Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS

207
agreement (Holmberg 2005, Holmberg and Nikanne 2002). In (321)d, it is in-situ,
has a neutral reading, and no agreement. This 'presentational' construction is restricted
to the non-pronominal subjects of intransitives (Kiparsky 2001; cf. English
locative inversion, Bresnan 1994). Agreement with a low nominative does occur
in equatives, (321)e (Hakulinen et al. 2004: §924). The direct object O is
always a nonagreeing accusative, as in (321)a. 154
(321) a. Maija katki se-n
Maija.N hid it-A
Maija hit it.
b. Uutise-t jatku-vat.
new-PL.N continue-3PL
The news will continue.
c. Sitä ole-n minä-kin kaynyt Parii-ssa.
EXPL be-1SG I.N-also gone Paris-INS
I have been to Paris, too (actually).
d. Nyt tule-e uutise-t / *minä / *minu-t.
now come-3SG new-PL.N I.N I-A
Now there comes the news / *I.
e. Tämä ole-n minä
this be-1SG I.NOM
This is me.
(Finnish)
The principles that allow a low nominative in Finnish are the same as in Icelandic
or English. The Agree/Case of TNOM goes onto the highest DP in its domain
(Maling 1993). The DP may raise to a high position in the TP and agree, (321)b,
(321)c. Alternatively, it stays in-situ, in the type (321)d restricted to nonpronouns
and with no agreement for 3PL as in some Icelandic and English varieties (q.v.
note 120), and perhaps in the type (321)e with full agreement. Constructions with
in-situ nominatives other than the types (321)d and (321)e show the following
constellation of properties: 3 rd person pronouns are fine but do not agree;
[+person] pronouns are impossible as nominatives but turn up as accusatives;
there is reason to posit an intervener between TNOM and the nominative. The ban
on [+person] nominatives is the PCC, and the accusative its repair.
Oblique-subject unaccusatives make for a good introduction. They are similar
Icelandic dative-subject constructions in section 5.2. The possessive construction
in (322)a combines be, an adessive PP interpreted as possessor, and a possessum.
154 The accusative is morphologically distinctive only for [+person] pronouns, suffix –t, otherwise
it is syncretic with the genitive -n in the singular, and with the nominative -t in the plural, as
well as for numerals from three up, which are morphologically singular. The syncretism counts
for ellipsis (Kiparsky 2001), as expected for case syncretisms (McCreight 1988), but it should
not be viewed as the absence of a syntactic accusative relation (Brattico and Vainikka 2009, cf.
Maling 1993). The nominative-accusative syncretism is ancient or aboriginal, the accusativegenitive
one comes from a more recent merger of acc. –m and gen. –n (Hakulinen 1961: 67f.).