1. technology and computing

c
Biolinguistica Fennica Working Papers 1 (2009) 21–78. Author(s)
Extraction islands in Finnish
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
University of Helsinki
This paper provides an overview of syntactic extraction islands in
Finnish, with an emphasis on wh-movement. Several island types are
covered: adjunct islands, wh-islands, subject islands, and left branch
condition on subject extraction. Two main conclusions emerge: (i)
Extraction conditions may be used as a diagnostics for determining
the structural position of the phrase at hand. This is the case with e.g.
Finnish prepositional phrases and certain infinitival clauses which may
be ambiguous between complement and adjunct positions. (ii) Finnish
shows (anti-)agreement effect in all subject extraction contexts: if a DP
agrees with the syntactic head and undergoes EPP movement to its
specifier, then the DP cannot be extracted. Evidence from infinitival
clauses, extraction of DPs out of prepositional phrases, possessor extraction, and subject extraction out of finite clauses is examined in order to
establish (ii). It follows that the left branch extraction out of DPs, PPs,
and infinitival clauses in Finnish parallels subject extraction in sentential
domain.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper investigates phrasal movement in Finnish. The main focus
is on the wh-movement in content questions such as (1), in which the
direct object mitä ’what’ has left its base position inside the verb phrase
and landed to the front of the sentence.
(1)
a. Mitäi
Pekka osti
ti ?
what.PAR Pekka bought
’What did Pekka buy?’
Some syntactic contexts do not allow such fronting. Consider for
example the determiner phrase (DP) in (2a), which contains a genitive
possessor argument Merjan ’Merja’s’. The genitive argument cannot be
moved to the front of the sentence without moving the whole DP (b-c).
The DP thus constitutes an extraction island for the genitive argument.
(2)
a. Pekka lainasi
[DP Merjan
kirjaai ]
Pekka borrowed
Merja.GEN book.PAR
’Pekka borrowed Merja’s book.’
22
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
b. *Kenen Pekka lainasi
[DP ti kirjaai ]?
who.GEN Pekka borrowed
book.PAR
c. [DP Kenen
kirjaai ] Pekka lainasi
ti ?
who.GEN book.PAR Pekka borrowed
’Whose book did Pekka borrow?’
In Finnish, the unavailability of extraction of the genitive argument is
independent of the structural properties of its host DP and its position
in syntactic structure. We say that DPs in Finnish are strong islands for
the extraction of genitive arguments. On the other hand, extraction of
complement PPs out of DPs is regulated by the syntactic (and semantic)
properties of the DP. We say that DPs are weak islands regarding the
extraction of PPs. Another example of a strong island in Finnish is
any phrase that occupies an adjunct position in the syntactic structure.
Whereas extraction out of complement positions is available to a varying
extent, extraction out of adjuncts is not allowed in Finnish.
The aim of this paper is to provide a survey of the extraction conditions in Finnish, with special attention paid to the structural position of
the phrase at hand. Each phrase type is considered in its own subsection.
A special emphasis is placed on the extraction conditions for subjects and
genitive arguments. In section 3, I suggest that subject extraction is conditioned by (anti-)agreement, specifically φ-feature (person, number)
agreement, following the anti-agreement hypothesis by Ouhalla (1993).
In section 4 I briefly examine the extraction out of subject arguments
in Finnish. Before continuing with the extraction conditions, section
1.1 introduces the basic syntactic structure for a Finnish finite clause
assumed in this paper. Section 1.2 provides an overview of the extraction
islands that are presented here.
Finnish is a nominative-accusative language with fifteen case suffixes,
thus the subjects of finite clauses are normally in the nominative and
the objects of transitive verbs in the partitive or accusative, both which
are object cases in Finnish. In addition, there are several variations of
the same accusative suffix (the n-accusative, zero-accusative and the taccusative). The partitive has been argued to constitute a general complement case in Finnish (Vainikka, 2003). The genitive is used in a number
of prehead positions (Vainikka, 1989). See Nelson (1998) for a general
account of Finnish case.
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
23
1.1 Finite clause in Finnish
The derivation of a transitive finite clause, such as (3), begins by forming
a verb phrase that contains the predicate and its arguments. In the structure (4a), the verb introduces the object argument to its complement
and the transitivizer head v introduces the external subject argument.
Sentential adjuncts (temporal and manner adverbials) are in this paper
assumed to be adjoined on the top of the vP , although nothing hinges
on this assumption.1
In (4b), the sentence subject has moved to the specifier of T(ense).
I assume that the movement of the subject is triggered by EPP (Empty
Projection Principle, see for Finnish e.g. Holmberg & Nikanne 2002;
Brattico & Huhmarniemi 2006). The subject receives nominative case
and T agrees with the φ-features (person and number) of the moved
DP.2 Nominal subject is said to undergo A(rgument)-movement to the
specifier of T. The object argument does not undergo A-movement but
stays in its base position and receives partitive or accusative case from the
finite transitive verb. Finally, the finite verb undergoes head movement
via the little verb v-projection to T.
(3) Pekka
luki eilen
kirjan.
Pekka.NOM read yesterday book.ACC
’Pekka read a book yesterday.’
(4)
a.
vP
vP
AdvP
eilen
’yesterday’ Pekka
vP
VP
v+luki
’read’
tV
kirjan+ACC
’book’
24
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
b. CP
C
TP
Pekka+NOM
TP
T+φ
vP
v+luki
’read’ AdvP
eilen
’yesterday’ t
vP
vP
kirjan
‘book’
Whereas A-movement is associated with Case and φ-features, A-bar
¯
movement (A-movement,
indicating the complement of A-movement)
is triggered by discourse properties of the sentence, i.e. interrogative force
or information content of the expression. For example, Finnish content
questions are formed by fronting one wh-expression; in example (5a)
the object argument is moved to the front; in (b), the subject argument
and in (c), an adjunct. The A-bar movement of the wh-expression thus
contributes to the formation of content questions in Finnish.
(5)
a. Minkäi Pekka luki ti ?
what.ACC Pekka read
’What did Pekka read?’
(ti ) luki kirjan?
b. Kukai
who.NOM
read book.ACC
’Who read a/the book?’
kirjan
?
c. Milloini Pekka luki ti sen
when Pekka read that.ACC book.ACC
’When did Pekka read the book?’
In Finnish, wh-movement is obligatory in content questions; whenever the wh-expression is left in-situ or some scrambled position other
than the beginning of the sentence, it forms an echo question (6ab). Echo-questions differ from content question in both syntax and
semantics (see for Finnish Hakulinen et al. 2004, §1211).
(6)
a. Pekka luki minkä? (echo)
Pekka read what.ACC
’Pekka read what?’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
25
b. Pekka luki sen
kirjan
milloin?
Pekka read that.ACC book.ACC when
’Pekka read the book when?’
In the Minimalist program fronting is implemented as a Probe-Goal
relation between two elements in the structure (Chomsky, 2000, 2001,
2008). In interrogative sentences, the finite C acts as the Probe for a whfeature, and the wh-phrase that holds the wh-feature is called the Goal.
The Probe searches for a matching Goal in its c-commanding domain.
When the Probe-Goal relation is successfully formed, the Probe feature
at C triggers movement of the wh-expression to the specifier of C.3 The
A-bar movement of direct object is illustrated in (8).
(7) Minkäi Pekka luki ti ?
what.ACC Pekka read
’What did Pekka read?’
(8)
CP
Minkä
CP
’what+ACC’
C+wh
TP
Pekkai
TP
T
v+luki
’read’ ti
vP
vP
t
Thematic properties and structural case of the wh-phrase provide
information on the position of the wh-phrase prior A-bar movement.
For example, the DP minkä ’what’ in (7) is the thematic object of the
predicate luki ’read’ and has accusative case, which is assigned inside
the verb phrase. Another piece of support for the existence of A-bar
movement comes from the referring properties of reflexive anaphors.
In Finnish, reflexive pronoun has to be bound by an antecedent in a
structurally higher, c-commanding position (Vainikka, 1989; van Steenbergen, 1991; Kaiser, 2003). For example, the reflexive pronoun may not
be base-generated in a structurally higher position than its antecedent
(9a-b). However, in sentence (c), the reflexive object has undergone
topicalization movement and is still able to refer to sentence subject.
26
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
The reference of the reflexive anaphor is thus independent on A-bar
movement. In other words, reflexives reconstruct for A-bar movement
in Finnish.
(9)
a. Pekka rakastaa itseään.
Pekka loves
self.PAR.Px/3SG
’Pekka loves himself.’
b. *Itse(-nsä) rakastaa Pekkaa.
self(-Px/3SG) loves
Pekka.PAR
c. Itseään
Pekka rakastaa ti .
self.PAR.Px/3SG Pekka loves
’Pekka loves himself.’
Finnish possessive suffix has similar properties as reflexive anaphors:
it has to be bound by a DP in a local configuration similar to reflexives
(10a-b) (Kanerva, 1987; Vainikka, 1989; Nelson, 1998; Trosterud, 1993).
Possessive suffixes reconstruct for A-bar movement as well (c).
(10)
a. Pekka möi pyöränsä.
Pekka sold big.ACC.Px/3SG out
’Pekka sold his bike.’
b. *Pyöränsä
kaatui.
bike.NOM.Px/3SG fell
Pekka möi ti .
c. Pyöränsäi
bike.ACC.Px/3SG Pekka sold
’Pekka sold his bike.’
A-bar movement thus targets phrases that already have a thematic role
and case assigned. In addition, reflexive pronouns and possessive suffixes
reconstruct for A-bar movement in Finnish.
1.2 Finnish extraction islands
This paper provides an overview of the basic extraction island types in
Finnish: adjunct islands, wh-islands, subject islands, and left branch condition on extraction of subjects. Wh-islands cover both phrases headed
by a wh-phrase and the unavailability of extraction out of relative clauses.
Much of the terminology and a common ground for the island research
in generative grammar was established by Ross (1967).
First, let us demonstrate the differences between extraction conditions
on arguments and adjuncts in MA-infinitival clauses (11)-(12). Whereas
the MA-infinitive in inessive case allows extraction (11b), MA-infinitive
in adessive constitutes an extraction island (12b).
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
27
(11)
a. Pekka näki Merjan
[ kirjoittamassa runoja
]
Pekka saw Merja.ACC write.MA.INE poems.PAR
’Pekka saw Merja writing poems.’
b. Mitäi
Pekka näki Merjan
[ kirjoittamassa ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka saw Merja.ACC write.MA.INE
’What did Pekka see Merja writing?’
(12)
a. Pekka yllätti
Merjan
[ kirjoittamalla runoja
]
Pekka surprised Merja.ACC write.MA.ADE poems.PAR
’Pekka surprised Merja by writing poems.’
Pekka yllätti
Merjan
[kirjoittamalla ti ]
b. *Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka surprised Merja.ACC write.MA.ADE
The main difference between the two infinitival clauses (apart from
the lexical case) is that they are located in different structural positions.
Whereas the MA-infinitive in inessive case is an argument of the verb
and occupies a complement position, the MA-infinitive in adessive is
a manner adverbial and occupies an adjunct position (Vainikka, 1989;
Koskinen, 1997). The structure (13a) illustrates the complement position
of the MA-infinitive and (b), the adjunct position. Both figures assume a
right-branching head-complement order.
(13)
(a) Extraction out of complement
CP
(b) Extraction out of adjunct
CP
CP
C
CP
...
vP
v
C
...
MA.INE
VP
V
kirjoittamassa
DP
runoja
...
vP
MA.ADE
VP
×
V
kirjoittamalla
DP
runoja
Similarly as adjuncts, extraction out of phrases that occupy a subject
position is generally not available. For example, extraction out of the
finite clause subject position is not available in (14a), although extraction
of the same element is available out of the object position (b):
(14)
tutkia ti ] sattuu harvoin
a. *Mitäi [ tilaisuus
what
opportunity study
happens rarely
omalle kohdalle?
to oneself
...
28
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
b. Mitäi Pekka sai [DP tilaisuuden tutkia ti ]?
What Pekka got
opportunity study
‘What Pekka got the opportunity to study?’
When a phrase is headed by a wh-word (15a), extraction out of the
phrase is not permitted (b-c). The phrase forms a wh-island. The whislands have been accounted for by assuming a Superiority condition,
which states that a search for a wh-phrase cannot cross another whphrase (Kuno & Robinson, 1972; Chomsky, 1973). In case of example
(15b), Probe C sees the wh-expression on the top of the complement
clause, which is a closer potential goal for movement, and thus the search
does not proceed inside the complement clause. Finnish wh-islands are
briefly introduced in section 2.1.
(15)
a. Pekka mietti
[ (että) kuka oli lainannut lehteä].
Pekka wondered (that) who had borrowed newspaper
’Pekka wondered who had borrowed the newspaper.’
Pekka mietti
[ (että) kuka oli lainannut ti ]?
b. *Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka wondered (that) who had borrowed
c. Mitäi Pekka luuli
[ (että) Merja oli lainannut ti ]?
what Pekka thought (that) who had borrowed
’What did Pekka think (that) Merja had borrowed?’
Finally, the genitive arguments in DPs (2) and (16a-b) provide examples of the left branch condition (LBC Ross 1967, 114), which states that a
DP which is the leftmost constituent of a larger DP cannot be moved out
of that DP.4 I will consider extraction of the leftmost DP constituent in
DPs, PPs, infinitival clauses and finite clauses and suggest that whenever
a genitive DP enters into a configuration with a head that agrees with the
φ-features of the DP, the DP is unavailable for extraction.
(16)
a. Pekka luki [DP hänen
kirjansa]
Pekka read
(s)he.GEN book.ACC.Px/3SG
’Pekka read his/her book.’
b. *Häneni Pekka luki ti kirjansa.
(s)he.GEN Pekka read book.ACC.Px/3SG
2. EXTRACTION CONDITIONS ON PHRASES
Here we consider wh-movement; other types of A-bar movement include
at least relative pronoun movement, phrasal movement in yes/no questions, and movement to topic and focus positions. The extraction conditions for wh-movement nevertheless hold to a large extend for the other
A-bar movement types as well.
