2.1 Third-person pronoun variation in Finnish

The third-person pronouns in the Finnish language are hän and se in the singular, and he and ne in the plural (excluding variants used in some dialects). In standard Finnish, hän and he are used for human and se and ne for nonhuman referents. Nonetheless, the standard language norm differs significantly from colloquial use. The primary focus of this study is on the singular forms hän and se, but it is worth acknowledging that he, the plural form of hän, is used in distinct ways that partly differ from the ways the singular hän is used, and this also applies to pronouns referring to nonhuman animals (Laitinen Reference Laitinen2021). The discussions examined in this study, however, focus mainly on the singular forms and therefore the data do not permit the in-depth analysis of the plural forms.

Although hän is used exclusively to refer to humans in standardized Finnish, in non-standardFootnote ³ language, se is the default third-person singular pronoun that is used more frequently than hän for both human and nonhuman referents. Hän is mainly used logophorically, i.e. to refer back to a referent whose speech or mental process or state is being reported; the logophoric hän typically occurs in reported speech or when interpreting the referent’s thoughts, perceptions, intentions, or feelings (Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:76, 80–83, 88–89; Priiki Reference Priiki2017a:344–347). It is used for nonhuman referents as well, as logophoric hän can refer to anyone whose actions can be meaningfully interpreted (Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:90–92). Logophoric hän also indexes the referent’s status as a speech-act participant (Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:83). The colloquial uses of hän predate the norm of exclusively using hän in reference to a human, which became established in standardized Finnish at the end of the nineteenth century (Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:90, Reference Laitinen2009:117–125).

Even though logophoric use is the most typical kind of use for hän in colloquial Finnish, the use of third-person pronouns varies considerably: se is frequently used in contexts where logophoric hän could be used, and hän is also used non-logophorically. The non-logophoric use of hän is most common in the southwestern and southeastern dialects (e.g. Siitonen Reference Siitonen2008:3–4). Third-person pronoun use is also affected by the formality of the situation, the topic of conversation, and the participants’ relationship with each other (Lappalainen Reference Lappalainen2010:296–297), and it is susceptible to priming (Priiki Reference Priiki2016:119, 123–130). In certain contexts, hän can be used to express dismissiveness or ignorance (Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:96–100).

Hän is frequently thought to be associated with polite speech (Seppänen Reference Seppänen1998:91–92; Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:83–84; Priiki Reference Priiki2017b:52, 56). The origins of the politeness function are multifaceted (Seppänen Reference Seppänen1998:91–92), and it seems to stem partially from logophoricity (see Seppänen Reference Seppänen1998:91–92 and Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:83–84 for further discussion). Seppänen (Reference Seppänen1998:91), along with Priiki (Reference Priiki2017b:52), states that the standard language norm of separating human- and nonhuman-referent third-person pronouns may be another factor contributing to the association between hän and politeness; in some contexts, se could be interpreted as implying that the referent is a ‘non-person’ who is excluded from the conversation (Seppänen Reference Seppänen1998:91). Non-linguists also link the politeness function of hän to the separation between human and nonhuman referents (Priiki Reference Priiki2017b:52).

Conversely, hän is also associated with negative affect and ironic speech (Siitonen Reference Siitonen2008:104; Priiki Reference Priiki2014). This is connected to the function of hän in expressing dismissiveness (Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:100; Priiki Reference Priiki2014:196, 198), but ironic use of hän can also be a form of humorous hypercorrection (Priiki Reference Priiki2014:198). Ironic use is linked to logophoricity as well, as irony commonly involves an element of echoing another voice in discourse (Priiki Reference Priiki2014:197–198, 205–208, 214).

Non-linguist perceptions of third-person pronoun use in Finnish partially differ from the results of linguistic research, but certain aspects of their use are widely recognized. Non-linguists rarely bring up the logophoric use of hän when describing third-person pronoun use (Priiki Reference Priiki2014:199, Reference Priiki2016:131; Siitonen Reference Siitonen2016:387). On the other hand, dialectal and situational variation in third-person pronoun use and the politeness function of hän seem to be well recognized (Siitonen Reference Siitonen2016:386–391; Priiki Reference Priiki2016:131, Reference Priiki2017b:52).

Priiki (Reference Priiki2021) has examined metalinguistic online discussions about nonhuman-referent third-person pronouns using discourse analysis. This analysis has shown that there is a tendency to associate nonhuman-referent hän with the appreciation of nonhuman animals (Priiki Reference Priiki2021:326–328). However, attitudes toward nonhuman-referent hän are also influenced by the standard language norm as well as beliefs and attitudes toward language use in general (Priiki Reference Priiki2021:329–333). According to Priiki (Reference Priiki2021:333–335), the association between hän and humorous speech also extends to nonhuman-referent hän, and it is also described as ‘playful’ (leikkisä). Additionally, the evaluation of nonhuman-referent hän is frequently linked to perceptions of speakers: people who use nonhuman-referent hän are described as uneducated or unintelligent, or alternatively as lonely people whose pets are replacements for human relationships (Priiki Reference Priiki2021:335–336).

2.2 Norms, language ideologies, and indexicality

In this study, linguistic norms are understood as discursively constructed expectations of meaningful and appropriate linguistic practice (see Piippo Reference Piippo2012:122–128, 204–235). Norms are always mediated by language ideologies (Piippo Reference Piippo2012:204–235), i.e. complex sociocultural systems that consist of shared beliefs, evaluations, and ideas about language and shape metalinguistic discourses, language use, and the social realities around them (Silverstein Reference Silverstein, Clyne, Hanks and Hofbauer1979:193; Irvine & Gal Reference Irvine, Gal and Kroskrity2000:35). Norms are here understood as being both shaped by and encompassed by language ideologies: language ideologies influence the discursive production of norms, which in turn become part of language ideologies. Three linguistic concepts that can be conceptualized as language ideologies are relevant in this study: the standard language ideology, heteroglossia, and appropriateness.

The standard language ideology encompasses the ideological mechanisms and norms that promote an ideal of an invariant, unchanging language and suppresses linguistic variation and change, elevating the standardized variant of a language to a superior position over non-standard variants (Milroy & Milroy Reference Milroy and Milroy2012:19–22). It also commonly involves prioritizing writing over speaking, and as a result the norms of written language are applied to speech, despite the differences between written and spoken language (Milroy & Milroy Reference Milroy and Milroy2012:55–56).

Heteroglossia refers to the multiplicity of voices inherent in language use, which involves the stratification and dynamic interaction between linguistic varieties (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin, Holquist, Emerson and Holquist1981:263, 271–272). Heteroglossic views on language regard variation as an inherent part of language (Bakhtin Reference Bakhtin, Holquist, Emerson and Holquist1981:271–272, 288). The term primarily refers to a theoretical notion rather than a language ideology, but it has also been approached as an ideological position (see e.g. García Reference García2009:120–121, Mäntynen et al. Reference Mäntynen, Halonen, Pietikäinen and Solin2012:329). I argue that heteroglossia is also a useful notion in examining non-linguist perceptions, as they can express beliefs that align with heteroglossic views.

Appropriateness is an ideological concept where linguistic variants are evaluated based on whether they are deemed suitable for the registers and domains in which they appear (Fairclough Reference Fairclough and Fairclough1992a:33–37). While normativity always involves evaluation based on context, the appropriateness model involves a rigid differentiation between registers with little recognition of overlap or blending (Fairclough Reference Fairclough and Fairclough1992a:36–39, 43–46). Fairclough (Reference Fairclough and Fairclough1992a:34–36) also remarks that some registers and domains of language – and consequently the variants associated with them – are regarded as more ‘serious’ than others.

