You are on page 1of 21

ISLAND CONSTRAINTS AND EXTRACTION OF LEXICAL CASE-MARKED DPS IN

FINNISH AND TURKISH
REBECCA TOLLAN
University of York

Abstract

This paper investigates the acceptability of types of wh-question formation which
involve extraction out of strong syntactic islands in languages with rich lexical
case marking systems. By considering these types of extraction, I aim to test
Cinque’s (1990) diagnostic regarding the distinction between different island-
hood strengths, namely that so-called ‘strong’ islands, whilst sometimes allowing
DP extraction, do not allow extraction of a PP due to unavailability of PP
resumption at the extraction site. I will claim, based upon evidence from
extraction of DPs in Finnish and Turkish, that this hypothesis is certainly on the
right track, but suggest an potential alternative explanation for the PP-DP
extraction asymmetry observed in other languages.

1. Introduction

Cinque (1990) proposes that the distinction between strong and weak islands lies in the
acceptability of PP extraction, whereby an island from which PP extraction is licensed must
also allow DP extraction (a so-called weak island, involving genuine movement), whereas an
island allowing only DP extraction is considered as ‘strong’. According to Cinque, extraction
from strong islands involves a resumption strategy, whereby the site from which a DP has
been extracted is occupied by a null resumptive pronoun; since PPs cannot be resumed, PP
movement is not licensed. Extraction from an adjunct island in English, for example, may
take place only when any preposition selecting the extracted DP is stranded, and hence only
the DP is moved, as in (1); the preposition cannot be pied-piped, as in (2).
(1) Who did you leave [without talking to_]?
(2) *To whom did you leave [without talking_]?
The aforementioned hypothesis, however, is based only upon data from English and Italian,
both of which have relatively few types of case marking. Cinque does not consider languages
in which arguments expressed as a PP in English and/or Italian would be expressed as a
lexically case-marked DP. This paper addresses behaviour of extraction in two such
languages: Turkish and Finnish, as well as concurrently considering analyses of Finnish by
Nikanne (1993) which claim that all lexically case-marked DPs are in fact PPs. Based upon
data collected by means of two questionnaires, I will suggest that Cinque’s hypothesis is, on

 
York Papers in Linguistics Series 2 ISSN 1758-0315 Issue 12a
© The Author, 2012
 

103 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish
 

the whole, correct; that DPs with lexical case cannot be analysed as PPs under the Cinquean
diagnostic; and that the structure of certain spatial DPs impacts upon their extraction
properties.

1.1. Structural and lexical case

Throughout this paper, a distinction is made between ‘structural’ and ‘lexical’ case marking. I
define structural case here as (according to Davison (2004)) case which is theta independent
and assigned as a function of structural position. Lexical case is defined as that which is
theta-related and assigned due to lexical selection.

2. Background: weak and strong islands in English

A distinction is typically made in syntactic literature between strong and weak island types.
Strong islands (also referred to as ‘absolute’ (Szabolcsi 2002) or ‘locked’ (Postal 1997/8)) are
those which do not generally allow extraction, unless, in occasional circumstances, with an
appropriate resumptive pronoun. Weak (also known as ‘selective’ (Szabolcsi 2002) or
‘unlocked’ (Postal 1997/8)) islands allow more extraction than strong islands, although
certain selectional requirements can restrict what types of phrases may be extracted (this is
usually based upon argument referentality and specificity). The types of islands listed by
Cinque (1990:7) as strong and weak are given below in (3) and (4), with relevant examples.
(3) Strong islands
a. Subject island *Which books did [talking about _] become difficult?
*Which conference did [that Anne attended _] surprise
you?
b. Complex DP island *To whom have you found [someone who would
speak_]?
*Who did you read [a book that Peter gave to_]?
c. Adjunct island *To whom did you leave [without speaking_]?
*Which shop did you go to the farm [after buying
groceries from _]?
(4) Weak islands
a. Wh-island ? To whom didn’t they know [when to give their
present_]?
*How did they ask [who behaved_]?
b. Inner negative island To whom [didn’t you speak_]?
*How [didn’t you behave_]?
c. Factive island To whom do you regret [that you could not speak_]?
*How do you regret [that you behaved_]?
d. Extraposition island To whom [is it time to speak_]?
*How [is it time to behave_]?
This study focuses specifically on extraction from strong islands. Cinque observes that some
islands of this type can sometimes allow extraction of a DP, but never a PP (as was illustrated
in the examples in (1) and (2)). He therefore makes the claim in (5) regarding the strong/weak
distinction.

