One part and two part models of nominal Case Evidence from case distribution

One-part and two-part models of nominal Case :

Evidence from case distribution

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

University of Jyva¨skyla¨

(Received 4 June 2008 ; revised 4 March 2009)

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 an-
other which states that the grammar is subject to a particular type of case hierarchy.

1. I

N T R O D U C T I O N

1.1 Case distribution

Case distribution (or alternatively, case concord) refers to the phenomenon
in which the nominal case feature is distributed within the adnominals inside
of a determiner phrase or a maximal nominal phrase. In examples (1a–d), this
concerns partitive, genitive and nominative case :

(1) (a) Finnish

Pekka katsoi

nii-ta¨

kolme-a

pien-ta¨

talo-a.

Pekka watched those-

PAR

three-

PAR

small-

PAR

house-

PAR

‘ Pekka watched those three small houses. ’

[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-infinitival,

ACC

=accusative case,

ADE

=adessive case,

=adjective phrase,

DAT

=dative case,

=complementizer phrase,

=determiner,

=feminine,

GEN

=genitive case,

ELA

=elative case,

INE

=inessive case,

INST

=instrumental case,

=noun,

NOM

=nominative case, Num=numeral head,

=masculine,

=MA-infinitival,

PAR

=partitive case,

PASS

=impersonal passive,

PAST

=past tense,

=plural,

=possessive suﬃx,

PAR

=partitive case,

=quantifier,

REFL

=reflexive particle,

=singular,

=participle verb.

J. Linguistics 46 (2010), 47–81.

f Cambridge University Press 2009

doi:10.1017/S0022226709990193

First published online 30 September 2009

(b) Polish (Rappaport 2003 : 125, ex. (6))

Widze szes´ciu miłych

chłopco´w.

I.see

six.

GEN

nice.

GEN

boys.

GEN

‘ I see six nice boys. ’

ov-a

star-a

knjig-a

stalno pad-a

this-

NOM

old-

NOM

book-

NOM

always fall-

‘ This old book keeps falling. ’

(d) Ancient Greek (Blake 2001 : 99, ex. (17))

aneksetastos

bios

the.

NOM

unexamined.

NOM

life.

NOM

‘ the unexamined life ’

The phenomenon of case distribution involves at least two related questions
which constitute the starting point of this article. The first question is how
the nominal case feature is assigned (checked, valued) to DPs in syntax.
The second question is how that feature is distributed with other nominal
elements, as shown in (1).

With these questions in mind, I distinguish

two hypotheses on how nominal case comes to be distributed over several
nominal elements : the two-part model and the one-part model.

1.2 The two-part models

I call the first hypothesis the two-part model because it assumes that the
answer to the first question is more or less independent of the answer to the
second question. According to one popular version of this model, nominal
case is attributed to determiner phrases or maximal nominal projections in
phrasal syntax, from which it percolates to other nominal elements by a
feature-sharing rule. This approach was typical of the GB-theoretical idea of
Case Filter (where DP

=NP, see Chomsky 1981) and much of the literature

that followed (Vainikka 1989, 1993, 2003 ; Haegeman 1994). For instance, if
the syntactic case-assigning mechanism involves a relation between heads
(e.g. finite verbs) and their specifiers (Chomsky 1986 : 23–28, 1995 : chapter 3),
then it involves a relation between heads and phrases which occupy these
specifier positions. The same is true of a model in which the relation obtains
between the head and its specifier and complement (Vainikka 1989).

[2] I use the term ‘ nominal elements ’ in this article to refer to words or word-like elements,

typically appearing inside of DPs, which show overt case suﬃxes. In a minimalist parlance,
these are heads which have an ‘ unvalued case feature ’. The term ‘ nominal element’ as used
here has no theoretical significance ; it merely conceals the fact that I have nothing to oﬀer
towards an explanation for why some heads show case and others do not.

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

This hypothesis should perhaps be considered as the received view among

linguists working within a wide range of theoretical frameworks. For in-
stance, the Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) of Pollard &
Sag (1994) also adopts this view in that case features are first assigned to
whole noun phrases via lexical subcategorization, while case concord within
these phrases follows by means of a feature-sharing mechanism.

Another

framework which adopts this assumption is the Case-in-Tiers approach of
Yip, Maling & Jackendoﬀ (1987), who state explicitly that case assignment to
DPs must be distinguished from case percolation within those DPs. I will
return to these proposals later in section 2.3.

A second well-known two-part model says that the nominal head has a

special role in syntactic case assignment. Thus, nominal case is first assigned
to the nominal head, from which it is distributed to other nominal elements,
much like number, person and gender (collectively labeled as Q-features in
this article). This approach is characteristic of minimalist theory (Chomsky
1995, 2000, 2001). What makes this proposal an instance of the two-part
model is the assumption that the mechanism which explains case concord
does not cover syntactic assignment of case : ‘ The term

CONCORD

tradition-

ally distinguishes _ agreement within DP from the canonical specifier-head
type : agreement theory as developed in Chomsky 1993 and related work
accounts only for the latter ’ (Carstens 2000 : 323). Thus, Chomsky (2001)
suggests that in addition to Agree, which assigns nominal Case and verbal
Q

-features, there is an operation Concord that is ‘ similar but distinct agree-

ment relation ’ (page 42, note 6).

1.3 The one-part models

The second possibility is to unify the answer to both questions and thus give
the same answer to the question of how case is assigned in syntax and how it
is distributed within whatever domain it is assigned to. These models will be
here referred to as one-part models. Within the generative tradition, this
hypothesis has been discussed in Brattico (2008) and Kayne (2005 : section
7.1.4). I cite’s Kayne’s minimalist one-part model for illustration :

The alternative [to the DP-hypothesis] is to take Case to be a feature of
lexical items only. In (26) [

=John bought three apples], three and apples will

each have structural Case that will be valued under agreement with a
probe [e.g. v]. Valuation (i.e. assignment of a value under agreement) will
take place separately for three and for apples, though the result will look
like Case-agreement. (Kayne 2005 : 142)

[3] In HPSG, feature-sharing is based on feature identity, not feature copying or checking.

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

For present purposes, the term ‘ valuation ’ in this citation can be taken

as equivalent to case assignment. According to this model, case-assignment
relations established in syntax are as shown in the diagram (2) :

(2)

John

bought

ACC

NumP

Num
three

ACC

apples
V/

ACC

I use the notation ‘ F :CASE ’ with the meaning that the case CASE is as-
signed (valued) by F. Note that the case assignment relations are relations
between heads, not relations between heads and phrases. Example (2) shows
how case assignment can explain case distribution : each and every nominal
element within the DP enters into its own case assignment relation with the
assigner. There is no assignment between heads and phrases. In this article,
I would like present arguments, based on case distribution in Finnish and
several Slavonic languages, in favor of the one-part model.

Before looking at these arguments, I would like to clarify two points. The

distinction between the two-part and one-part models may not be as clear-
cut as presented above. It is possible that the case concord and case assign-
ment mechanisms are distinct from each other yet overlap in some of their
properties. For instance, Franks (1995) assumes that while case concord
and case assignment are diﬀerent processes – case assignment supervenes on
theta-role assignment, while case concord supervenes on feature identity
within the nominal projection – they are both based on the same feature
coindexation principle. Feature coindexation is roughly synonymous with
agreement in the widest possible sense. Yet as far as I understand, case
assignment and case concord in Frank’s approach still follow their own
grammatical laws even if they are in part based on the same feature-sharing
mechanism. A one-part model, as I understand this term here, is a system in
which case assignment and case distribution do not diﬀer from each other.

The term ‘ case distribution ’ will be reserved in this article for the situation

in which the case feature is distributed to several elements within what
is typically a nominal or determiner phrase. Case distribution concerns
case features irrespective of the value of the feature, mainly because both

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

structural and non-structural case features are distributed. However, I
want to distinguish case distribution from general concord and agreement.
Concord is usually taken to refer to the distribution of both case features and
Q

-features (e.g. number, person and gender), whereas the present article is

concerned just with case distribution. Whether the two may eventually co-
alesce into one unified mechanism is not addressed here. On the other hand,
agreement is typically understood in a broader sense than concord or case
distribution. It often includes any type of grammatical feature covariation,
such as semantic agreement between a pronoun and its antecedent (Corbett
2006, Baker 2008). In the present article, I leave it open whether case distri-
bution can be deduced from a more general theory of agreement.

This article is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews some properties

of case distribution in Finnish and in a number of Slavonic languages and
argues in favor of the one-part model of case. No attempt is made to account
for the full complexity of the phenomenon, however, but only to present
the data that I think warrants the development of the one-part model.
Moreover, while there is a venerable tradition of the study of case distri-
bution within Slavonic linguistics, no comparable knowledge base exists
for Finnish. Therefore, this review section will emphasize the Finnish facts.
There is an additional reason to study Finnish. Since all Slavonic languages
are historically related to each other, the complex case distribution data
obtained from these languages may be in part due to historial relatedness
and historical accident, not to the properties of UG. Finnish (a Finno-Ugric
language) is not known to be historically related to the Slavonic languages
and may therefore be used as an important counterpole in an argument
distinguishing historical relatedness from the properties of UG.

Section 3 attempts to present the case distribution facts in their full com-

plexity in order to find out what additional principles are required, together
with the one-part model, to account for the full range of data. Two such
principles are proposed : Morphological Asymmetry, which is based on
Stowell’s (1981) Case-Resistance Principle, and a particular version of the
Case Hierarchy, which is adopted from the Slavonic literature (Babby 1987 ;
Franks 1994, 1995). If the argument presented in this article proves succesful,
this result will support the proposition that such principles are part of UG.

2. C

A S E D I S T R I B U T I O N

2.1 Noun phrases in Finnish

A sizeable chunk of the evidence discussed in this article is based on Finnish,
a case marking language with fifteen morphological case suﬃxes. I will
start by reviewing some elementary facts concerning the Finnish nominal
system.