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
29
2.1 CPs
Extraction out of finite complement clauses is often called “long-distance
movement”, since the wh-phrase passes a C-domain of the complement
clause, a possible landing site, on its way to the front of the matrix clause.
Long-distance movement is available from the finite clause complement
object and adjunct positions, as illustrated in (17a-b). The presence of
overt complementizer että is obligatory in long-distance movement in
Finnish (c).
(17)
a. Keneti
Pekka luuli
että Merja oli tavannut ti ?
who.ACC Pekka thought that Merja had met
’Who did Pekka think Merja had met?’
b. [ Mihin tarkoitukseen ]i Pekka luuli
että Merja
what.ILL purpose.ILL
Pekka thought that Merja
osti
lapion
ti ?
bought shovel.ACC
‘For which purpose Pekka thought Merja bought the shovel?’
Merja oli tavannut ti
c. *Keneti Pekka luuli
who.ACC Pekka thought Merja had met
Long-distance movement of nominative subject is not available (18).
(18)
että ti tapasi Merjan?
*Kukai Pekka luuli
Who Pekka thought that met Merja
’*Who did Pekka think met Merja?’
Extraction out of the subject position is marginally available in raising
constructions, where the subject is in genitive case and there is no φfeature agreement between the main verb and the subject, such as in
(19). In addition, the subject extraction out of the nesessive construction in (20) is considered as more grammatical than extraction of the
nominative subject in (18).
(19)
a. Minun kannattaa/*kannatan jäädä odottamaan
I.GEN should.3SG/should.1SG stay.A wait.MA.ILL
’I should stay waiting.’
että ti kannattaisi jäädä odottamaan
b. ??Keneni luulet
who.GEN think.2SG that should.3SG stay.A wait.MA.ILL
vuoroaan?
turn.Px/3SG
’Who do you think should stay and wait for his turn?’
(20)
a. Minun täytyy/*täydyn
lähteä matkalle.
I.GEN must.3SG/must.1SG leave trip.ILL
30
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
’I have to go for a trip.’
b. *?Keneni Pekka kertoi että ti täytyy
lähteä
matkalle?
who.GEN Pekka told that must.3SG leave.3SG trip.ILL
’About whom did Pekka tell that he has to go for a trip?’
Passive complement clauses allow extraction of the partitive object DP
(21a-b). The subject position in the passive sentence may be left empty,
as in (c). In addition, extraction of the zero-accusative object is more
restricted (d).
(21)
a. Pekka kertoi että tontille rakennetaan
Pekka told that site.ALL build.PASS
talo/taloa.
house.ACC(∅)/house.PAR
’Pekka told that they are building a house on the site.’
b. Mitäi
Pekka kertoi että tontille rakennetaan ti ?
what.PAR Pekka told that site.ALL build.PASS
’What did Pekka tell they are building on the site?’
Pekka pyysi että jätetään tänne ti ?
c. Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka ask that leave.PASS here
’What did Pekka ask that we should leave here?’
d. *?Mikäi
Pekka kertoi että tontille rakennetaan ti ?
what.ACC(∅) Pekka told that site.ALL build.PASS
Extraction out of a finite clause is not permitted whenever the clause
occupies an adjunct position (22a-b). Likewise, finite clause in subject
position constitutes an extraction island (23a-b).
(22)
a. Pekka toi
silmälasit, jotta Merja voisi lukea lehteä.
Pekka brought glasses
for Merja could read newspaper
’Pekka brought glasses so that Merja could read the newspaper.’
silmälasit, jotta Merja voisi lukea ti .
b. *Mitäi Pekka toi
what Pekka brought glasses
for Merja could read
(23)
a. [ (Se,)
että Pekka osti
lehden] harmitti Merjaa.
(it.NOM) that Pekka bought newspaper annoyed Merja
’That Pekka bought a newspaper annoyed Merja.’
että Pekka osti
ti ] harmitti Merjaa.
b. *Minkäi [ (Se,)
what
it.NOM that Pekka bought annoyed Merja
The CP forms a strong island if it is headed by a wh-phrase, such as the
wh-subject who ’kuka’ in examples (24a-b). The fronted wh-phrase thus
transforms the complement clause to a wh-island.
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
(24)
31
a. Pekka mietti
[ (että) kuka oli lainannut sanomalehteä]
Pekka wondered (that) who had borrowed newspaper
’Pekka wondered who had borrowed the newspaper.’
[ (että) kuka oli lainannut ti ]?
b. *Mitäi Pekka mietti
what Pekka wondered (that) who had borrowed
Also other A-bar movement types that target the C-domain may turn
the CP into an island. First, movement of the relative pronoun to the
specifier of CP turns the CP into a wh-island (25a-b). In addition,
the sentential focus particles that require movement to the front of
the sentence (-hAn, -pA, and the question particle -kO) prevent whextraction (26).
(25)
a. Pekka näki miehen [ joka lainasi
sanomalehteä]
Pekka saw man
who borrowed newspaper
’Pekka saw a man that borrowed the newspaper.’
b. *Mitäi Pekka näki miehen [ joka lainasi
ti ]?
what Pekka saw man
who borrowed
(26)
a. Juha kertoi [ että Merjalle-han Pekka lainasi
kirjan].
Juha told
that Merja.ILL-han Pekka borrowed book
’Juha told that it was Merja, to whom Pekka had borrowed
the book.’
b. *Mitäi Juha kertoi [ että Merjalle-han Pekka lainasi
ti ]?
what Juha told
that Merja.ILL-han Pekka borrowed
The Superiority condition on wh-movement (Kuno & Robinson,
1972; Chomsky, 1973) does not directly account for the wh-island phenomenon observed in relative clauses and sentences containing sentential
focus particles in Finnish. The Relativized Minimality principle by Rizzi
(1990) provides a more general account for the ban on wh-movement
in the above examples. According to Relativized Minimality, it suffices
for the constituent Z to prevent the P-G relation between X and Y
in configuration (27) if Z has certain characteristics in common with
X. In Finnish, the intervening constituent Z could thus be a relative
pronoun or a constituent hosting a sentential focus particle. In fact,
any constituent that has undergone A-bar movement to the C-domain
suffices to cause the intervention effect on wh-movement.5
(27)
...
X
...
Z
...
Y
...
To summarize, extraction out of finite clause complement is available
apart from the nominative subject. When the finite clause occupies an
adjunct or subject position it forms a strong island. Finally, wh-islands
may be introduced by wh-phrases, relative pronouns, and constituents
hosting a sentential clitic particle.
32
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
2.2 PPs
Finnish prepositions may be divided in two classes according to their
extraction properties. Prepositions that take a genitive case complement
are strong islands for movement. On the other hand, prepositions that
take a partitive case complement allow extraction if the PP occupies a
complement position. In this section, I briefly introduce the basic syntactic properties of the two types of PPs, concentrating on the properties
of PPs that take partitive case complement.
2.2.1 PPs with partitive case complement
The prepositions that take partitive case complement show free word
order inside the PP (28a-c). In addition, they never take possessive
suffix (Vainikka, 1989, 1993; Manninen, 2003a).6
(28)
a. kohti taloa
/ taloa
kohti
towards house.PAR house.PAR towards
’towards a/the house’
b. ilman taloa
/ taloa
ilman
without house.PAR house.PAR without
’without a/the house’
c. ennen taloa
/ taloa
ennen
before house.PAR house.PAR before
’before a/the house’
Manninen (2003b) assumes that Finnish PPs such as those above are
VP-adverbials, with a low position inside the VP. The extraction data
suggests that PPs may be located in a complement position as well. The
examples (29)-(30) illustrate extraction out of a PP located in the direct
complement of the verb.7 Furthermore, the presence of a direct object
does not always block extraction, as in (31a-b).
(29)
a. Pekka ei
pärjää ilman televisiota.
Pekka not.3SG survive without TV.PAR
’Pekka doesn’t survive without a TV.’
Pekka ei
pärjää ilman ti ?
b. Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka not.3SG survive without
’What doesn’t Pekka survive without?’
(30)
a. Pekka juoksi kohti puistoa.
Pekka ran towards park.PAR
’Pekka ran towards the park.’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
33
b. Mitäi
Pekka juoksi (suoraan) kohti ti ?
what.PAR Pekka ran (straight) towards
’(Straight) towards what did Pekka run?’
(31)
a. Pekka jätti Merjan
[P P ilman sadetakkia]
Pekka left Merja.ACC
without raincoat.PAR
’Pekka left Merja without a/the raincoat.’
Pekka jätti Merjan
[P P ilman ti ]?
b. Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka left Merja.ACC
without
lit. ’What did Pekka leave Merja without?’
To illustrate further the availability of extraction, the PP may be
located in the complement of an infinitival clause, such as A-infinitive
in sentence (32a), and extraction remains to be available (b).
(32)
a. Pekka ei anna [ Merjan
lähteä [P P ilman
Pekka not let
Merja.GEN leave.A
without
sadetakkia]]
raincoat.PAR
’Pekka doesn’t let Merja to leave without a/the raincoat.’
b. Mitäi
Pekkai ei anna [ Merjan
lähteä [P P
what.PAR Pekka not let
Merja.GEN leave.A
ilman ti ]]?
without
’What doesn’t Pekka let Merja to leave without?’
I would like to propose that the PP is base-generated to a complement
position in examples (29)-(32). Let us compare manner adverbials in
(33a-b) to PPs in (34a-b). In manner adverbials, the possessive suffix is
not able to refer to the direct object from inside the adverbial phrase.
Manner adverbials are thus located above the direct object in Finnish
(e.g. on the top of the vP , as illustrated in (4)). However, the possessive
suffix is able to refer to the direct object from inside the PP in the
examples (34a-b). This indicates that PPs may occur in a lower position
than the direct object.
(33)
autollaani/∗j
a. Pekkai löysi Merjanj
Pekka found Merja.ACC car.ADE.Px/3SG
’Pekka found Merja with his car.’
kiikareillaani/∗j
b. Pekkai näki Merjanj
Pekka saw Merja.ACC binoculars.ADE.Px/3SG
’Pekka saw Merja with his binoculars.’
(34)
a. Pekkai löysi Merjanj
[P P ilman autoaani/j ]
Pekka found Merja.ACC
without car.PAR.Px/3SG
34
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
’Pekka found Merja without his/her car.’
b. Pekkai vei Merjaaj [P P kohti autoaani/j ]
Pekka took Merja.PAR
towards car.PAR.Px/3SG
’Pekka took Merja towards his/her car.’
The proposed configuration where the PP is located to a lower position
than the object is illustrated in (35).
(35)
vP
DP
Pekka
vP
VP
v+löysi
tV
VP
DP
Merjan
PP
P
ilman
DP
autoa-an
However, PPs that take partitive case complements may be ambiguous
regarding their structural position and occupy a higher position as well.
For example, when the PP is semantically a manner adverbial, as in
(36a-b), extraction is not allowed. Binding data suggests the adjunct
interpretation as well (c).8
(36)
a. Pekkai katselee elokuvia [P P ilman silmälaseja]
Pekka watches movies
without glasses.PAR
’Pekka watches movies without his glasses.’
b. *Mitäi
Pekka katselee [P P ilman ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka watches
without
c. Pekkai katseli Merjaaj [P P ilman
without
Pekka watched Merja.PAR
silmälaseja-ani/∗?j ]
glasses.PAR
’Pekka watched Merja without his glasses’
In addition, some partitive-case assigning prepositions, such as ennen
’before’ do not allow extraction at all (37a-b). The example from reflexive
binding in (38) suggests that the PP is in fact located on the top of the
direct object, and thus does not occupy the complement position.
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
(37)
a. Pekka pysähtyi [P P ennen puistoa]
Pekka stopped
before park.PAR
’Pekka stopped before the park.’
b. *Mitäi
Pekka pysähtyi [P P ennen ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka stopped
before
(38)
Pekkai ohitti Merjanj
[P P ennen autoaani/∗j ]
Pekka passed Merja.ACC
before car.PAR.Px/3SG
’Pekka passed Merja before his car.’
35
Regardless of the islandhood of the PP, wh-questions may be formed
by pied-piping the PP together with the wh-constituent to the front of
the sentence:
(39)
kohti]i Pekka käveli ti ?
a. [P P Mitä
what.PAR towards Pekka walked t
lit. ’Towards what did Pekka walk?’
To summarize, extraction of a partitive DP is available when the PP
is located in a structural complement position. In addition, I suggested
that the PPs may be ambiguous regarding their structural position, and
that the position is sensitive to meaning.
2.2.2 PPs with genitive case complement
Prepositions that assign genitive case have somewhat different structural
properties than prepositions that take partitive case complements. The
preposition may bear a possessive suffix and the word order is more
restricted (40a-b). In addition, the possessive suffix may be licensed by
a c-commanding antecedent, such as the sentence subject in (c).9
(40)
a. nuotion
lähellä / *lähellä nuotion
fireplace.GEN near / near fireplace.GEN
’near the fireplace’
/ minun lähelläni
b. hänen
lähellään
(s)he.GEN near.Px/3SG I.GEN near.Px/3SG
’near him’ / ’near me’
[P P lähellääni/∗j ]
c. Pekkai näki Merjanj
near.Px/3SG
Pekka saw Merja.ACC
Pekka saw Merja near him.
I follow Nikanne (1989) and Manninen (2003b) and assume that
Finnish PPs are built so that the DP is always the right-branching
complement of the P head. According to Manninen, the genitive DP
36
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
undergoes A-movement to the specifier of P, and the movement is
triggered by the EPP-feature on P. I return to the EPP-movement in
section 3.
Prepositions that assign genitive case are strong islands for extraction
(41)-(42).
