Workshops

Organizers: Heidi Niva (University of Helsinki), Tarja Heinonen (Kotus), Anton Granvik (University of Helsinki) sekä Konstruktiokielioppipiiri (University of Helsinki)

Workshop program (will be updated)

Workshop description

Within the framework of construction grammar, creativity has recently been examined in many publications (e.g., Hoffmann & Turner 2025; Vartiainen & Säily (eds.) 2025; Hartman & Ungerer 2023; Bergs & Kompa 2020; Goldberg 2019). The phenomenon has focused particularly on syntactic structures and word formation. Explanations for new or unusual sentence structures and clever word combinations have been sought in both human cognitive mechanisms and the social nature of language. At the same time, consideration has been given to what creativity in grammar is on a conceptual level and how it relates to e.g. productivity and conventionalization. For example, a distinction has been made between so-called F-creativity (fixed creativity) and E-creativity (extending creativity) (Bergs 2019; Sampson 2016). F-creativity refers to linguistic creativity in which new expressions are created according to existing patterns in a language, while E-creativity breaks and thus expands the conventions upheld within a given linguistic community. F-creativity is therefore conventional while E-creativity is creativity that transcends existing conventions. An example of the former could be the neologism mummue ‘collective of grandmas’, which The Institute for the Languages of Finland presents as one of its word picks for 2025. Another would be pinkero ‘pink lonkero’ (a pink coloured long drink, typical in Finland)? The structure koska + N ‘because N’ (En mennyt elokuviin koska sade I didn’t go to the movies because the rain’), which occurs in informal language use, might be considered a case of E-creativity – or can it? What kind of creativity is involved in expressions where the speaker unknowingly stretches the boundaries of other speakers’ linguistic intuitions, for example with an unusual agreement patterns as in (mulla särkee päähän ‘My hade aches’)?

Playing with language and fictional language use that breaks existing norms are of course age-old phenomena. Relating creativity to grammar and language use more broadly is nothing new in itself, nor is it limited to a specific frame of reference: numerous studies dealing with language learning and language change, for example, are related in some way to the human ability to use language innovatively. Can new and interesting observations still be made about the relationship between creativity and grammar?

We invite researchers interested in creativity and grammar from different theoretical backgrounds and research languages to participate in our workshop. In the workshop, we will examine creativity through the following questions:

• What is creativity in the context of grammar on a conceptual level?
• What defines linguistic creativity?
• Where are the boundaries between productivity and creativity on the one hand, and creativity and conventionality on the other?
• Are syntactic and lexical innovations different in nature?
• Is creative grammar an intentional activity on the part of the language user, or can it also be unintentional?
• Is the experience of grammatical creativity shared across the entire language community?
• What methods and materials can be used to examine creativity in grammar?

Other perspectives on grammar and creativity are also welcome.

References

Bergs, Alexander 2019: What, if anything, is linguistic creativity? Gestalt Theory 41:2, 173–183.

Bergs, Alexander & Kompa, Nikola 2020: Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics 13:1, 1–21.

Goldberg, Adele 2019: Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hartmann, Stefan & Ungerer, Tobias 2024: Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics 60:3, 599–634.

Hoffmann, Thomas & Turner, Mark 2025: Creative Construction Grammar. Elements in Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, Geoffrey 2016: Two ideas of creativity. Martin Hinton (toim.) Evidence. Experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language, 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.

Vartiainen, Turo & Säily, Tanja (toim.) 2025: Constructional approaches to creativity and productivity in English. Special Issue 2. English Language & Linguistics. Vol. 29: 2.

Organizers: Riku Erkkilä, Niko Partanen & Susanna Virtanen (University of Helsinki)

Workshop program (abstract will be updated)

• Olesya Khanina (University of Helsinki) & Andrey Shluinsky (Humbold Universität zu Berlin): Tracing a long path to the Enets corpus: between fieldwork and legacy data
• Elena Lazarenko (Universität Hamburg), Aleksandr Riaposov (Universität Hamburg): The INEL corpora of indigenous Northern Eurasian languages: current technical challenges and solutions
• Timofey Arkhangelskiy (University of Hamburg), Nikolai Anisimov (Estonian Literary Museum) & Tatiana Anisimova (University of Tartu): Udmurt dialectal corpora: What, how, and for whom?
• Niko Partanen (University of Helsinki), Jack Rueter (University of Helsinki) & Kristiina Ojala (University of Helsinki): From text collections to modern language corpora: Technical considerations and lessons learned
• Riku Erkkilä (Helsingin yliopisto): Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran julkaisemat aineistot korpuksina
• Susanna Virtanen (Tartu Ülikool & Helsingin yliopisto): Kannisto, Munkácsi ja muut – mansin kielen tutkijan digitaaliset aineistot
• Timofey Arkhangelskiy (University of Hamburg) & Maria Brykina (University of Hamburg): Metadata handling in the INEL project

