Finnish word order: Does comprehension matter?

Abstract

Finnish word order is relatively free, making room for all mathematically possible word orders in many constructions. Because there is no evidence in this language for radical nonconfigurationality, explanations must be sought from syntax. It is argued in this article that morphosyntax and word order represent syntactic structure at the PF-interface. Rich morphosyntax frees word order, poor morphosyntax freezes it. The hypothesis is formalized within the context of a parsing-oriented theory of the human language faculty (UG) combining left-to-right minimalism with the dynamic syntax approach. The analysis was implemented as an algorithm and successfully tested with a corpus of 119,800 unique Finnish word orders.

STRUCTURAL CASE ASSIGNMENT, THEMATIC ROLES AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE*

“…For The case checking principles (2-3) function as a filter before the parsing solution is forwarded to semantic interpretation. In addition, the algorithm detects oddball arguments in the input that cannot check their case features and attempts to reconstruct them into canonical thematic positions where the features can be checked (Brattico 2020a). We can think of overt morphological case forms as guiding the parser towards plausible solutions, increasing its 'error tolerance'.…”

“…On the other hand, it is not uncommon that at least one element in a chain headed by the genitive argument occurs in a potential checking position. Brattico (2020a) proposed that the genitive is checked at the base position of the chain headed by the genitive argument. To illustrate, consider the modal construction (11).There is no overt licencing structure inside the upward path from the genitive argument at the preverbal subject position.…”

“…We derive it by assuming that final case checking is applied after reconstruction. Brattico (2020a) applied this analysis to the A‐infinitival (39).In that study, the genitive was associated with ‐fin that was checked against the infinitival head A/inf ‐ (t)A ‐ after the argument reconstructed to SpecVP. Rule gen ~ +arg, ‐fin calculates essentially the same output.The preverbal subject is reconstructed to SpecvP, where it checks the nominative, while the infinitival subject reconstructs to SpecVP inside the infinitival where it receives a thematic role.…”

“…10 Labeling shows that the model treats the rightward PP argument as an adjunct (adjunct attachment is marked by the double line in the phrase structure images generated by the algorithm). Adjuncts are analyzed as geometrical constituents of the hosting phrase structures that are invisible for labeling and several other grammatical dependencies taking place in the hosting structure, being "pulled out" into a secondary processing pipeline (Brattico, 2020a). They increase the dimensionality of the phrase structure geometry by adding independent 'syntactic planes' to the representation.…”

“…We derive it by assuming that final case checking is applied after reconstruction. Brattico (2020a) applied this analysis to the A-infinitival (39).…”