On Assigning Semantic Cases in Finnish

Nikanne, Urpo

doi:10.1515/9783110902600.75

Cited by 77 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, some interesting proposals regarding the structure of the Finnish case system have been advanced. Nikanne (1993), for example, has analyzed Finnish semantic cases like the inessive as postpositional phrases, proposing that a phonetically null postposition heads an N morphologically marked as inessive. We might reasonably propose, in an effort to maintain a Universal Base consistent with recent proposals, that -ssa in (33a) is a lexical P, and that its DP complement overtly raises to the Specifier position of PP to check some formal feature F, semantic in nature.…”

Section: Jmsg's Proposed Counter-examples To the Pf Disjunction Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We might in fact extend this analysis to other Finnish cases as well, perhaps entertaining the possibility that Finnish is a pronominal argument language in the sense of Jelinek (1984) and Baker (1996). Thus, following a modification of Nikanne's (1993) analysis, we assume that the inessive construction in (33a) is a postpositional phrase. We further provisionally assume that the analysis might be extended to other Finnish cases, including the partitive.…”

Section: Jmsg's Proposed Counter-examples To the Pf Disjunction Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”

MacSwan

2005

Bilingualism

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an empirical and theoretical critique of the Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model (Myers-Scotton, 1993; Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2001), and includes a response to Jake, Myers-Scotton and Gross's (2002) (JMSG) critique of MacSwan (1999, 2000) and reactions to their revision of the MLF model as a “modified minimalist approach”. The author argues that although a new structural definition of the Matrix Language (ML) makes the MLF model falsifiable, its empirical predictions are inconsistent with the facts of codeswitching (CS). The author also identifies significant theoretical problems associated with the MLF model, and suggests that it be rejected on empirical and theoretical grounds, and on grounds of scientific parsimony. In addition, the author contends that JMSG's critique of the Minimalist approach to CS rests on conceptually significant misreadings of published research in CS and in the theory of syntax, and that JMSG fail to motivate their central claim, namely, that a Minimalist approach to CS cannot succeed without incorporating the ML construct. It is further shown that an analysis of the CS facts which JMSG consider as their test case may be straightforwardly pursued within the Minimalist Program without appealing to the ML construct or any other aspect of the MLF model. The author concludes with the recommendation that research on CS depart from the formulation of general CS-specific constraints like the MLF model and engage in the task of analyzing language contact phenomena in terms of independently motivated constructs of linguistic theory.

show abstract

Section: Jmsg's Proposed Counter-examples To the Pf Disjunction Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Jmsg's Proposed Counter-examples To the Pf Disjunction Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”

MacSwan

2005

Bilingualism

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The partitive encodes both aspect and quantification. When the partitive, in opposition to any of the accusative cases, emerges to a DP occurring in the complement position of eventive predicates, such as verbs or deverbal adjectives, it encodes aspectual properties of the predicate that selects it and/or the quantificational properties of the DP that hosts it (Heinämäki 1984; Kiparsky 1998, 2001; Larjavaara 1991; Megerdoomian 2008; Nelson 1998; Nikanne 1993; Reime 1993; Vainikka 1989, 2003). Thus consider (6a–b).…”

Section: Finnish Object Casementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the direct object cases, there are two subject or prehead cases, the nominative and the genitive (Nelson 1998; Vainikka 1989), plus a number of semantic/inherent/lexical case suffixes (Nikanne 1993). These will play a minor role here.…”

Section: Finnish Object Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Long Distance Case Assignment in Finnish*

Brattico¹

2012

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…We assume here that bare oblique DPs of this sort (cf. (2e)) are headed by a null prepositional element (Nikanne 1993, Manninen 1999). If the prepositional element is realized as an overt preposition, not as a case suffix, the complement takes partitive case (accusative in English):…”

Section: Numeralsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case Distribution and Nominalization: Evidence from Finnish

Brattico¹,

Leinonen²

2009

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In many languages, case is distributed among many grammatical elements inside of argument DPs. This article shows that case distribution in Finnish is sensitive to certain nontrivial structural properties of those DPs. This makes it possible to use case distribution as a tool to investigate the internal structure of a variety of DPs, including nominalized clauses. It is argued, based on such new evidence, that (i) there exists a syntactic nominalizer head n within various kinds of nominal phrases, and that (ii) genitive argument DPs of nominalized clauses undergo raising analogous to the EPP‐triggered DP raising in finite clauses. Furthermore, these genitive arguments are base‐generated below the nominalizer head n. Implications involving recent theories of Agree, valuation, and phrasal movement are discussed.

show abstract

On Assigning Semantic Cases in Finnish

Cited by 77 publications

References 0 publications

Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”

Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”

Long Distance Case Assignment in Finnish*

Case Distribution and Nominalization: Evidence from Finnish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About