Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T22:48:20.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructional Inheritance and Case Assignment In Finnish Numeral Expressions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Andrew Dolbey
Andrew Dolbey
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Yleisen kielitieteen laitos, PL 4, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland; University of California at Berkeley, 2337 Dwindle Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720. Email: dolbey@ling.helsinki.fi, dolbey@uclink.berkeley.edu
Get access

Extract

The grammar of Finnish licenses two different types of complex numeral expressions.While the two occur in the same range of external syntactic and semantic contexts, theynevertheless exhibit striking differences in internal case-marking properties. Utilizing a sign-based, Construction Grammar approach, an analysis of the two types of numeral expressions is provided in terms of a set of closely related constructions. It is argued that the range and properties of numeral expressions as well as the interactions among them reveal a tight system of organization across constructions, expressed here in terms of a carefully formulated inheritance hierarchy. It is also argued that a close examination of the grammar of Finnish numeral expressions provides important insights into more general grammatical phenomena, including compounding, morphosyntactic feature distribution, inflectional realization, and the semantics of quantification

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , June 1998 , pp. 17 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Babby, L. H. 1987. Case, Prequantifiers, and Discontinuous Agreement in Russian. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 5, 91–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1994. Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corstius, H. B. (ed.) 1968. Grammars for Number Names. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Dolbey, A. 1996. Phrasal vs Compound Status of Finnish Complex Numeral Expressions. University of Helsinki, unpublished.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. &Kay, P. 1997. Construction Grammar. University of California, Berkeley, unpublished.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. &Wasow, T. 1985. Structure Sharing in Lexical Representation. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACL Meeting, pp. 262–267.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1977. Generalizations about Numeral Systems. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 249–295.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. &Karlsson, F. 1995. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. [Contemporary Finnish Syntax.] (3rd ed.) Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1992. Grammaticization Theory and Heads in Morphology. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Morphology Now. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. &Nikanne, U. (eds). 1993. Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Honti, L. 1993. Die Grundzahlwörter der Uralischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bibliotheca Uralica 11.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. 1975. The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. 1987. Language and Number: the Emergence of a Cognitive System. Oxford: B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kay, P. &Fillmore, C. 1994. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations:the What's X doing Y? Construction. University of California, Berkeley, unpublished.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 1996. Partitives and Pseudopartitives in the European Languages: Typology and Grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mäkisalo, J. 1996. Compounding in Spoken Finnish. Paper presented at the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. O. 1996. Sign-based Morphology and Phonology. University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies. Stanford University, Master's thesis.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. 1994. Morphology and the Hierarchical Lexicon. Stanford University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. 1977. Cardinal Number Systems. In Mufwene, S., Walker, C. & Steever, S. (eds), CLS 12, pp. 594–609.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. On the Notions ‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–274.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1994a. Morphological Metageneralizations: Morphology, Phonology, and Morphophonology. Paper presented at the Foreign Language Conference, University of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1994b. Dealing Out Meaning: Fundamentals of Syntactic Constructions. Berkeley Linguistic Society 20, 611–625.Google Scholar