(41)
a. Pekka istui [P P nuotion
lähellä]
Pekka sat
fireplace.GEN near
’Pekka sat near a/the fireplace.’
b. *Minkäi Pekka istui [P P ti lähellä]
what.GEN Pekka sat
near
(42)
a. Pekka kulki [P P talon
ohi]
Pekka walked
house.GEN past
’Pekka walked past a/the house.’
b. *Minkäi Pekka kulki [P P ti ohi]
What.GEN Pekka walked
past
Nevertheless, wh-questions may be formed by pied-piping the whole
PP to the front of the sentence along with the wh-constituent (43):
(43)
a. [P P Minkä
lähellä]i Pekka istui ti ?
what.GEN near
Pekka sat t
’Near what did Pekka sit?’
b. [P P Minkä
ohi]i Pekka käveli ti ?
what.GEN past Pekka walked t
’Past what did Pekka walk?’
The unavailability of extraction of genitive arguments is discussed in
section 3.
2.3 DPs
The basic structure of Finnish DPs consist of a nominal element N0 and
optional pre-nominal modifiers: determiner or demonstrative pronoun
(D), quantificational expression, numeral, adjectival phrases (AP), and
genitive modifiers (DP) (44a-b), see e.g. Brattico (2008, 2009b) for
details.
(44)
a. ne kolme Pekan
tärkeää
oivallusta
those three Pekka.GEN important.PAR insights.PAR
’those three important insights by Pekka’
b. ne kaikki Pekan
tärkeät
oivallukset
those all
Pekka.GEN important.PL insights
’all those important insights of Pekka’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
37
DPs may contain up to two pre-nominal genitive modifiers, which are
conceived as possessives (45a) or thematic arguments of the head noun
(b).
(45)
a. Pekan
koira
Pekka.GEN dog
’Pekka’s dog’
b. isän
auton ostaminen
father.GEN car.GEN buying.NOM
’buying of a car by the father’
In addition, DPs may have different post-nominal modifiers: relative
clauses and A-infinitives, which always follow the nominal element (46ab); PPs (47a-c) and MA-infinitives (48a), which usually follow the nominal element but may occur pre-nominally. Finally, infinitival adjunct
clauses may modify nominal heads with event structure (48b).
(46)
a. oivallus, [CP joka
auttoi häntä]
insight
which.NOM helped he.PAR
’an insight, which helped him.’
b. päätös [V P auttaa Merjaa]
decisions
help.A Merja.PAR
’decision to help Merja.’
(47)
a. suuntaaminen [P P kohti tulevaisuutta]
heading
towards future.PAR
’heading towards the future’
b. pala [P P leivästä]
piece
bread.ELA
’piece of bread’
c. illallinen [P P kahvilassa]
dinner
cafe.ILL
’dinner at the cafe’
(48)
a. lähteminen [V P auttamaan Merjaa]
leaving
help.MA.ILL Merja.PAR
’leaving to help Merja.’
b. Pekan
kaatuminen [AdvP auttaessaan
help.ESSA.PX/3SG
Pekka.GEN falling.NOM
Merjaa]
Merja.PAR
’Pekka’s falling when helping Merja’
As examples (47b-c) already indicate, DPs in lexical case are here
analyzed as prepositional phrases. I thus adopt the proposal by Nikanne
38
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
(1989, 1993), that Finnish locative case markers are empty prepositions
taking complements of various categories, NP (DP in this work), PP,
AP or VP. This view is also adopted by Vainikka (1989) and Manninen
(2003a). Example (49) illustrates these assumptions.
(49)
Hän
pysyi saunassa
he.NOM stayed sauna.INE
‘She/he remained in the sauna.’
PP
P
DP
INE sauna
’in’
DPs are strong islands for extraction of pre-nominal modifiers. Example (50) illustrates the unavailability of extraction of the genitive argument (b), quantifier (c), determiner (d), and AP (e).
(50)
De
a. Minä luin sen
Hotakaisen
uusimman
I.NOM read that.ACC Hotakainen.GEN newest.ACC
kirjan.
book.ACC
’I read the latest book from Dawkins.’
b. *Keneni sinä
luit ti kirjan?
who.GEN you.NOM read book.ACC
c. *Montako sinä
luit ti kirjaa?
how many you.NOM read book.PAR
sinä
luit ti kirjan?
d. *Minkäi
which.GEN you.NOM read book.ACC
sinä
luit ti kirjan?
e. *Millaiseni
what kind of.ACC you.NOM read book.ACC
Determiners and demonstratives, quantifiers, and numerals are syntactic heads and form syntactic projections of their own, so they do not
undergo phrasal movement and are out of the scope of this paper. I
return to the unavailability of extraction of genitive arguments in section
3.
Finnish DPs allow a limited extraction from post-nominal positions,
such as elative and partitive complements of certain nominals (51ab) (so called kasa-constructions by Brattico 2008), PP-modifiers of
nominals with verbal root (54), the object argument and adjuncts of
the A-infinitival complement (53) and the MA-infinitival modifiers of
nominals with verbal root (54).10
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
(51)
a. Kenestä Pekka otti [ kuvan
ti ]?
who.ELA Pekka took picture.ACC
’Who did Pekka take a picture of?’
b. Mitäi
Pekka lapioi
[ kasan ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka shovelled stack
’What did Pekka shovel a stack of?’
(52)
Mihini Pekka suositteli
[ kirjoittamista ti ]?
where.ILL Pekka recommended writing.PAR
’Where did Pekka recommend writing to?’
(53)
Merja sai [ luvan
ostaa ti ]?
Mitäi
what.PAR Merja got permission.ACC buy.A
’What did Merja get a permission to buy?’
(54)
[ Juhan
[ Ketä
auttamaan]i Merja esti
who.PAR help.MA.ILL Merja prevented Juha.GEN
lähtemisen ti ]?
leaving.ACC
’To help whom did Merja prevent Juha from leaving?’
39
Before continuing, it should be noted that DPs with lexical case do
not allow extraction. For example, extraction out of the A-infinitival
complement is not possible (55a-b), whereas it is acceptable when the
DP hosting the infinitival clause is in accusative, as in example (56).
(55)
a. Pekka kertoi [DP suunnitelmasta kirjoittaa kirjaa]
Pekka told
plan.ELA
write.A book.PAR
’Pekka told us about his plan to write a book.’
b. *?Mitä
Pekka kertoi [DP suunnitelmasta kirjoittaa ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka told
plan.ELA
write.A
(56)
a. Pekka sai [DP tilaisuuden
kirjoittaa kirjaa]
Pekka got
opportunity.ACC write.A book.PAR
’Pekka got an opportunity to write a book’
b. Mitäi
Pekka sai [DP tilaisuuden
kirjoittaa ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka got
opportunity.ACC write.A
’What did Pekka receive an opportunity to write?’
Thus, although the DP in elative case seems to occupy the complement
position in (55), extraction is impossible. Since there seems to be no
other structural difference between the two sentences (55a) and (56b),
it is possible that the existence of the prepositional head (illustrated in
(49)) causes the DP to form an extraction island. I leave the question
aside in this paper and concentrate on extraction out of DPs in structural
object cases: partitive and accusative.
40
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
PP modifiers expressing location are discussed in section 2.3.1 and
partitive and elative PPs in section 2.3.2. Extraction out of MA-infinitives
is briefly introduced in section 2.3.3. Finally extraction out of Ainfinitival complements in discussed in section 2.3.4.
2.3.1 Locative PPs
I suggest next that extraction of locative PPs out of DPs is available for
nominals with event structure. Consider first examples (57); whereas it is
not possible to extract a PP-modifier out of a DP headed by kahvila, ’cafe’
(a-b), the nominal head yöpyminen, ’sleeping’ allows extraction (c).
(57)
a. Asko suositteli
erästä
kahvilaa tuon
Asko recommended certain.PAR cafe.PAR that.GEN
sillan
lähellä.
bridge.GEN near
’Asko recommended a cafe near that bridge.’
b. *[ Minkä
sillan
lähellä] Asko suositteli
which.GEN bridge.GEN near Asko recommended
kahvilaa ti ?
cafe.PAR
c. [ Minkä
sillan
lähellä] Asko suositteli
which.GEN bridge.GEN near Asko recommended
yöpymistä ti ?
sleeping.PAR
’Near which bridge did Asko recommend spending the
night?’
The main difference between the nominals in the examples (57a-b) is
that the noun kahvila ’cafe’ in (a) does not have verbal root, but the noun
yöpyminen ’sleeping’ in (b) has. According to Hakulinen et al. (2004,
§587) , Finnish nominals with a verbal root differ from other nominals
in that the noun phrase seems to contain an extra pre-nominal position
for an adverbial phrase (e.g. a PP). In Finnish, DP-internal PP-modifiers
are generally post-nominal (58a-b). However, in (58c), where the noun
head has a verbal root, the PP Demarissa ’in Demari’ may occupy a prenominal position as well, whereas the noun juttu ’story’ does not allow
the pre-nominal PPs (d).
(58)
a. kirjoittaminen Demarissa
writing.NOM Demari.INE
’writing in the Demari (newspaper)’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
41
b. juttu
Demarissa
story.NOM Demari.INE
’story in the Demari’
c. [ Demarissa kirjoittaminen] on tuonut minulle uuden
Demari.INE writing.NOM has brought me
new
näkökulman politiikkaan.
viewpoint to politics
’Writing in Demari has given me a new viewpoint for politics.’
d. *Demarissa juttu
Demari.INE story.NOM
According to Cinque (1980) (and many researchers thereafter, see
e.g. Szabolcsi (1994) for Hungarian), extraction out of DP proceeds
through an intermediate landing site at the specifier of DP. Lack of the
intermediate landing site would thus explain the ungrammaticality of
(57b).
In section 2.2, I showed that preposition textit kohti ’towards’ allows
extraction of its DP complement. When the PP modifies a noun phrase,
the PP may be moved as a whole, as in (59b). Nevertheless, extraction of
the DP-complement is not possible (c). This suggests that the PP cannot
be located in the complement of the nominal, but instead, is an adjunct.
The distribution of PPs inside DPs would thus differ from finite clauses.
(59)
[ vaeltamista [ kohti tuota
a. Asko suositteli
Asko recommended hiking.PAR towards that.PAR
tunturia]]
mountain.PAR
’Asko recommended hiking towards that mountain.’
b. [ Mitä
tunturia
kohti]i Asko suositteli
which.PAR mountain.PAR towards Asko recommended
[vaeltamista ti ]
hiking.PAR
’Towards which mountain did Asko recommend hiking?’
c. *[ Mitä
tunturia]i
Asko suositteli
which.PAR mountain.PAR Asko recommended
[vaeltamista [ kohti ti ]]
hiking.PAR towards
’Towards which mountain did Asko recommend hiking?’
The existence of an overt determiner or quantifier (a), or a genitive
argument (b) has an effect to the availability of extraction, which supports the intermediate landing site analysis.11 The elements in the left
42
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
periphery of the DP have an effect to the extraction conditions of other
elements, a matter I will return in the following sections.
(60)
a. *[ Minkä
sillan
lähellä] Asko
ehdotti
which.GEN bridge.GEN near Asko.NOM suggested
tätä
yöpymistä ti ?
this.PAR sleeping.PAR
ehdotti
lähellä] Asko
b. ?[ Minkä
sillan
which.GEN bridge.GEN near Asko.NOM suggested
Pekan
yöpymistä ti ?
Pekka.GEN sleeping.PAR
It thus seems that nominals with verbal root allow extraction of PPs
expressing location, but extraction out of other nominal types is more
restricted. In the following sections, I use mostly the derivational ending
-minen in examples that require nominals with event structure.12
2.3.2 Elative and partitive PPs
Let us now turn to quantifying nominal heads that take a partitive or
elative PP modifier, as in examples (61) and (62), discussed in Brattico
(2008). Extraction of the PP is available in both cases (see more examples
also in Hakulinen & Karlsson (1979); Hakulinen et al. (2004)).13
(61)
a. yksi kasa [ pieniä
autoja]
one stack small.PL.PAR cars.PL.PAR
’one stack of small cars’
on yksi kasa ti ?
b. [ mitä
autoja]i
what.PAR car.PL.PAR is one stack
’Which cars is there one stack?’
(62)
a. pala [ siitä
isosta leivästä]
slice that.ELA big.ELA bread.ELA
’a slice from that big bread’
b. [ Mistä
leivästä] Pekka leikkasi palan.ACC ti ?
which.ELA bread.ELA Pekka cut
slice.ACC
’Which bread did Pekka cut the slice from?’
Brattico (2008) calls above structures “kasa constructions”, and suggests that the partitive case is assigned by a prepositional head as in (63).
According to Brattico, Kasa constructions allow the PP to be extracted,
as we saw in (61)-(62).
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
(63)
43
DP
D
nP
N
kasa
’stack’
PP
P
PRT
’of ’
DP
N
autocars
The extraction of elative PPs out of DPs extends beyond quantifying nominals, and resembles extraction out of NPs, for example, in
the English datum (64a-b), where the nominal complement of the
preposition has presumably undergone wh-movement. The DP has an
underlying structure of (65a). I assume the same structure for Finnish
DP kuva Merjasta, ’picture of Mary’ (b). It is probable that the PP moves
as a whole in Finnish
(64)
a. I saw a picture of Mary.
b. Whoi did you see a picture of ti ?
(65)
(a)
(b)
DP
D
a
NP
N
picture
D
PP
P
of
DP
DP
N
Mary
NP
N
kuva
’picture’
PP
P
STA
’of ’
DP
N
Merja
This type of extraction out of the NP is restricted both syntactically
and semantically. Example (66a) illustrates the influence of the verb:
whereas some verbs allow extraction, others do not. The example (b)
shows the ‘definiteness effect’ by Fiengo & Higginbotham (1981): the
presence of determiner pronoun or definite article blocks extraction.
(66)
luki/osti/*?pinosi
kirjoja
ti ?
a. Kenestäi Asko
who.ELA Asko.NOM read/bought/stacked books.PAR
’Who did Asko read/buy/*stack books of?
b. *Kenestäi Asko
luki tämän/sen
kirjan
ti ?
who.ELA Asko.NOM read this.ACC/the.ACC book.ACC
44
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
The unavailability of extraction in the presence of genitive arguments
and possessive suffix is illustrated in (67a-b) (see examples from other
languages (Abney, 1987; Stowell, 1989)). The sentences (c-d) provide
examples in which extraction is available when the genitive argument
is interpreted as the writer of the book, and not the owner (see Davies &
Dubinsky (2003)).