The notion of indexicality refers to the meanings associated with linguistic features through co-occurrence and the socio-cultural connections between speakers, their relationships with interlocutors, and the linguistic choices they make (Eckert Reference Eckert2008:463–464). This paper adopts the view on indexicality proposed by Eckert (Reference Eckert2008), who uses the term indexical field, i.e. a ‘constellation of ideologically related meanings, any one of which can be activated in the situated use of the variable’ (Eckert Reference Eckert2008:454).

The approach to normativity, language ideologies, and indexicality taken in this paper is informed by Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and thus it continues the efforts to build methodological and theoretical bridges between CDA and language ideology studies (see Milani & Johnson Reference Milani, Johnson, Warnke and Spitzmüller2008). CDA is primarily concerned with the intersections of language use and social structures, especially power imbalances and social inequalities (Reisigl & Wodak Reference Reisigl and Wodak2001:35–36; Fairclough Reference Fairclough2010:3–8), but discourse that challenges social inequalities is also of interest (Fairclough Reference Fairclough2010:7). CDA is also a key framework in ecolinguistics, which promotes more equal relationships between humanity, other animal species, and the environment (Stibbe Reference Stibbe2017:643–645).

3.1 Data

The data used in this study consist of social media posts and comments from discussions on nonhuman-referent hän. The data were collected from Twitter and from two Finnish Facebook groups, Aristoteleen kantapää (‘Aristotle’s heel’) and Kielletyt sanat ja sanonnat (‘Forbidden words and sayings’). There are 288 tweets and 137 Facebook posts and comments in the data. The average length of the tweets is 116 characters and 16 words, and the average length of the Facebook posts and comments is 250 characters and 33 words. Both the Twitter and Facebook posts and comments were collected manually, as their number was small enough to do so, and stored on an external, password-protected hard drive. The posts and comments from the Facebook groups were published between 1 January 2019 and 10 February 2020, and the Twitter posts were published between 1 and 10 February 2020. Twitter has since changed its name to X, but I use the name Twitter here, as that was the name of the platform at the time of data collection.

These Facebook groups were selected because they are sufficiently active and large (at the time of data collection, Aristoteleen kantapää had approximately 35,000 members and Kielletyt sanat ja sanonnat approximately 24,000 members), and both groups have repeatedly discussed nonhuman-referent hän. The Aristoteleen kantapää group is named after a language-themed radio programme and contains discussion on both the topics of the programme and language-related issues generally, focusing on the Finnish language. Kielletyt sanat ja sanonnat, for its part, is a group where the members vent about language use that irritates them and debate light-heartedly on whether certain linguistic practices should be ‘forbidden’.

The Twitter data were obtained by searching for the phrases eläin on hän (‘an animal is hän’), eläin ei ole hän (‘an animal is not hän’), eläintä häneksi (part of a phrase such as sanoa/kutsua eläintä häneksi ‘call an animal hän’), koira on hän (‘a dog is hän’), koira ei ole hän (‘a dog is not hän’), kissa on hän (‘a cat is hän’), and kissa ei ole hän (‘a cat is not hän’) with Twitter’s own search tool and selecting the tweets that were relevant to the topic, including any tweet threads to which they belonged. The Facebook data were found by searching for the word hän in the selected groups and selecting the conversations where nonhuman-referent hän was the topic.

Public Twitter posts can be argued to be a platform open to research, as the site is generally understood to be a mainly public platform (Gold Reference Gold2020). Because of this, I deemed it unnecessary to reach out to individual Twitter users for permission to use their tweets. Although the examined Facebook groups are similarly public, their members may not assume them to have the same level of publicity as tweets, and the publicity status of a group may be changed, resulting in some group members potentially being unaware of the public status of the groups to which they belong. Because of this, and due to differences in the terms of use of the platforms (Meta Privacy Policy; Twitter Privacy Policy), I deemed it necessary to obtain permission from the members of the Facebook groups, and I requested the individual permission of each user, who consented to their posts and/or comments to be used in the study. I did this by publishing a public post to each group and additionally by reaching out to some users who had participated in the discussions prolifically via direct message.