I assume that Finnish nominal phrases are composed of optional overt

determiners or demonstrative pronouns (D), quantificational expressions

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(Q), numerals (Num), adjective phrases (APs), prenominal genitive modifiers
(possessives, thematic arguments of the nominal predicate), a nominal head
(N), and postnominal complements such as PPs or CPs, in that order :

(3) ne

kaikki kolme

ta¨rkea¨a¨

Peka-n

oivallusta

those.

all.

three.

NUM

important.

Pekka-

GEN

insights.

[

jotka auttoivat ha¨nta¨]

which helped

him

‘ all those three important insights of Pekka, which helped him ’

I also assume that determiners/demonstratives, quantifiers and numerals
are themselves heads, projecting determiner phrases, quantifier phrases and
numeral phrases, respectively. Adjective phrases are inserted inside of the
NP. Finnish is often said to lack the category of articles, but instead of an
article the nominal projection may be headed by a demonstrative (glossed
as D in this article). The underlying structure of Finnish DPs, assumed
throughout this article, is thus as shown in (4).

(4)

‘those’

kaikki

‘all’

NumP

Num

kolme

‘three’

Pekan

‘Pekka’s’

tärkeää

‘important’

oivallusta

‘insights’

että...

‘that...’

One immediate concern here is that the syntax of the noun phrase in general
is a controversial matter (Alexiadou, Haegeman & Stavrou 2007). What ex-
ample (3) shows is that determiners/demonstratives, quantifiers, numerals,
adjectives, nominal heads and nominal complements all fit together into the
Finnish noun phrase, and the analysis in (4) reflects this. Apart from the
noun head, all these elements are optional. Whether covert heads exist when
the corresponding phonological exponents are missing, in particular whether

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

the articleless noun phrases in Finnish are always DPs, is irrelevant to the
ensuing discussion.

Another controvery concerns the question of whether the functional heads

D, Q, and Num all c-command the nominal head as shown in (4), or whether
they first project DP, QP and NumP and then these phrases c-command. The
evidence presented in this article suggests that at least the numeral head
c-commands the noun, while the question of whether D and Q also do so is
much less important. I will assume that they c-command the noun head
as well.

2.2 Case distribution in Finnish

In Finnish, case distribution aﬀects demonstrative pronouns, quantifiers,
numerals, all adjectives and the nominal head itself. Nominative, accusative,
partitive, genitive and inherent/lexical cases undergo case distribution. Thus,
whatever the explanation of case distribution may be, the nature of the case
feature itself (i.e. structural vs. non-structural) is not relevant.

(5) (a) Mina¨ katsoin si-ta¨

yh-ta¨

pien-ta¨

punais-ta talo-a.

NOM

watched that-

PAR

one-

PAR

small-

PAR

red-

PAR

house-

PAR

‘ I watched that one small red house. ’

(b) Mina¨ na¨in se-n

yhde-n

piene-n

punaise-n talo-n.

NOM

saw that-

ACC

one-

ACC

small-

ACC

red-

ACC

house-

ACC

‘ I saw that one small red house. ’

yksi

pieni

punainen talo

seisoi

that.

NOM

one.

NOM

small.

NOM

red.

NOM

house.

NOM

standed

tie-n

vieressa¨.

road-

GEN

beside.

INE

‘ That one small red house stood besides the road. ’

(d) se-n

yhde-n

piene-n

punaise-n talo-n

ove-n

that-

GEN

one-

GEN

small-

GEN

red-

GEN

house-

GEN

door-

GEN

kahva.
knob.

NOM

‘ the knob of the door of that one small red house ’

[4] In Finnish, the genitive suﬃx -n is homonymous with the accusative case suﬃx in the

singular, but not in the plural : in the plural, the accusative suﬃx is -t whereas the genitive
suﬃx is -Cen. When the -n suﬃx is glossed as genitive or accusative in this article, the choice
is based on the plural test. Nominative is marked as a zero suﬃx in Finnish. The accusative
and partitive are object cases in Finnish. Vainikka (1989, 1993, 2003) argues that the par-
titive is the default object case ; accusative case is more restricted in its distribution. The
distribution of the two in verbal domains is controlled by the telic properties of the verb and
the nominal/quantificational semantics (Maling 1993, Kiparsky 1998, Nelson 1998,
Vainikka 2003). For general discussion of the Finnish case system, see Karlsson (1983),
Vainikka (1993) and Nelson (1998).

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(e) sii-na¨

yhde-ssa¨ piene-ssa¨ punaise-ssa talo-ssa.

that-

INE

one-

INE

small-

INE

red-

INE

house-

INE

‘ in that one small red house ’

Based on the data in (5), one could conjecture that case distribution inflects
all elements within DPs and concerns all case features. This would be too
simple. First, when the DP contains another phrase, such as an adjective
phrase, not all elements of that phrase are assigned case by the external
matrix element. For instance, the case of the complement of a participle
phrase (AP) is not influenced by the case distribution inside of its DP host. It
is the participle head, marked as VA in the example below, which controls
the case of the complement of its own phrase.

(6) Pekka na¨ki [

auto-a osta-neen]

isa¨-nsa¨

Pekka saw

car-

PAR

buy-

PAST

ACC

father-

ACC

tulevan kotiin.
come

home

‘ Pekka saw his father, who had bought a car, come home. ’

If the adjective head within a DP is modified by another adjective, that ad-
jective takes genitive case ; this occurs independent of the case of the DP as a
whole or of the case of the adjective head.

(7) Pekka katsoi

valtava-n iso-a

laiva-a.

Pekka watched huge-

GEN

big-

PAR

boat-

PAR

‘ Pekka watched a boat that was terribly big. ’

Case distribution does not aﬀect the complement of the noun head irres-
pective of the type of the complement. The data below shows this for an
inherent case complement (8a), CP complement (8b) and clausal non-finite
complement (8c).

(8) (a) Pekka katsoi

[valtava-n iso-a

laiva-a

Helsingista¨

]

PAR

Pekka watched huge-

GEN

big-

PAR

boat-

PAR

Helsinki.

ELA

‘ Pekka watched a boat from Helsinki that was terribly big. ’

(b) Pekka pohti

[hypoteesi-a¨

josta

esitelmo¨itsija¨ puhui

]

PAR

Pekka thought hypothesis-

PAR

which presenter

talked

‘ Pekka thought about the hypothesis that the presenter was talking
about. ’

[tarve-tta-an

kirjoittaa kirja-n

]

PAR

Pekka thought desire-

PAR

3 write.A

book-

ACC

‘ Pekka thought about his desire to write a book. ’

Another way in which the simple generalization that case is distributed to

all elements within DPs breaks down is when the DP contains an element
that itself assigns a case. Demonstrative pronouns or adjectives never do this
in Finnish, but numerals and other quantificational expressions representing

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

quantities diﬀerent from one do. These heads assign

PARTITIVE CASE

to their

complements (Vainikka 2003) :

(9) (a) yksi minuutti

one minute.

NOM

‘ one minute ’

(b) nolla minuutti-a

zero minute-

PAR

‘ zero minutes ’

half

minute-

PAR

‘ half a minute ’

(d) tuhat

minuutti-a

thousand minute-

PAR

‘ thousand minutes ’

Estonian and Inari Saami, historically related Finno-Ugric languages, show
the same pattern :

(10) (a) Estonian (Rutkowski 2001 : 7, ex. (10))

kaks so˜durit
two soldier.

PAR

‘ two soldiers ’

(b) Inari Saami (Nelson & Toivonen 2003 : 326, ex. (7a))

cˇicˇcˇaˆm poccud

la´a´ tobbeen

seven

reindeer.

PAR

are there

‘ there are seven reindeers. ’

This phenomenon is well documented also in Slavonic languages such

as Polish (Rutkowski 2001, 2002 ; Rappaport 2002, 2003), Serbo-Croatian
(Wechsler & Zlatic´ 2000) and Russian (Babby 1987). The interest here is in
what happens when a DP assigned with a structural case other than partitive
(say, accusative) contains a numeral that assigns partitive case to its own
complement. Because of case distribution, this leads to a situation in which
the complement of the numeral is seemingly assigned two structural cases :
accusative by the matrix element and partitive by the numeral. In this
situation the case assigned by the numeral to its complement overrides the
matrix case assignment :

(11) (a) [Ne

kaksi pien-ta¨

auto-a]

NOM

seisoivat tiella¨.

those.

; two.; small-

PAR

car-

PAR

standed road.

ADE

‘ Those two small cars stood at the road. ’

(b) Mina¨ lo¨ysin [ne

kaksi pien-ta¨

auto-a]

ACC

found those.

; two.; small-

PAR

car-

PAR

‘ I found those two small cars. ’

The elements above the numeral in the DP structure (i.e. D, Q ; see (4) above)
are seemingly assigned no case at all, and hence they are glossed as

; in the

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

above example. I will return to this phenomenon presently. It turns out that
not all words in the DP are assigned the same case : if the DP contains
another head which assigns its own case within the DP, this eﬀect overrides
a structural case assigned by the matrix element. As will be discussed later,
the story is diﬀerent if the DP is assigned an inherent or lexical case.
Furthermore, I will later show that the above pattern is also sensitive to one
of the Q-features of the nominal head, namely number.

Also, in Russian, Polish and Serbo-Croatian certain DP-internal numerals

or quantificational expressions function as case assigners. The basic pattern
of case distribution in these languages resembles that of Finnish : certain
numerals or quantifers assign case to the elements they c-command. In the
following examples, the numerals osiem ‘ eight ’ and piec/pjat’ ‘ five ’ assigns
genitive case, the so-called ‘ genitive of quantification ’, or

GEN

(Q), to the

elements they c-command. The demonstrative pronoun and the numeral
appear in their bare form.

(12) (a) Polish (Rappaport 2003 : 128, ex. (14))

Widzimy osiem dziewczynek.
we.see

eight.

; girls.