 
 

If Cinque’s diagnostic is taken to be true.1 Case marking in Turkish Turkish belongs to the Altaic language family. complex DP and adjunct) islands than does English. have an equivalent to the Indo-European dative case (which would be typically used to express the PP ‘to whom’ from example (2)). licensing of certain types of extraction from islands in general (Polish and German. a strong island with PP extraction such as in (2) is ungrammatical because a PP cannot be resumed. Rebecca Tollan 104 (5) Cinque’s strong/weak diagnostic (as worded by Szabolcsi 2002:4) Among those domains that do not allow all standard extractions. secondly. as conveyed by the English preposition ‘to’ Locative: (-de) expresses static position Ablative: (-den) expresses movement away . Turkish also has a number of postpositions. Turkish has a six-case system. CP] at LF.e. 3. Finnish does not. The former three (nominative. has only two types of locative case but also has a dative case marker. In particular. Reasons for this choice were based upon three conditions: firstly. In particular. Turkish and Finnish were chosen as test-languages for this study. On this account. for example. even where no lexical case marking is involved). availability of native speakers who were able to give grammaticality judgements. constructions of the type in (2) ought to be acceptable. (6) Turkish case system Nominative: (zero inflection) expresses grammatical subject Accusative: (-i) expresses grammatical object Genitive: (-in) expresses ownership/possession Dative: (-e) expresses movement towards. An investigation into DP extraction in such a language ought therefore to serve as a true test of Cinque’s claim in (5). accusative and genitive) are structural cases and the latter two (locative and ablative) are lexical. since unavailability of (PP) resumption should not be a factor in a language which expresses a PP argument of this type as DP. thereby expressing a would-be English PP such as ‘to whom’ as a DP with a case affix) should allow more extraction from strong (i. although Akar (1990) proposes that Turkish wh-phrases undergo raising to [spec. subject. Basic word order is SOV. Turkish on the other hand. thereby allowing for investigation into extraction of different locative DPs. as outlined in (6). allowing for more effective testing of sentences of types (1) and (2). when studied together. Case marking systems in Turkish and Finnish Of those languages whose case marking systems allow for certain would-be English PPs to be expressed as DPs. It is generally regarded as a wh-in situ language. those that allow a PP-gap are weak islands. 3.1–2. were considered as test- languages for the study but were ruled out due to general dislike of speakers for extraction of any type.e. the specific types of case- marking found in Turkish and Finnish will. thirdly. allow for testing of a wide variety of different PP-equivalents. A background to the basic word order and case systems in these two languages follows in sections 3. however. and those that can at best contain a DP-gap are strong islands (and their DP-gap is an empty pronoun). then languages which convey the semantics of prepositions with lexical case marking (i. Dative case can have either structural or lexical use (von Heusinger & Kornfilt 2005). Finnish has a rich locative case system.

however. (7) Finnish case system (from Holmberg & Nikanne 1993) Structural cases: Nominative: (zero inflection) expresses grammatical subject Genitive: (-n) expresses ownership Partitive: (-ä) expresses specific grammatical object Accusative: (-n/-Ø) expresses less-specific grammatical object General locative cases: Translative: (-kse) expresses change of state Essive: (-nä) expresses English ‘as’ Internal locative cases: Inessive: (-ssä) ‘in’ (stative) Illative: (-on) ‘into’ Elative: (-stä) ‘from (within)’ External locative cases: Adessive: (-llä) ‘on’ (stative) Allative: (-lle) ‘onto’ Ablative: (-ltä) ‘from (on)’ Marginal cases: Abessive: (-ttä) ‘without’ Comitative: (-ne) ‘together with’ Instructive: (-n) expresses instrument/method Prolative: (-tse) ‘via’ Due to the small scale of this study. Nikanne (1993) claims that lexical (or ‘semantic’) cases (i. Basic word order is SVO. although many types of scrambling are permitted. Finnish also has a small number of postpositions. locative and marginal cases) must be analysed as PPs.and locative- marked DPs from strong islands (ablative case is addressed as part of the discussion of Finnish locative case in section 6). talo sijaitsee liki Toukolan kylässä house is-located Toukola+GEN village+INE ‘The house is located in Toukola village’     . from Nikanne 1993:75-6). my collection of acceptability judgments for Finnish island conditions focuses on extraction of DPs marked for internal locative case. Although case-marked nouns in Finnish appear at first glance to be DPs. Her reasons for preferring a PP analysis are limited: she notes only that lexical case DPs have the same distribution as PPs (example in (8). The external locative cases are.2 Case marking in Finnish Finnish is a member of the Uralic language family. an important part of the analysis in section 6. Research into marginal and more general locative cases awaits further research. 3. talo sijaitsee liki Toukolan kylää house is-located near Toukola+GEN village+PAR ‘The house is located near Toukola village’ b. In addition. (8) a. The Finnish case system comprises some sixteen different cases.e.105 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   I aim in particular to collect acceptability judgements for extraction of dative. as listed in (7).