(67)
a. *Kenestäi Asko
luki Merjan
kirjan
ti ?
who.ELA Asko.NOM read Merja.GEN book.ACC
luki kirjansa
ti ?
b. *Kenestäi Asko
who.ELA Asko.NOM read book.ACC.Px/3SG
ti ?
kirjaa
luki Paasilinnan
c. ?Kenestäi Asko
who.ELA Asko.NOM read Paasilinna.GEN book.PAR
’Who did Asko read Paasilinna’s book?’
kirjoitti kirjansa
ti ?
d. Kenestäi Asko
who.ELA Asko.NOM read
his book.PAR
’Who did Askoi wrote hisi book about?’
Chomsky (1977) suggests that PP-extraction out of an NP may not
be an instance of A-bar movement. He proposes that the PP is basegenerated inside the DP but moved out prior A-bar movement via
extraposition or reconstruction rule. This may be true for Finnish as
well. In addition to general limitations in (66) and (67a-b), there are
contexts in which extraction out of the kasa-construction differs from
general conditons for A-bar movement. First, in example (68a) the DP
is embedded to a complement of the preposition kohti. Extraction of
the PP is not available (b). There is no principled reason why the A-bar
movement should not be available from the embedded complement.
(68)
a. Pekka eteni
tutkimuksissaan
[P P kohti
Pekka proceeded investigations.INE.Px/3SG towards
totuutta Merjasta ]
truth.PAR Merja.ELA
’Pekka proceeded in his investigations towards a/the truth
about Merja.’
b. *?Kenestäi Pekka eteni
tutkimuksissaan
who.ELA Pekka proceeded investigations.INE.Px/3SG
[P P kohti totuutta ti ]?
towards truth.PAR ti
Second, kasa-constructions do not allow pre-nominal PPs at all (69),
and thus do not provide an intermediate landing site for the A-bar
movement. This suggests that the structural conditions for extraction are
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
45
different for the PP-complements expressing location. In addition, there
is no requirement for the nominal to have a verbal root.
(69)
ti ]
a. *Pekka katseli [DP hiekkaai kasaa
sand.PAR stack.PAR
Pekka watched
b. *Pekka katseli [DP leivästäi palaa
ti ]
Pekka watched
bread.ELA piece.PAR
Third, data from reflexive binding in (70a-b) shows that the PP does
not reconstruct inside of the DP. In sentence (a), the correlate for the
reflexive pronoun may be either Paasilinna or Pekka. However, when the
PP is fronted, the only available reading is the one in which the correlate
is Pekka.
(70)
a. Pekkai näki Paasilinnanj kirjan
itsestääni/j
Pekka saw Merja.GEN book.ACC himself.ELA
’Pekka saw Merja’s book about himself.’
b. Itsestääni/∗j Pekkai näki Paasilinnanj kirjan.
himself.ELA Pekka saw Merja.GEN book.ACC
The presence of the genitive argument has an effect to the availability
of extraction, as seen in example (67), so let us consider other examples
of reflexive binding as well. The reflexive may be bound by an element
in the adjectival phrase in Finnish, as in (71a).14 In addition, a suitable
adjectival phrase does not affect the grammaticality (71c). However, the
DP-internal genitive argument fails to bind the reflexive in both cases
(b-c).
(71)
a. Pekkai näki Merjanj
ottaman kuvan
itsestääni/j
Pekka saw Merja.GEN take.MA picture.ACC himself.ELA
ottaman kuvan.
b. Itsestääni/∗j Pekkai näki Merjanj
himself.ELA Pekka saw Merja.GEN take.MA picture.ACC
c. [ Omasta kurssistaan]i/∗j Pekkai kirjoitti opettajanj
Pekka wrote teacher.GEN
own.ELA course.ELA
pyytämän palautteen.
ask.MA feedback.ACC
’About his own course, Pekka wrote the feedback the teacher
asked.’
An account for the misplacement of partitive and elative case complements which does not assume A-bar movement is proposed by
Hakulinen & Karlsson (1979). They recognize a class of nominals that
take partitive or elative case PP-modifiers and express quantity, part or
proportion (see also Hakulinen et al. 2004, §592). Hakulinen & Karlsson
46
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
analyze the structures as NP-split constructions (“lohkominen”), where
the NP occupies two structural positions at the same time. This analysis
presumes that the PP has not undergone A-bar movement and does not
necessarily reconstruct to its base position.15
2.3.3 MA-infinitival
In this section, I examine the MA-infinitives that modify a nominal head
with derivational suffix -minen. The MA-infinitival in inner locative cases
may be selected by nouns and verbs with the same root form: (72) and
(73). Extraction out of the MA-infinitive from the complement of a finite
verb is available, as discussed in section 2.5.3.
(72)
a. pysyminen [V P Merjaa
auttamassa]
staying.NOM
Merja.PAR help.MA.INE
’staying helping Merja.’
b. palaaminen
[V P Merjaa
auttamasta]
returning.NOM
Merja.PAR help.MA.ELA
’returning from helping Merja.’
c. lähteminen [V P auttamaan Merjaa]
leaving.NOM
help.MA.ILL Merja.PAR
’leaving to help Merja.’
(73)
a. pysyä [V P auttamassa Merjaa]
stay
help.MA.INE Merja.PAR
’to stay in helping Merja.’
b. palata [V P auttamasta Merjaa]
palata
help.MA.ELA Merja.PAR
’to return from helping Merja.’
c. lähteä [V P auttamaan Merjaa]
leave
help.MA.ILL Merja.PAR
’to leave to help Merja.’
When the MA-infinitive modifies a noun, it may be extracted as a
whole (74a-c). The MA-infinitival complement behaves in this respect
similarly to ordinary locative PPs discussed in section (2.3.1).
(74)
[DP lähtemisen ti ]?
a. [Ketä
auttamaan]i Juha esti
leaving.ACC
who.PAR help.MA.ILL Juha prevented
’To help whom did Juha prevent leaving?’
[DP Pekan
b. [ Ketä
auttamaan]i Juha esti
Pekka.GEN
who.PAR help.MA.ILL Juha prevented
lähtemisen ti ]?
leaving.ACC
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
47
’To help whom did Juha prevent Pekka from leaving?’
[DP Pekan
c. [ Ketä
auttamaan]i Juha esti
Pekka.GEN
who.PAR help.MA.ILL Juha prevented
lähettämisen ti ]?
sending.ACC
’To help whom did Juha prevent sending Pekka?’
The MA-infinitival verb may be stranded, as in (75a), but the construction is limited; (b) for example is not a very good sentence. It thus
seems that the MA-infinitive has different properties inside of the noun
phrase than in the complement of the verb. In the complement of a finite
verb, the MA-infinitive is never an extraction island (see section 2.5.3).
(75)
a. ?Ketäi
Pekka esti
[DP Juhan
lähtemisen
who.PAR Pekka prevented
Juha.GEN leaving
auttamaan ti ]?
help.MA.ILL
’To help whom did Pekka prevent Juha from leaving?’
b. *?Ketäi Pekka esti
[DP Juhan
lähettämisen
who.PAR Pekka prevented
Juha.GEN sending
auttamaan ti ]?
help.MA.ILL
’To help whom did Pekka prevent sending Juha?’
The unavailability of extraction and availability of pied-piping in
examples (74) on the other hand suggest that the MA-infinitive could
occupy an adjunct position inside the noun phrase instead of the complement position. The structural position of the MA-infinitive inside
DPs would thus be similar to PPs, which were considered to be adjuncts
in section 2.3.1. Nevertheless, further research is required to verify this
prediction.
2.3.4 A-infinitival complement
A-infinitival complement allows extraction of arguments and adjuncts
regardless of the type of the nominal head (76a-b). Extracted adjuncts
may be ambiguous between sentential reading and A-infinitival reading,
but it is possible to grasp an interpretation where the adjunct originates
inside the DP (c). However, extraction of the genitive subject is not
available (d-e).
(76)
a. Mitä Pekka sai [DP tilaisuuden
tutkia
ti ]?
what Pekka got
opportunity.ACC investigate.A
’What did Pekka receive an opportunity to investigate?’
48
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
b. [ Millä
tutkimusasemalla]i Pekka sai
which.ADE research station.ADE Pekka got
[DP tilaisuuden [A tutkia
lintuja
ti ]]?
opportunity.ACC investigate.A birds.PAR
’In which research station did Pekka receive an opportunity
to investigate birds?’
Pekka sai [DP tilaisuuden
tutkia
c. Missäi
where.INE Pekka got
opportunity.ACC investigate.A
lintuja
ti ]?
birds.PAR
’Where did Pekka get an opportunity to investigate birds?’
d. ?Pekka näki [DP tilaisuuden
[A Merjan
todistaa
Pekka saw
opportunity.ACC Merja.GEN proof.A
kykynsä]]
competence.ACC.Px/3SG
’Pekka saw an opportunity for Merja to proof her capabilities.’
[A ti todistaa
e. *Keneni Pekka näki [DP tilaisuuden
who.GEN Pekka saw
opportunity.ACC
proof.A
kykynsä]]
competence.ACC.Px/3SG
In certain contexts the case of the direct object of the A-infinitive
alternates between the zero-accusative and -n-accusative case, as in (77).
Interestingly, the case of the object has an effect to extraction, as observed
by Hakulinen & Karlsson (1975). The direct object in the -n-accusative
case may be extracted, but not in zero-accusative (78a-b). Hakulinen &
Karlsson conclude that the infinitival clause forms an island in (78b),
and the islandhood may be observed in the lack of case-inflection (zeroaccusative) and unavailability of extraction. I leave the question open for
further research, but see Vainikka & Brattico (2009) for an account of
zero-accusative case in infinitival complements.
(77)
Yrjö laati [ suunnitelman [ kaataa karhun/
karhu]]
Yrjö made plan.ACC
kill.A bear.ACC(n)/ bear.ACC(∅)
’Yrjö made a plan to kill a bear.’
(78)
Yrjö laati [ suunnitelman kaataa ti ]?
a. Minkäi
what.ACC(-n) Yrjö made plan.ACC
kill.A
’What did Yrjö made a plan to kill?’
b. *Mikäi
Yrjö laati [ suunnitelman kaataa ti ]
what.ACC(∅) Yrjö made plan.ACC
kill.A
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
49
It should be pointed out that the recursive embedding of the DP to
the complement of a partitive case assigning preposition shows that the
extraction out of the A-infinitival complement is not limited by the level
of embedding (79)-(80):
(79)
a. Pekka
jatkoi
kilpailussa
[P P kohti [DP
Pekka.NOM proceeded competition.INE
towards
mahdollisuutta [A voittaa auto]]]
possibility.PAR
win.A car.ACC(φ)
’Pekka proceeded in the competition towards a/the possibility to win a car.’
Pekka jatkoi
[P P kohti [DP
b. Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka proceeded
towards
mahdollisuutta [A voittaa ti ]]]?
possibility.PAR
win.A
’Whati did Pekka proceed towards the possibility to win ti ?
(80)
a. Pekka pääsi [P P lähelle [DP tilaisuutta
Pekka got
near.ALL
opportunity.PAR
[A tutkia
lintuja]]]
investigate.A birds.PAR
’Pekka got near to an opportunity to investigate birds.’
Pekka pääsi [P P lähelle [DP tilaisuutta
b. Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka got
near
opportunity.PAR
[A tutkia
ti ]]]?
investigate.A
2.4 APs
Adjectival attributes constitute strong islands for extraction. However,
extraction out of adjectival phrases in predicative clauses is not completely impossible. For example, the adjectival näköinen ’looking’ seems
to allow limited extraction of genitive arguments in predicative clauses
such as (81). However, the presence of the possessive inflection on the
adjectival head prevents extraction (82).16
(81)
a. Poika
on [ Pekan
näköinen]
boy.NOM is Pekka.GEN looking
’The boy is looking like Pekka.’
b. Kenen
on poika
[ti näköinen]?
who.GEN is boy.NOM
looking
’Who does the boy look like?’
50
(82)
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
a. Poika
on [AP hänen näköisensä]
boy.NOM is
he.GEN looking.Px/3SG
’The boy is looking like him.’
[ti näköisensä]
b. ??Häneni on poika
he.GEN is boy.NOM
looking.Px/3SG
Neither MA-participial (83) nor VA-participial (84) allows extraction
of arguments in predicative clauses:
(83)
ostamia]
eilen
a. Nuo pyörät ovat [AP Pekan
Pekka.GEN yesterday buy.MA.PAR
These bikes are
’These bikes are bought by Pekka yesterday.’
b. *Keneni ovat nuo pyörät [AP ti ostamia]
who.GEN are these bikes
buy.MA.PAR
ti ostamia]
c. *Milloini ovat nuo pyörät [AP Pekan
when
are these bikes
Pekka.GEN buy.MA.PAR
(84)
a. Nämä annokset ovat [ ruokahalua herättäviä]
these portions are appetite.PAR provoke.VA.PL.PAR
’These portions are appetizing.’
b. *Ruokahaluai ovat nämä annokset [ti herättäviä]
appetite.PAR are these portions
provoke.VA.PL.PAR
To summarize, although adjectival attributes are strong islands for
extraction in Finnish, extraction out of predicative APs is not completely
ruled out.
2.5 Infinitival clauses
This section provides basic extraction conditions for infinitival clause
constructions in Finnish. Infinitival clauses may occur in the complement and adjunct positions. Whereas infinitival clause adjuncts are
strong islands for movement, complement clauses allow extraction to
a varying extent. Infinitival clause complements are discussed in sections 2.5.1-2.5.2: A-infinitive, VA-construction. MA-infinitival complements, as well as MA-adjuncts are considered in section 2.5.3. Sections
2.5.4-2.5.5 investigate infinitival clause adjuncts: temporal and rationale
adjuncts and the E-infinitive. Special attention is on adjunct clauses
which may nevertheless occupy a structural complement position and
allow limited extraction (MA-adjuncts and E-infinitive). The basic syntactic properties of infinitival clauses are described in Hakulinen & Karlsson (1979); Vainikka (1989, 1995); Koskinen (1997). The classification
and terminology for infinitival clauses is mostly borrowed from Vainikka
& Brattico (2009).