GEN

‘ We see eight girls. ’

(b) Polish (Franks 2002 : 151, ex. (16))

pie

( c´ kobiet

poszło

do domu.

these.

; five.; women.

GEN

went.

to home

‘ These five women went home. ’

pro

pjat’ interesnyx

knig

about five

interesting.

GEN

books.

GEN

The Finnish numeral yksi ‘ one ’ behaves diﬀerently from other numerals in
that it does not assign partitive case to its complement, while it itself exhibits
case declension. Analogous to (11b), we thus have (13a) in which case is
distributed to every nominal element ; the bare numeral and partitive case
would lead to ungrammaticality (13b).

(13) (a) Mina¨ na¨in [se-n

yhde-n

piene-n

auto-n]

ACC

saw

that-

ACC

one-

ACC

small-

ACC

car-

ACC

‘ I saw that one small car. ’

(b) *Mina¨ na¨in [se-n

yksi

pien-ta¨

auto-a]

ACC

saw

that-

ACC

one.

; small-

PAR

car-

PAR

This behavior of yksi remains unexplained. One possibility is that it has
started to behave like a determiner in Finnish, much like Italian uno ‘ one ’,
and thus it belongs to a diﬀerent grammatical category than the other
numerals (see Laury 1997). Rappaport (2003) proposes that the numeral
‘ one ’ in Russian, which behaves similarly to Finnish and Serbo-Croatian
with respect to case distribution, is an adjective. Following Rutkowski (2001,
2002), who discusses similar data from Polish and Estonian, I will refer to

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

yksi as an A-numeral (‘ adjectival numeral ’) and all the other cardinal nu-
merals assigning partitive case as Q-numerals (‘ quantificational numerals ’).

Unless otherwise stated the analysis here concerns only Q-numerals.

One further detail concerning the Q-numerals in Finnish requires a com-

ment. As shown in (9b–d) above, the complement of the numeral, i.e. the
noun head, must occur in singular. The Q-numeral which values partitive
case to this complement is also in singular. On the other hand, if the numeral
designates a plurality, then the demonstrative must be in plural. Therefore,
when we want to take the Q-features into account, a pair such as (11a–b) will
be glossed as (14a–b).

(14) (a) [Ne

kaksi

pien-ta¨

auto-a]

NOM

those.

; two.

; small-

PAR

car-

PAR

seiso-ivat

tiella¨.

stand-

PAST

road.

ADE

‘ Those two small cars stood at the road. ’

(b) Mina¨ na¨in [ne

kaksi

pien-ta¨

auto-a]

ACC

saw

those.

; two.

; small-

PAR

car-

PAR

‘ I saw those two small cars. ’

This eﬀect is most clearly seen in a construction in which the nominal head is
a plurale tantum noun that has only a plural form, e.g. sakset ‘ scissors ’. The
construction is ungrammatical when such a nominal is c-commanded by a
singular numeral, since the inherent feature [plural] of the nominal head
disagrees with the feature [singular] of the numeral, see (15a–c). Thus, if the
head noun is inherently plural, only the plural numeral can be combined with
it, see (15d–e).

(15) (a) *kolme sakse-a

three.

; scissor-

PAR

(b) *kolme saks-ia

three.

; scissor-

PAR

three.

; scissor-

NOM

ACC

(d) kolme-t

sakse-t

three-

NOM

ACC

scissor-

NOM

ACC

(e) * ?kolme-t

saks-ia

three-

NOM

ACC

scissor-

PAR

Note, in (15e), that the plural numeral cannot function as a case assigner,
hence it constitutes an A-numeral.

[5] Vainikka (1993) suggests that the numerals in example (11) are quantifiers. Rutkowski

(2001, 2002) makes the same claim for Polish and Estonian numerals. I will treat them as
numerals, since these words co-occur with true quantifiers such as kaikki ‘ all ’. As far as I
can see, there is no empirical issue at stake here, only conventions concerning the terms
‘ quantifier ’ and ‘ numeral’.

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

The singular Q-numeral agrees with its complement in Q-features, but it

does not agree with the demonstrative. The agreement with the demonstra-
tive is ‘ semantic ’, so that a Q-numeral not denoting a plurality, such as puoli
‘ half ’ (9c), will require a singular demonstrative. But this semantic dimen-
sion does not aﬀect the Q-features of the Q-numeral itself, which is always
singular.

One last demonstration that the Q-numeral is singular is that when the

numeral phrase is the subject of a finite verb, the finite verb does not inflect in
the plural, but in the singular instead (16).

(16)

kolme auto-a

aja-a

tiella¨

three

car-

PAR

drive-

road

‘ three cars drive on the road ’

2.3 Elements above the Q-numeral

In this section I will argue, following Brattico (2008), that while the Q-numeral
assigns partitive case to its complement, it is the matrix assigner which as-
signs case to the nominal elements

ABOVE

the Q-numeral in the DP structure.

In example (11), the determiner and the quantifier above the Q-numeral do

not show overt case marking. However, consider the data in (17). The whole
DP is headed by se ‘ it ’, the singular form of the demonstrative ne ‘ those ’.
Examples (17a–b) show that the singular demonstrative does inflect overtly
for matrix case, both accusative and nominative, while the Q-numeral still
assigns partitive case to its complement lower in the structure. Example (17c)
shows that when the DP occurs in the object position, the nominative form
of se cannot be used.

[6] Note that other expressions such as prepositions that assign partitive case to their com-

plements can be merged with either a singular or a plural nominal head :

(i) (a) kohti

talo-a,

kohti

talo-ja

towards house-

PAR

towards house-

PAR

(b) pain

auto-a,

pa¨in

auto-ja

against car-

PAR

against car-

PAR

ylo¨s ma¨ki-a¨

hill-

PAR

hill-

PAR

[7] Why does the plural demonstrative ne ‘ those ’ not show case marking (11), while the

singular forms (17) do show case marking ? The plural demonstrative does not show overt
case marking for the accusative case in

ANY

grammatical context (e.g. (iia–b)).

(ii) (a) Mina¨ na¨in [ne

kaikki auto-t]

ACC

saw

those.

ACC

all.

ACC

cars-

ACC

‘ I saw all those cars.’

(b) [Ne

kaikki

auto-t]

ajoivat tiella¨.

those.

NOM

all.

NOM

cars-

NOM

drove

on the road

‘ All those cars were driving on the road. ’

In other words, the fact that these words are caseless has nothing to do with the presence of
the (likewise caseless) numeral.

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

(17) (a) Mina¨ odotin [se-n

puoli tunti-a]

ACC

waited that-

ACC

half

hour-

PAR

‘ I waited that half hour. ’

(b) [Se

puoli tunti-a]

NOM

kului

nopeasti.

that.

NOM

half

hour-

PAR

lapsed fast

‘ That half an hour lapsed fast. ’

puoli tunti-a]

ACC

waited that.

NOM

half

hour-

PAR

One point about this data may require clarification. As rightly pointed out
by an anonymous reviewer, it is possible that the demonstrative pronoun
se-n ‘ that ’ is assigned genitive case rather than accusative case. This is be-
cause in the singular, the genitive and the accusative suﬃxes are homony-
mous (see footnote 4). If the demonstrative is in genitive, we cannot conclude
that it has been assigned case by the matrix element.

This hypothesis is incorrect, however, as shown by the so-called negative

test. According to this test, if the matrix clause in Finnish is negated, it forces
partitive case on the object of the same clause or on the thematic subject of
the embedded infinitive (MA-infinitive in the example below). To see this,
compare (18a–b). As can be seen in (18c–e), genitive case does not undergo
this alteration.

(18) (a) Pekka na¨ki Merja-n/

ha¨n-et

la¨hte-ma¨ssa¨.

Pekka saw Merja-

ACC

him-

ACC

leave-

‘ Pekka saw Merja/him leaving. ’

(b) Pekka ei

na¨hnyt Merja-a/

ha¨n-ta¨ la¨hte-ma¨ssa¨.

Pekka not see

Merja-

PAR

he-

PAR

leave-

‘ Pekka did not saw Merja/him leaving. ’

ha¨n-en la¨hte-va¨n.

Pekka saw Merja-

GEN

he-

GEN

leave-

‘ Pekka saw Merja’s/his leaving. ’

(d) Pekka ei

na¨hnyt Merja-n/

ha¨n-en la¨hte-va¨n.

Pekka not saw

Merja-

GEN

he-

GEN

leave-

‘ Pekka did not saw Merja’s/his leaving. ’

(e) *Pekka ei

na¨hnyt Merja-a/

ha¨n-ta¨ la¨hte-va¨n.

Pekka not saw

Merja-

PAR

he-

PAR

leave-

‘ Pekka did not saw Merja’s/his leaving. ’

Next we apply this test to the DPs headed by a demonstrative. In a
construction like (17a), the demonstrative pronoun takes the partitive case
when the sentence is negated. Thus, it must be in accusative rather than in
genitive :

(19) (a) Mina¨ odotin [se-n

puoli tunti-a]

ACC

waited that-

ACC

half

hour-

PAR

‘ I waited that half hour. ’

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(b) Mina¨ en

odottanut [si-ta¨

puol-ta tunti-a]

PAR

not wait

that-

PAR

half-

PAR

hour-

PAR

(c)

*Mina¨ en

odottanut [se-n

puoli tunti-a]

PAR

not wait

that-

ACC

GEN

half

hour-

PAR

(d) *Mina¨ en

odottanut [se-n

puol-ta tunti-a]

PAR

not wait

that-

ACC

GEN

half-

PAR

hour-

PAR

Let us return to case assignment above the Q-numeral. Another important
piece of evidence comes from the behavior of Finnish adjectives. In Finnish,
adjectives can occur either below or above the numeral within the DP.
When the adjective is located above the numeral, it is assigned matrix case
(20a, c). When it is located below the numeral, it is assigned partitive case
(20b, d).

(20) (a) Mina¨ odotin pitka¨stytta¨va¨-t kolme minuutti-a.

waited boring-

ACC

three.