Further testing. 4.  case:   INESSIVE]   kylä+ssä  [D. one for Finnish) were put together in order to obtain judgements of acceptability for different types of strong island violations with extraction of different case-marked nouns.  case:INE]   If this analysis is correct. (9) The lexical case phrase according to Nikanne ‘93 kylässä ‘in (the) village’ PP     DP   Ø  [P. are based only upon the judgements a small number of sentences by a small number of speakers. therefore. is most definitely required to substantiate all judgements and analyses given from here onwards. if extraction of a DP marked with structural case is acceptable (i. a question with extraction of a structural accusative/genitive (Turkish) or partitive (Finnish)1- marked DP was included as base-test. whose head is an empty postposition which selects D and assigns to it the relevant case.  uD. whereby lexical case phrases are analysed as DPs after all. In section 5 I will argue that Nikanne’s model is incompatible with Cinque’s claims regarding strong islands and instead propose an alternative. where no lexical-case semantics are involved). This was done on the basis that. The results. with more speakers and more construction types.   often non-physical entity. Rebecca Tollan 106 Nikanne concludes that lexical case phrases are PPs. as illustrated in (9). extraction of lexical case from a strong island should be impossible. Questionnaire and results Two small-scale questionnaires (one for Turkish. For each island type. then a benchmark is set for DP extraction from this island type to be permitted per se. Constraints both on the scale of this project and on the availability of speakers imposed some limitations of the number of token sentences in each questionnaire. Extraction of genitive case is not permitted due to use of the genitive as a default case marker as default subject case.1 Questions The types of constructions used in the questionnaires are given in (10). Parititve case was therefore used as the base-test in Finnish. 4. (10) Adjunct island extraction Finnish: Mitä lähdit sanamatta? (Partitive extraction) what-PAR leave-2SG say-ABE-2SG ‘What did you leave without saying _?’                                                                                                                         1  Extraction of partitive case in Finnish is much preferred to extraction of accusative case (Huhmarniemi 2009) due to referent specificity: partitive case marks a specific physical object whilst accusative marks a less-specific. see Vainikka (1993) for further detail.e.   .

2. Judgement results from the questionnaires are discussed in section 4. Full details of questionnaire construction (including filler sentence types) and all questionnaire tokens are given in the appendix. though     .107 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   Finnish: Kenen puutarhassa paloit istuessasi? (Inessive extraction) who garden-INE surburnt-2SG sit-whilst-2SG ‘*?In whose garden did you get sunburnt whilst sitting _?’ (also tested with extraction of elative and illative cased marked nouns) Turkish: Peter kimi gördükten sonra bıraktı? (Accusative extraction) Peter who-ACC see after leave-3SG ‘Who did Peter leave after seeing_?’ Turkish: Kitabı verdikten sonra kime bıraktın? (Dative extraction) book-ACC give after who-DAT leave-2SG ‘*To whom did you leave after giving the book _ ?’ (also tested with locative extraction) Complex DP island extraction Finnish: Mitä Sara sai tilaisuuden tutkia? (Partitive extraction) what-PAR Sara receive-3SG opportunity explore-INF ‘What did Sara receive an opportunity to investigate_?’ Finnish: Missä talossa Sara sai tilaisuuden elää? (Inessive extraction) which-INE house-INE Sara receive-3SG opportunity live-INF ‘In which house did Sara receive an opportunity to live_?’ Sentential subject island extraction Turkish: Kimin evi Melike'nin gittiği seni şaşırttı? (Genitive extraction) whose house-GEN Melike-GEN go-PAST 3SG you-ACC surprise-PAST 2SG ‘*To whose house did [that Melike went _] surprise you?’ Turkish: Kiminle Melike'nin gizli kodu verdiği Deniz'i çakıştırdı? (Dative extraction) whom-DAT Melike-GEN secret code give-PAST 3SG Deniz-ACC make cross-PAST 3SG ‘*To whom did [that Melike gave the secret code _] make Deniz cross?’ (also tested with locative extraction) Each questionnaire was responded to by three native speakers of the relevant language. full details of which can be found in the appendix.2 Results and analysis Results for extraction from each island type are listed in the tables in (11) and (12). 4. Participants in the Finnish survey reported that some extraction types. These are based upon judgments of questionnaire respondents.

