X⁰ categories and grammatical case assignment in Finnish

One of the theoretical aims of Case Theory is to account for the distribution of morphological case as a realisation of abstract case assignment. Finnish, a language with a rich system of cases, provides some challenging data: in certain sentence types, full DP objects surface in nominauve case, but alternate with accusative pronouns in the same environments. In addition, both DP and pronominal objects may also appear in partitive case, depending on the sentential semantics. Since the environments in which these phenomena occur correlates with a lack of subject agreement, the data is particularly relevant to generalisations that attempt capture dependencies external and internal to VP, e.g. Burzio's Generalization and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. To account for the data, I propose that Finnish shows a Split-S ergative or 'active' pattern, and equate differing grammatical functions with internal vs external argumenthood, respectively. One of the interesting facts about Finnish from a Casetheoretic point of view is that impersonal passives and related constructions show no effects related to 'derived' subjects, i.e. internal argumenthood is signalled by case morphology at all levels of the derivation and agreement is not triggered by movement. To account for this, I argue that the case split surfaces as the result of the assignment of two case features assigned simultaneously to a single argument, the form of which is produced by a set of morphological case realisation rules. This model for case assignment effectively distinguishes between two types of abstract case: objective case is associated with verbal semantics and theta-role assignment, while nominative case is associated with finiteness via the functional head Tense/Mood. The only environment where both case features are assigned simultaneously to a single argument is when an external argument is unavailable to receive a nominative case feature. The distribution of possessive affix agreement and verbal agreement is accounted for as the result of selectional properties of functional heads specified in the lexicon. Finally, I test these hypotheses on data from complex predicates and non-finite clauses. Acknowledgements My interest in Finnish grammar developed when I was an undergraduate at Columbia College between 1989-90 and was fuelled by the boundless enthusiasm and energy of Finnish professor extraordinaire Aili Flint. I was also fortunate enough during that time to attend talks by the late Robert Austerlitz, who never failed to impress me with his depth of knowledge and passion for his field. I'm also grateful to the Finnish Ministry of Culture for sponsoring the well-organised summer language courses I was lucky enough to attend in subsequent years. In Edinburgh, Maija McKinnon provided muchneeded refresher courses in Finnish and also devoted many hours to informant work and discussions of grammar and semantics. I'm also grateful to her for help with on the final draft, though of course all errors in the data are my own. During the course of my PhD, the academic exchange between the University of Edinburgh and the Helsinki University allowed me to visit Helsinki and to meet and work with student informants in Edinburgh; in several cases informant work has developed into lasting friendships. Thanks especially to Soili Turro, Ulla Tuomarla, Henna Makkonen, Hanna Taantsainen, Ilkka Kari, and Liisa Laakso-Tammisto. Thanks also to Satu Manninen for help with the final draft. I've found the relatively small community of syntacticians working on Finnish to be consistently friendly and supportive. My research has benefitted enormously from conversations, manuscript exchange and e-mail communication with Maria Vilkuna, who was also my external examiner, Joan Mating, Erika Mitchell, Hannu Reime, Susanna Shore, and Trond Trosterud. In particular, thanks to Anne Vainikka for at least three things: being the first to write a comprehensive formal grammar of Finnish; setting up and editing Finnsyntax, a monthly electronic newsletter on Finnish syntax; and for many helpful suggestions and comments during the course of my research. Special thanks are also due to Arto Anttila for cropping up in all corners of the globe. As a colleague and office-mate for the second year of my PhD, I lucked out with Etina Rigler, who rigorously kept my attention focused on the importance of data. At conferences in the UK and in the US I've had the good fortune to meet and talk shop with various linguists, all of whom have in some way made contributed to my research. Thanks in particular to Litiane Haegeman, Bill McLure, Nigel Fabb, Gillian Ramchand, Colin Phillips, and Anna Siewierska for interesting discussions and helpful comments. The University of Edinburgh Linguistics Department has provided an ideal academic and social environment in which to do a PhD. Over endless mugs of tea and coffee in the Common Room, and often in the pub afterwards, I've found myself engaged in fascinating, relevant and sometimes bizarre conversations with a wonderful assortment of people. Thanks to Jim Miller; Martha Robinson; Bob Ladd and Ellen Bard, for bringing me Cheerios; Miriam Eckert; K. Nagita, for his love of functional projections and coconut-rice pudding; Dimitra Koltiakou; Laura Joosten; Ethel Jack, the power behind the throne; Antonella Sorace; Robin Lickley; Caroline Heycock, for her unforgettable Salute to the Haggis and for being my internal examiner; Jim Hurford, for his ability to have a conversation on virtually any topic and for his kindness; and Geoff Lindsay, for being Geoffie. For introducing me to theoretical syntax and being a friend and mentor, extra thanks to Mary Tait. The Parametric Variation and RIGL workshops held at the Centre for Cognitive Science have provided a friendly and stimulating environment for talks and discussions for the duration of my PhD, despite a chronic shortage of functioning whiteboard markers. I'm especially grateful to David Adger, Catrin Rhys, Elisabet Engdahl, Zelal Gongurdu, and Enric Vallduvi for helping to mold my young mind. Without the love and support of my friends and family I would never have finished writing up, and might have spent the last year doing something much more fun instead. But I have managed to have a lot of fun anyway, and I owe much to my friends for keeping me sane during the course of my PhD and during the last few months in particular (and not strangling me). Thanks to everyone at CFA for tolerating my endless use of the photocopier and strange thesis-related disappearances; Amy Isard; Elelen Weetman; Etsuko Hayashi; Ciara Clarke; and Dave Newton. Thanks to Tanja Meurs for being a good friend and a reliable letter-writer. I thank the other two Angels, Louise Kelly and Catriona McPherson, for helping to devise so many ingenious ways to fritter away time. For trans-Atlantic moral support and flashes of wit, I am eternally grateful to Anne Hayes for setting up Coffeetalk, which has enabled me to keep in touch much regularly with Julie "Cinnamon" Bibb, Julie Fishman, Gina Fattore, and the other wonderful women of the 'Talk. Also thanks to John Loza, Thad Grimes-Gruczka and Rens Troost for sporadic but significant e-mail contact. I'd also like to acknowledge the importance of a number of inanimate objects and abstract entities without which my thesis would definitely never have happened, including email, my pc, my futon, coffee, Doom, Freecell, and my bathtub. Thanks to Ian Armit for many many things. A slap on the back to Paul Taylor, who has presented some of the most poorly articulated arguments against theoretical linguistics I've ever heard, but to his credit, has provided me with many a stubbie and is quite a good guy really. Thanks also to Alastair Reid and Ian Hodson for not charging me rent. A huge hug to Simon Kirby, for teaching me to appreciate science again after a long time spent being an arts student, teaching me how to ride a bicycle, making a mean smoked mackerel salad, for proofreading my entire thesis, for inhaling the ozone produced during the final printout, but most of all, for his natural talent for being Convenient. Hats off and love to Ruth, for 24 hours of her labor and for never having a shred of doubt in my abilities, and to Blanche and David. But the main person to thank for getting this thesis finished is Ronnie Cann, for all his help and support despite being an overworked department head, for his love of specifiers, his advice on houseplant care, and for putting up with 15 morphological cases. List of Abbreviations Inflectional morphology-nominal Cases nom Nominative acc Accusative gen Genitive part Partitive iness Inessive adess Adessive all Allative ill Illative ela Elative abl Ablative trans Translative ess Essive abess Abessive com Comitative inst Instructive pi plural number sg singular number Px 1 s first person singular possessive affix Px2s second person singular possessive affix Px3 third person possessive affix Px 1 p first person plural possessive affix Px2p second person plural possessive affix comp comparative qu question cl clitic Inflectional morphology-verbal past pasttense/aspect np nonpast tense/aspect pass impersonal passive cond conditional mood pot potential mood pep participle imp imperative 1 s first person singular verbal agreement 2s second person singular verbal agreement 3s third person singular verbal agreement lp first person plural verbal agreement 2p second person plural verba1 agreement 3p third person plural verbal agreement