Workshop description

This workshop focuses on the current state of, and challenges related to, the digitalization and online publication of fieldwork corpora on Finno-Ugric minority languages. What are the most suitable ways to make such materials digitally available for contemporary research, and other potential uses, is a very broad question for which all solutions have certainly not yet been explored. For decades, especially minority languages spoken in Russia were studied using folkloric collections or other corpora gathered by fieldworkers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Over the past few decades, many of these corpora have been actively digitized and published online, while new corpora are also being collected and published. This also introduces an important historical dimension to these materials. 

The older collections from Finno-Ugric languages represent a wealth of important material which is nowadays unavailable due to changes in the languages, speech communities, and political atmosphere. The text collections typically include material from older speakers (at the time of collecting, i.e., from the 19th century), and texts from multiple dialects, aiming to represent primarily the spoken language. Therefore, their digitization is a worthwhile goal. However, this goal is not straightforward: The collections are published as printed books with differing and sometimes quite complicated transcriptions. The printed volumes must be scanned and manually proofread. Optical Character Recognition must be applied to them before they are accessible digitally in any meaningful way. Even then, the collections lack annotation and other properties typical for modern corpora. This means that the digitization process requires work of specialists, which, in turn, needs funding. The acquisition of funding for digitization might not be easy to get, as the importance of the work frequently escapes the funders. It is thus imperative to come up with reasonable arguments for the digitization, or even explore other possibilities, like coupling the digitization with separate research projects. What types of combined digitization and research projects would best offer the needed synergies and mutual benefits is also not a question with obvious answers. 

Digitization as a process, financial questions, copyright-related issues, and various practical challenges have arisen. The aim of the workshop is to bring together knowledge both about available materials and about challenges and solutions related to digitization processes. Papers on any Finno-Ugric minority language are welcome. Both historical and recently collected corpora are accepted. We invite contributions on the following topics: 

• practices, challenges, and financing of digitization processes 
• publishing corpora and creating digital environments 
• copyright and other legal issues 
• accessibility and usability of corpora 

Languages of the workshop: English and Finnish. 

Organizers: Sonja Dahlgren, Sami Honkasalo, Seppo Kittilä & Chingduang Yurayong (University of Helsinki)

Workshop program (abstracts open from this link)

• Introduction to the workshop
• Sonja Dahlgren (Helsingin yliopisto): Sodan puheet
• Sami Honkasalo, Seppo Kittilä & Chingduang Yurayong (Helsingin yliopisto): Kieli, valta ja propaganda: pohdintoja diskursiivisista keinoista vallan rakentamisessa
• Richard Kerbs (University of Helsinki): Encoding agency and perspective in Sgaw Karen news reporting on the Myanmar conflict
• Hanna Laitinen (Helsingin yliopisto): Huomioita Ruotsin, Suomen ja Naton yhteistyöstä ennen maiden liittymistä Natoon
• Max Wahlström (Helsingin yliopisto): ”Vetoamme teihin, Vladimir Vladimirovič” – Kirjeitä vallalle sosiaalisen median aikakaudella
• Final discussion

Workshop description

In the workshop, we will examine the linguistic means used in the use of power. Language, the use of power and authority are linked to each other, and are strongly visible in, for example, wartime news, propaganda and political manipulation. In crisis situations, the use of sharp language is emphasized. Propaganda has also been studied in relation to the war in Ukraine (studies by, for example, Mats Bergman, University of Helsinki). In addition to propaganda, we wish to focus on what language use is like on different language levels in other acute crisis situations. What kind of linguistic features do motivational speeches have that encourage fearful young men to rush into battle, where they may die? And what kind of phonetics and prosody does an autocrat produce who, based on a mere security threat, makes their subjects obey their orders? Even more interesting is whether these means differ from each other in, for example, democracies and authoritarian cultures. In their study of Central Asian languages, Yurayong et al. (2025) noted that, for example, adverbs of frequency (e.g. always; never) can be utilized as tools of power and authority in discourse.

