Introduction

Holmberg, Anders; Nikanne, Urpo

doi:10.1515/9783110902600.1

Cited by 26 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The only potential counterexample to the claim that article-less languages lack true overt expletives I am aware of involves Finnish (see Holmberg and Nikanne 2002). For the sake of argumentation, I will assume below that article-less languages do not have overt expletives, leaving a detailed investigation of Finnish for future research.…”

Section: Subject Expletivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On NPs and Clauses

Bošković¹

2012

Discourse and Grammar

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Subject Expletivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On NPs and Clauses

Bošković¹

2012

Discourse and Grammar

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to the received view of Finnish sentential negation (Holmberg & Nikanne 1993, 2002), the negative word e- heads its own NegP projection, which is merged above TP but below CP. The negative word agrees fully with the subject DP, and the verb raises to T (or there is an auxiliary) and obtains tense.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This framework is followed by Kaiser (2006) in her analysis of the discourse functions of word order variations in Finnish negative sentences. Holmberg & Nikanne (2002) argue that in Finnish, there is a finiteness head Fin 0 /AgrS 0 above the NegP (FP in the case of Holmberg & Nikanne 2002). When the negation, auxiliary or the verb raises to Fin 0 /AgrS 0 , it obtains agreement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Rizzi (1997, 2004) and Holmberg & Nikanne (2002), we assume that overt complementizers such as that or Finnish että are located at the Force head, which is the highest functional head within the elaborated CP-layer. This assumption is supported by the fact that no constituent can move above complementizers in Finnish.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we want to say a word about the EPP and Finnish. Holmberg & Nikanne (2002) and Holmberg (2005) have argued convincingly that there are functional heads in Finnish which have the EPP property that must be satisfied by merging or moving a phrase into the specifier position of that functional head. Brattico & Huhmarniemi (2006) argue for the same conclusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sandwich EPP hypothesis: Evidence from child Finnish

Brattico

Saikkonen

2010

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well-known that grammatical movement is somehow linked to functional heads. There is less agreement on the excact nature of this correlation. According to one view, phrases are moved to the specifier positions of functional heads because functional heads attract them. According to another view, movement is not triggered by functional heads alone, but depends on the larger grammatical context. For instance, one such proposal says that T (tense) becomes attractive only when selected by finite C (complementizer), while V becomes attractive when selected by v * (transitivizer). What attracts phrases are therefore the C-T system and the v * -V system as a whole, not the individual functional heads; moved phrases are then sandwitched between the two heads. In this article, we present evidence in favor of this view by looking at first language acquisition. The data shows that in child Finnish, subject determiner phrases (DPs) move into the position of grammatical subject if and only if the full complementizer system has matured. Movement to the (Spec, TP) subject position therefore depends on the presence of C.

show abstract

The Place of Case in Grammar

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book deals with the category of case and where to place it in grammar, in particular how the morphological expression of grammatical function should relate to formal syntax. In the generative tradition, this issue was dealt by the influential proposal of the dissociation between abstract syntactic Case on the one hand, as a means for nominals to be licensed in the derivation, and the morphological expression of case on the other, as an idiosyncratic property of individual languages that is not always necessarily present. However, the expansion of the empirical picture in terms of cross-linguistic variation has brought theoretical tension and it becomes increasingly clear that the mapping of morphology and syntax is not ‘one-to-one’. Our book deals with a number of key issues on this ongoing debate that map onto, roughly, its three parts. The first one has to do with the modes that we need for structural case assignment: whether we only need one or two and whether these are Agree-based (where Case is a reflex of agreement) or dependent case based (where Case is assigned configurationally to nominals in a certain domain). This part also discusses how Case would relate to a theory of parameters. The second theme and part of the book deals with what traditionally has been labelled as the division of labour between structural and inherent case, synchronically but also diachronically. And finally, the third part of the book deals with individual cases and how they can illuminate case theory.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

On NPs and Clauses

On NPs and Clauses

Sandwich EPP hypothesis: Evidence from child Finnish

The Place of Case in Grammar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About