; minute-

PAR

‘ I waited the boring three minutes. ’

(b) Mina¨ odotin kolme pitka¨stytta¨va¨-a¨ minuutti-a.

waited three.

; boring-

PAR

minute-

PAR

‘ I waited the boring three minutes. ’

ate

rotten-

ACC

half

bread-

PAR

‘ I ate a rotten half of a bread. ’

(d) Mina¨ so¨in puoli pilaantunut-ta leipa¨-a¨.

ate

half

rotten-

PAR

bread-

PAR

‘ I ate half of a rotten bread. ’

The following data shows that the distribution of the accusative and partitive
case correlates with word order :

(21) (a) *Mina¨ odotin kolme pitka¨stytta¨va¨-t minuutti-a.

waited three.

; boring-

ACC

minute-

PAR

‘ I waited the boring three minutes. ’

(b) *Mina¨ odotin pitka¨stytta¨va¨-a¨ kolme minuutti-a.

waited boring-

PAR

three.

; minute-

PAR

‘ I waited the boring three minutes. ’

An additional reason to think that we need to distinguish the morpho-
syntactic environment above the numeral from the one below of the numeral
concerns Q-features. Recall that the Q-numeral is itself in singular, triggering
the singular form of the noun head in its complement. The demonstrative
may be in plural, however. Since an adjective can occur both above and
below the numeral, it is possible to examine whether its Q-features change as
a function of its position. As shown in (22), they do.

(22) (a) ne

kaksi

pilaantunut-ta leipa¨-a¨

those.

two.

rotten-

PAR

bread-

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

(b) *ne

kaksi

pilaantun-eita leipa¨-a¨

those.

two.

rotten-

PAR

bread-

PAR

pilaantune-et kaksi

leipa¨-a¨

those.

rotten-

ACC

two.

bread-

PAR

(d) *ne

pilaantunu-t kaksi

leipa¨-a¨

those.

rotten-

ACC

two.

bread-

PAR

An adjective below the Q-numeral must be in singular, while an adjective
above the Q-numeral must agree with the demonstrative.

2.4 Locality and case assignment

Overall the generalization covering Finnish case distribution data appears to
be that each of the nominal elements inside of the noun phrase is assigned its
case features, individually, by the

CLOSEST C

COMMANDING ASSIGNER

(23)

Locality and case assignment

All case assignees (e.g. D, Q, N, A) are assigned their case features by
the closest c-commanding case assigner (e.g. T, v, Num, P).

The generalization is depicted in (24), where the matrix verb V assigns its

case to the determiner/demonstrative pronoun, while the Q-numeral assigns
partitive case to the adjective head and to the nominal head. In both cases,
the assignment takes place under a local c-command relation.

(24)

‘those’

(V:ACC)

NumP

V:ACC

NumP

Num

kolme-

∅

‘three’

(?)

pitkä-ä

‘long’

(Num:PAR)

minuutti-a

‘minutes’

(Num:PAR)

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

Consider the data to see how (23) captures case distribution patterns in
Finnish. Phrase-structure (24) itself shows the basic case distribution pattern
with a Q-numeral, as illustrated in (17a–c), (20a–d) and (21a–c). In Finnish,
the prenominal adjective phrase can contain a sequence of complements in
addition to the adjective head. The matrix assigners or assigners in the pro-
jectional spine of the noun phrase (e.g. the Q-numeral) assigns case to the
adjective head, but not to any of its complements inside of the AP (6). This
follows from (23) since it is the adjective head, or some functional structure
therein, that is the closest assigner for its own complement(s). Recall that in
Finnish, many adjective heads assign object case (accusative or partitive).
The adjective phrase thus constitutes a closed morphosyntactic environment
within the DP, an objective case assignment sandwiched between nominative
case distribution :

(25) se

[auto-a osta-va]

mies

that.

NOM

car-

PAR

buy-

NOM

man.

NOM

‘ that man, who was buying a car ’

Case distribution does not extend to a complement of the noun head (8a–c),
a phenomenon that follows from (23) if we assume that nominal heads, or
some functional structure therein, are assigners. There is some evidence that
the noun head assigns the genitive in Finnish (Vainikka 1989, 1993 ; Brattico
& Leinonen 2009). If so, then the nominal head is the closest assigner for its
own complement.

2.5 Case distribution in Slavonic

It is of some interest to examine whether a similar locality principle holds in
other languages. Similar data emerges from a number of Slavonic languages,
including Russian, Polish and Serbo-Croatian.

Russian resembles Finnish

in that cardinal numerals greater or equal to five (pjat’) assign case to the
nominal element following them (Corbett 1978, 1983 ; Babby 1987 ; Franks
1994). In Russian, the Q-numeral assigns the genitive case, while in Finnish it
assigns the partitive. On the other hand, the numeral odin ‘ one ’ declines like
an adjective. These patterns can thus be compared to Finnish numerals. As
in Finnish, the genitive assignment overrides matrix assignment and the case
assignment appears to be based on locality in both languages (Babby 1987,
Franks 1994).

[8] Numerals in Russian as well as other Slavonic languages have been notorious for their

‘ legendary complexity ’ (Corbett 2004 : 215). This has resulted in a controversy over how to
analyze these constructions, and it is beyond the scope of the present paper to try to do
justice to all of the existing literature. I will have to make with a selective overview.
However, some of these facts will be picked up again in Section 3.

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

Russian numerals five and above assign genitive plural, whereas the

so-called paucal numerals oba ‘ both ’, dva ‘ two ’, tri ‘ three ’ and cˇetyre ‘ four ’
assign the genitive singular. This latter pattern parallels the Finnish data, in
which the singular partitive is likewise governed. In the Slavonic literature
this exceptional number is sometimes called ‘ paucal ’ as it can be dis-
tinguished by various linguistic tests and by its historical development. These
numerals also have additional properties which relate to Q-feature agreement
in terms of animacy and gender (Corbett 1978, 1983). It thus seems that
whereas Finnish numerals can be neatly partitioned into two classes, i.e.
adjectival numerals and quantificational numerals, in Russian either there
exist three distinct classes or there is a noun-adjective continuum (Corbett
1978, 1983).

In Finnish, the case-assigning functional heads do not themselves show

overt case suﬃxes. This is also true of Russian. Thus, Franks says that for the
genitive-assigning numerals ‘ it is actually unclear whether these should be
regarded as syncretic nominative/accusative forms or as caseless quantifiers ’
(Franks 1994 : 601, note 4). Examples (26a–c) illustrate these properties in
Russian, with Finnish equivalents in (27) :

(26) Russian (Franks 1994 : 600, ex. (1))

(a) Ivan kupil

odnu

masˇinu.

Ivan bought one.

ACC

car.

ACC

‘ Ivan bought one car. ’

(b) Ivan kupil

tri

masˇiny.

Ivan bought three.

; cars.

GEN

‘ Ivan bought three cars. ’

pjat’ masˇin.

Ivan bought five.

; cars.

GEN

‘ Ivan bought five cars. ’

(27) Finnish

(a) Ivan osti

yhde-n

auto-n.

Ivan bought one-

ACC

car-

ACC

(b) Ivan osti

kolme auto-a.

Ivan bought three.

; car-

PAR

viisi

auto-a.

Ivan bought five.

; car-

PAR

Other Slavonic languages show similar properties. In Polish, cardinal
numerals higher than four assign genitive case to their complement in
what appears to be nominative subject position (28a) and accusative object
position (28b).

[9] Some scholars assume that the noun phrase in (28a) takes accusative case rather than the

nominative.

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(28) Polish (Rutkowski 2001, ex. (7a–b))

(a) [Osiem koni]

NOM

je.

eight

horses.

GEN

eat

‘ Eight horses eat. ’

(b) On kocha [osiem koni]

ACC

he loves

eight horses.

GEN

‘ He loves eight horses. ’

Similar phenomenon is attested in Czech and Serbo-Croatian :

(29) Czech (Franks 1995 : 136, ex. (17))

Peˇt pa´nu

prˇisˇlo

five men.

GEN

arrived.

(30) Serbo-Croatian (Franks 1995 : 97, ex. (6))

(a) za osam dana

in eight days.

GEN

(b) sa

pet djevojaka

with five girls.

GEN

kuc´a

owner five small.

GEN

houses.

GEN

‘ the owner of five small houses ’

The data from Finnish demonstratives and adjectives (e.g. examples (17), (20)
and (22)) supports the proposition that the elements above the Q-numeral
are assigned by the matrix element, whereas elements below the Q-numeral
are assigned by the Q-numeral itself. Matters become slightly more complex,
however, when we look at the Slavonic languages. In Polish, a demonstrative
that occurs above the Q-numeral is assigned accusative case, not the matrix
case, in all direct case contexts :

(31) Polish (Rutkowski 2002 : 7, ex. (6a–b))

(a) *ci

pie˛ciu me˛z˙czyzn

these.

NOM

five.

; men.

GEN

(b) tych

pie˛ciu me˛z˙czyzn

these.

ACC

five.

; men.

GEN

‘ these five men ’

In Serbo-Croatian and Russian, demonstratives and some other prenumeral
elements are in some instances assigned genitive case and not the matrix case
(Franks 1995 : 100–102). My impression of the Slavonic literature is that
many authors try hard to maintain the idea that assignment is based on local
government ; the above deviant constructions could be explained away as
involving for example diﬀerent grammatical structure (Babby 1987) or
grammatical movement (Corbett 1979). It has also been argued that the DPs
in (31a–b) occur only in positions where accusative case is assigned to the DP ;
hence (31b) does not violate (23) (Franks 1995 : 132–135, Rutkowski 2002).

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

2.6 Two-part models of Finnish case distribution

Let us turn to the two-part models of case. Hypothesis (23) suggests that case
assignment is a process that occurs between words, not between words and
phrases. Assuming the two-part model as a background, the simplest such
hypothesis assumes that the case feature is first assigned to the nominal head
Nx on the basis of the syntactic position of the DP, and this feature is then
shared by other elements within the determiner/nominal phrase.