On the conceptual (or philosophical) level, however, Western (democratic) cultures seem to emphasize the importance of freedom so strongly that on lexical level, it has even been borrowed into fiction (The Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, etc.). The theme seems to be a direct continuation from antiquity, which has produced examples of encouragement, even into world literature, for citizens to go to war – most often to preserve independence. The language of the Athenian Demosthenes in his Philippic Speeches seeks to direct citizens to war against the rising superpower Macedonia through lexical manipulation: 

“When, Athenians, will you take the necessary action? What are you waiting for? Until you are compelled, I presume. – – – For my own part I think that for a free people there can be no greater compulsion than shame for their position. – – – Could there be any news more startling than that a Macedonian is triumphing over Athenians and settling the destiny of Hellas?” (Philippic 1, 4 10; English translation by J. H. Vince 1930) 

Demosthenes appeals to the listeners’ sense of shame and also explicitly raises an important concept in times of war, freedom, and the possibility of losing it if action is not taken in time. Similar echoes can also be seen in the European societal debate regarding the broader threat posed by Russia after the end of the war in Ukraine, and more historically in Hitler’s speeches. Hitler’s commemoration of the Treaty of Versailles is accompanied by the same rhetoric of shame. 

“Roskaväen häpäiseminä ja kivittäminä Saksan valtuutetut laahattiin kuin vangit – – – voittajien tuomioistuimen eteen. Ja siellä heidät pakotettiin – – – hyväksymään häpeällisin alistuminen ja riistäminen, mitä milloinkaan on tapahtunut”  

(“The German delegates were insulted by the mob, stones were thrown at them, and they were taken like prisoners – – – before the tribunal of the victors – – – [they] were forced to accept the most shameful subjection and plundering in history.” (English translation by Weber 2020)) 

Interestingly, the Finnish quote also involves the translator’s taking the liberty of changing the original passive verbs into agent participles and translating the vocabulary more boldly than in the original text, so that shame is emphasized (originally beschimpfen ‘to insult, scold, accuse’; translated ‘to shame’; Lindblom 2000: 97-98). Propaganda often involves manipulative language use in vocabulary, but there are also other linguistic means of influence, such as topicalization or repetition; e.g. Churchill “…we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…”).

We welcome papers that examine the phenomenon from all areas of language: vocabulary, morphosyntax, phonology (phonetics), semantics/pragmatics, discourse. Topics to be explored may include, but are not limited to:

• How is manipulative language visible  
• in politics, between genders, and/or in Finnish/European war debate? 
• Is there a hierarchy between the subject levels, even though they are often lumped together? For example, in the Ukraine-positive news coverage in the Finnish media, no one is striving for power, even though it may be an attempt at influence. 
• Are there differences in the language use between democratic and non-democratic actors? 
• How is manipulative language reflected in different levels of language (e.g. prosody, vocabulary, morphosyntax, pragmatics)? 
• How is manipulation etc. visible in literature or translations? 

References 

Lindblom, Katri. 2000. Kääntäminen, ideologia ja kääntämisen ideologia: kuinka Hitler vastaa Rooseveltille suomeksi? MA dissertation, Tampereen yliopisto. 

Vince, James Herbert. 1930. Demosthenes I: Orations I-XVII. Demosthenes with an English translation by J. H. Vince, M.A. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1930. 

Weber, Mark (ed.). 2020. Hitler Answers Roosevelt: The German Leader’s Reply to the American President’s Public Challenge. Institute for Historical Review. 

Yurayong, Chingduang, Sami Honkasalo & Seppo Kittilä. 2025 Frequency adverbs and authority of knowledge in Altaic languages of Central Asia. Proceedings of the 17th Seoul International Altaistic Conference. Seoul: The Altaic Society of Korea. 79–114.