further investigation into the unnaturalness of elative and illative extraction in Finnish and the unacceptability of Ablative extraction in Turkish. it seems that Cinque’s diagnostic is correct (or at least. Rebecca Tollan 108 grammatical. This will in turn suggest that Cinque’s diagnostic in (5) may require some further attention. if we are to take Cinque’s strong-weak diagnostic as correct. (expressed as a PP) is not. If Nikanne’s view of a lexical case phrase (as shown in (9) and repeated below for convenience) were correct. The lexical case phrase as a DP: an analysis of case assignment Nikanne’s (1993) analysis of lexical case phrases as DPs (adopted by Vainikka 1993 and Huhmarniemi 2009) needs to be revised in light of the results in (11) and (12). Extraction of locative-marked DPs from within strong islands is acceptable in Finnish and in Turkish (as is dative extraction in Turkish). The discussion from here onwards will therefore be concerned with two principle issues: firstly. where its English equivalent. an alternative to Nikanne’s analysis of lexical case phrases as PPs (as discussed in section 3. the judgement for this construction type was only tested with one participant . on the right track). were unnatural and ‘awkward’-sounding. 5.2) and secondly.                                                                                                                         2 Due to time constraints. we would expect for them to resist extraction from strong islands due to unavailability of PP resumption. this is indicated in the table in (12) with a question mark. Partitive DP Yes infinitival complement Complex DP Inessive PP Yes infinitival complement Adjunct Partitive DP Yes Adjunct Inessive PP Yes Adjunct Elative PP ? Adjunct Illative PP ? Based upon the results in (11) and (12). (11) Extraction in Turkish Island Type Case of extracted English Extraction DP equivalent allowed? Adjunct Accusative DP Yes Adjunct Dative PP Yes Adjunct Locative PP Yes Adjunct2 Ablative PP No Sentential subject Genitive DP Yes Sentential subject Dative PP Yes Sentential Subject Locative PP Yes (12) Extraction in Finnish Island Type Case of extracted English Extraction allowed? DP equivalent Complex DP.

stranding is not an option (as shown in (13)).  case:   INESSIVE]   kylä+ssä  [D.                                                                                                                         3 I assume here that English P assigns oblique case. the structure of the English equivalent involves different selectional requirement on the verb to sit. A simple test to tell whether this could be the case here is to check whether overt postpositions may be stranded. We cannot tell for Turkish questions.  case:INE]   One possible way to reconcile Cinque’s and Nikanne’s analyses is to query whether the null P in Nikanne’s model is stranded in situ when the DP is moved to [spec.  uD. as according to Hornstein & Weinberg (1981)     . all postpositions must be pied-piped. The structure of the Finnish ‘istua puutarhassa’ (to sit in the garden) is as in (14) (14) VP     istua  [V.  uΘ:  location]   By contrast. kylässä ‘in (the) village’) PP     DP   Ø  [P. matrix CP] in the formation of these long-distance questions. (13) Postposition movement in Finnish Pied-piped: Kenen Kanssa soit illallisen? who with eat-2SG dinner ‘With whom did you eat dinner?’ Stranded: *Kenen soit illallisen kanssa? who eat-2SG dinner with ‘Who did you eat dinner with?’ Nikanne’s analysis in (9) must therefore be rejected. Sit selects P instead of D. and it is P which assigns case3 (see (15)).   Θ:  location]   puutarhassa  [D.   DP   case:  ILLATIVE. repeated.  uD. where case is a feature on the verb which selects it. However. we must assume a DP structure for a lexical case phrase.   case:ILL.109 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   (9. in Finnish. since the wh-element remains in situ. Instead.