The present data shows that the matrix element does not assign case

features to the nominal head when the DP contains a numeral ; rather, the
overt case feature is distributed to the nominal elements above the numeral,
while the numeral assigns partitive case to the nominal head. In other words,
the presence of the numeral cuts the expected case-related connection be-
tween the matrix verb and the nominal head.

One way to explain the data in the framework of this hypothesis is to

assume that the numeral functions as the nominal head of the noun phrase,
with the partitive-marked constituent occurring as its complement. Several
reasons speak against this hypothesis.

First, even if the numeral were the nominal head of the DP, it still does not

show case agreement with the matrix element. Rather, a numeral which
assigns partitive case always takes a ‘ bare form ’, that is, a form without any
case suﬃxes. Yet this cannot be because the numeral could not inflect for
case, since the numeral can decline like the nominal head. Thus compare
(32a–b), where (32a) shows the Q-numeral assigning partitive case and
(32b) shows the same numeral with a t-suﬃx, encoding plural nominative/
accusative, which does not assign partitive to its complement.

(32) (a) ne

kolme

auto-a

those three.

car-

PAR

‘ those three cars ’

(b) ne

kolme-t

auto-t

those three-

NOM

ACC

car-

NOM

ACC

‘ those aggregrates of three cars ’

In Finnish the numeral representing a cardinal quantity therefore has two
forms, the Q-numeral and the A-numeral ; the numeral yksi ‘ one ’ has only
the A-numeral form. The correct generalization here appears to be that if the
numeral inflects for matrix case, then it cannot assign partitive case, and vice
versa, if the numeral assigns partitive case, it will appear in its bare form. But
if the numeral declines, so does the nominal head. There is no evidence that
the Q-numeral would receive its case feature from the external matrix case
assigner.

Second, while the numeral is an optional constituent within the DP, it

cannot appear alone in the DP, apart from elliptical constructions ; rather,
it always requires a complement noun. Third, the numeral cannot be

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

complemented with a CP that can occur as a complement to nominal heads.
This is shown in (33a–b).

(33) (a) mies jonka

tapasin

man who.

ACC

met

‘ a/the man, who I met ’

(b) ? ?kolme jotka

tapasin

three

who.

met

‘ the three who I met ’

Adjectives which occur within the DP always modify the nominal head and
never the numeral. In Finnish, the adjective parillinen is lexically ambiguous :
it can mean either ‘ even-numbered ’ or ‘ something which has a pair ’. If this
adjective actually modified an odd-numbered numeral, the expression below
would be contradictory ; this reading is nevertheless impossible.

(34) ne

parilliset

kolme sukkaa

those even-numbered three

socks

‘ those three socks which have pairs ’
‘ *those even-numbered three socks ’

Normal adjectives do not seem to be capable of modifying the numeral, only
the true nominal head.

One attractive feature of the hypothesis that case is assigned to the noun

head is that it could unify case distribution with Q-feature distribution by
taking the view that both features are distributed by the same grammatical
mechanism : an upward percolation or, alternatively, feature checking or
feature sharing. However, if we assume that the numeral functions as the
nominal head of the NP, we lose this property, since as I pointed out earlier
(see example (14) above) the numeral which assigns partitive case is in the
singular, whereas the elements above the numeral can be both in the plural
(35a) and in the singular (35b).

(35) (a) ne

pitka¨stytta¨va¨-t kolme

minuutti-a

those.

boring-

three.

minutes-

PAR

‘ those boring three minutes ’

(b) se

pitka¨stytta¨va¨ puoli

minuutti-a

that.

boring.

half.

minute-

PAR

‘ that boring half a minute ’

There is no grammatical number agreement between the Q-numeral and the
demonstrative (35a) ; rather, there is singular agreement between the nomi-
native head and the numeral.

[10] This is not to say that nothing can modify the numeral. For instance, modifiers such as

‘ almost ’ or ‘ more than ’ could be argued to reside within a numeral projection NumP.

[11] This phenomenon is not peculiar to Finnish; see Rijkhoﬀ (2002).

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

The last argument against assuming that the numeral constitutes the

head of the DP is based on the fact that syntactic and semantic selectional
requirements hold between the matrix verb and the noun, not between
the matrix verb and the numeral. In examples (36–37), the numeral does
not aﬀect the semanticality of the clause, but the nature of the noun head
does.

(36) (a) #Mina¨ odotin kolme talo-a.

waited three

house-

PAR

‘ I waited three houses. ’

(b) #Mina¨ odotin talo-a.

waited house-

PAR

‘ I waited a house. ’

waited three

minute-

PAR

‘ I waited three minutes. ’

(d) Mina¨ odotin minuuti-n.

waited minute-

ACC

‘ I waited a minute. ’

(37) (a) Mina¨ nukuin kolme minuutti-a.

slept

three

minute-

PAR

‘ I slept three minutes. ’

(b) #Mina¨ nukuin kolme talo-a.

slept

three

house-

PAR

‘ I slept three houses. ’

Let us turn now to the DP-hypothesis, according to which there are two

case mechanisms : case assignment to DP and an additional case concord
rule. One way to maintain the DP hypothesis in the face of the numeral data
is to assume that the numeral selects another DP and then assigns partitive
case to that DP. This is the model proposed by Vainikka (1993). The problem
with this hypothesis is that it posits rules ‘ DP

pD+NumP’ and

‘ NumP

pNum+DP’ which predict structures of the form ‘D Num D Num

D Num...N ’. Such expressions are not attested. Examples (38a–c) provide
several conceivable instances, all ungrammatical. I have found no evidence
that without manipuluating the construction further one could insert quan-
tifiers or determiners below the numeral.

(38) (a) *ne

kaksi nii-ta¨

kaike-t

auto-ja

those two

these-

PAR

all-

ACC

cars-

PAR

[12] An anonymous reviewer points out that constructions such as these two of all the red dresses

I own contain the quantifier ‘ all ’ in the scope of the numeral. Similar constructions in
Finnish can be argued to involve a Num-Nx-PP structure instead of Num-D-QP (Brattico
2008).

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(b) *ne

kaksi si-ta¨

kaikki-a

auto-a

those two

these-

PAR

all-

PAR

cars-

PAR

puoli yh-ta¨

pitka¨-a¨

minuutti-a

that half

one-

PAR

long-

PAR

minute-

PAR

Another problem with this hypothesis is that it, too, requires the numeral to
function as the head of the higher NP. This hypothesis was rejected above.
These and several additional arguments against the DP-hypothesis are dis-
cussed in Brattico (2008).

Given these diﬃculties in fitting the two-part model to the data, I turn next

to Kayne’s (2005) one-part model. According to this model, neither DPs nor
nominal heads play a special role in the syntactic assignment mechanism.
Instead, each assigner is capable of encapsulating a morphosyntactic
environment for whatever lies in its own complement. The data seen so far
behaves exactly as expected under this hypothesis ; indeed, the descriptive
principle (23) constitutes one version of the one-part model.

There are several paths one might take after making this assumption ex-

plicit. In the rest of this article, I will examine several additional empirical
facts and on this basis propose two generalizations which interact with the
Kaynean case assignment mechanism to provide the best model for all the
available data. Another plausible approach would be to develop Kayne’s
proposal into a fully formal model within the context of some more par-
ticular linguistic framework. I will not attempt this task in this article due to
the additional data that would require discussion before any such model
should be attempted. I will only make two brief comments concerning the
relevance of the present data to the minimalist program (Chomsky 1995).

The standard assumption within minimalism has been that case is

implemented (i) by feature checking and (ii) by following the two-part model
which assumes that case is first assigned to the noun head in syntax and
distributed together with Q-concord (Bosˇkovic´ 2006). The present data is
noncommital with respect to the assumption that case is implemented
by means of case checking instead of case assignment/assignment. All the
evidence we have seen so far is compatible with the assumption that the
closest c-commanding assigner checks the case of the nominal elements it
c-commands. This would represent a variation on the one-part hypothesis,
not a departure from it.

The hypothesis (ii) stems from the lexicalist orientation of the MP. Since in

many cases the nominal head bears the case feature checked by the matrix
element, it has been a straightforward conclusion to assume that it has a
distinguished role in case checking. Thus, when finite T agrees with the DP in
case, there is a checking relation between T and the nominative case feature
of the nominal head. This assumption must be abandoned : if there is
any checking relation between T and the nominal elements within the DP
containing the numeral, this relation must obtain between T and some

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

element(s) above the numeral, since only those elements bear nominative
case. But I think this problem can be solved if we assume that instead of such
case checking, case is assigned by means of local

VALUATION

(Chomsky 2001,

2008). We can assume that the case features of the nominals are assigned
(valued) by the closest assigners, often functional heads, or simply as soon as
a possible assigner is merged.

3. T

O W A R D S A O N E

P A R T H Y P O T H E S I S F O R C A S E D I S T R I B U T I O N

3.1 Case Hierarchy

The data we have seen so far suggests that each nominal element is assigned
its case independently of the rest and that this mechanism obeys a locality
eﬀect in which the closest relevant element determines the case of another
element. Thus, each phonological word within the nominal phrase is as-
signed case depending on the c-commanding (‘ governing ’) relations.

But this cannot be all. Consider the behavior of numerals in both Finnish

and Russian. Here we cite the Finnish facts, which are identical to the
Russian facts in the relevant aspects (see Babby 1987 for the latter). As we
have seen, the non-structural case suﬃx is distributed among the nominal
elements (39).

(39) nii-ssa¨

kolme-ssa piene-ssa¨ talo-ssa

those-

INE

three-

INE

small-

INE

house-

INE

‘ in those three small houses ’

I assume here for the sake of simplicity that the inessive case is assigned
either by the main verb, as specified in its subcategorization frame, or by a
covert prepositional element which heads the DP (see Nikanne 1993 for a
version of the latter hypothesis). However, as example (39) demonstrates, the
numeral ceases to assign partitive case to its complement when it is assigned
inherent case by the preposition. Thus, examples (40a–c) are all ungram-
matical.