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
51
2.5.1 A-infinitive
A-infinitive occupies the direct complement of the verb.17 It may appear
without subject (85a), in which case the thematic subject is the matrix
clause subject. When the A-infinitive contains a subject, it is in genitive
case (b).
(85)
a. Pekka halusi [ syödä omenoita]
Pekka wanted eat.A apples.PAR
’Pekka wanted to eat some apples.’
b. Pekka käski [ Merjan
syödä omenoita]
Pekka ordered Merja.GEN eat.A apples.PAR
’Pekka ordered Merja to eat some apples.’
A-infinitive allows extraction of the subject, object and adjuncts (86ac):
(86)
a. Mitäi
Pekka halusi [ syödä ti ]
what.PAR Pekka wanted eat.A
’What did Pekka want to eat?’
b. Keneni Pekka käski [ti syödä omenoita]?
who.GEN Pekka ordered
eat.A apples.PAR
’Who did Pekka order to eat some apples?’
[ syödä ti omenoita]
c. Milloini Pekka aikoi
when Pekka intended eat.A apples.PAR
’When did Pekka intend to eat some apples?’
The presence of zero-accusative does not have an effect to the extraction conditions (87a-b):
(87)
a. Meidän käskettiin
[ ostaa lahja
Merjalle]
we.GEN ordered.PASS buy.A present.ACC(φ) Merja.ILL
’They ordered us to buy a present for Merja.’
b. [ Mikä
lahja]
meidän
which.ACC(φ) present.ACC(φ) we.GEN
käskettiin
[ ostaa ti Merjalle]?
ordered.PASS.PAST buy.A Merja.ILL
’Which present did they order us to buy for Merja?’
A-infinitive is thus a prototypical example of an infinitival complement: it does not restrict extraction of any element. Some of the
extraction properties of A-infinitives in the complement of a nominal
were already examined in 2.3.4.
52
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
2.5.2 VA-construction
Similarly as the A-infinitive, the VA-construction occupies the complement position of finite verbs. However, whereas the A-infinitive may
occur in the complement of a noun as well, this is not true of the VAinfinitive.18 The VA-construction has morphological forms for past and
present/future (88a-b), as well as active and passive (c-d). When there is
no overt subject in the active forms, the thematic subject is the matrix
clause subject and the infinitival verb receives possessive inflection (a).
However, when the infinitival clause has a genitive subject, the possessive
suffix is not used (b).
(88)
a. Pekka muistaa
[tavanneensa hänet aikaisemmin]
Pekka remembers met.VA.Px/3SG him earlier
’Pekka remembers having met him earlier.’
b. Minä tiedän [ Juhan
tapaavan
Merjan]
I
know Juha.GEN meet.VA/PRES Merja.ACC
’I know (that) Juha will meet Merja.’
c. Minä huomasin [ kakkua maistetun]
noticed
cake.PAR taste.PASS.VA/PAST
I
’I noticed (that) the cake had been tasted.’
d. Minä tiesin [ kakkua maistetttavan]
I
knew cake.PAR taste.PASS.VA/PRES
’I knew (that) the cake would be tasted.’
VA-construction allows extraction of complements and adjuncts (89ab), as well as subjects (c). The presence of the genitive argument does not
have an effect to extraction (d) and extraction out of the passive variant is
possible as well. The extraction data thus verifies the structural position
of the VA-construction in the complement of the verb.
(89)
a. Keneti
Pekka muistaa
[ tavanneensa
ti aiemmin]?
who.ACC Pekka remembers met.VA.Px/3SG earlier
’Who does Pekka remembe having met earlier?’
Merjan
ti ]?
b. Milloini Pekka muisteli [ tavanneensa
When Pekka recalled met.VA.Px/3SG Merja.ACC
’When did Pekka recall having met Merja?’
[ti tapaavan Merjan]?
c. Keneni luulet
who.GEN think.2SG
meet.VA Merja.ACC
’Who do do you think will meet Merja?’
luulet
[ Merjan
tapaavan ti ]?
d. Keneti
who.ACC think.2SG Merja.GEN meet.VA
’Who do you think (that) Merja will meet?’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
53
e. Mitä
sinä
huomasit [ti maistetun]?
what.PAR you.NOM noticed
tasted.PASS.VA
’What did you noticed (that) was tasted?’
Let us briefly look into structures in which the VA-construction is
embedded in the complement of A-infinitive, as in (90a-b). The case of
the object alternates between the -n-accusative and zero-accusative and
the extraction is available in both cases (Vainikka & Brattico, 2009).
(90)
a. Sinun
täytyy uskoa
[ voittaneesi
you.GEN must believe.A won.VA.Px/2SG
kilpailu]
competiton.ACC(∅)
’You have to believe (that) you won the competition.’
b. Sinun
täytyy uskoa
[ voittaneesi
you.GEN must believe.A won.VA.Px/2SG
kilpailun]
competiton.ACC(∅)
’You have to believe that you won the competition.’
(91)
sinun
täytyy
a. [ Mikä
kilpailu]i
which.ACC(∅) competition.ACC(∅) you.GEN must
uskoa
voittaneesi
ti ?
believe.A won.VA.Px/2SG
’Which competition you have to believe that you won?’
b. [ Minkä
kilpailun]i
sinun täytyy uskoa
which.ACC competition.ACC you must believe.A
voittaneesi
ti ?
won.VA.Px/2SG
’Which competition you have to believe that you won?’
The VA-infinitive has identical properties to A-infinitives regarding
extraction: there are no restrictions on movement out of the VAconstruction.
2.5.3 MA-infinitive
MA-infinitive has several case variants. In the three internal locative case
suffixes, inessive, elative, and illative, the MA-infinitive is an argument of
a verb and occupies the complement position (Nikanne, 1989; Vainikka,
1989). In adessive and abessive case, the MA-infinitive is interpreted as
a manner adverbial (Hakulinen & Karlsson, 1979), thus occupying an
adjunct position (Koskinen, 1997). As a general rule, MA-infinitives have
54
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
the same distribution as PPs with lexical cases (Vainikka, 1989). I will first
investigate MA-complements and then turn to MA-adjuncts.
I assume, following Koskinen (1997), that the MA-infinitive contains
a PRO-element that is bound by the closest c-commanding DP in the
matrix clause. Whenever the matrix object is present, it binds the PROelement in MA-complement (92a-c). When the matrix object is missing,
as in (93), PRO is bound by the matrix subject.
(92)
a. Pekka näki Merjan
[ ostamassa kirjaa]
Pekka saw Merja.ACC buy.MA.INE book.PAR
’Pekka saw Merja buying a book.’
b. Pekka kielsi Merjaa
[ ostamasta kirjaa]
Pekka denied Merja.ACC buy.MA.ELA book.PAR
’Pekka saw Merja buying a book.’
c. Pekka lähetti Merjan
[ ostamaan lahjaa]
Pekka send Merja.ACC buy.MA.ILL present.PAR
’Pekka went to buy a present.’
(93)
Pekka lähti [ ostamaan ruokaa]
Pekka went buy.MA.ILL food.PAR
’Pekka went to buy some food.’
The different internal locative case variants of MA-complement were
illustrated in (92a-c). All these case variants have similar properties
regarding extraction. The extraction out of the complement position
is illustrated in examples (94a-c). For now on examples are provided
interchangeably from the three cases.
(94)
Pekka näki Merjan
[ ostamassa ti ]?
a. Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka saw Merja.ACC buy.MA.INE
’What did Pekka see that Merja was buying?’
Pekka kielsi Merjaa
[ ostamasta ti ]?
b. Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka denied Merja.PAR buy.MA.ELA
’What did Pekka go to buy?’
c. Mitäi
Pekka lähti [ ostamaan ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka went buy.MA.ILL
’What did Pekka go to buy?’
Example (95a) illustrates extraction of an adjunct out of the MAcomplement. The infinitival clause may be pied-piped as a whole as well
(b). As predicted, the direct object of the matrix clause may be freely
moved to the front of the sentence (c).
(95)
a. Kenellei Pekka näki Merjan
[ ostamassa lahjaa ti ]?
who.ILL Pekka saw Merja.ACC buy.MA.INE
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
55
’Who did Pekka see that Merja was buying a gift for?’
b. [ Mitä
ostamassa]i Pekka näki Merjan
ti ?
what.PAR buy.MA.INE Pekka saw Merja.ACC
’What did Pekka see Merja was buying?’
c. Keneti
Pekka näki ti [ ostamassa kirjaa]?
who.ACC Pekka saw
buy.MA.INE book.PAR
’Who did Pekka see buying a book?’
When the MA-infinitive is in the complement of A-infinitive, the
object receives zero-accusative case. Extraction of the zero-accusative
object is possible (96a-b):
(96)
a. Pekan täytyi lähteä [ hakemaan
kirja
Pekka must go.A fetch.MA.ILL book.ACC(∅)
koulusta]
school.ELA
’Pekka had to leave to get the book from the school.’
b. [ Mikä
kirja]i
Pekan
täytyi lähteä
what.ACC(∅) book.ACC(∅) Pekka.GEN must go.A
[hakemaan ti koulusta]?
fetch.MA.LL school.ELA
’Which book Pekka had to leave to fetch rom the school?’
Let us now turn to the MA-adjuncts. MA-adjuncts have two case variants: adessive and abessive. For most speakers the MA-adjunct in adessive
case cannot contain an overt subject.19 According to Koskinen (1997),
MA-adjuncts have the same syntactic structure as MA-complements,
but their structural position is different. First, the thematic subject of
the MA-adjunct is always the sentence subject. In addition, whereas the
reflexive is able to refer to the direct object from inside MA-complement
(97a), reference is not available from MA-adjuncts (b-c). It thus seems
that whenever the matrix sentence contains a direct object, MA-adjuncts
are located above it.
(97)
koiraansai/j ]
a. Pekkai pyysi Merjaaj [ vahtimaan
Pekka asked Merja.PAR watch.MA.ILL dog.PAR.Px/3SG
’Pekka asked Merja to watch his/her dog.’
b. Pekkai auttoi Merjaaj [ löytämälläi/∗j
Pekka helped Merja.PAR find.MA.ADE
kiikarinsa]
binoculars.ACC.Px/3SG
’Pekka helped Merja by finding his pinoculars.’
56
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
c. Pekkai auttoi Merjaaj [ löytämättäi/∗j
Pekka helped Merja.PAR find.MA.ABE
kiikariaan]
binoculars.PAR.Px/3SG
’Pekka helped Merja without finding his binoculars.’
Nevertheless, extraction data suggests that MA-adjunct can occupy
a complement position as well. Extraction out of the MA-adjunct in
adessive is possible when the matrix object is not present (98a), but
otherwise impossible (b).The interrogative sentence may be formed by
pied-piping the whole constituent to the front (c).
(98)
a. ?Ketäi
Pekka löysi kotiin
[ seuraamalla
ti ]?
who.PAR Pekka fond home.ILL follow.MA.ADE
lit. ’Who did Pekka find home following?’
Merjan
b. *?[DP Mitä
kirjaa]i Pekka yllätti
which.PAR book.PAR Pekka surprised Merja.ACC
[ lukemalla ti ]?
read.MA.ADE
lukemalla]i Pekka yllätti
c. [ Mitä
kirjaa
which.PAR book.PAR read.MA.ADE Pekka surprised
Merjan ti ?
Merja
lit. ’Which book reading did Pekka surprise Merja?’
Let us now turn to the MA-adjunct in abessive case. The infinitival
clause may contain an overt subject in genitive case (99b). A pronominal
subject causes possessive inflection to the infinitival verb. Otherwise, the
thematic subject is the matrix subject, as in (b). In addition, MA-adjunct
in abessive may contain possessive suffix bound by the matrix subject (c).
This form is restricted to cases where the infinitival verb does not contain
an object argument (d).
(99)
a. Pekkai käveli kotiin
[ hänenj
näkemättään∗i/j ]
Pekka walked home.ILL (s)he.GEN see.MA.ABE.Px/3SG
’Pekka walked home without him seeing.’
b. Pekka käveli kotiin
[ näkemättä Merjaa]
Pekka walked home.ILL see.MA.ABE Merja.PAR
’Pekka walked home without seeing Merja.’
[ huomaamattaani ]
c. Pekkai käveli kotiin
Pekka walked home.ILL notice.MA.ABE.Px/3SG
’Pekka walked home without noticing.’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
57
d. *Pekka käveli kotiin
[ huomaamattaan
Pekka walked home.ILL notice.MA.ABE.Px/3SG
Merjaa]
Merja.PAR
Similarly as with the MA-adjunct in adessive (in (98a)), when there
is no direct object in the matrix clause and no overt subject in the
infinitival clause, extraction out of the infinitival clause is possible (a).
However, extraction is impossible in the presence of direct object (b) or
a genitive argument (c). In addition, extraction of the genitive subject is
not possible at all (d).
(100)
Pekka käveli kotiin
[ näkemättä ti ]?
a. Ketäi
who.PAR Pekka walked home.ILL see.MA.ABE
’Who didn’t Pekka notice when he walked home?’
b. *?Mitäi Pekka korjasi pyöränsä [ huomaamatta ti ]?
what.PAR Pekka fixed bike.ACC notice.MA.ABE
Pekka nauroi [ Merjan
huomaamatta ti ]?
c. *Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka laughed Merja.GEN notice.MA.ABE
[ti näkemättä]
d. *Keneni Pekka käveli kotiin
who.GEN Pekka walked home.ILL
see.MA.ABE
MA-adjunct undergoes wh-movement as a whole (101):
(101)
ti ?
näkemättä]i Pekka käveli kotiin
[DP Kenen
who.GEN see.MA.ABE Pekka walked home.ILL
’Who didn’t see that Pekka walked home?’
