Choosing between zero and pronominal subject: modeling subject expression in the 1st person singular in Finnish conversation

References

Akaike, Hirotugu. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic control 19(6). 716–723.10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1). 65–87.10.1017/S0022226700011567Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 2004. Accessibility marking: Discourse functions, discourse profiles, and processing cues. Discourse Processes 37(2). 91–116.10.4324/9781315046105-2Search in Google Scholar

Arnold, Jennifer, Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco & Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of complexity and information structure on constituent ordering. Language 76(1). 28–55.10.1353/lan.2000.0045Search in Google Scholar

Arppe, Antti. 2006. Frequency considerations in morphology, revisited: Finnish verbs differ, too. In Mickael Suominen, Antti Arppe, Anu Airola, Orvokki Heinämäki, Matti Miestamo, Urho Määttä, Jussi Niemi, Kari K. Pitkänen & Kaius Sinnemäki (eds.), A man of measure. Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson in his 60th Birthday, Special Supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics 19. 175–189.Search in Google Scholar

Arppe, Antti. 2008. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography - a study of synonymy. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31.1: 1–13.10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Lee H. Wurm & Joanna Aycock. 2007. Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon 2(3). 419–463.10.1075/ml.2.3.06baaSearch in Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson, & D. M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 390–412.10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2010. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon 5(3). 436–561.10.1075/bct.47.10baaSearch in Google Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2011. Action, prosody and emergent constructions: The case of ‘and’. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 263–292. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229080.263Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, Steven Walker, Rune Haubo B. Christensen, Henrik Singmann & Bin Dai. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html (accessed 20 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Beaman, Karen. 1984. Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse, 45–80. Norwood: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering & Alexandra A. Cleland. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75(2). B13–B25.10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretations, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1). 168–213.10.1353/lan.0.0189Search in Google Scholar

Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Carvalho, Ana M., Rafael Orozco & Naomi Lapidus Shin (eds.). 2015. Subject pronoun expression in Spanish. A cross-dialectal perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jakob. 1983. The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement 7(3). 249–254.10.1177/014662168300700301Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1990. Standard Average European as an exotic language. In Johannes Bechert, Giuliano Bernini & Claude Buridant (eds.), Toward a typology of European languages, 3–8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110863178.3Search in Google Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar & Antti Arppe. 2013. Extracting prototypes from exemplars. What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 221–274.10.1515/cog-2013-0008Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A new approach to English grammar on semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Expression of pronominal subjects. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/101 (accessed 28 October 2014).Search in Google Scholar

Duvallon, Outi. 2006. Milloin pronominisubjekti jää pois puhutussa suomessa [When is pronominal subject omitted in spoken Finnish]. In Anneli Pajunen & Hannu Tommola (eds.), XXXII Kielitieteen päivät Tampereella, 203–217. Tampere: Tampere UP.Search in Google Scholar

Endo, Tomoko. 2010. Epistemic stance marker as a disagreement preface: wo juede ‘I feel/think’ in Mandarin conversation in response to assessments. Kyoto University Linguistic Research 29. 43–76.Search in Google Scholar

Endo, Tomoko. 2013. Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of wo juede ‘I think’. In Yuling Pan & Daniel Kádár (eds.), Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice, 12–34. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Erker, Daniel & Gregory Guy. 2012. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language 88(3). 526–557.10.1353/lan.2012.0050Search in Google Scholar

Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1). 29–62.10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29Search in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda. 1991. Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language 30(2). 210–233.10.1016/0749-596X(91)90004-4Search in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Victor S. 2003. The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language 48(2). 379–398.10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00523-5Search in Google Scholar

Garnham, Alan, Jane Oakhill & Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 1982. Referential continuity and the coherence of discourse. Cognition 11(1). 29–46.10.1016/0010-0277(82)90003-8Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 1–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language 15(2). 335–370.10.1075/sl.15.2.05givSearch in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4). 227–294.10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–125.10.3366/cor.2015.0068Search in Google Scholar

Hacohen, Gonen & Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2006. On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8). 1305–1312.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004Search in Google Scholar

Harrell, Frank E., Jr. 2001. Regression modeling strategies. With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1Search in Google Scholar

Harrell, Frank E., Jr. 2014. rms: Regression modeling strategies. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rms/index.html (accessed 20 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Hasher, Lynn & Rose T. Zacks. 1984. Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence. American Psychologist 39(12). 1372–1388.10.1037/0003-066X.39.12.1372Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.9Search in Google Scholar

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2004. Shared syntax: The grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 36(8). 1315–1336.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007Search in Google Scholar

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2014a. Searching for motivations for grammatical patterns. Pragmatics 24(3). 453–476.10.1075/prag.24.3.02helSearch in Google Scholar

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2014b. Agreement or crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and verbs of cognition in Finnish conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 63. 63–78.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.011Search in Google Scholar

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2014c. Jotta suomalaiset voisivat puhua enemmän. Puhetilanteen osallistujat tekstiviestikeskustelussa [So that Finns could speak more: Speech act participants in text message interaction]. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson & Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (eds.), Kieli verkossa. Näkökulmia digitaaliseen vuorovaikutukseen, 29–49. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Search in Google Scholar

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2014d. Subjektin ilmaiseminen verkkojuttelussa [Subject expression in chat interaction]. Paper presented at the conference Kielitieteen päivät, University of Turku, May 9, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2014e. Arkisyn: A morphosyntactically coded database of conversational Finnish. Paper presented at the seminar on Conversational corpora. Center of Excellence on Research on Intersubjectivity, University of Helsinki, September 10, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Thirteenth annual meeting, Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS). 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1988. Emergent grammar and the A Priori Grammar postulate. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Linguistics in Context, 117–134. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar

Hothorn, Torsten, Frank Bretz, Peter Westfall, Richard M. Heiberger & Andre Schuetzenmeister. 2014. multcomp: Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/multcomp/index.html (accessed 20 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Huumo, Tuomas. 2010. Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object. Journal of Linguistics 46(1). 83–125.10.1017/S0022226709990223Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 434–446.10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1). 23–62.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian & Neal E. Snider. 2013. Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1). 57–83.10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013Search in Google Scholar

Jia, Li & Robert Bayley. 2002. Null pronoun variation in Mandarin Chinese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 8(3): 103–116.Search in Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2007. Position, prosody, and scope: The case of English comment clauses. Vienna English Working Papers 16(1). 3–38.Search in Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.115Search in Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.08karSearch in Google Scholar

Keevallik, Leelo. 2003. From interaction to grammar. Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia,vol. 34. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kravtchenko, Ekaterina. 2014. Predictability and syntactic production: Evidence from subject omission in Russian. Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. 785–790.Search in Google Scholar

Kramer, C. Y. 1956. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated adjusted means. Biometrics 13. 13–18.10.2307/3001898Search in Google Scholar

Lappalainen, Hanna. 2004. Variaatio ja sen funktiot. Erään sosiaalisen verkoston jäsenten kielellisen variaation ja vuorovaikutuksen tarkastelua [Variation and its functions: The analysis of linguistic variation and interaction among members of a social network]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Search in Google Scholar

Laury, Ritva & Shigeko Okamoto. 2011. Teyuuka and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and English. In Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, 209–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.24.10lauSearch in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. Optimizing person reference – perspectives from usage on Rossel Island. In Nick J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives, 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486746.004Search in Google Scholar

Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3). 1126–1177.10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006Search in Google Scholar

Lindström, Liina, Mervi Kalmus, Anneliis Klaus, Liisi Bakhoff & Karl Pajusalu. 2009. Ainsuse 1. isikule viitamine eesti murretes [The first person singular reference in Estonian dialects]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 54. 159–185.Search in Google Scholar