(40) (a) *nii-ssa¨

kolme-ssa pien-ta¨

talo-a

those-

INE

three-

INE

small-

PAR

house-

PAR

‘ in those three small houses ’

[13] Based on Jean-Roger Vergnaud’s original idea of 1977 (published in Vergnaud 2008),

Chomsky (1981) argued that phonologically overt noun phrases must be assigned abstract
Case. This principle (‘ Case Filter ’) has subsequently constituted an important step towards
the unification of movement and Case. On the other hand, if Case is not assigned to full
DPs, then the Case Filter must be reformulated so as to concern lexical material within the
DP instead of the noun phrase itself. There seems to be no obstacle to rewriting the Case
Filter in this manner, although the fact that the Q-numerals appear in their caseless forms
might result in further revision.

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(b) *niissa¨

kolme pien-ta¨

talo-a

those-

INE

three.

; small-

PAR

house-

PAR

‘ in those three small houses ’

kolme piene-ssa¨ talo-ssa

those-

INE

three.

; small-

INE

house-

INE

‘ in those three small houses ’

The same phenomenon is observed when the DP containing the numeral is
assigned genitive (41a–c) or partitive case (41c–d) :

(41) (a) [kolme-n

talo-n]

GEN

ryhma¨

three-

GEN

house-

GEN

group

‘ a group of three houses ’

(b) *[kolme-n

talo-a]

GEN

ryhma¨

three-

GEN

house-

PAR

group

GEN

ryhma¨

three.

; house-

PAR

group

(d) [niita¨

kolme-a

talo-a]

PAR

those.

PAR

three-

PAR

house-

PAR

‘ those three houses ’

(e) *[niita¨

kolme talo-a]

PAR

those.

PAR

three.

; house-

PAR

Only when the DP is assigned nominative or accusative can the numeral
assign partitive case to its complement. Russian shows that the pattern is
not restricted to Finnish. According to Babby (1987) and Franks (1994),
Q-numerals within noun phrases in positions assigned inherent or lexical
case do not assign genitive case to their complements. In such contexts all
elements decline in the inherent case, in instrumental case in the example
below :

(42) Russian (Franks 1994 : 601, ex. (3a–b))

(a) Ivan vladeet odnoj

fabrikoj.

Ivan owns

one.

INST

factory.

INST

‘ Ivan owns one factory. ’

(b) Ivan vladeet tremja

fabrikami.

Ivan owns

three.

INST

factories.

INST

‘ Ivan owns three factories. ’

In Polish direct case contexts, too, a numeral higher than four assigns geni-
tive case to the adnominals within its own complement (43a–b), while this
eﬀect disappears in inherent or lexical case contexts (43c).

(43) Polish (Rappaport 2003 : 124, ex. (3a–b))

(a) Te

miłe

dziewczyny bawia˛

sie˛

na podwo´rzu.

these.

NOM

nice.

NOM

girls.

NOM

play.

REFL

on courtyard

‘ These nice girls are playing in the courtyard. ’

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

(b) Szes´c´ miłych

dziewczynek bawi

sie˛

na podwo´rzu.

six

nice.

GEN

girls.

GEN

play.

REFL

on courtyard

‘ Six nice girls are playing in the courtyard. ’

(c)

On ufa

siedmiu

koniom

/*koni. (Rutkowski 2001, ex. (8))

he trusts seven.

DAT

horses.

DAT

horses.

GEN

‘ He trusts seven horses. ’

The pattern can also be found in Estonian (Rutkowski 2001) and in Inari
Saami (Nelson & Toivonen 2003). In sum, in Finnish the closest assigner
(numeral) does not assign its case to the element it c-commands if there is a
structurally higher case assigner which assigns lexical, inherent, genitive or
partitive case.

Babby (1987) explains the data by positing a C

ASE

IERARCHY

, in which if

an element E is c-commanded by a lexical case assigner, this eﬀect overrides
the eﬀects of genitive and nominative/accusative assigners, while a genitive
assigner overrides the eﬀects of nominative/accusative assigners.

(44)

A case-taker is assigned case by the c-commanding assigner. A case
hierarchy (

LEXICAL CASE

>GENITIVE CASE>STRUCTURAL CASE

) determines

which of the competing cases is manifested overtly.

The general idea behind this principle is that structural case is assigned
diﬀerently than are other case features. Babby, for instance, assumes
that structural case is assigned at s-structure, inherent case features at
d-structure ; moreover, inherent case features cannot be erased during the
derivation. Franks (1995) and Rutkowski (2001) follow the same model in its
essentials.

I would like to make few comments before accepting this hypothesis. First,

note that although the Case Hierarchy can be argued to be necessary for the
explanation of case distribution, it may not be suﬃcient. In many gram-
matical frameworks a given linguistic element can be c-commanded simul-
taneously by several assigners assigning structural case, for example, both v
(or the transitive finite verb) and finite T (or C). The above Case Hierarchy
does not resolve the case conflict between nominative and accusative case.
The domain of case assignment must thus be restricted in some way in ad-
dition to being regulated by c-command relations. Babby (1987) assumes that
these additional restrictions derive from locality, so that the more local
structural case assigner wins the case competition. The present principle (23),
or an equivalent system of locality, is therefore necessary.

Moreover, recall that in Finnish only the nominative or accusative sin-

gular Q-numeral assigns partitive case to its complement. All other numeral
forms behave essentially like adjectives : they are case-takers and thus
they decline like adjectives, and they do not assign case by themselves. Case
assignment seems to be controlled both by the properties of the local
c-commanding assigners and by the properties of the nominal head. Again, it

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

has not escaped notice that something similar is found in the Slavonic lan-
guages, in which the Q-features of the noun head aﬀect the morphosyntax of
the numeral (Franks 1995, Rappaport 2003). Whatever exactly is going on
here, the Case Hierarchy by itself seems insuﬃcient to explain the pattern.

To me the most interesting problem for the Case Hierarchy is the follow-

ing. In the mainstream Slavonic tradition, the Case Hierarchy has been re-
duced in various ways to the diﬀerence between structural and inherent/
lexical case features. This approach has to be revised in some form for
Finnish, since the distinction between structural and inherent/lexical case
does not align perfectly with the shift in the case concord pattern. Thus,
while nominative and accusative contexts allow the partitive numeral, all
other case contexts disallow it. The problem is that by all syntactic tests
the genitive and partitive cases count as structural cases (Vainikka 1989,
1993, 2003 ; Brattico & Leinonen 2009). Similar data emerges from Serbo-
Croatian, to be discussed below.

I would like to draw three conclusions from this discussion. A case

hierarchy of some sort looks impossible to avoid. Some case features are
‘ weaker ’ than others. The case hierarchy by itself does not explain all the
data ; a locality principle is required in addition. I will suggest that a certain
kind of case hierarchy (section 3.2) together with the locality principle (23)
provides the best description of the data. Finally, the idea that the case
hierarchy is based on a distinction between structural and inherent case
features is problematic because it does not apply to Finnish. In Finnish, the
case hierarchy draws a line between nominative/accusative and the rest of the
case features, while this is not the same distinction as the one between
the structural and inherent case features. In the next section, I present an
alternative formulation of the case hierarchy which tries to take this fact into
account.

3.2 Rethinking the Case Hierarchy

In seeking for another solution, there is an independent generalization which
seems to cover both situations, namely case assignment being overriden by
inherent, genitive and partitive case assignment, and being overriden by the
plural number feature of the nominal. The Q-numeral which assigns partitive
case in Finnish is a marked head which has the following three special
properties : (1) it assigns partitive case, (2) it is grammatically in the singular,
and (3) it does not show overt case suﬃxes. Let us call this numeral the ‘ bare
numeral ’. Its exceptional behavior follows from an independently motivated
generalization proposed by Stowell (1981). Many assigners such as com-
plementizers, prepositions and other functional heads are not themselves
assigned overt case, and thus they too appear to be ‘ bare forms ’. The op-
posite is also true to some extent for Finnish, since if some element is as-
signed overt case, it cannot by itself serve as a case assigner. This is true of

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

Finnish demonstrative pronouns and adjectives. This explains the peculiar
behavior of the Finnish numeral yksi ‘ one ’ which does not assign partitive
case to its complement, contrary to other numerals, but is itself assigned
overt matrix case. Finally, some grammatical elements, such as most adverbs
and grammatical particles, seem at least prima facie to fall outside of
the assigner–assignee system in Finnish. The following ‘ Case-Resistance
Principle ’, discussed in Stowell (1981) and Bosˇkovic´ (2006 : 526), thus brings
us a long waytowards an explanation of the Finnish facts.

(45)

Case-Resistance Principle

No grammatical element can be simultaneously assigned overt case
and function as a assigner.

Keeping this generalization in mind, let us turn to the problem with the
plural marking. Recall that the Finnish numeral loses its ability to function
as a assigner when it is marked for plural. This is shown in (46a–c).

(46) (a) kolme mies-ta¨

three.

; men-

PAR

‘ three men ’

(b) kolme-t

miehe-t

three-

ACC

NOM

men-

ACC

NOM

‘ three men ’

mies-ta¨

three-

ACC

NOM

men-

PAR

However, the Finnish t-form in (46b) also carries nominative and accusative
case features, and the t-ending is thus not just a plural marker (Nelson 1998 :
40–42). Indeed, with pronouns the t-form encodes accusative case un-
ambiguously.

(47) (a) Ha¨n

na¨ki minu-t.

he.

NOM

saw me-

ACC

‘ He saw me. ’

(b) Mina¨ na¨in ha¨ne-t.