MA-adjunct in adessive occupies a direct complement position of
certain finite verbs, such as jättää ’leave’ (Hakulinen et al., 2004, §1627).
In this case, the MA-adjunct cannot have a subject of its own (b). A-bar
movement is freely available (c).
(102)
a. Pekka jätti katsomatta
elokuvan.
Pekka left watch.MA.ABE film.ACC
’Pekka didn’t watch the film.’
b. *Pekka jätti Merjan
katsomatta
elokuvan.
Pekka left Merja.GEN watch.MA.ABE film.ACC
ti ?
c. Minkäi Pekka jätti katsomatta
what.ACC Pekka left watch.MA.ABE
’What Pekka didn’t watch?’
The examples (102), (98), and (100) show that the MA-infinitives
in adessive and abessive case, which are generally conceived as manner
58
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
adverbials and hence adjuncts, may sometimes occupy a complement
position and allow extraction. Thus, whereas MA-infinitives in the inner
locative cases are not islands for extraction, the islandhood of MAadjuncts depends on the structural position of the infinitival clause.
2.5.4 Strong extraction islands: Rationale adjunct and
Temporal adjunct
This section considers two strong extraction islands in Finnish: rationale
adjunct and temporal adjunct. The common denominator between these
two infinitival clause types is their adjunct position and obligatory
possessive inflection in the presence of matrix subject. The structural
details for both constructions are available in Vainikka (1989, 1995) and
Koskinen (1997).
The infinitival verb in rationale adjunct contains a case marking -kse
and the possessive suffix. The construction does not contain an overt
subject, and the thematic subject of the infinitival clause is the matrix
subject. In addition, the verb receives possessive inflection in the presence
of matrix subject (103a). Rationale adjunct does not allow extraction of
the direct object (b) or adjuncts (c). The non-existence of the matrix
object does not affect the extraction conditions (d). Nevertheless, whmovement of the whole adjunct phrase is possible (e)
(103)
Rationale adjunct
a. Pekka osti
omenoita [ valmistaakseen
piirakkaa
Pekka bought apples.PAR prepare.KSE.Px/3SG pie.PAR
tässä
uunissa]
this.INE oven.INE
’Pekka bought apples in order to make some pie.’
b. *Mitäi Pekka osti
omenoita [ valmistaakseen
ti ]
what Pekka bought apples.PAR prepare.KSE.Px/3SG
omenoita [ piirakkaa
c. *[ Missä
uunissa]i Pekka osti
what.INE oven.INE Pekka bought apples.PAR pie.PAR
valmistaakseen
ti ]?
prepare.KSE.Px/3SG
ti ]?
d. *Minkäi Pekka kiirehti [ voittaakseen
what.ACC Pekka hurried win.KSE.Px/3SG
e. [ Mitä
valmistaakseen]i Pekka osti
omenoita ti ?
what.PAR prepare.KSE
Pekka bought apples.PAR
’In order to prepare what did Pekka buy some apples?’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
59
Temporal adjunct has two tense variants, present and past (Vainikka,
1989; Vainikka & Brattico, 2009), and it may have a genitive subject
or be subjectless. When the subject is missing, the thematic subject is
the matrix clause subject and the infinitival verb has a possessive suffix
(104a-b). A pronominal subject causes possessive inflection on the verb
(c-d). The temporal adjunct has a passive form as well (e).
(104)
Temporal adjunct
a. Pekka kompastui [ kävellessään
kotiin]
Pekka fell
walk.ESSA/PRES.Px/3SG home
’Pekka fell when walking home.’
b. Pekka lepäsi [ käveltyään
kotiin]
Pekka rested walk.ESSA/PAST.Px/3SG home.INE.
’Pekka rested after walking home.’
c. Pekka lähti [ Merjan
laitettua
ruokaa]
Pekka left Merja.GEN cook.ESSA/PAST food.
’Pekka left after Merja had cooked.’
d. Pekka lähti [ hänen
laitettua-an
ruokaa]
Pekka left (s)he.GEN cook.ESSA/PAST-Px/3SG food.
’Pekka left after he/she had cooked.’
e. [ Autettaessa
vanhuksia] täytyy
olla kohtelias.
help.ESSA/PASS seniors.PAR must.3SG be.A polite.
’It is important to be polite when helping elderly people.’
The temporal adjunct is a strong island for movement: Extraction is
not available from the complement (105a), nor from the subject position
(b). The only way a content question can be formed is pied-piping of the
whole infinitival clause to the front of the sentence (c).
(105)
tj ]?
a. *Ketäj Pekka kompastui [ auttaessaan
who.PAR Pekka fell
help.ESSA/PRES.Px/3SG t
ruokaa]?
b. *Keneni Pekka lähti [ti laitettua
who.GEN Pekka left
cook.ESSA/PAST food
c. [ Ketä
auttaessaan]i
Pekka kompastui ti ?
who.PAR help.ESSA/PRES.Px/3SG Pekka fell
’Who Pekka was helping when he fell?’
Both temporal adjunct and rationale adjunct are strong islands as
a consequence of their position in the syntactic structure: they always
occupy an adjunct position. The fact that the possessive suffix never
refers to the direct object supports the conclusion that they cannot be
realized in a complement position (106):
60
(106)
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
a. Pekkai tapasi Merjanj
[ pyytääkseeni/∗ apua]
Pekka met Merja.ACC ask.KSE.PX/SG3 help.PAR
’Pekka met Merja in order to ask for help.’
b. Pekkai näki Merjanj
[ kävellessääni/∗j
kotiin]
Pekka saw Merja.ACC walk.ESSA.PX/SG3 home.ILL
’Pekka saw Merja when walking home.’
2.5.5 E-infinitive
The E-infinitive is a manner adverbial (Hakulinen & Karlsson, 1979)
and generally occupies an adjunct position in the sentence. When the
E-infinitive does not contain an overt subject, the thematic subject is
the matrix subject and there is no possessive inflection (107a). When an
overt subject is present, it is in genitive case. In addition, pronominal
elements cause possessive inflection on the verb (b-d) (Koskinen, 1997,
pp. 315). E-infinitive allows an impersonal subject as well (d).
(107)
E-infinitive
a. Pekka käveli kotiin
vihellellen.
Pekka walked home.INE whistle.E
’Pekka walked home whistling.’
b. Virve
pudotti
maljakon [ Lasun
nähden]
Virve.NOM drop.PAST.3SG vase.ACC Lasu.GEN see.E
’Virve dropped the vase, Lasu seeing it’
c. Maljakko putosi
[ minun nähteni]
vase.NOM fall.PAST.3SG I.GEN see.E.Px/1SG
’The vase fell, me seeing it’
d. Pekka onnistui hyvin [ ottaen huomioon hänen
Pekka succeeded well
take.E account.ILL his
kokonsa]
size.ACC.Px/3SG
’Pekka succeeded well considering his size.’
Extraction out of the E-infinitive is marginally available when the
matrix clause does not contain a direct object (114a). However, extraction is not available in the presence of the direct object (109) and when
the thematic subject of infinitival clause is impersonal (109b). Genitive
arguments may not be extracted (c)
(108)
a. ?[ Mitä
laulua]i Pekka käveli kotiin [vihellellen ti ]?
which.PAR song.PAR Pekka walked home whistle.E.n
’Which song Pekka walked home whistling?’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
(109)
61
a. *?[ Mitä
laulua]i Pekka tapasi Merjan
which.PAR song.PAR Pekka met Merja.ACC
[vihellellen ti ]
whistle.E
b. *Minkäi Pekka onnistui hyvin [ ottaen huomioon ti ]?
what
Pekka succeeded well
take.E account.ILL
’Pekka succeeded well considering what?’
c. *Kenen Pekka kaatui
[ti nähden]?
who.GEN Pekka fell.PAST.3SG
see.E
Similarly as with other infinitival clause adjuncts, the E-infinitive may
be fronted as a whole (110).
(110)
ti ?
[ Mitä
laulua
vihellellen]i Pekka käveli kotiin
which.PAR song.PAR whistle.E.n Pekka walked home.ILL
’Which song Pekka was whistling when he walked home?’
To summarize, the E-infinitive generally occupies an adjunct position.
However, E-infinitive seems to be able to appear also in the complement
of a verb, in which case it allows limited extraction.
3. φ-FEATURE AGREEMENT AND EXTRACTION
3.1 Introduction
Finnish DPs, PPs, and certain infinitival clauses contain a genitive argument that cannot be extracted although extraction of complements and
adjuncts is possible. First, it is never possible to extract the genitive
argument out of DPs or PPs, as seen in examples (41d) and (50), repeated
here as (111) and (112). In addition, the MA-adjunct in abessive does not
allow extraction of the genitive subject, (100)), repeated here as (113a-b),
although extraction of the object is available. The same is true for the Einfinitive (107), repeated here as (114).
(111)
a. Minä luin [ Hotakaisen
kirjan]
I.NOM read Hotakainen.GEN book.ACC
b. *Keneni sinä
luit [ti kirjan]?
who.GEN you.NOM read
book.ACC
(112)
a. Pekka istui [ nuotion
lähellä]
Pekka sat
fireplace.GEN near
’Pekka sat near a/the fireplace.’
b. *Minkäi Pekka istui [ti lähellä]?
what.GEN Pekka sat
near
62
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
(113)
a. Pekka käveli kotiin
[ näkemättä Merjaa]?
Pekka walked home.ILL see.MA.ABE Merja.PAR
’Pekka walked home without noticing Merja.’
[ti näkemättä]?
b. *Keneni Pekka käveli kotiin
who.GEN Pekka walked home.ILL
see.MA.ABE
(114)
nähden].
a. Pekka kaatui [ Lasun
Lasu.GEN see.E
Pekka fell
’Pekka fell, Lasu seeing it.’
b. *Kenen Pekka kaatui [ti nähden]?
who.GEN Pekka fell
see.E
The unavailability of extraction of genitive arguments may be considered as an extension of the left branch condition (LBC) (originally Ross,
1967), which prohibits extraction of a leftward-branching specifier. In
this case, LBC would cover genitive arguments inside DPs, PPs and infinitival clauses. However, the extended left branch condition would not
account for the Finnish data. For example, genitive subject arguments of
the VA-construction and the A-infinitive are able to move freely (115ab):
(115)
a. Keneni Pekka arveli ti lähtevän kotiin?
who.GEN Pekka thought leave.VA home.ILL
’Who did Pekka think was going home?’
b. Keneni Pekka käski ti lähteä kotiin?
who.GEN Pekka ordered leave.A home.ILL
’Who did Pekka order to go home?’
I would like to suggest that the LBC in Finnish is regulated by (anti)agreement. Specifically, I suggest that the extraction of genitive arguments is permitted only in constructions in which there is no φ-feature
agreement between the genitive argument and the syntactic head. The
lack of agreement in subject extraction is called anti-agreement (Ouhalla,
1993). The anti-agreement phenomenon is widely recognized in the
subject extraction out of finite clauses. In addition, the anti-agreement
effect has been argued to exist at least in possessor extraction (Boeckx,
2003).
The syntactic configuration in all of the left branch extraction islands is
very similar: The subject DP has undergone EPP-movement to the specifier of a syntactic head (N, P, V or T), and there is φ-feature agreement
between the DP and the head, as illustrated in (116).20 The φ-feature
agreement is established before the EPP-movement in many minimalist
models (Chomsky, 2000, 2001), even so that φ-feature agreement is a
prerequisite for the EPP. For the purposes of this paper, it suffices to
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
63
say that in Finnish both EPP-movement and φ-feature agreement exist
in a left branch extraction island, regardless of the order in which these
operations take place.
(116) (a) EPP-movement
XP
(b) φ-feature agreement
XP
DP
DP
XP
X
+φ
X
+φ
YP
...
t
XP
...
YP
...
t
...
In the following, I go through the example cases which do not allow
extraction of the genitive argument: DP, PP, and MA-adjunct in abessive,
and show that they all fall under the configuration in (116), in section 3.2.
In section 3.3 continue by showing that there is no φ-feature agreement
in structures where the subject may be extracted: VA-constrution and Ainfinitive. Finally, I show that the my observations on LBC in Finnish
may be extended to subject extraction out of finite complement clauses,
in section 3.4.
First of all, I adopt here the approach proposed by Kanerva (1987),
where the possessive suffix is φ-feature agreement marker.21 Possessive
suffixes may attach to a wide variety of elements: nominals, prepositions,
adjectivals and infinitival verbs (117a-d).
(117)
a. minun kirja-ni
(NP)
I.GEN book-Px/1SG
’my book’
b. minun lähellä-ni
(PP)
I.GEN near-Px/1SG
’near me’
c. minun kaltaise-ni ihminen (AP)
I.GEN alike-Px/1SG person
’a person like me’
d. minun näkemättä-ni
(MA in abessive)
I.GEN leave.MA.ABE-Px/1SG
’without me seeing’
In addition, the word order between the head and the genitive DP is
fixed (118). This supports the view that φ-feature agreement is connected
with EPP-movement to the specifier position (Brattico, 2009a; Brattico &
Leinonen, 2009).
64
(118)
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
a. *kirja-ni
minun (NP)
’book-Px/1SG I.GEN
b. *lähellä-ni minun (PP)
near-Px/1SG I.GEN
c. *kaltaise-ni minun (AP)
alike-Px/1SG I.GEN
d. *näkemättä-ni
minun (MA in abessive)
see.MA.ABE-Px/1SG I.GEN
Common nouns do not cause overt φ-inflection in Finnish (119a),
whereas personal pronouns do (b-c).
(119)
a. Pekan
pyörä
Pekka.GEN bike.NOM
’Pekka’s bike’
b. hänen
pyöränsä
(s)he.GEN bike.NOM.Px/3SG
’his/her bike’
c. (minun) pyöräni
I.GEN bike.NOM.Px/1SG
’my bike’
3.2 DPs, PPs and infinitival clauses that show φ-feature
agreement
Brattico & Leinonen (2009), Brattico (2008) and Brattico (2009a) propose that genitive arguments that modify nominal head undergo EPPmovement from the complement of a nominalizer head -n to the specifier
of -n, and the φ-feature agreement is a result of the specifier head
configuration, as illustrated in (120). The derivation of the DP thus falls
under the structural configuration for LBC proposed in (116).
