On some problems of rule ordering in Finnish grammar

Abstract

Finnish wh-movement exhibits internal roll-up movement with pied-piping and is therefore overtly successive-cyclic. On the other hand, its morphosyntax is nonlocal, suggesting countercyclic behavior. The existence of overtly cyclic computations and nonlocal agreement penetrating nearly every cyclic domain constitutes a near contradiction in this language. A solution is proposed which partially resurrects the notion of d-structure: grammatical operations are cyclic and operate in small phases (as indicated by Finnish successive cyclic wh-movement), but some operations, Agree in particular, access leftover copies of elements in situ and are not restricted by the phase impenetrability condition (PIC). PIC restricts operator/A-bar movement, not morphosyntax.

STRUCTURAL CASE ASSIGNMENT, THEMATIC ROLES AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE*

“…Finnish structural case assignment has evoked a considerable amount of controversy in the linguistic literature. The most interesting features of the system are its nonlocal dependencies (Ikola 1950, 1986, 1989; Linden 1956; Wiik 1972; Itkonen 1976, 1977; Toivonen 1995; Brattico 2009, 2012, 2014; Vainikka & Brattico 2014; Anttila & Kim 2017), sensitivity to agreement, aspect and polarity in addition to syntactic position (Timberlake 1975; Carlson 1981; Vainikka 1988, 1989; Reime 1993; Heinämäki 1984, 1994; Kiparsky 1998, 2001; Nelson 1998; Megerdoomian 2000, 2008; Csirmaz 2005, 2012; Anttila & Kim 2011; Huumo 2013; Brattico 2020b), adverbial case marking (Maling 1993; Anttila & Kim 2011) and layered case assignment and case competition (Nelson 1998; Brattico 2010, 2011). Moreover, Finnish exhibits at least fifteen different case forms, with four separate structural case forms alone.…”