Long Distance Case Assignment in Finnish*

Abstract

Long distance case assignment remains a little studied corner of grammar. This paper documents such phenomenon in Finnish. In this language the choice of the direct object case depends on several local and remote case assigners. Remote case assigners need not occupy the same clause as the assignees: case assignment penetrates any number of non-finite clause boundaries of all types, adjunct boundaries, and even noun heads. Two hypotheses concerning the phenomenon are put forward: one, which says that the phenomenon is essentially an illusion and involves only local case assignment, and another, which says that genuine long distance case assignment is at issue. The latter hypothesis will find support from this work. A number of possible hypotheses (e.g. based on polarity, aspect, information structure, case assignment proper) are explored concerning the grammatical mechanism responsible for the phenomenon, and it is concluded that the phenomenon is an instance of syntactic case assignment. It is suggested that long distance case is triggered by left peripheral functional elements related to agreement, polarity and tense-aspect, and that it implements an A¢-dependency.

The Finnish accusative: Long-distance case assignment under agreement

“…If we were to follow this line of thinking here, it would require us to add ad hoc mechanisms to the present analysis. By using data from a previous version of the present paper together with other long distance Case assignment phenomena from Finnish, Brattico (2012c) argues against such local theories and proposes that the left peripheral functional heads (Agr, C and Neg in Finnish) are in fact capable of assigning genuine long distance Case. On the basis of the observed correlation with wh-islands, he argues that Case transmission proceeds in such cases via A-bar dependencies which, like in situ wh-phenomenon, lack the overt movement component.…”

“…The status of these data, together with a native-speaker experiment, has been discussed recently by Brattico (2012c). We return to this issue later on.…”

“…Apparently, the effect can penetrate complement clause boundaries indefinitely, all else being equal. As shown in detail by Brattico (2012c), these nonfinite clauses cannot be analyzed as monoclausal constructions: they involve their own argument structures and adverb modification. Hence we conclude that Finnish exhibits a genuine long-distance case assignment phenomenon, reaching over several nonfinite clauses.…”

“…The rationale clause thus stands in a marked contrast with the temporal adjunct which is both an island and opaque to LDCA. There are two other constructions in Finnish that have come to our attention that pattern somewhat similarly to the rationale clause: (i) an adjunct version of the MA-infinitive (MALLA) (Toivonen 1995) Brattico (2012c) for details on the latter construction. In both constructions, the lack of agreement in the matrix clause forces the embedded object to be realized as a 0-accusative, but wh-extraction is not generally possible.…”

The Case of the Divisible Phase: Licensing Partitive Case in Finnish

“…31 31 By adopting a Voice head dedicated to checking the [Case] feature of an object, Cinque (2004) effectively recreates the structure proposed by Wurmbrand (2001) for [Case] checking, but not for θ‐role assignment. Brattico (2009) considers a restructuring approach to long‐distance case valuation. He rejects this approach because the infinitival has its own argument structure and permits adverbial modification.…”