Organizers: Saila Järvinen, Aino Koivisto, Ilona Lindh and Linda Nurmi (UH)

Workshop program (abstracts will be updated)

• Ida Henritius: Referointi henkilökuvauksen keinona elämäkerrassa
• Saila Järvinen: Sanomatonta sanoittamassa: toteutumattoman puheen esitys arkikerronnassa
• Ilona Lindh: Kieltenvälinen puheen rekontekstualisointi kerronnallisessa tietokirjallisuudessa
• Linda Nurmi & Aino Koivisto: Puheen esityksen multimodaalisuus Raija Siekkisen tuotannossa
• Pekka Posio: Referoinnista evaluointiin: suoran esityksen muodot ja funktiot puhutussa espanjassa
• Milla Uusitupa: ”Ne o paljo parempia ku oma kyläläiset” – vieraalla äänellä esitetyt kannanotot murrehaastatteluaineistossa

Workshop description

The linguistic forms and functions of reported discourse have been a long-standing interest for linguists. Discourse presentation has been examined in both spoken and written language, and it has also served as a meeting point for linguistics, literary criticism, and stylistics (Leech & Short 2007 [1981]; see also Koivisto & Nykänen 2013; Tiittula & Nuolijärvi 2013). It is a phenomenon that permeates language use and can shed light on various discursive and interactional as well as grammatical and semantic issues. Research on the reporting of speech, thought, and writing has the potential to open perspectives on diverse types of materials: e.g., conversational data, fiction and non-fiction, expository texts, blogs, social media discussions, and journalistic texts in written and audio formats.

Since the 1990s, Finnish research has primarily addressed textual and pragmatic aspects of reported speech. Recently, studies have explored its practices and functions in various genres, such as journalistic texts (Haapanen 2017), school essays (Paldanius 2019), travel literature (Lindh 2021), and non-fiction (Vitikka 2023). Interest has also grown in the relationship between types of speech representation and the construction of narrative meanings (Peltola 2023; Järvinen 2025; Nurmi 2025). Approaches are diverse: interactional linguistics, systemic-functional and cognitive frameworks, sociolinguistic and discourse-analytic perspectives, second language acquisition, and methods from text studies and conversation analysis.

Twenty years after the anthology Referointi ja moniäänisyys (Haakana & Kalliokoski 2005), we examine what Finnish research on reported discourse, intertextuality, and polyphony looks like in the 2020s. We invite all those interested in reported speech, writing, and thought to present their research, which may address the theme in different languages, theoretical frameworks, and types of data. Topics may include references to other texts or speech events, signaling and managing polyphony in discourse, forms and functions of quoting in narratives, or strategies for recontextualizing prior speech or discourse in spoken, signed, or written language.

The workshop will consist of 15–20-minute presentations followed by a concluding discussion. The main working language will be Finnish, but presentations may also be given in Swedish or English. Please send proposals by 6 February to Saila Järvinen ([email protected]).

References:

Haakana, Markku & Kalliokoski, Jyrki (toim.) 2005: Referointi ja moniäänisyys. Tietolipas 206. Helsinki: SKS.

Haapanen, Lauri 2017: Quoting practices in written journalism. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.

Järvinen, Saila 2025: Dramaattinen suora esitys käsitteistyksenä ja kerrontana. Dissertationes Universitatis Helsingiensis 425/2025. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.

Koivisto, Aino & Nykänen, Elise (toim.) 2013: Dialogi kaunokirjallisuudessa. Tietolipas 242. Helsinki: SKS.

Leech, Geoffrey N. & Short, Michael H. 2007 [1981]: Style in fiction. A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. 2., uudistettu painos. London: Longman.

Lindh, Ilona 2021: Matkasta kertomus. Kielen ja kerronnan keinot omakohtaisessa matkakertomuksessa. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.

Nurmi, Linda 2025: Vapaa suora esitys ja puheäänen ruumiillistuminen Marguerite Durasin romaanissa Les Yeux bleus cheveux noirs. – Kirjallisuudentutkimuksen aikakauslehti Avain 22 (4), 24–41.

Paldanius, Hilkka 2019: Selostuksesta tulkintoihin: aineistojen esittäminen lukiolaisten historian esseissä. – Virittäjä 123, 347–372.

Peltola, Rea 2023: Verbalizing animal inner speech. – Journal of Pragmatics 2017, 109–122.

Tiittula, Liisa & Nuolijärvi, Pirkko (toim.) 2013: Puheen illuusio suomenkielisessä kaunokirjallisuudessa. Helsinki: SKS.

Vitikka, Elina 2023: Referointi rajatyönä. Virheellisten terveysväitteiden kumoaminen tietokirjallisuudessa. – Sananjalka 65, 173–195.