NOM

saw him-

ACC

‘ I saw him. ’

The t-forms listed in (46b–c) are likewise marked overtly for case. Further
evidence for this assumption can be derived from the behavior of nominal
Q

-features. Consider the fact that when the DP as a whole is in the singular

and is assigned either nominative or accusative, only the bare form of the
numeral is possible :

(48) (a) Pekka odotti se-n

puoli minuutti-a.

Pekka waited that-

ACC

half.

; minute-

PAR

‘ Pekka waited that half a minute. ’

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(b) *Pekka odotti se-n

puole-n

minuuti-n.

Pekka waited that-

ACC

half-

ACC

minute-

ACC

‘ Pekka waited that half a minute. ’

puoli minuutti-a

kului

nopeasti.

that.

NOM

half.

; minute-

PAR

lapsed fast

‘ That half a minute lapsed fast. ’

(d) *Se

puoli

minuutti

kului

nopeasti.

that.

NOM

half.

NOM

minute.

NOM

lapsed fast

‘ That half a minute lapsed fast. ’

However, if the DP containing the numeral is in the plural form and is as-
signed nominative or accusative, either the bare form or the non-bare form
can occur (49a–d) :

(49) (a) Pekka osti

kolme-t

auto-t.

Pekka bought those.

ACC

three-

ACC

cars-

ACC

‘ Pekka bought those three cars. ’

(b) Pekka osti

kolme auto-a.

Pekka bought those.

ACC

three.

; cars-

PAR

‘ Pekka bought those three cars. ’

kolme-t

auto-t

hajosivat.

those.

NOM

three-

NOM

car-

NOM

broke.down

‘ Those three cars broke down. ’

(d) Ne

kolme auto-a

hajosivat.

those.

NOM

three.

; cars-

PAR

broke.down.3

‘ Those three cars broke down. ’

Thus, the reason why the t-marked plural numeral cannot function as a
assigner in Finnish cannot be because the DP as a whole is in the plural.
Rather, the reason is the Case-Resistance Principle : the t-marked

FORM

the numeral, realizing also the case features, cannot function as a assigner. It
is easy to see that this generalization also subsumes the case where a nominal
element is assigned an inherent or lexical case : an element that is assigned
overt inherent/lexical case cannot function as a assigner, thereby making the
numeral unable to assign partitive case.

Before continuing, one point needs to be sorted out. As shown above,

in plural nominative and accusative contexts there are two possible forms
for the numeral, the form which carries overt case features and the bare
form. The choice carries a semantic function. From the semantic point
of view, a bare numeral phrase such as two socks refers to a plurality.
This interpretation is triggered irrespective of the singular form of the
plural/nominal head. When the nominal head is marked for plural as well,
we get a layered double plurality : once from the numeral irrespective of
its form, and once from the nominal head. In a DP containing both the

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

numeral and the plural suﬃx, we get a reading where the DP refers to two
pluralities :

(50) (a) Pekka osti

kolme sukka-a.

Pekka bought three.

; socks-

PAR

‘ Pekka bought three socks. ’

(b) Pekka osti

kolme-t

suka-t.

Pekka bought three-

ACC

sock-

ACC

‘ Pekka bought three pairs of socks. ’

In (50b), the DP encodes plurality twice : the numeral three plus the plural
suﬃx. This results in the reading ‘ three aggregrates (i.e. pairs) of socks ’.
In (50a), there is only one feature encoding plurality, resulting in the simpler
reading ‘ three socks ’. The choice between the bare form and the inflected
form within a plural DP thus follows from independent semantic con-
siderations. Accordingly, we can say that the choice of the type of the nu-
meral carries semantic function.

In sum, there is some evidence that assigners have a tendency to be realized

as bare forms.

What thus divides the set of case features into a ‘ hierarchy ’

in Finnish is the fact that while the nominative and accusative cases have the
option of remaining covert, all other case features must be expressed overtly.
This explains why all case features except the nominative and accusative
prevent the bare form from appearing and, therefore, also prevent the
case assigner from occurring. Four additional pieces of evidence support this
explanation.

First, in some Finnish grammatical constructions, a full DP, when inserted

into a position assigned by accusative case if occupied by a pronoun, is
expressed by a zero-derived bare form (sometimes called ‘ zero-accusative ’).
This phenomenon is shown in (51).

(51) (a) Meida¨n ta¨ytyy lo¨yta¨a¨ talo

(/ha¨n-et).

must

find

house.

;

him-

ACC

‘ We must find a house/him. ’

(b) Talo

(/ha¨n-et)

lo¨ydettiin.

house.

;

him-

ACC

found.

PASS

‘ A house/he was found. ’

[14] I say ‘ tendency’ because it is not clear at present whether this principle is without any

expections. For instance, Polish higher numerals (

>4) appear in a bare form and assign

genitive case to their complement; yet masculine personal nouns in accusative or nomi-
native context require the numeral to appear in the genitive case (Rappaport 2003), even
though the numeral still apparently assigns genitive case to its complement. On the other
hand, this as well as other data (see Franks 1995, Rappaport 2003) shows that in some
constructions case assignment is sensitive to the Q-features of the noun head. I suspect that
an independent principle is needed to regulate, and ultimately to explain, the interplay
between case assignment and Q-feature concord (Brattico in preparation).

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

(/ha¨n-et) !

find house.

;

him-

ACC

‘ Find a house/him ! ’

This phenomenon never occurs with other object case features or inherent
case contexts in Finnish. For example, when a finite sentence is negated in
Finnish, the object appears in the partitive case. Partitive case is never neu-
tralized in these contexts :

(52) (a) Meida¨n ei

ta¨ydy lo¨yta¨a¨ talo-a/

*talo.

not must find

house-

PAR

house.

;

‘ We must not find a house. ’

(b) Talo-a/

*talo

lo¨ydetty.

house-

PAR

house.

; not found.

PASS

‘ A house was not found. ’

¨ la¨

etsi talo-a/

*talo !

don’t find house-

PAR

house.

;

‘ Don’t search for the house ! ’

Thus, the zero-derived bare forms can appear in a context that is otherwise
assigned nominative or accusative case, but this option is not available for
genitive, partitive or inherent case. There is thus an asymmetry between the
nominative/accusative and other case features as regards the zero-derived
forms. I propose that the bare Q-numeral is a similar, zero-derived from of
the accusative (and nominative).

Second, some cross-linguistic evidence for this principle can be found from

Polish numeral phrases. As shown in Przepio´rkowski (1996), in Polish the
following generalization holds. When a DP containing a numeral such as five
occurs in a context where the DP is assigned nominative or accusative case,
then the demonstrative and the numeral take a bare form which (i) is am-
biguous between the nominative and accusative and which (ii) assigns gen-
itive case to the nominal head. When the DP is assigned any other case, then
the demonstrative, the numeral and the noun head are assigned that case
unambiguously, and the numeral does not assign any separate case to the
nominal head. What is surprising about these facts is that they mirror the
Finnish data almost completely even though Polish and Finnish are histori-
cally unrelated languages. They therefore provide a compelling evidence that
the nominative and accusative have at least the special property that they
may remain morphologically ambiguous or morphologically unrealized in
some contexts.

Third, Wechsler & Zlatic´ (2001) provide similar data from Serbo-Croatian.

In Serbo-Croatian, certain borrowed proper names as well as certain quan-
tifiers do not decline and thus they behave like bare ‘ frozen forms ’. These
proper names are not assigners either ; rather, what they share with assigners
such as quantifiers in this language is that they are bare forms. This allows us

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

to study the eﬀects of the Case Hierarchy independently of case assignment.
The authors first show that, with the exception of dative and instrumental,
these proper names may occur within NPs that are assigned case features,
and that these case features are shared by other nominal elements such as
demonstratives. However, the proper names remain caseless and are thus
considered as lexically unspecified for case. In the case of dative or instru-
mental case features, however, a proper name cannot occur unless some
other grammatical element, such as a preposition, carries that case feature.
The authors thus propose the following Dative/Instrumental Case
Realization Condition (page 547) :

(53)

If a verb or noun assigns dative or instrumental case to an NP, then
that case must be morphologically realized by some element within
the NP.

This is the same principle we have laid down in this section except that it
singles out the dative and instrumental as cases that must be realized overtly,
to the exclusion of others.

The fourth argument in favor of this version of the Case Hierarchy is

based on the observation that the nominative stands apart as being a suﬃx-
less case. There is no need to present elaborate arguments to show that the
nominative case does not need to be expressed overtly, as it corresponds to
the zero morpheme.

Here it is also worth recalling once more the main motivation for

rejecting an explanation in terms of lexical vs. structural case : In Finnish,
partitive and genitive are structural cases by all relevant syntactic and
semantic tests, yet they behave like inherent cases with respect to case dis-
tribution. On the other hand, these cases diﬀer from the nominative and
accusative in that, unlike the nominative and accusative, they cannot remain
covert.

3.3 Summary

In sum, I suggest that the facts concerning case distribution in Finnish and
in several Slavonic languages fall under the following three descriptive gen-
eralizations.

(54) (a) Morphosyntactic Asymmetry

A case-assigner must be a caseless bare form in terms of its overt
morphosyntax (adopted from Stowell 1981).

(b) Case Hierarchy

Case features are organized into a Case Hierarchy which requires
that some case features be realized overtly (adopted from Babby
1987 ; Franks 1994, 1995 ; Wechsler & Zlatic´ 2001).

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

All lexical elements are assigned their overt morphological case by
the local c-commanding assigner. A given element may be assigned
several case features at once (Blake 2001 : 107–109, Sadler &
Nordlinger 2006) or just one (Kayne 2005, Brattico 2008).

The principle of Morphosyntactic Asymmetry captures the fact that assign-
ment is asymmetric at least at the level of overt morphosyntax. While it is still
unclear to me whether this principle as such should be assumed as part of the
UG, it works well with a significant range of data, Finnish in particular.

The Case Hierarchy organizes case features into a hierarchy in terms of

whether they must be realized overtly. Babby (1987) thinks that this distinc-
tion coincides with the distinction between structural vs. non-structural case ;
but this hypothesis is problematic for Finnish, in which strong arguments
have been presented that both genitive and partitive case are structural
(Vainikka 1989, 2003), and for Serbo-Croatian, where dative and instru-
mental case are distinguished from the rest.

