1-13.

Data Sources

Eilenberger, Wolfram. 2010. Minun suomalainen vaimoni. Translated from German by Ilona Nykyri. Helsinki: Siltala. (Original Finnen von Sinnen published in 2010).

Hirvisaari, Laila. 2004. Kirjailija Unto Seppäsen syntymän 100-vuotisjuhla. Speech given in Kouvola 15.5.2004. Online: http://www.lailahirvisaari.net/laila_hirvisaari/kirjailija/fi_FI/puheita_1/_files/12223182820005906/default/hirvisaari_puhe_unto.pdf

Hirvisaari, Laila. 2011. Minä, Katariina. Helsinki: Otava.

Huovinen, Veikko. 1952. Havukka-ahon ajattelija. Helsinki: WSOY.

ISK = Hakulinen, Arto, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta

Heinonen, ja Irja Alho (eds.). 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura 950.

Johansson I Backe, Kerstin. 2002. Näkymätön Elina. Translated from Swedish by Kirsti Johansson. Helsinki: Otava. (Original Som om jag inte fanns published in 1978).

Kajo, Markus. 1992. Kettusen toinen tuleminen. Helsinki: WSOY.

Karjalainen, Elina. 1977. Uppo Nalle. Helsinki: WSOY.

-----. 1978. Uppo-Nallen talviturkki. Helsinki: WSOY.

Kivi, Aleksis. 1997. Seitsemän veljestä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 217. (Originally published 1870).

KS = Kielitoimiston sanakirja 2.0 2009. MOT. Kielikone Oy.

Kähkönen, Sirpa. 2007. Lakanasiivet. Helsinki: Seven.

Lander, Leena. 2010. Liekin lapset. Helsinki: Siltala.

Laxnes, Halldor. 1977. Salka Valka. Translated from Icelandic by Kristiina Kivivuori. Helsinki: Suuri Suomalainen Kirjakerho. (Original Salka Valka published in 1932).

Lehtolainen, Leena. 2011. Oikeuden jalopeura. Helsinki: Tammi.

London, Jack. 1970. Jeri: erään koiran seikkailuja Etelämerellä. Translated from English by Aune Toivanen. Helsinki: Otava – Maailman parhaita nuorisokirjoja. (Original Jerry of the Islands published in 1917).

-----. 1971. Jerin veli. Translated from English by Aune Toivanen. Helsinki: Otava – Maailman parhaita nuorisokirjoja. (Original Michael Brother of Jerry published in 1917).

Meri, Veijo. 1988. Peiliin piirretty nainen. Helsinki: Otava. (Originally published in 1963).

Mäkelä, Hannu. 1995. Mestari. Helsinki: Otava.

NS = 1996. Nykysuomen sanakirja, vol. 1-2. Unabridged 14th edition. Helsinki: WSOY.

Paasilinna, Arto. 1994. Elämä lyhyt Rytkonen pitkä. Helsinki: WSOY.

Pakkala, Teuvo. 2004. Elsa: kuvauksia elämästä. Project Gutenberg eBook #13733. (Original published in 1894).

Sillanpää, Frans E. 1988. Hurskas kurjuus. Helsinki: Otava. (Originally published in 1919).

Sinisalo, Johanna. 2003. Sankarit. Helsinki: Tammi.

Suhonen, Ville. 1999. Poika ja ilves. Helsinki: Seven.

Talvio, Maila. 1951. Kootut teokset X - Sydämet hiljentykäämme. Porvoo: WSOY. Tammi: Kirjat: Lasten ja nuorten kirjat. 2010. “Lodge, Jo. Metkat muodot: Hurja Kroko.” Online: http://www.tammi.fi/kirjat/ISBN/9789513156138

Tuominen, Pirjo. 1978. Mariaana. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä.

-----. 1985. Nukkeleikki. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä.

-----. 1990. Ruukinkartanon rouva. Helsinki: Tammi.

-----. 2011. Tuonelan Joutsen. Helsinki: Tammi.

Tykki, Ivan. 2008. Ripaskaa! Helsinki: Books on Demand GmbH.

Magazines:

Digilehti.

ET lehti.

Kaks Plus.

Kotiliesi.

Me Naiset.

Meidän perhe.

Newspapers:

Aamulehti.

Helsingin Sanomat.

Iltalehti.

Iltasanomat.

KMV-lehti.

Kouvolan Sanomat.

Loviisan Sanomat.

Satakunnan Kansa.

Savon Sanomat.

