Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:57:02.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

One-part and two-part models of nominal Case: Evidence from case distribution1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2009

PAULI BRATTICO
PAULI BRATTICO*
Affiliation:
University of Jyväskylä
*
Author's address: Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, 40014Finland[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In some languages, nominal case is distributed over several adnominal elements, such as demonstrative pronouns, adjectives, participles, numerals and the nominal head itself. In this article, two hypotheses concerning case distribution are compared. According to the two-part model, case assignment to DPs as a whole (determiner phrases or maximal nominal projections) in syntax is based on a different grammatical mechanism than case distribution within those DPs. According to the one-part model, case distribution within DPs and syntactic case assignment to DPs are based on the same case assignment mechanism. Relying upon case distribution data from Finnish, Estonian, Polish, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, this article argues in favor of the one-part model. Furthermore, it is suggested that the one-part case distribution mechanism interacts with two independent morphological principles, one which regulates the overt morphological realization of elements which function as case assigners and another which states that the grammar is subject to a particular type of case hierarchy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 47 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I wish to thank Anne Vainikka, Saara Huhmarniemi and two anonymous JL referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.

I use the following abbreviations in this article: a=A-infinitival, acc=accusative case, ade=adessive case, ap=adjective phrase, dat=dative case, cp=complementizer phrase, d=determiner, f=feminine, gen=genitive case, ela=elative case, ine=inessive case, inst=instrumental case, n=noun, nom=nominative case, Num=numeral head, m=masculine, ma=MA-infinitival, par=partitive case, pass=impersonal passive, past=past tense, pl=plural, px=possessive suffix, par=partitive case, q=quantifier, refl=reflexive particle, sg=singular, va=participle verb.

References

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane & Stavrou, Melita. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective (Studies in Generative Grammar 71). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 91–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bošković, Željko. 2006. Case checking vs. case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 522–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2008. Kayne's model of Case and Finnish nominal phrases. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 31.2, 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brattico, Pauli & Leinonen, Alina. 2009. Nominalization and case distribution: Evidence from Finnish. Syntax 12, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. In preparation. Alpha-agree: The syntax of multiple long-distance case government in Finnish. Ms., University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2000. Concord in Minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 319–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 47–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1978. Universals in the syntax of cardinal numerals. Lingua 46, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. Adjective movement. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 8, 1–10.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2004. The Russian adjective: A pervasive yet elusive category. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, 199–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.). 2001. Semi-lexical categories. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12, 597–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 2002. A Jakobsonian feature-based analysis of the Slavic numeric quantifier genitive. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10, 141–181.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to government & binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo (eds.). 1993. Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Suomen kielen äänne-ja muotorakenne [Phonology and morphology of Finnish]. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2005. Movement and silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1972. Explanation in phonology. In Peters, Stanley (ed.), Goals of linguistic theory, 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In de Groot, Casper & Tommola, Hannu (eds.), Aspect bound: A voyage in the realm of Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric aspectology, 153–176. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 1988. Toward a unified theory of agreement. In Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 67–87. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Laury, Rita. 1997. Demonstratives in interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Holmberg, & Nikanne, (eds.), 49–74.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Diane. 1998. Grammatical case assignment in Finnish. London: Garland.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane & Manninen, Satu (eds.). 2003. Generative approaches to Finnish and Saami linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane & Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Counting and the grammar: Case and numerals in Inari Saami. In Nelson, & Manninen, (eds.), 321–340.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 1993. On assigning semantic cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, & Nikanne, (eds.), 75–88.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1996. Case assignment in Polish: Towards an HPSG analysis. In Grover, Claire & Vallduví, Enric (eds.), Studies in HPSG (Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science 12), 191–228. Edinburgh: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2002. Numeral phrases in Russian: A Minimalist approach. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10, 329–342.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2003. Case syncretism, features, and the morphosyntax of Polish numeral phrases. In Bański, Piotr & Przepiórkowski, Adam (eds.), Generative Linguistics in Poland (GLiP) 5, 123–137. Warsaw: Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł. 2001. Numeral phrases in Polish and Estonian. In Holmer, Arthur, Svantesson, Jan-Olof & Viberg, Åke (eds.), 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, vol. 2, 181–190. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł. 2002. The syntax of quantifier phrases and the inherent vs. structural case distinction. Linguistic Research 7.1, 43–74.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł. 2007. Grammaticalization in the nominal domain: The case of Polish cardinals. In Rodgers, Blake H. (ed.), Workshop in General Linguistics (WIGL) 2006 (LSO [Linguistics Student Organization] Working Papers in Linguistics), 89–102. Madison, WI: Department of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Nordlinger, Rachel. 2006. Case stacking in realizational morphology. Linguistics 44.3, 459–487.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1993. The three structural cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, & Nikanne, (eds.), 129–159.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 2003. Postverbal case realization in Finnish. In Nelson, & Manninen, (eds.), 235–266.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘Filters and Control’, April 17, 1977. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 3–15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatić, Larisa. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76, 799–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatić, Larisa. 2001. Case realization and identity. Lingua 111, 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan & Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63, 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar