Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T21:39:02.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locative Case Adjuncts in Finnish: Notes on Syntactico-Semantic Interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Urpo Nikanne
Urpo Nikanne
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, Department of East European and Oriental Studies, P.O. Box 1030 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway. Email: urpon@hedda.uio.no
Get access

Abstract

This paper discusses Finnish depictive and resultative secondary predicates. The analysis is based on a condition of licensing which can be seen as a version of the principle of Full Interpretation: “A well-formed syntactic structure is licensed only if it can be linked to a well-formed conceptual structure.” The suggested non-trivial theory of the interface between syntax and semantics allows us to avoid unnecessary complexity in syntax, such as small clause and PRO, in secondary predicate adjuncts.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue on Adjuncts , December 1997 , pp. 155 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Borer, H. 1994. The Projection of Arguments. In Benedicto, E. & Runner, J. (eds), Functional Projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers (UMOP) 17. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Carrier, J. & Randall, J. 1992. Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 173–234.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on Nominalizations. In Anderson, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. , P. S. (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, J. (eds), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R. 1992. Something Else for the Binding Theory. Ohio State University and Brandeis University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. & Wilkins, W. 1984. Locality in Linguistic Theory. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. 1987. Invisible Category Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 613–632.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, J. 1992. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, J. (eds), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U. (eds). 1993. Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U. 1997. Expletives, Subjects, and Topics in Finnish. University of Tromsø and University of Oslo, unpublished.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1987. Consciousness and Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1992. Languages of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1994. Lexical Insertion in a Post-Minimalist Theory of Grammar. Brandeis University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1997. Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. 1987. Rajoittunut mieli. Licentiate of Philosophy thesis. University of Helsinki, unpublished.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. 1989. On Locative Cases in Finnish. In Niemi, J. (ed.), Papers from the 11th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Joensuu, Finland: Faculty of Arts, University of Joensuu, pp. 147–163.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. 1990. Zones and Tiers: A Study of Thematic Structure. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. 1993. On Assigning Semantic Cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U. (eds), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikanne, U. 1995. Action Tier Formation and Argument Linking. Studia Linguistica 49, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. 1982. Modern grammatisk teori. Stockholm: Liberförlag.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1993. Tense Morphology and Temporal Polarity. Paper presented at Linguistics Summer School in Melbu, Norway, July 1993.Google Scholar
Toivainen, J. 1993. The Nature of the Accusative in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U. (eds), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trosterud, T. 1993. Anaphors and Binding Domains in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U. (eds), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.Google Scholar