Meriläinen, Hanna. 2011. Yksikön ensimmäisen persoonan muotojen käyttö IRC-keskusteluissa [The use of first person singular forms in IRC chats]. Turku: University of Turku MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Orozco, Rafael. 2015. Pronominal variation in Colombian Costeño Spanish. In Ana M. Carvalho, Rafael Orozco & Naomi L. Shin (eds.), Subject pronoun expression in Spanish: A cross-dialectal perspective, 17–37. Washington, D C: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pajunen, Anneli. 2001. Argumenttirakenne [Argument structure]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Search in Google Scholar

Posio, Pekka. 2011. Spanish subject pronoun usage and verb semantics revisited: First and second person singular subject pronouns and focusing of attention in spoken Peninsular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 777–798.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.012Search in Google Scholar

Posio, Pekka. 2014. Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: The case of creo and acho ‘I think’ in Spanish and Portuguese. Journal of Pragmatics 63. 5–18.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.001Search in Google Scholar

R Development Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org (accessed 20 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey & Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Search in Google Scholar

Sankoff, David. 1988. Variable rules. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar & Klaus J. Mattheier (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 2, 984–997. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of view and grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.11Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica 33(2). 225–251.10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.225Search in Google Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10.18sorSearch in Google Scholar

Sternberg, Saul, Stephen Monsell, Ronald L. Knoll & Charles E. Wright. 1978. The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning, 117–152. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-665960-3.50011-6Search in Google Scholar

Strellman, Urpu. 2005. Persoonapronominin liikakäyttö: Normin synty ja muotoutuminen [The overuse of personal pronouns: The birth and formation of a norm]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Sulkala, Helena & Merja Karjalainen. (1992). Finnish. Descriptive grammars. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Sun, Chao & Talmy Givón. 1985. On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications. Language 61(2). 329–351.10.2307/414148Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsányi, Benedikt M. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Gérald Purnelle, Cédrick Fairon & Anne Dister (eds.), 7th international conference on textual data statistical analysis, 1032–1039. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Search in Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen. 2012. Model, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178.10.1017/S0954394512000129Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1987. Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language 63(3).574–605.10.1017/CBO9780511618987.004Search in Google Scholar

Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.5Search in Google Scholar

Tao, Hongyin. 2001. Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember. In Rita C. Simpson & John M. Swales (eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America, 116–144. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1998. A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. In Anna Siewierska & Jung Jae Song (eds.), Case, typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake, 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.38.17thoSearch in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4). 481–505.10.1177/1461445605054403Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergency of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.03thoSearch in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2, 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.2.16thoSearch in Google Scholar

Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Catherine E. Travis. 2011. Testing convergence via code-switching: Priming and the structure of variable subject expression. International Journal of Bilingualism 15(3). 241–267.10.1177/1367006910371025Search in Google Scholar

Travis, Catherine E. 2007. Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19(2). 101–135.10.1017/S0954394507070081Search in Google Scholar

Travis, Catherine E. & Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2012. What do subject pronouns do in discourse? Cognitive, mechanical and constructional factors in variation. Cognitive Linguistics 23(4). 711–748.10.1515/cog-2012-0022Search in Google Scholar

Travis, Catherine E. & Amy Lindstrom. 2016. Different registers, different grammars? Subject expression in English conversation and narrative. Language Variation and Change 28(1): 103–128.10.1017/S0954394515000174Search in Google Scholar

Tukey, John W. 1994 [1953]. The problem of multiple comparisons. Unpublished manuscript. In Henry I. Braun (ed.), The collected works of John W. Tukey. Multiple Comparisons: 1948–1983, vol. VIII, 1–300. New York: Chapman and Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Väänänen, Milja. 2016. Subjektin ilmaiseminen yksikön 1. persoonassa. Tutkimus suomen vanhoista murteista. [Subject expression in the first person singular. A study of the old Finnish dialects.] Turku: University of Turku dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Standford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Zuur, Alain F. Elena N. Ieno & Chris S. Elphick. 2010. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1(1). 3–14.10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.xSearch in Google Scholar

Zuur, Alain F. Elena N. Ieno, Neil J. Walker, Anatoly A. Saveliev & Graham M. Smith. 2011. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer.Search in Google Scholar