Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:28:50.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finnish word order: Does comprehension matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2020

Pauli Brattico
Pauli Brattico*
Affiliation:
Research Center for Neurocognition, Epistemology and Theoretical Syntax (NETS), School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia, Italy
*
Email for correspondence: pauli.j.brattico@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Finnish word order is relatively free, making room for all mathematically possible word orders in many constructions. Because there is no evidence in this language for radical nonconfigurationality, explanations must be sought from syntax. It is argued in this article that morphosyntax and word order represent syntactic structure at the PF-interface. Rich morphosyntax frees word order, poor morphosyntax freezes it. The hypothesis is formalized within the context of a parsing-oriented theory of the human language faculty (UG) combining left-to-right minimalism with the dynamic syntax approach. The analysis was implemented as an algorithm and successfully tested with a corpus of 119,800 unique Finnish word orders.

Keywords

adjunctioncomputational linguisticsdynamic syntaxFinnishtop–down grammarword order
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , May 2021 , pp. 38 - 70
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boef, Eefje & Dal Pozzo, Lena. 2012. Some notes on word order and interpretation in Dutch and Finnish. Nordlyd 39, 44–62.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2016. Is Finnish topic prominent? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63, 299–330.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2018. Word Order and Adjunction in Finnish. Aarhus: Aguila & Celik.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2019a. A Computational Implementation of a Linear Phase Parser: The Framework and Technical Documentation (Technical Software Documentation). Pavia: IUSS Pavia.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2019b. Word order in Finnish: Nonconfigurationality, movement or adjunction? Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 8(2), 2–26.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2020. Predicate clefting and long head movement in Finnish. Ms., IUSS Pavia.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli & Chesi, Cristiano. 2020. A top–down, parser-friendly approach to operator movement and pied-piping. Lingua 233, doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102760. Published online by Elsevier, 9 December 2019.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli, Huhmarniemi, Saara, Purma, Jukka & Vainikka, Anne. 2013. The structure of Finnish CP and feature inheritance. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2(2), 66–109.Google Scholar
Braze, David. 2002. Grammaticality, Acceptability and Sentence Processing: A Psycholinguistic Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie, Kempson, Ruth & Marten, Lutz. 2005. The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction (Syntax and Semantics 35). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Chesi, Cristiano. 2004. Phases and Cartography in Linguistic Computation: Toward a Cognitively Motivated Computational Model of Linguistic Competence. Ph.D. dissertation, Universita di Siena.Google Scholar
Chesi, Cristiano. 2012. Competence and Computation: Toward a Processing Friendly Minimalist Grammar. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Chesi, Cristiano. 2013. Rightward movement from a different perspective. In Webelhuth, Gert, Sailer, Manfred & Walker, Heike (eds.), Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective, 243–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of “Verbal Behaviour”. Language 35(1), 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adrian (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Gallego, Ángel J. & Ott, Denniss. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. In Generative Syntax: Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges: Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics 18, 229–261.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2008. Free word order, (non)configurationality, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 441–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 2000. The Mind doesn’t Work that Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2001. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1975. Sanajärjestyksen eri tehtävistä [On the different functions of word order]. Virittäjä, 79, 85–93.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1976. Reports on Text Linguistics: Suomen kielen generatiivista lauseoppia 2 [Generative syntax of Finnish 2] (Meddelanden från Stiftelsens för Åbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut [Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation],Vol. 7).Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Karlsson, Fred. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia [Syntax of modern Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Maria-Liisa. 2013. Constituents. In Luraghi, Silvia & Parodi, Claudia (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, 65–75. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Arnon, Inbal, Sag, Ivan A. & Snider, Neal. 2013. The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 48–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Deriving OV order in Finnish. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV, 123–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo. 2002. Expletives, subjects and topics in Finnish. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, 71–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Nikanne, Urpo, Oraviita, Irmeli, Reime, Hannu & Trosterud, Trond. 1993. The Structure of INFL and the Finite Clause in Finnish. In Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo (eds.), Case and other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 177–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhmarniemi, Saara. 2012. Finnish A′-movement: Edges and Islands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Huhmarniemi, Saara. 2019. The movement to SpecFinP in Finnish. Acta Linguistica Academica 66(1), 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhmarniemi, Saara & Brattico, Pauli. 2013. On primary and secondary movement. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 60(2), 173–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2, 39–76.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2000. The discourse functions and syntax of OSV word order in Finnish. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2006. Negation and the left periphery in Finnish. Lingua 116, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth, Meyer-Viol, Wilfried & Gabbay, Dov. 2001. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Päivi. 1998. Features and Categories: Non-finite Constructions in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Lindén, Eeva. 1947. Suomen kielen sanajärjestyksestä [On Finnish word order]. Virittäjä 51, 324–331.Google Scholar
Manninen, Satu. 2003. Small Phrase Layers: A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Diane C. 1998. Grammatical Case Assignment in Finnish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Palander, Marjatta. 1991. Puhe- ja kirjakielen sanajärjestyseroja [Differences of word order in spoken and written Finnish]. Virittäjä 3, 235–254.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 37–90.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka. 2002. Lauserakenteen kuvaamisesta I [On descriptive clause structure I]. Virittöjä 4(2002), 536–562.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka. 2003. Lauserakenteen kuvaamisesta II [On descriptive clause structure II]. Virittäjä 1(2003), 46–67.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Yankama, Beracah, Indurkhya, Sagar, Fong, Sandiway & Berwick, Robert C.. 2018. Colorless green ideas do sleep furiously: Gradient acceptability and the nature of the grammar. Linguistic Review 35, 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Rosa. 2012. The interaction of modality and negation in Finnish. Journal of Linguistics 48(3), 653–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1993. The three structural cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo (eds.), Case and other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 129–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 2011. Genitive case in Finnish reconsidered. Biolinguistical Fennica Working Papers 2, 1–32.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne & Levy, Yonata. 1999. Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 613–671.Google Scholar
Välimaa-Blum, Riitta. 1988. Finnish Existential Clauses: Their Syntax, Pragmatics and Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
van Steenbergen, Marlies 1989. Finnish: Configurational or not? In Marácz, László & Muysken, Pieter (eds.), Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries, 143–157. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free Word Order in Finnish: Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1995. Discourse configurationality in Finnish. In É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, 244–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Brattico supplementary material

Brattico supplementary material

Download Brattico supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 932.5 KB