The Finnish accusative: Long-distance case assignment under agreement

Abstract

One of the two object cases in Finnish, the accusative, has three variants. One of these is a pronoun form similar to the English accusative. The choice between the remaining two forms is based on a number of syntactic properties. Here we show that the correct generalization needs to refer to the agreement features of the noun itself, c-command, and agreement higher in the structure. Moreover, it will be shown that the two accusative forms instantiate long distance case assignment, namely a system in which the case assigner may be situated in a position arbitrarily far from the assignee. Despite the several interacting mechanisms which take part in determining the accusative form in Finnish, we present a simple system of grammatical Case assignment that allows us to account for the three-way accusative realization as a by-product of more general syntactic mechanisms. At the core of our explanation is a notion of last resort: under certain exceptional conditions, higher functional heads, such as C and Agr, participate in direct object Case marking in order to save the derivation from crashing. The results suggest that the system of structural case/Case in UG needs to be broadened in order to capture all of the observed phenomena.

Long Distance Case Assignment in Finnish*

“…After the partitive is deemed as impossible (for one of the several reasons as listed above) there are the three accusative suffixes, of which the distribution of the t‐accusative is not controversial; it always goes with plural DPs and pronouns (apart from ne ‘those’, which is suffixless) in the direct object position. Singular DPs may take either the n‐accusative or the 0‐accusative, and the distribution depends on syntactic properties such as agreement markers on c‐commanding predicates (Vainikka & Brattico 2009 and examples 1–3 in this article).…”

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

“…Accusative nominals have three distinct realizations (Kiparsky 2001, Vainikka & Brattico 2009). Pronouns and plural nouns appear with the suffix ‐t ( sinu‐t ‘you‐ acc ’), and other nominals are either homomorphic with nominative nominals (lacking overt case morphology, 0‐accusative; cf.…”

“…karhu ‘bear‐ acc ’/‘bear‐ nom ’) or genitive nominals ( n ‐accusative; karhu‐n ‘bear‐ acc ’/‘bear‐ gen ’). In general, nonpronominal singular nominals appear with n ‐accusative if T bears agreement with the subject (Vainikka & Brattico 2009). Otherwise, the object has 0‐accusative.…”

“…If neither does, then case is realized as nominative or accusative, depending on the presence or absence of a higher argument (for accusative vs. nominative case, respectively). Accusative nominals have three distinct realizations (Kiparsky 2001, Vainikka & Brattico 2009). Pronouns and plural nouns appear with the suffix -t (sinu-t Ôyou-accÕ), and other nominals are either homomorphic with nominative nominals (lacking overt case morphology, 0-accusative; cf.…”

“…karhu Ôbear-accÕ/Ôbear-nomÕ) or genitive nominals (n-accusative; karhu-n Ôbear-accÕ/Ôbear-genÕ). In general, nonpronominal singular nominals appear with n-accusative if T bears agreement with the subject (Vainikka & Brattico 2009 The approach to partitive case requires morphological insertion to be significantly delayed: morphological case can only be determined for a DP once the phase containing the [Case] checking head has also undergone Spell-out. 23 There is independent support for the delay.…”