I use modified versions of messages as extracts to illustrate my findings. I consider this a form of ethical fabrication (see Markham Reference Markham2012). In addition, I do not mention the source of each extract, as there were no significant differences between the discussions on the two platforms or between the Facebook groups, but obscuring the exact sources further helps protect the privacy of the authors of the comments. Although the decision to use fabrication is not entirely unproblematic, I argue that it is a justifiable measure to protect the privacy of the Twitter and Facebook users whose messages are used in this study. The decision was prompted by several participants on Facebook stating that they wished not to be identifiable in the published research. The analysis and interpretation were done on the original, unmodified data, and only the excerpts presented in this article have been modified.

I modified the messages enough that the original posts and comments are not easily available through a simple search, but I have aimed to preserve the core meanings of the messages and the linguistic features that are relevant to the analysis to the best to my ability. I showed a few examples and their modified versions to a third party for agreement that my modifications preserve the core meanings. The modification of examples involved changes such as altering the word order of a sentence, replacing single words with synonyms, removing hashtags from tweets, and removing typing errors and other orthographical changes. Whenever possible, I used words and expressions that appeared elsewhere in the data as replacements for the original ones. To provide an example: the fictitious comment Eläimen hänittely on aivan tavallista murteissa ja puhekilessä (‘Referring to an animal with hän is completely ordinary in dialects and spoken language’) would have been modified into Eläinten hänettely on ihan tavallista puhekielessä ja murteissa (small orthographic changes highlighted in boldface). I have also translated each extract into English, aiming to represent the original comments as authentically as possible. Some extracts are partial and do not contain the entire (modified) message.

3.2 Analytical approach

The data were subjected to analysis through a combination of Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Initially, a preliminary Qualitative Content Analysis (Schreier Reference Schreier2012) was conducted to determine and categorize the surface-level justifications for approving or disapproving of the use of nonhuman-referent hän. The data were coded using ATLAS.ti (2021). Coding was also used to identify manifestations of language ideological concepts. Thus, the QCA was a combination of data- and concept-driven coding: it was data-driven in terms of the human–animal relationship, and concept-driven in terms of language ideologies. The categories were developed by subsumption (Schreier Reference Schreier2012:115–120). The preliminary taxonomy had five categories, two for the human–animal relationship (‘equality’ and ‘differentiation’) and three for language ideologies (‘standard’, ‘heteroglossia’, and ‘appropriateness’), but after a test coding I added separate categories for metacommentary and discussion on the commenters’ individual pronoun use as well. The last two categories are not relevant to this study and are thus not examined further here. Each comment was classified as a single unit of analysis but could have one or multiple codes attached to it.

The primary tool of analysis was Critical Discourse Analysis. The aim of using CDA was to examine the ideologies and discourses embedded in the data in more detail and depth, using the themes identified through Qualitative Content Analysis as a starting point. This paper follows the three-dimensional approach to CDA proposed by Fairclough (Reference Fairclough1992b:10–11, Reference Fairclough2010:132–133), where discourse is analysed from the perspective of text, discursive practice, and social practice.

The CDA phase of the analysis was based on the thematic categories identified with QCA and further defined by identifying the linguistic choices constructing discourses of both the human–animal relationship and language ideologies separately. As ‘ideologies are primarily located in the “unsaid”’ (Fairclough Reference Fairclough2010:27), the textual level of the analysis places heavy emphasis on presuppositions, implicature, and syntax. However, lexical choices allow access to valuable insight into discourse as well through referential and predicational strategies (Reisigl & Wodak Reference Reisigl and Wodak2001:45), so lexical-level observations were coded as well. The CDA part of the analysis is heavily data-driven, and I repeated the coding multiple times, refining the categories and their criteria for inclusion each time.