(120)
EPP-movement of the DP
ment
nP
DPi
nP
DPi
nP
n
φ-feature agree-
ti
nP
n
+φ
ti
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
65
Consider next PPs that take the genitive argument. In section 2.2, I
showed that PPs do not allow extraction of genitive arguments. The φfeature agreement pattern is equivalent to that of NPs, as can be seen in
(121). Examples (122) illustrate the usage of uninflected form ohi, ’past’,
which has a special form ohitse that takes φ-inflection 22 .
(121)
a. Pekan
edellä
Pekka.GEN before
’before Pekka’
b. hänen
edellä-än
(s)he.GEN before-Px/3SG
’before him/her’
c. (minun) edellä-ni
I.GEN before-Px/1SG
’before me’
(122)
a. Pekan
ohi/ohitse
Pekka.GEN past
’past Pekka’
b. hänen
ohitse-en
(s)he.GEN past-Px/3SG
’past him/her’
c. (minun) ohitse-ni
I.GEN past-Px/1SG
’past me’
The word order inside the PP is fixed.23 According to Manninen
(2003b), there is a φ-feature agreement between the DP and the prepositional head. In addition, the DP undergoes EPP-movement from the
complement of P to the specifier of P. The EPP movement is illustrated
in (123a). In this paper, the φ-feature agreement correlates with the
specifier-head configuration (b), which produces the same configuration
as (116).24
(123)
EPP-movement
PP
DP
hänen
φ-feature agreement
PP
DPi
hänen
PP
P
ohitseen
t
PP
P
ohitseen+φ
ti
66
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
Let us now turn to the unavailability of extraction of genitive arguments out of the MA-adjunct in abessive. The infinitival verb inflects
with the φ-features of its subject, as in (124b-c).
(124)
a. Pekan
huomaamatta
Pekka.GEN notice.MA.ABE
’without Pekka noticing’
b. hänen
huomaamatta-an
(s)he.GEN notice.MA.ABE-Px/3SG
’without him/her noticing’
c. (minun) huomaamatta-ni
I.GEN notice.MA.ABE-Px/1SG
’without me noticing’
I leave the exact syntactic structure of the MA-infinitive open here.
However, there are at least a couple of ways to derive the EPP-movement
based on the existing analyses. For example, it is possible that MAinfinitive contains a nominalizer head -n, and the movement to the
specifier of -n would already suffice for the φ-inflection, as suggested for
nPs by Brattico (2009a). Another option would be to adopt the approach
by Koskinen (1997, 357) and take it that the MA-adjunct contains a TPprojection. In Koskinen’s approach, the infinitival verb would raise to T
and the subject to its specifier, resulting in a spec-head configuration and
φ-feature agreement.
Finally, the φ-inflection is present in both strong islands, rationale
and temporal adjunct, which were presented in section 2.5.4. The φinflection in the temporal adjunct patterns with NPs and PPs (125).
(125)
a. Merjan
auttaessa
Merja.GEN help.ESSA/PRES
’when Merja was helping’
b. hänen
auttaessa-an
(s)he.GEN help.ESSA/PRES-Px/3SG
’when he/she was helping’
c. (minun) auttaessa-ni
I.GEN help.ESSA/PRES-Px/1SG
’when I was helping’
Another strong island, rationale adjunct always contains a possessive
suffix, but no overt genitive argument.
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
67
3.3 Structures that show anti-agreement
First, prepositions that do not inflect in φ-features allow extraction, as
was illustrated e.g. in (29), repeated here as (126). These prepositions
show free word order inside the PP. All PP-complements which take the
partitive case complement belong to this class.
(126)
Mitäi
Pekka ei
pärjää [ ilman ti ]
what.PAR Pekka not.3SG survive without
’What doesn’t Pekka survive without?’
I suggest that the essential difference between the extraction conditions on different types of prepositional phrases is that in anti-agreement
structures, there is neither EPP-movement of the complement DP that
would change the word order nor φ-feature agreement (127). The free
word order inside the PP would be in this case a consequence of topicalization movement.
(127)
a. ilman häntä
/ häntä
ilman
without (s)he.PAR / (s)he.PAR without
’without him/her’
b. *ilman-sa
häntä
/ *häntä
ilman-sa
without-pxsg3 (s)he.PAR / (s)he.PAR without-pxsg3
Let us now turn to infinitival clauses that allow extraction of genitive
arguments. As seen in section 2.5.2, VA-construction allows extraction of
any element. VA-infinitival may inflect with φ-features, but the inflection
does not pattern with DPs, PPs, nor MA-adjuncts. Importantly, the φinflection in the presence of personal pronoun is ungrammatical (128a).
It is clear that there is no φ-agreement between an overt subject and
verb. However, I do not have an explanation on why the agreement is
not triggered in VA-construction.
(128)
a. Pekka tiesi hänen
lähtevän(*-sä).
Pekka knew (s)he.GEN leave.VA/PRES(-Px/3SG)
’Pekkai knew that (s)he was going to leave.’
b. Pekka tiesi lähtevän-sä.
Pekka knew leave.VA/PRES-Px/3SG
’Pekkai knew that hei was going to leave.’
Another example of genitive argument extraction is provided by the
A-infinitive, which never shows φ-feature inflection and the extraction
of genitive argument is always available. See Vainikka (1989, Ch.5) for
discussion on the properties of the A-infinitival clause subject.
68
(129)
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
Keneni Pekka käski ti lähteä?
who.GEN Pekka ordered leave.A
who did Pekka order to leave?
3.4 Finite complement clauses
The left branch condition under φ-feature agreement is observable also
in finite clauses. As seen in (18), extraction of subjects from complement
clauses is not available, although object and adjunct arguments may be
extracted (130):
(130)
*Kukai Pekka luuli
että ti tapasi Merjan?
Who Pekka thought that met Merja
’*Who did Pekka think met Merja?’
In the case of the nominative subject it is widely held that the subject
undergoes EPP movement to the specifier of T and T agrees with the
φ-features of the nominative subject (see e.g. Brattico & Huhmarniemi
2006 for Finnish).
(131)
CP
C
TP
DPi
TP
n
+φ
TP
...ti ...
However, when the verb does not agree with the φ-features of the
subject, as in raising construction (19) , repeated here as (132), the
extraction is marginally available. My informants evaluated (132) as only
marginally acceptable, but nevertheless better than the sentence (130).25
(132)
a. Minun kannattaa/*kannatan jäädä odottamaan
I.GEN should.3SG/should.1SG stay.A wait.MA.ILL
’I should stay waiting.’
b. ??Keneni luulet
että ti kannattaisi jäädä odottamaan
who.GEN think.2SG that should.3SG stay.A wait.MA.ILL
vuoroaan?
turn.Px/3SG
’Who do you think should stay and wait for his turn?’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
69
To summarize, although the genitive argument in (132) seems to
occupy the position of the nominal subject, it does not cause φagreement on the verb. It thus seems that φ-agreement together with EPP
correlates with the unavailability of the subject extraction.
4. SUBJECT ISLANDS
As discussed in the previous section, subjects that cause φ-feature inflection on the head cannot undergo A-bar movement to the front of the
sentence. These DPs do not allow any elements to be extracted out of
them either. Nevertheless, there are two infinitival clause types which
allow A-bar movement of genitive subjects: the VA-construction and
the A-infinitive. In this section, I will briefly examine the extraction
conditions out of the subject position in these two infinitival clauses as
well as finite clause.
The subject position of the A-infinitive is a strong island for extraction.
However, the subjects of VA-infinitivals are weak islands: they allow
extraction of adjuncts but not complements (pointed out by Pauli Brattico, p.c.). The same is true for finite clauses: whereas adjunct extraction
out of a finite clause subject seems to be available, complement extraction
is not. It should be noted that the grammaticality estimations and analyses proposed in this section are tentative; further research is required for
establishing a proper account of extraction out of the subject position(s)
in Finnish.
In the following subject extraction tests, I use the three types of DPs
that allow extraction when the DP occupies a direct object position.
First, kasa-constructions; second, PP-modifiers of nominals with event
structure, in particular, minen-nominal; and third, nominals with Ainfinitival complement.
Consider first the extraction out of the VA-infinitival subjects. The
extraction out of kasa-construction is marginally available (133). In
addition, the locative PP modifiers of minen-nominals may be extracted
(134). However, the complement DP of a PP modifier cannot be
extracted (135).
(133)
a. Pekka arveli
[[ kuvan
Merjasta] hävinneen]
Pekka imagined picture.GEN Merja.ELA disappeared.VA
’Pekka imagined that the picture of Mary had disappeard.’
[[ kuvan ti ]
hävinneen]?
b. ??Kenestäi Pekka arveli
who.ELA Pekka imagined picture.GEN disappeared.VA
70
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
(134)
a. Pekka arveli
[[ matkustamisen Thaimaahan]
Pekka imagined traveling.GEN Thailand.ILL
vähenevän
ajan myötä]
reduce.VA/PRES time along
’Pekka imagined that traveling to Thailand would reduce
over time.’
b. ?Mihini Pekka arveli [[ matkustamisen ti ]
where.ILL Pekka imagine traveling.GEN
vähenevän
ajan myötä]?
reduce.VA/PRES time along
lit. ’Where did Pekka imagine traveling would reduce over
time?’
(135)
a. Pekka arveli
[[ juoksemisen kohti lavaa]
Pekka imagined running.GEN towards stage.PAR
aiheuttavan
häiriötä]
cause.VA/PRES disorder.PAR
’Pekka imagined that running towards the stage would cause
disorder.’
Pekka arveli
[[ juoksemisen kohti ti ]
b. *Mitäi
what.PAR Pekka imagined running.GEN towards
aiheuttavan
häiriötä]?
cause.VA/PRES disorder.PAR
The direct object of the A-infintival complement cannot be extracted
(136b). However, extraction of adjuncts seems to be available (c).
(136)
a. Pekka arveli
[[ suunnitelman kantaa vettä
Pekka imagined plan.GEN
carry.A water.PAR
kaivoon] olevan
huono]
well.ILL be.VA/PRES bad
’Pekka imagined that the plan to carry water to the well was
bad.’
[[ suunnitelman kantaa ti ]
b. *?Mitäi Pekka arveli
what.par Pekka imagined plan.GEN
carry.A
olevan
huono]?
be.VA/PRES bad
c. ?Mihini Pekka arveli
[[ suunnitelman kantaa
where Pekka imagined plan.GEN
carry.A
vettä
ti ] olevan
huono]?
water.PAR be.VA/PRES bad
’Where did Pekka imagine it was a bad idea to carry water?’
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
71
If we adopt the approach where DP-internal PP-modifiers may occupy
an adjunct position, then the island tests demonstrate that the genitive
subject position of the VA-infinitive constitute a weak extraction island:
whereas extraction out of complement is not possible, extraction of
adjuncts is allowed at least to a certain extent.
Let us now turn to genitive subjects of A-infinitivals. First, extraction
out of the kasa-construction in genitive subject position is not possible
(137). Similarly, extraction out of the nominal minen-complement (138)
nor A-infinitival complement or adjunct is not available (139). The
genitive subject of the A-infinitive thus seems to be a strong island for
extraction.
(137)
a. Pekka käski [[ ryhmän
koululaisia] kokoontua
Pekka ordered group.GEN students.PAR meet.A
uimahallin
edessä]
swimming pool.GEN front
’Pekka ordered a group of students to meet in the front of the
swimming pool.’
ti ] kokoontua
b. *Ketäi Pekka käski [[ ryhmän
who.PAR Pekka ordered group.GEN meet.A
uimahallin
edessä]
swimming pool.GEN front
(138)
a. Pekka antoi [[ yöpymisen luksushotellissa ] päättää
Pekka let
sleeping.GEN hotel.INE
end.A
hienon
matkan]
great.ACC journey.ACC
’Pekka let spending the night in a luxury hotel to end the
great journey.’
b. *Missäi Pekka antoi [[ yöpymisen ti ] päättää
where.INE Pekka let
sleeping.GEN end.A
hienon
matkan]?
great.ACC journey.ACC
(139)
a. Pekka antoi [[ ehdotuksen ostaa maata] lopettaa
Pekka let
proposal.GEN buy.A land.PAR end.A
keskustelun]
discussion.ACC
’Pekka let the proposal to buy some land to end the discussion.’
72
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
b. *Mitä
Pekka antoi [[ ehdotuksen ostaa ti ] lopettaa
what.PAR Pekka let
proposal.GEN buy.A end.A
keskustelun]
discussion.ACC
c. *Mistä
Pekka antoi [[ ehdotuksen ostaa maata
where.PAR Pekka let
proposal.GEN buy.A land.PAR
ti ] lopettaa keskustelun]
end.A discussion.ACC
To conclude, consider extraction out of the finite clause subjects.
Extraction out of the kasa-constructions seems to be available (140). In
addition, whereas extraction of PPs out of minen-nominals is available
(141), extraction of the prepositional complement is not (142).
(140)
a. [ Kuva
Merjasta] on aiheuttanut kohua.
picture.NOM Merja.ELA has caused
fuss.PAR
’The picture of Merja has caused some fuss.’
ti ] on aiheuttanut kohua?
b. *?Kenestäi [ kuva
who.ELA picture.NOM has caused
fuss.PAR
ti ] aiheuttanut kohua?
c. ?Kenestäi on [ kuva
who.ELA has picture.NOM caused
fuss.PAR
’About whom has a picture caused some fuss?’
(141)
a. [ Yöpyminen
[ joen
lähellä]] ei
houkutellut.
sleeping.NOM river.GEN near
not.3SG tempted
’Sleeping near the river was not tempting.’
b. [ Minkä lähellä]i yöpyminen ti ei
houkutellut?
what.gen near
sleeping
not.3SG tempted
’Near what wasn’t sleeping very tempting?’
c. [ Minkä lähellä]i ei
[ yöpyminen ti ] houkutellut?
what.gen near
not.3SG sleeping
tempted
’Near what wasn’t sleeping very tempting?’