Organizers: Leena Kolehmainen & Tiina Onikki-Rantajääskö (UH)

Workshop program (abstracts open from this link)

• Workshop organizers: Workshop opening
• Language policy in families
  • Tuulia Suvanto: Äidinmaito vai avain? Kieli-ideologiat ja metaforat baskin ylläpitämiseen liittyvissä kampanjoissa
  • Polina Vorobeva: The becoming of family language policy: tracing transformations of language ideologies and identities through the mothers’ perezhivaniya
• Language education policy
  • Satu Koistinen: Kielellinen ja kulttuurinen moninaisuus perusopetuksen vieraan kielen opetussuunnitelmassa
  • Hanna Lantto: ”Todistusvalinnassa huomioidaan harvoin lyhyitä kieliä, joten niiden kirjoittaminen olisi yhtä tyhjän kanssa” – Abiturienttien näkemyksiä todistusvalinnan vaikutuksista vieraiden kielten opiskeluun
  • Ilja Moshnikov: Karjalaksi opettamisesta Itä-Suomen yliopistossa: opetussuunnitelmasta ruohonjuuritason kielenkäyttöön
  • Leena Kolehmainen, Philipp Krämer & Ulrike Vogl: Yliopistot kielikoulutuspoliittisina toimijoina: vieraat kielet tiedeorganisaatioiden talousmittareiden viitekehyksessä
• Institutional language policy
  • Paula Heikkinen: Kielipolitiikkaa ja välittämisen tiloja ‒ yksikielisen seurakunnan monikielinen arki
• The role of languages ​​in society
  • Niko Tynnyrinen: Karjalan kielen institutionaalisen tuen edistysaskeleet ja niiden vastaanotto
  • Lotta Jalava: Vähemmistökielipolitiikan ideologioita ja periaatteita Suomessa ja kansainvälisesti
  • Jan Lindström: Hållbar svenska – kestävää ruotsia?
  • Tiina Onikki-Rantajääskö: Mitä suomen kielen selvityksen jälkeen?
• Hannele Dufva ja Pirkko Nuolijärvi: Commentary and discussion

Workshop description

Language policy refers broadly to the planning and measures of various micro-, meso-, and macro-level actors that affect languages, their status, and their use in different areas of society. For individuals and families, language policy often means unconscious silent agreements that affect the use of different languages at the grassroots level. Outside the private sphere, measures implemented by other actors in public administration, education, and the workplace promote or hinder individuals’ linguistic rights, equal participation, and the accessibility, cultural and economic sustainability, or democracy of society.

In this workshop, the participants share expertise on a broad range of topics and exchange perspectives on the current language situation and language policy in Finland. What problems exist at different levels and in different areas of language policy? How should these problems be solved, and by whom? What common goals do the various parties have, and what potential conflicts exist within the society?

The workshop aims to promote dialogue between researchers of domestic and foreign languages. Perspectives will cover key areas of language policy, including language planning, language education policy, translation policy, linguistic measures in institutions and working life, and minority and endangered languages.

Presentations may be given in Finnish, Swedish, English, or another language if necessary.

The workshop program consists of a) presentations by researchers on various aspects of language policy and different languages and b) final comments by invited researchers.

Organizers: Jenni Räikkönen (University of Helsinki), Kirsi Sandberg (Tampere University) & Eero Voutilainen (University of Helsinki) 

Workshop program (abstracts will be updated)

• Kimmo Elo: ”RollingLDA” työkaluna topiikkien pitkän aikavälin muutosten havainnoimiseksi: esimerkkinä eduskuntakeskustelut perusoikeuksiin liittyen 1960–2025
• Johanna Isosävi & Eero Voutilainen: Välihuutojen tutkiminen pöytäkirjojen avulla: vertailussa Suomen eduskunta, Ranskan Assemblée nationale ja Saksan Bundestag
• Anna Ristilä: Topics, Languages, and Emotions in Finnish Parliamentary Plenary Speech: A Topic Landscape Perspective
• Krista Leipivaara: Tasa-arvoiseen kielenkäyttöön liittyvät kieli-ideologiat: aineistona Belgian, Ranskan ja Sveitsin parlamenttien keskustelupöytäkirjat
• Janne Kröger: Metapragmaattinen tietoisuus ja metapragmaattinen regimentaatio tulokulmina diskurssiin: tapaukset ”Ermächtigung” ja ”Ausnahmezustand” Saksan liittopäivien koronatoimidebateissa
• Leena Manninen: Sananvapausdiskurssit kansanedustajien täysistuntopuheenvuoroissa vuosina 2023–2025
• Päivikki Karhula: Täysistuntojen puheenvuorojen käyttö avoimena datana eduskunnan uudistetussa verkkopalvelussa
• Jenni Räikkönen: Vastuu Suomen eduskunnan ja Iso-Britannian parlamentin alahuoneen puheenvuoroissa 2020–2025
• Kirsi Sandberg: Parlamentaarisen retoriikan muutoksen tutkiminen täysistuntopöytäkirjoista: yhdyssanat ajassa, hallituksessa ja oppositiossa
• Eero Voutilainen: Täysistuntopöytäkirjat aineistona vuorovaikutuksen normien ja ohjailun tutkimuksessa