4.1 Hän as index of politeness and positive evaluation

Using hän is repeatedly interpreted as signalling a positive opinion or feeling toward the referent: the use of hän is presented as stemming from respect or appreciation toward the referent, and in addition, affection or status as a family member is mentioned (and occasionally implied) as a reason to use hän. The connection between hän and positive evaluation is occasionally expressed explicitly (e.g. by mentioning the word arvostus ‘appreciation’), but it also appears as a presupposition (e.g. when stating that people use nonhuman-referent hän because they prefer them to humans). The commenters often do not seem to consider it necessary to explicitly bring up the notion of hän indexing positive evaluation toward the referent, which suggests that it is regarded as common knowledge.

Politeness is also mentioned as a reason to use nonhuman-referent hän. This finding is supported by earlier research on Finnish third-person pronoun use, which has found that hän is often interpreted as a marker of politeness when referring to humans (Seppänen Reference Seppänen1998:91–92; Laitinen Reference Laitinen2005:83–84; Priiki Reference Priiki2017b:52, 56). In the case of nonhuman-referent hän, the politeness is not necessarily directed toward the nonhuman animal: instead, some commenters describe using hän to avoid offending the guardian of the pet who is being referred to (see also Siitonen Reference Siitonen2008:99). Nevertheless, the assumption that a person may wish for others to use hän when referring to their pet implies that they hold the pet in high regard.

These findings suggest that nonhuman-referent hän is commonly interpreted as indexing a positive evaluation toward the animal being referred to or toward nonhuman animals in general. The primary differences between the discourses lie in other potential meanings of the pronoun hän, and in the attitudes and perceptions toward evoking the indexical meanings of politeness and positive evaluation in reference to a nonhuman animal. Companion animals, especially dogs, are most often mentioned as potential referents of hän, which is expected given the connection between hän and the positive evaluation of the referent.

4.2 Differentiation discourse

4.2.1 Normativity and standard language ideology in differentiation discourse

The differentiation discourse intersects significantly with standard language ideology, as it allows both language and the social structure surrounding it to be presented as static and uniform. It is thus natural for the standard language ideology to be involved in discourses that align with the status quo of the human–animal relationship; the standard against which pronoun use is evaluated is the current standard language norm established in the late 1800s, which involves a linguistic separation between human and nonhuman animals. Predictably, the use of nonhuman-referent hän is generally portrayed negatively in the differentiation discourse.

Several comments opposing nonhuman-referent hän present the Finnish language as a uniform and unchanging entity, exemplifying the suppression of variability involved in the standard language ideology (see Milroy & Milroy Reference Milroy and Milroy2012:6). Some comments, such as (1), refer to schools as an authority on language norms.

A repeatedly occurring discursive practice in the differentiation discourse is to use predicative sentences that express a category to which the subject referent belongs, such as eläin on se (‘an animal is se’), where the pronoun is construed as being connected to the essential qualities of its referent. This discursive strategy demonstrates the naturalization of the differentiation between human and nonhuman animals and the idea of pronoun choice being connected to social categorizations tied to the referent’s qualities. Linguistic choices and norms, as well as the social order behind them, are presented as natural and self-evident instead of social and negotiated. Example (2) illustrates this, despite denying the connection between pronoun choice and attitudes toward nonhuman animals.

It is also worth noting that the comment presupposes that some may consider nonhuman-referent se demeaning, and the author argues against this interpretation by appealing to an understanding of language that is influenced by standard language ideology. The predicative sentence Se on suomen kieltä (‘It’s the Finnish language’) implies that nonhuman-referent hän is not part of the Finnish language, presenting the language as uniform and invariant.

4.2.2 Nonhuman-referent hän as linguistic anthropomorphism

Nonhuman-referent hän is frequently regarded as linguistic anthropomorphism in the data. Occasionally, such as in (3), the word inhimillistäminen (‘anthropomorphism’) is explicitly used.