Uusi Suomi.

Author’s Contact Information:
Solveiga Armoskaite
University of Ottawa
solveiga.armoskaite@gmail.com

Päivi Koskinen
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
paivi.koskinen@kpu.ca

^[1]For numerous comments and discussions, we thank Erik Anonby, Lev Blumenfeld, Rose Marie Déchaine, Carol Lord, Kumiko Murasugi, Victor Manfredi, Martina Wiltschko, the participants of the Finno-Ugric Studies Association of Canada annual conference, the participants of the Canadian Linguistics Association annual conference and two anonymous reviewers. All the remaining errors are ours.

^[2]The following abbreviations are used throughout the paper:

Verbal suffixes: IdPh – ideophone; INF – A infinitive –(t)A ‘to Verb’; E-INF – E infinitive (used for time & manner expressions) -(t)e; PRES – present tense, unmarked; PAST – past tense -i; 1,2,3.SG & 1,2,3.PL – subject-verb agreement 1SG -n, 2SG -t, 3SG -V, 1PL -mme, 2PL -tte, 3PL -vAt Nominal suffixes: SG – Singular, unmarked; PL – Plural -t/-i ; POSS – Possessive suffixes 1SG -ni, 2SG -si, 1PL -mme, 2PL -tte, 3person -nsA (3rd person singular and plural possessive suffixes are identical and indicated with '3Poss'); NOM – Nominative,unmarked; PAR – Partitive -(t)A; ACC – Accusative (= non-partitive objects), unmarked or -n ; GEN – Genitive -n; INE – Inessive -ssA, 'in'; ELA – Elative -stA, 'from in'; ILL – Illative -Vn/-hin , 'to in'; ADE – Adessive -llA, 'on', 'at'; TRANS - Translative (change of state) -ksi, 'into'

Other: | – prosodic pause; ADJ – denominal adjectivizer -inen; V – denominal verbalizer -(An)tU

Note: The capital letters A and U indicate morphophonological variation between [a]/[ä] and [u]/[y], based on vowel harmony. For instance, the (first) infinitive suffix may be either -ta or - tä, as in juosta ‘to run’ or sylkäistä ‘to spit’. Further phonological processes apply to various suffixes. Discussion of these is beyond the scope of this paper.

^[3]Although not all ideophonic Vii’s can appear on their own.

^[4]See discussion in section 4.1 on the alternative approaches to Finnish colorative constructions.

^[5]Note that these criteria overlap, to an extent, with Aikhenvald’s (2006) generalizations. On one hand, Aikhenvald offers a larger number of more nuanced characteristics of SVC, but, on the other hand, her generalizations are also more tentative.

^[6]One of the anonymous reviewers points out that the assumptions on what constitutes a SVC may not be universally shared, which, in turn, could be a problem for our analysis of Finnish colorative constructions as SVC. We are aware of the controversies. Crucially, however, our assumptions are rooted in empirical tests. The tests may not work for all SVC languages, but we believe them to be the most widely accepted, theory-neutral diagnostics currently available.

^[7]This is contra Hakulinen & Karlsson (1979:234), who state that “the colorative construction is a lexicalized mold of an emphatic verbal construction”. It is not derived from its parts through productive syntactic rules.” We show that the use of the construction continues to be productive. With respect to a particular syntactic process involved, see discussion in section 4.3.

^[8]Airola (2007) looked at the constructions with ja in detail. The observed contrast between the constructions with ja and the constructions without ja shows that the two constructions should not be treated as same.

^[9]In some South-Western dialects it is grammatical to mark the same tense on both verbs of the SVC (cf. e.g. Kohtamäki 1936: 9, Ikola et al. 1989: 304; Jarva 2003: 76-77), although not so in Standard Finnish or the dialect we work on. Even so, the two verbs refer to a single event and are marked with the same tense. Since, however, this structure has not appeared in our corpus, we leave its analysis for future work.

^[10]After the negator, which in Finnish behaves like a verb in that it conjugates for subject-verb agreement, the past tense main verb appears in the past participle form.

^[11]The Finnish colorative construction has also been a somewhat popular topic for Masters thesis (cf. e.g. Iisa 1965, Havo 1966, Korhonen 1967, Pursiainen 1967, Haapamaki 1983, Sivula 1989, Kapanen 1990, Rääpysjärvi 2005, Gardemaister 2005, Heikkinen & Voutilainen 2009). These works, however, have focused on the stylistic value of the construction for the work of specific Finnish authors, and have not discussed its structure.