Polyseeminen "vaikka" ja neuvottelun retoriikka / Polysemic forms of "vaikka " and the rhetoric of negotiation

Polysemic forms of vaikka and the rhetoric of negotiation (englanti) 2/2006 (110) Polysemic forms of vaikka and the rhetoric of negotiation The article analyses the use of the Finnish lexeme vaikka ([al]though but also even if, say, for example and on the other hand, indeed) in spoken Finnish, and especially in certain planning and negotiating situations. The forms in which this lexeme occur are described as facilitators of argumentation based on concessiveness. The writer applies the cardinal concessive schema of Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (2000): In negotiations this schema is used to modify, weaken or contradict statement X and to confirm counter statement Y. The writer hypothesises that the different polysemes of the Finnish lexeme vaikka have a potential role at every stage of the cardinal concessive three-part sequence. She refers to the different types of occurrence of vaikka in the rhetoric of negotiation as follows: The utterance particle vaikka1 marks a clause or a sentence with which the speaker presents a proposal. A proposal thus marked leaves space for alternative solutions. In example 3 vaikka [niin] is now in the position of an approval. This vaikka differs from the utterance particle not only in terms of sequence but also syntactically. It expresses affirmatory approval of the preceding turn. It is thus prototypically in the position of a concessive clause. The examples demonstrate the potential mobility of the lexeme vaikka. Based on this analysis, the writer puts forward a grammaticalisation hypothesis: that the conjunction vaikka has been used syntactically as an utterance particle in conversation. In negotiations it is typical that a compromise proposal is formulated as a concessive compound structure in which elements of the preceding conversation are deposited in a vaikka clause. The aim of the participants in the condensed business negotiation given below is to decide whether or not to begin the new project proposed by K2. The conversation participants are K2, B, F and A. The polysemic forms of vaikka differ from each other on the basis of whether they are connected with the speakers own proposal or a presupposed view put forward earlier in the conversation. The utterance particle vaikka1 marks the speakers own voice, the concessive conjunction vaikka2 marks an epistemically familiar idea, and the concessive particle vaikka3 (e.g. Mennn junalla. Vaikka yhteydet ovat kyll huonot. Lets go by train. Although the connections certainly arent good.) marks the speakers own voice in relation to a preceding proposal, often his/her own.peerReviewe