Kiparsky (1972, inter alia) notes that there is a tendency for the semantic

relevance of the case features to correlate with the Case Hierarchy, so that
the semantically more relevant forms tend to be expressed overtly. Wechsler
& Zlatic´ (2001) rely on this generalization in their explanation of the Serbo-
Croatian data, and Rutkowski (2002) in his explanation of the Polish and
Estonian data. Wechsler & Zlatic´ suggest that the dative and instrumental in
Serbo-Croatian have more semantic content than the other case features,
and must thus be retained at surface structure. It is not entirely wrong to say,
conversely, that the nominative and accusative in Finnish contain ‘ less
semantic content ’ than many other case features. On the other hand, since-
partitive and genitive cases seem to be structural cases as well (Vainikka
1989, Brattico & Leinonen 2009), and the partitive in particular is devoid of
any semantic content (Vainikka 2003), this suggestion perhaps cannot be
maintained in any very strong sense. Moreover, the relevant notion of the
semantic content of a case feature, and the exact mechanisms of how this
notion influences the grammatical and morphological realization of case
features, need to be worked out. While Rutkowski thinks that it coincides
with semantic markedness and ‘ cognitive, perceptual complexity ’, Lapointe
(1988) proposes a universal semantic ranking of case features. Meanwhile,
since the distinction must be encoded in the syntax in any case, we could
borrow the strong/weak distinction from a generative theory : a weak case
feature is one which does not need to be expressed overtly, while a strong
case feature is one that must be. Languages will then diﬀer in terms of which
case features are weak and which are strong.

The Case Hierararchy must leave room for a considerable amount of

cross-linguistic variation. The principle itself requires case to be realized
overtly, but it does not say how this realization takes place. Thus, in some

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

languages the case feature can be realized on

ANY

nominal element as long as

it is realized on

ONE

. The Australian language Gooniyandi is such a language

(McGregor 1990). In other languages, one nominal element may realize
several case features at once. See Blake (2001) for a summary of the cross-
linguistic variation concerning case realization.

The hypothesis of one-part case assignment captures the idea that case

distribution and case assignment are based on the same grammatical prin-
ciple. At the heart of this principle lie two interwoven ideas, namely that (i)
such assignment is based on locality, a property that is pervasive in natural
language grammar, and (ii) assignment concerns individual words rather
than phrases.

All three principles express a uniform theme : they suggest that case as-

signment is a ‘ surface eﬀect ’. Thus, an element cannot assign anything if
it shows overt assignment itself (54a) ; some case features must be realized
overtly (54b) ; and finally, assignment establishes relations between func-
tional elements and words, not between functional elements and syntactic
phrases (54c). Moreover, if these principles regulate syntactic configurations
in Finnish, we cannot escape the conclusion that there are constraints having
to do with overt morphosyntax which filter out otherwise legitimate syntactic
possibilities.

4. C

O N C L U S I O N

By examining case concord patterns in two language families, Slavonic and
Finno-Ugric, three principles were suggested. First, case assignment is a
head-to-head relation that is established between case assigners and case
assignees ; second, there is a Case Hierarchy which requires certain case
features to be realized overtly ; and third, only suﬃxless bare forms can
function as case assigners.

R E F E R E N C E S

Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative

perspective (Studies in Generative Grammar 71). Berlin & New York : Mouton de Gruyter.

Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural

Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 91–138.

Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Bosˇkovic´, Z

ˇ eljko. 2006. Case checking vs. case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs.

Linguistic Inquiry 37, 522–533.

Brattico, Pauli. 2008. Kayne’s model of Case and Finnish nominal phrases. Nordic Journal of

Linguistics 31.2, 135–160.

Brattico, Pauli & Alina Leinonen. 2009. Nominalization and case distribution : Evidence from

Finnish. Syntax 12, 1–31.

Brattico, Pauli. In preparation. Alpha-agree : The syntax of multiple long-distance case

government in Finnish. Ms., University of Jyva¨skyla¨.

Carstens, Vicki. 2000. Concord in Minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 319–355.

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel

Jay Keyser (eds.), View from Building 20 : Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger,
47–72. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels

& Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step : Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard
Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in

language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa

Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA : MIT
Press.

Corbett, Greville G. 1978. Universals in the syntax of cardinal numerals. Lingua 46, 355–368.
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers : Agreement patterns in Slavic.

University Park, PA : Pennsylvania State University Press.

Corbett, Greville G. 1979. Adjective movement. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 8, 1–10.
Corbett, Greville G. 2004. The Russian adjective : A pervasive yet elusive category. In R. M. W.

Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective classes : A cross-linguistic typology,
199–222. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corver, Norbert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.). 2001. Semi-lexical categories. Berlin & New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language &

Linguistic Theory 12, 597–674.

Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York : Oxford University

Press.

Franks, Steven. 2002. A Jakobsonian feature-based analysis of the Slavic numeric quantifier

genitive. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10, 141–181.

Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to government & binding theory. Oxford : Blackwell.
Holmberg, Anders & Urpo Nikanne (eds.). 1993. Case and other functional categories in Finnish

syntax. Berlin & New York : Mouton de Gruyter.

Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Suomen kielen a¨a¨nne-ja muotorakenne [Phonology and morphology of

Finnish]. Helsinki : WSOY.

Kayne, Richard. 2005. Movement and silence. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1972. Explanation in phonology. In Stanley Peters (ed.), Goals of linguistic

theory, 189–227. Englewood Cliﬀs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Casper de Groot & Hannu Tommola (eds.),

Aspect bound: A voyage in the realm of Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric aspectology, 153–176.
Dordrecht : Foris.

Lapointe, Steven G. 1988. Toward a unified theory of agreement. In Michael Barlow & Charles

A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 67–87.
Stanford, CA : CSLI Publications.

Laury, Rita. 1997. Demonstratives in interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish

(Studies in Discourse and Grammar 7). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative : The hierarchical assignment of grammatical

case in Finnish. In Holmberg & Nikanne (eds.), 49–74.

McGregor, William. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nelson, Diane. 1998. Grammatical case assignment in Finnish. London: Garland.
Nelson, Diane & Satu Manninen (eds.). 2003. Generative approaches to Finnish and Saami

linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Nelson, Diane & Ida Toivonen. 2003. Counting and the grammar: Case and numerals in Inari

Saami. In Nelson & Manninen (eds.), 321–340.

Nikanne, Urpo. 1993. On assigning semantic cases in Finnish. In Holmberg & Nikanne (eds.),

75–88.

Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

P A U L I B R A T T I C O

Przepio´rkowski, Adam. 1996. Case assignment in Polish: Towards an HPSG analysis. In Claire

Grover & Enric Vallduvı´ (eds.), Studies in HPSG (Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive
Science 12), 191–228. Edinburgh: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.

Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2002. Numeral phrases in Russian: A Minimalist approach. Journal of

Slavic Linguistics 10, 329–342.

Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2003. Case syncretism, features, and the morphosyntax of Polish numeral

phrases. In Piotr Ban´ski & Adam Przepio´rkowski (eds.), Generative Linguistics in Poland
(GLiP) 5, 123–137. Warsaw: Academy of Sciences.

Rijkhoﬀ, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Rutkowski, Paweł. 2001. Numeral phrases in Polish and Estonian. In Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof

Svantesson & A

˚ ke Viberg (eds.), 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, vol. 2, 181–190.

Lund : Lund University Press.

Rutkowski, Paweł. 2002. The syntax of quantifier phrases and the inherent vs. structural case

distinction. Linguistic Research 7.1, 43–74.

Rutkowski, Paweł. 2007. Grammaticalization in the nominal domain : The case of Polish

cardinals. In Blake H. Rodgers (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.

Sadler, Louisa & Rachel Nordlinger. 2006. Case stacking in realizational morphology.

Linguistics 44.3, 459–487.

Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Vainikka, Anne. 1993. The three structural cases in Finnish. In Holmberg & Nikanne (eds.),

129–159.

Vainikka, Anne. 2003. Postverbal case realization in Finnish. In Nelson & Manninen (eds.),

235–266.

Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘ Filters

and Control ’, April 17, 1977. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
(eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 3–15.
Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Wechsler, Stephen & Larisa Zlatic´. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-

Croatian. Language 76, 799–832.

Wechsler, Stephen & Larisa Zlatic´. 2001. Case realization and identity. Lingua 111, 539–560.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling & Ray Jackendoﬀ. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63, 217–250.

Author’s address : Department of Computer Science and Information Systems,

University of Jyva¨skyla¨, 40014 Finland
pajubrat@jyu.fi

O N E

P A R T A N D T W O

P A R T M O D E L S O F C A S E

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
Legg Calve Perthes disease The prognostic significance of the subchondral fracture and a two group c
Academic Studies English Support Materials and Exercises for Grammar Part 1 Parts of Speech
232 Lasker And The Exchange Variation Of The Ruy Lopez (Part 2) by Steve Wrinn
Programmed repair Auxiliary heater Part C Models 124, 126 020 024 025
Part Number of Connectors
Part Number of Connectors
methylone and mCPP two new drugs of abuse addiction biology 10 321 323 2005
Part names of Kakejiku kakemono
Programmed repair Auxiliary heater Part C Models 124, 126 020 024 025
humours of last night part version of merrily kiss the quaker
development of models of affinity and selectivity for indole ligands of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 rece
Nicol, Till Malfunction Do Us Part Predictions of Robotic Intimacy (2008)
Dimitrovova Bosniak or Muslim Dilemma of one Nation with two Names
Part Number of Connectors
A Comparison of Linear Vs Non Linear Models of Aversive Self Awareness, Dissociation, and Non Suicid
A Woman And a Man Are Two Different Ways of Being a Human
Additional Exercises Part 1 Revision of Vowels 2

więcej podobnych podstron