Another, more implicit way of presenting the nonhuman-referent hän as anthropomorphism is to draw parallels between nonhuman-referent hän and other anthropomorphizing practices (linguistic or non-linguistic). The most commonly mentioned feature of linguistic anthropomorphism (after nonhuman-referent hän) is the usage of parenthood-related vocabulary – a pet guardian calling themselves their companion animal’s äiti ‘mother’ or isä ‘father’ (or synonyms indexing endearment, such as mami, mamma, or isi) or calling their companion animal their ‘child’ (lapsi) or ‘baby’ (vauva, vaavi) (see Mondémé Reference Mondémé2018:xiii–xv for further discussion). Examples (4–5) illustrate how disapproval of this practice is expressed: (4) appeals to the biological facets of parenthood, whereas (5) offers an imitation of speech containing parenthood-related vocabulary, including vomiting emojis that express disapproval.

Using parenting-related vocabulary in reference to pet guardianship frames the relationship between a person and their companion animal as a nurturing and affectionate one; the differentiation discourse therefore regulates not only linguistic expression, but also the relationships expressed in language. The word äiti (‘mother’) is mentioned more often than isä (‘father’), and while äiti appears in varying textual contexts, isä is mentioned only after the word äiti or in reference to the commenter themselves. This indicates that there may be a gendered element to the issue of parenting vocabulary in reference to nonhuman animals. This is supported by Priiki (Reference Priiki2023:116–118), whose findings on written biographical pet stories suggest that women might use language that equates companion animals to children more often than men.

Several comments link parenting vocabulary to so-called baby talk (often called hellittely or lässytys in Finnish; the latter usually has a negative connotation). Pet-directed speech has been found to share some features with the register used when talking to a baby (Mitchell Reference Mitchell2001:192–196; Tannen Reference Tannen2004:408–417). By contrast, Peltola & Simonen (Reference Peltola and Simonen2024:16) problematize the similarity between the registers, arguing that they emerge in different social and physical contexts. Regardless, this notion of ‘pet-directed baby talk’ is prominent in metalinguistic social media discussions, suggesting that non-linguists perceive it as a distinct register or style. Example (5) offers a textual representation of baby talk, while (6) explicitly mentions the word lässytys. By including the pronoun hän in the imitation, the comment implies that nonhuman-referent hän is a part of the style as well.

Other anthropomorphizing practices mentioned include giving a companion animal a name that is typically given to a human, as in (7), and putting clothes and accessories on them, as in (8).

Example (8) also includes the nonhuman-referent he (plural form of hän). I interpret the example as negative toward the use of nonhuman-referent hän and the use of he in this context as ironic, equating the use of he and unnecessarily anthropomorphizing companion animals by putting accessories on them.

Research on actual language use shows that the connection between pronoun choice and other linguistic practices that are deemed anthropomorphizing is not clear-cut (Priiki Reference Priiki2023:116–119). Still, it is notable that anthropomorphizing practices repeatedly and spontaneously come up in discussions about nonhuman-referent hän, which indicates that these linguistic and non-linguistic practices are socially connected to each other and constitute stylistic ensembles despite not always co-occurring. These ensembles include not only linguistic practices but also styles of pet guardianship – ways of expressing specific kinds of relationships with nonhuman animals.

The human–animal relationship is brought up in more explicit terms as well. Some commenters state outright that the use of nonhuman-referent hän is connected to the status of nonhuman animals in society, which in the differentiation discourse is presented as being excessively high, and others claim that companion animals are replacements for children for some people, such as in (9). Using nonhuman-referent hän is also equated to training a pet too leniently in (10).

Both (9) and (10) contain implicatures that contribute to the differentiation discourse. In (9), human children are presupposed as being the default receiver of care in the family, and having a companion animal occupy a similar position in some families is seen as pets replacing children. The (assumed) preference of pets over children by some people is presented as an extreme position by using the focus particle jopa (‘even’). Example (10) implies than an ‘essential’ quality (oleellinen) of rearing a pet is keeping them under some level of control instead of letting them behave in an uninhibited manner.