Workshop description

Parliamentary speeches and contributions to plenary debates are at the core of representative democracy. These speeches can reach a wide audience, and for this reason the linguistic choices made in them can shape our worldview and how society functions (van Dijk 1995). Furthermore, plenary sessions with the variety of institutional speech types given in them form a deliberative genre of its own – one that is characterised by norms and rules, various simultaneous audiences as well as a range of rhetorical goals (cf. Ilie 2017).

Globally, parliamentary corpora have been widely used in linguistic studies, while such studies utilising data from the plenary sittings of the Finnish Parliament are still scarce (Sandberg 2025). The existing body of research on parliamentary speeches given in the Finnish parliament is published mainly in social sciences. The digitised data of the Finnish parliamentary sessions that researchers can now use is extensive and spans a long historical time period. Furthermore, video recordings of the sessions of the last few decades are available for a more detailed speech analysis.

Linguistic analysis of parliamentary data can shed light on the specialised language of parliamentary speech and the societies these parliaments represent (Tyrkkö and Kotze 2023: 1). While a social scientist tends to ask what the members of parliament talk about, a linguist is more interested in how they talk. However, using official parliamentary reports as data can pose certain challenges for linguistic analysis. For instance, transcription and editorial practices vary from country to country, making cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparisons difficult. Moreover, post-editing of contributions in the reports raises questions about whether such analyses provide insight into the language used in the parliamentary sittings themselves or rather the language of the reports (e.g., Slembrouck 1992; Voutilainen 2023).

The goal of this workshop is to bring together linguists who utilise video recordings or transcripts of parliamentary sittings in their research. We welcome individual researchers and research teams interested in parliamentary discourse and rhetoric, representing diverse research traditions and methodological approaches to present their work, share experiences and discuss different ways of using these data in linguistic studies. Presentations at the workshop can be held in Finnish or English and may focus on video recordings or reports of sittings in any country. They can also be multi- or interdisciplinary. Here are some examples of possible topics:

• What types of methodological approaches are suitable for studying parliamentary corpora?
• What kinds of linguistic phenomena can be studied using video recordings from parliamentary sittings as data?
• How are parliamentary sittings and the official transcripts related? What types of challenges do transcription traditions pose for linguistic research?
• What differences exist between parliamentary reports of different countries and between transcripts produced in different time periods?

References

Ilie, Cornelia 2017: Parliamentary debates. – Ruth Wodak & Bernhard Forchtner (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, pp. 309– 325 London: Routledge.

Sandberg, Kirsi, 2025: Eduskunnan täysistuntopöytäkirjat, ajankohtainen parlamentaarisen kielen aineisto. – Virittäjä 129(4), 558–565. https://doi.org/10.23982/vir.176095

Slembrouck, Stef 1992: The Parliamentary Hansard “Verbatim” Report: The Written Construction of Spoken Discourse. – Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 1(2): 101–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709200100202.

Tyrkkö, Jukka – Kotze, Haidee 2023: Perspectives on parliamentary discourse : From corpus linguistics to cultural analytics. – Jukka Tyrkkö, Minna Korhonen & Haidee Kotze (eds.), Exploring Language and Society with Big Data: Parliamentary Discourse Across Time and Space space, pp. 1–16. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis. – Japanese Discourse 1: 17–27.

Voutilainen, Eero 2023: Written representation of spoken interaction in the official parliamentary transcripts of the Finnish Parliament. – Frontiers in Communication 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1047799