(142)
a. Ryntääminen kohti lavaa
ei
houkutellut.
rushing.NOM towards stage.PAR not.3SG tempted
’Rushing towards the stage was not tempting.’
b. *?Mitäi [ ryntääminen [ kohti ti ]] ei
what.PAR rushing.NOM towards
not.3SG
houkutellut?
tempted
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
73
c. *?Mitäi ei
[ ryntääminen [ kohti ti ]]
what.PAR not.3SG rushing.NOM towards
houkutellut?
tempted
In addition, extraction out of the A-infinitival complements and
adjuncts is not availble at all (143).
(143)
a. [ Suunnitelma lakkauttaa
kirjastoja] on aiheuttanut
plan.NOM discontinue.A libraries.PAR has caused
vastustusta.
resistance
’The plan to discontinue libraries has caused resistance.’
b. *?Mitä
[ suunnitelma lakkauttaa
ti ] on aiheuttanut
what.PAR plan.NOM discontinue.A has caused
vastustusta?
resistance
ti ]
c. *?Mihini on [ suunnitelma viedä kirjoja
where.PAR has plan.NOM take.A books.PAR
aiheuttanut vastustusta?
caused
resistance
Extraction from finite clause subjects is thus very restricted. If PPmodifiers are considered as adjuncts, we could say that adjunct extraction is available and that the finite clause subjects are weak islands for
extraction. All in all, the extraction out of the subject position seems to
be very limited in all the three cases.
REFERENCES
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. thesis, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Resumption and asymmetric derivation. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo
(ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, volume 1: Syntax and semantics of Linguistik Aktuell,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brattico, Pauli. 2008. Kayne’s model of Case and Finnish nominal phrases. Nordic Journal
of Linguistics 31.2, 135–160.
Brattico, Pauli. 2009a. The Probe-Goal System in Finnish, manuscript submitted for
publication.
Brattico, Pauli. 2009b. The Two-Part Models and One-Part Models of Nominal Case:
Evidence from Case Distribution. Journal of Linguistics .
Brattico, Pauli & Huhmarniemi, Saara. 2006. Finnish Negation, EPP-principle and the
valuation theory of morphosyntax. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29.1, 5–44.
Brattico, Pauli & Leinonen, Alina. 2009. Nominalization and case distribution: Evidence
from Finnish. Syntax 12, 1–31.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Stephen Anderson & Paul
Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
74
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian
(eds.), Formal Syntax, New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Roger Martin, Davic
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 Carlos P. Otero Roger Freidin & Maria L. Zubizarreta
(eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133–166, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guclielmo. 1980. Extraction from NP in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5,
47–99.
Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley. 2003. On extraction from NPs. Natural Language
& Linguistic Theory 21, 1–37.
Fiengo, Robert & Higginbotham, James. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7, 395–
422.
Hakulinen, Anne & Karlsson, Fred. 1975. Suomen akkusatiivi: funktionaalinen näkökulma.
Virittäjä 1, 339–363.
Hakulinen, Auli & Karlsson, Fred. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: SKS.
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, T.R. & Alho,
I. 2004. Iso Suomen Kielioppi. Helsinki: SKS.
Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo. 2002. Expletives, Subjects, and Topics in Finnish.
In Peter Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, 71–106, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Holmberg, Anders, Nikanne, Urpo, Oraviita, Irmeli, Reime, Hannu & Trosterud, Trond.
1993. The Structure of INFL and the Finite Clause in Finnish. In Anders Holmberg &
Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, 177–206,
Berlin: Mouton.
Kaiser, Elsi. 2003. (Non)Locality in Anaphoric Relations. In Nelson & Manninen (2003),
1–48.
Kanerva, Jonni. 1987. Morphological integrity and syntax: The evidence from Finnish
possessive suffixes. Language 63, 498–501.
Karttunen, Frances. 1975. The Syntax and Pragmatics of the Finnish Clitic -han. Texas
Linguistic Forum 1, 41–50.
Koskinen, Päivi. 1997. Features and categories: Non-finite constructions in Finnish. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Toronto, distributed by Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
Kuno, Susumu & Robinson, Jane J. 1972. Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 463–
487.
Manninen, Satu. 2003a. Finnish PPs and the Phase Inpenetrability Condition. In Nelson &
Manninen (2003), 1–48.
Manninen, Satu. 2003b. Small phrase layers: A study of Finnish manner adverbials, volume 65 of Linguistik aktuell. John Benjamins.
Nelson, Diane. 1998. Grammatical case assignment in Finnish. London: Garland.
Nelson, Diane & Manninen, Satu. 2003. Introduction. In Diane Nelson & Satu Manninen
(eds.), Generative Approaches to Finninh and Saami Linguistics, 1–48, Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications.
Nevis, Joel A. 1986. Finnish Particle Clitics and General Clitic Theory. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio
State University.
Nikanne, Urpo. 1989. On locative case marking in Finnish. In Jussi Niemi (ed.), Papers from
the 11th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, volume 1, Joensuu: Joensuu University.
Nikanne, Urpo. 1993. On Assigning Semantic Cases in Finnish. In A. Holmberg &
U. Nikanne (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 89–109,
Berlin: Mouton.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1993. Subject-Extraction, Negation and the Anti-Agreement Effect. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 477–518.
Reime, Hannu. 1993. Accusative marking in Finnish. In A. Holmberg & U. Nikanne (ed.),
Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 89–109, Berlin: Mouton.
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
75
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegemann (ed.),
Elements of Grammar, 289–330, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Contraints on variables in syntax, mIT Ph.D. dissertation.
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Subjects, Specifiers, and X-Bar Theory. In Alternative Conceptions of
Phrase Structure, The University of Chicago Press.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. The syntactic structure of Hungarian. In F. Kiefer
& K.E.Kiss (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 27, 179–275, New York: Academic Press.
Toivonen, Ida. 1995. A study of Finnish infinitives. Master’s thesis, Brandeis University.
Toivonen, Ida. 2000. The Morphosyntax and Finnish Possessives. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 18, 579–609.
Trosterud, Trond. 1993. Anaphors and Binding Domains in Finnish. In Anders Holmberg
& Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 225–
244, Berlin: Mouton.
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 Anders Holmberg &
Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 129–159,
Berlin: Mouton.
Vainikka, Anne. 1995. Functional Projections in Finnish Non-Finite Constructions. Technical report.
Vainikka, Anne. 2003. Postverbal case Realization in Finnish. In Diane Nelson & Satu
Manninen (eds.), Generative Approaches to Finninh and Saami Linguistics, 235–266,
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Vainikka, Anne & Brattico, Pauli. 2009. Accusative case in Finnish, manuscript submitted
for publication.
van Steenbergen, Marlies. 1991. Long-distance binding in Finnish. In J. Koster & E. J.
Reuland (eds.), Long-distance anaphors, 231–244, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Vilkuna, Maria. 1995. Discourse Configurationality in Finnish. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.),
Discourse Configurational Languages, 244–268, Oxford University Press.
1
Koskinen (1997) assumes adjunction to T for manner adverbials and adjunction to
vP for temporal adverbials. See Manninen (2003b), for an account in which manner
adverbials are specifiers of layered vP s. Holmberg et al. (1993) suggest two positions as
well, and locate the sentential adverbs on the top of the vP , whereas the rest are on the
top of the VP.
2
I thus adopt the view that the EPP-movement of the subject DP is triggered by caseand/or φ-feature assignment, following the basic insights in Brattico & Huhmarniemi
(2006).
3
Following (Rizzi, 1997), the CP-layer may be split into several projections, but the split
is not relevant for present discussion.
4
NP in Ross’s terms
5
I exclude here the contrastive focus movement, which is sometimes assumed to target
the specifier of C Vilkuna (1995), or some other functional head in C-domain. It seems
that contrastively focussed constituent does not always cause intervention effect on whmovement. However, further research is needed.
6
To account for free word order variation, Manninen (2003b) postulates an optional
EPP-feature on the P-head, which forces the DP to raise to the specifier of P.
76
7
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
The contexts where the extraction could be used is e.g. the following, where the
preposition is focussed and therefore occupies the sentence-final position:
(144) A: Ihmiset
tarvitsevat teollisuutta elääkseen.
people.NOM need
industries to.live
’People need natural resources in order to survive.’
B: Kyllä, mutta mitä
me
voisimme elää ilman?
yes, but what.PAR I.NOM could
live without
’Yes, but what would I survive without?’
8
If the PP is interpreted as forming a DP together with ’Merjaa’, the possessive suffix may
be bound by Merja. However, this interpretation is not preferred here.
9
Some of the prepositions that assign genitive case may assign partitive case as well.
In this case they do not take possessive inflection (145a-c). These PPs have similar
extraction properties as the prepositions that take partitive case complements in
general.
(145)
a. lähellä häntä
/ häntä
lähellä
near (s)he.PAR (s)he.PAR near
’near him/her’
b. *häntä
lähellä-än
(s)he.PAR near-Px/3SG
c. *minua lähellä-ni
I.PAR near-Px/1SG
10 The unavailability of extraction out of relative clauses was discussed in section 2.1.
11 The thematic properties of the DP seem to be relevant as well. For example, when the
genitive DP is conceived as object argument in (146), extraction is available.
(146) [ Minkä
sillan
lähelle] Asko
ehdotti Pekan
jättämistä
which.GEN bridge.GEN near Asko.NOM suggested Pekka.GEN sleeping.PAR
ti ?
’Near which bridge did Asko suggest we should leave Pekka?’
12 In general, any nominal with event structure permits preposing and extraction of
locative PPs in Finnish (147). However, the exact structural properties of these derived
nominals is left open here.
(147)
a. ryntäys kentälle / kentälle ryntäys
rush field.ILL field.ILL rush
’a rush to the field’
b. Minnei Pekka näki ryntäyksen ti ?
where.ILL Pekka saw rush.ACC
’Where did Pekka see a rush to?’
13 Hakulinen et al. (2004, §592)
14 The exact structural properties of the DP and reflexive binding are left open here.
15 An example of NP split in Finnish that does not reconstruct is the position of the
numeral with respect to its complement, as in (148). In the split construction, the
nominal head may be in plural, whereas in the complement of the numeral the nominal
is always in singluar (148b-c).
EXTRACTION ISLANDS IN FINNISH
(148)
77
a. Miehiä
oli kolme.
man.PL.PAR was three
’There were three men.’
b. *Kolme miehiä
three man.PL.PAR
c. Kolme miestä
three man.SG.PAR
’three men’
16 According to Nevis (1986), Karttunen (1975) gives the examples (149a-b) where the
adverb would be extracted out of the complement AP. However, this movement does
not generalize very well (150).
(149)
a. sinä
olet vielä kovin nuori
you.NOM are still very young
’You are still very young.’
b. kovin sinä
olet vielä nuori
very you.NOM are still young
(150)
a. sinä
olet vielä aika nuori
you.NOM are still quite young
’You are still very young.’
b. *aika sinä
olet vielä nuori
quite you.NOM are still young
17 A-infinitive has an adjunct form as well, illustrated in (151). The subject is in the
genitive case and the infinitival clause object is part of the main clause, as may be
observed in case alternation between (a-b).
(151) Pekka toi
omenoita/omenan
[ lasten
syödä]
Pekka brought apples.PAR/apple.ACC children.GEN eat.A
’Pekka brought some apples in order for children to eat.’
Movement of the A-adjunct as well as extraction out of it is not permitted (151a-b). The
meaning of the infinitival is ’in order to eat’, which points towards an interpretation as
adjunct. I leave the extract structure of the A-adjunct for future research.
(152)
syödä]
omenoita [ ti
a. *Keneni Pekka toi
who.GEN Pekka brought apples.PAR eat.A
omenoita ti ?
b. *[ Kenen
syödä]i Pekka toi
Pekka brought apples.PAR
who.GEN eat.A
18 VA-construction is also used in a complement of an auxiliary verb in present and past
perfect in (a-b) and with negation (c). Extraction is freely available.
(153)
a. Pekka on kirjoittanut
romaanin.
Pekka has write.VA/PAST/SG novel.ACC
’Pekka has written a novel.’
b. Pekka oli kirjoittanut
romaanin.
Pekka had write.VA/PAST/SG novel.ACC
’Pekka had written a novel.’
78
SAARA HUHMARNIEMI
c. Pekka ei
kirjoittanut
romaania.
Pekka not.3SG write.VA/PAST/SG novel.ACC
’Pekka did not write a novel.’
19 Some speakers may allow a subject (154) (Toivonen, 1995). Due to the marginality of
these sentences, the constructions containing a subject are left aside here.
(154) Hän
jäi
henkiin [ meidän auttamalla
häntä]
(s)he.NOM stay-PAST.3SG life.ILL we.GEN help.MA.ADE (s)he.PAR
’He/she survived by our helping him’
20 I leave the Case features aside, since they do not seem to have an effect on the extraction
conditions.
21 The agreement view for possessive suffixes is adopted e.g. in Vainikka & Brattico (2009);
Brattico (2009a). Toivonen (2000) suggest that possessive suffix is an agreement marker
in 1st and 2nd person. Nelson (1998), following Reime (1993), suggests that possessive
suffixes are a variant of verbal agreement marker, having the same general category
AGR.
22 Similarly as with PPs, the possessive suffix is often not used in colloquial speech together
with the personal pronoun: hänen edellä, hänen ohi. However, for the purposes of this
paper, it suffices if the φ-feature inflection is not ungrammatical, which would indicate
a different syntactic configuration.
23 The uninflected forms such as ohi may allow some word order variation when there is
no possessive inflection.
24 Manninen (2003a, pp. 313) adopts the view from the Minimalist Program (Chomsky,
2000, 2001), where φ-feature agreement occurs before EPP-movement.
25 There existed a considerable amount of variation among the informants in grammaticality estimations; some informants did not accept long-distance movement at all.