The differentiation discourse also involves presenting the use of nonhuman-referent hän as stemming from irrationality, either by using adjectives such as typerä (‘stupid’) or by implying that people who use nonhuman-referent hän are mentally unstable or that they have untrue, illogical beliefs about nonhuman animals. This finding reflects the one made by Priiki (Reference Priiki2021:335–336); however, compared to the discussions analysed by Priiki, where irrationality is connected to an assumed lack of knowledge about the standard language norm, here the perceived irrationality is also connected to views on anthropomorphism and the societal hierarchies between human and nonhuman animals. Example (11) illustrates how this association is expressed in discourse and how it links the differentiation discourse to the standard language ideology.

The indexical field of hän in this discourse seems to shift according to the referent: hän is interpreted generally as indexing humanity, but when used to refer to a nonhuman animal, it also gains an indexical meaning of irrationality. When hän is interpreted as exclusively referring to humans, using hän indexes human-like qualities, presupposing that nonhuman animals are fundamentally different from humans. Implying otherwise by using hän counters these underlying assumptions, which are treated as self-evident truths, making the speaker seem irrational.

4.3 Equality discourse

4.3.1 Language norms and ideologies in equality discourse

The equality discourse views nonhuman-referent hän more positively than the differentiation discourse, and intersects with multiple language ideological views. Heteroglossic views on language are apparent in this discourse, as linguistic variation is viewed positively, and strictly normative views are resisted. The coexistence of different styles and registers and the ability of speakers to draw on a variety of linguistic resources are regarded as natural features of language. However, ideological notions of standard language and appropriateness also shape the way in which linguistic norms and indexical meanings are negotiated in this discourse.

There is an apparent tendency in the data of interpreting hän as indexing sentience or animacy instead of humanity. This aspect in the indexical field of hän is a central feature of the equality discourse, and shapes the way pronoun use relates to the human–animal relationship and linguistic norms. It also brings forth the ideological underpinnings of language use in relation to the human–animal relationship, which contribute substantially to the disagreements about third-person pronoun use.

Hän being used in reported speech or when interpreting mental processes is only once mentioned explicitly in the data, which corroborates earlier findings of non-linguists rarely bringing it up (Priiki Reference Priiki2014:199, Reference Priiki2016:131; Siitonen Reference Siitonen2016:387). Nevertheless, a shared understanding of hän as an index of sentience is apparent, as several commenters argue that nonhuman animals being sentient entails hän being a natural pronoun choice for them. This is illustrated in (12).

Some commenters, such as the author of (13), believe that the standard language norm will change to hän being used to refer to all animate beings. This openness to linguistic change also reflects heteroglossic views, as language is presented as naturally changing.

In (12–13), using se is suggested to imply that the referent is a lifeless object, although in colloquial language it is the most common third-person pronoun for both human and nonhuman referents. This demonstrates how the standard language norm is taken as the point of reference even in discourses advocating for linguistic change: if there were no preference for the standard language at all, commenters could be advocating for the introduction of human-referent se in formal language as well.

Similarly to (1–2) in Section 4.2.1, comments promoting nonhuman-referent hän also use predicative sentences expressing membership of a category. This is illustrated by (14), where the assumed self-evidence of the appropriateness of hän when referring to a dog is further emphasized with the phrase ehdottomasti (‘unconditionally, unquestionably’).

It seems that although the differentiation discourse is based on an ideology that is dominant in human societies and on a well-established linguistic norm, there is significant resistance to this discourse, and a process of potentially establishing a new norm appears to be taking place. The potential new norm is put forth in (14) by discursively treating it as if it were already an established norm, using the same syntax that contributes to the naturalization of the standard language norm.

