Suomen ja viron U- ja ne-verbijohdosten käytön vertailua

Comparison of the use of verb derivatives with the suffixes U and ne in Finnish and Estonian (englanti)3/1997 (101)Krista Ojutkangas (Department of Finnish and General Linguistics (University of Turku); krioju@utu.fi)COMPARISON OF THE USE OF VERB DERIVATIVES WITH THE SUFFIXES -U- AND -NE- IN FINNISH AND ESTONIAN In the article the writer examines verb derivatives with the suffixes -U- and -ne- in Finnish and Estonian and one Estonian periphrastic expression of change. Since the strict division of U-derivatives into those with verbal roots and those with nominal roots is often artificial, especially in Finnish, correlations are central to this examination. Correlations are analogical relationships based on meaning, form and function between U-derivatives, other verbs and nominals. On the basis of correlations the language user can make connections between derivatives and non-derivatives. Correlations direct the recall and understanding of words and the formation of new derivatives. Correlations between word groups are typical of proportional analogy. Although analogy is a factor that increases regularity in a language, it is also irregular in that it does not operate everywhere that it could; for example, gaps may remain in a derivational paradigm. A key feature of U-derivatives is that they can function with an agentive or a non-agentive meaning; this can also be investigated using correlations.In examining U-derivatives the division into verbs expressing agentive and non-agentive change is sufficient. The reason for this is that the primary function of non-agentive derivatives is to give a linguistic form to an event from the viewpoint of the undergoer of change, and to shift the instigator of change into the background. A further division according to the instigator of change (e.g. into passives and automatives) is, from this point of view, unnecessary.The material used for the article consists of verbs and their contexts taken from literature. The differences between the verb derivation systems of Finnish and Estonian are clear from the material: amongst the derivatives examined Finnish has one additional productive group, typically the reflexive UtU-derivatives. Generally there are fewer structural restrictions on verb derivation in Finnish than in Estonian, and the U-derivatives are also a more productive type in Finnish than in Estonian. Of the change derivatives only ne-verbs are derived more productively and from more roots in Estonian than in Finnish. In Estonian, the relationships between derivatives and roots are clearer than in Finnish, because the derivational suffix variants and combinations are fewer, ne-verbs are always vowel-stemmed and the concern over language use in this area has stressed strict economy. In Finnish, derivational relationships are more open to different interpretations than in Estonian, because there are more derivational suffix variants and hence the amount of parallel derivatives with approximately similar meanings is greater. In other words, the correlational networks of derivatives are more extensive in Finnish than in Estonian. Estonian uses periphrastic expressions of change formed by a non-derivative verb and its modifier to a greater extent (at least in the written form) than Finnish