Presenting the use of nonhuman-referent hän as natural and self-evident challenges not only the linguistic norm but also the way nonhuman animals are socially conceptualized. Similarly to (2), the commenter in (14) presents the pronoun choice in terms of category membership, implying that using hän when referring to a dog stems from some inherent quality of the species. Therefore, it seems that the acceptance of nonhuman-referent hän and the potential for the emergence of a new norm may at least partially stem from changing attitudes toward nonhuman animals and the relationships people have with them. This interpretation is further corroborated by the commenter applying this new norm specifically to dogs, who have an exceptional status as valued companion animals in human societies.

4.3.2 The human–animal relationship in equality discourse

The construction of the human–animal relationship through language is a repeatedly occurring theme in the equality discourse as well. These relationships are viewed through both a personal lens and from a wider societal perspective. Similarity between human and nonhuman animals is evoked through the interpretation of hän as indexing sentience and animacy; in addition, commenters emphasize emotional attachment to pets and call for more egalitarian relations between human and nonhuman animals in society.

For several commenters, using hän when referring to companion animals indexes affection toward them, and a pet being a family member is frequently stated as a reason to use hän. Example (15) explicitly states that using hän is appropriate when a pet is considered an important family member and evokes affection with a heart emoji.

Parenting vocabulary is also connected to nonhuman-referent hän, similarly to the differentiation discourse (see above in Section 4.2.2). In (16), this connection is made explicit when the commenter states that they use both he (plural of hän) and äiti (‘mother’) in reference to companion animals due to feeling affection toward them.

Other forms of (perceived) anthropomorphism besides parenting vocabulary are not compared to nonhuman-referent hän in the equality discourse; practices such as putting clothes on pets or giving them names traditionally given to humans are not mentioned (cf. Section 4.2.2).

Several commenters also reflect on the societal status of nonhuman animals in general terms; an understanding of language use being connected to the societal relationship between human and nonhuman animals is apparent. This connection is made explicit in (17).

The use of nonhuman-referent hän is presented as reflecting and constructing an egalitarian relationship between human and nonhuman animals. By stating that animals are seen as inanimate objects and that using hän ‘probably would not do any harm’ (ei varmaan haittais mitään), the author of (17) contrasts using hän and seeing nonhuman animals as objects or commodities, implying that using se perpetuates an objectifying attitude to nonhuman animals, and suggests a shift toward a more egalitarian view, which is equated with using nonhuman-referent hän.

4.3.3 Stylistic practice, playful speech, and appropriateness

Heteroglossic views on linguistic play and stylistic practice are apparent in discussions on nonhuman-referent hän, and they are closely aligned with the equality discourse. However, these discussions also involve the stratification of registers, which reveals that the ideology of appropriateness is also present.

Nonhuman-referent hän is frequently presented as a feature of playful speech, or of so-called baby talk, as discussed above. In the equality discourse, playful (leikkisä) or fun (hauska) speech is contrasted with so-called ‘proper’ (asiallinen), formal speech. This is illustrated in (18–19).

There is a notable connection between playfulness and affection indicated by the word lempeä (‘gentle’) in (19) and by the potential referent of hän usually being a companion animal.

Additionally, some comments associate nonhuman-referent hän with humour and irony, such as (20) (for discussion on hän and irony, see Siitonen Reference Siitonen2008:104, Priiki Reference Priiki2014).

The author of (20) emphasizes the distinction between ironic and non-ironic speech by using nonhuman-referent se in non-ironic language, while hän is used when exemplifying ironic speech.

This intersection of heteroglossia, stylistic stratification, and appropriateness demonstrates how language ideologies mediate the social aspects of language. Ideas of linguistic play and freedom are used to justify practices that breach standard language norms, but only in specific contexts and registers. Nonhuman-referent hän, along with the indexical meanings of interspecies affection and animacy associated with it, are limited to registers that are not taken as seriously as others (see Fairclough Reference Fairclough and Fairclough1992a:35–36).