Huhmarniemi 2009) where extraction is most certainly not acceptable.g. By contrast. Case is assigned to the DP by the preposition. This is purely in order to emphasize the fact that extraction in (b-c). There is no reason at this point not to assume that the analyses in (14) for Finnish does not also hold true for Turkish. Case is assigned to the DP by the verb. its partitive counterpart ‘mitä’. by no means ungrammatical by comparison with other examples given in the literature (e.                                                                                                                         4 Extraction in (d) is unacceptable because the accusative interrogative ‘mikä’ has no specific referent.   (16) Certain verbs in English (e. They are. is still far better than what we could consider ‘true’ illegal extraction ((d)4). we can make the   following distinctions (in 16) between Finnish and English. Locative case in Finnish The following analysis focuses specifically on internal locative case in Finnish and in particular the issue surrounding the unnaturalness of extraction of illative and elative case- marked nouns.  uD.   DP   case:  OBL]   the  garden  [D. 6. is given as a point of comparison for the judgements of sentences in (a-c). which has more specific reference. Rebecca Tollan 110 (15) VP     sit  [V. whilst denoted with a question mark.  ucase:  OBL. I consider all lexical case phrases in Finnish and Turkish to be DPs.   PP   Θ:location  ]   in  [P. From this point onwards. These prepositions select DPs. The Finnish equivalents to such verbs select nominal complements. Sentences and judgements are given in (17). Judgements from (a-c) are in accordance with feedback from the questionnaire.  uΘ:   location]   As such. however. may be extracted. sit) select prepositional complements.g.  uP. As was reported by participants in the questionnaire in section 4. as below (from Huhmarniemi 2009:30) Mitä Pekka kertoi että tontille rakennetaan _ ? what-PAR Pekka told that site-ALL build-3PL ‘What did Pekka tell that they are building on the site_?’       . questions in which such nouns are extracted from a strong island sound less natural than those from which inessive case is extracted. where illegal extraction of a broad (zero) accusative interrogative has taken place. The sentence in (d).

Adessive (equivalent to the English preposition ‘on’) corresponds to inessive (‘in’). The latter two are the external equivalents of illative and elative cases and hence also convey directional meaning. Adessive case. should be as easily extracted as inessive case. Elative case extraction ? Kenen talosta huutelit nimeäni tultuasi pelastetuksi? whose house-ELA call my name be rescued-after-2SG ‘*From whose house did you call my name after being rescued _?’ d. Inessive case extraction Kenen puutarhassa paloit istuessasi? who garden-INE sunburnt-2SG sit-whilst-2SG ‘*?In whose garden did you get sunburnt whilst sitting _?’ b. A convenient means of testing this idea is to consider the corresponding external locative cases (adessive. for some reason. the same types of judgements as in (17 b-c) ought to be observed for similar questions with extraction of an allative or an ablative case-marked DP.111 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   (17) a. Illative case extraction ? Kenen taloon kiljuit nimeni käveltäysi? whose house-ILL shout-2SG my name walking-after-2SG ‘*Into whose house did you shout my name after walking _?’ c. and that it is this which causes sentences such as (17 b-c) to sound slightly degraded compared with (a).     . So a potential hypothesis is that. on the other hand. Here. a noticeable distinction comes to light: inessive case (equivalent to the English preposition ‘in’ (see (7) in section 3. illative) from within a strong island is more laboured than extracting a DP with stative locative case (i. I turn to this investigation in section 6. which is by far better than zero-accusative extraction.e. Both illative (equivalent to ‘into’) and elative (equivalent to ‘away from’) convey directional meaning. So the question to be addressed now is this: why does extraction of illative or elative case not sound as natural as extraction of inessive case? The first step to solving the puzzle is to consider the semantics of the case markers. This is summarized in (18) (18) Internal and external locative cases in Finnish Meaning (internal/external) Internal case External case in/on-STATIVE Inessive Adessive into/onto-MOTION Illative Allative away from (in/on)-MOTION Elative Ablative If it is directional case semantics which impedes ease of extraction of illative and elative case-marked DPs. extracting a DP with directional locative case (e.2)) carries stative meaning. inessive case). allative and ablative).g. which involves motion. Broad accusative extraction (from Huhmarniemi 2009:30) *Mikä Pekka kertoi että tontille rakennetaan? what-ACC-Ø Pekka told that site-ALL build-3PL ‘What did Pekka tell that they are building on the site?’ Hence we are able to say that inessive extraction is better than illative/elative extraction.

but my subsequent analysis will be based solely upon these judgements. whilst stative case phrases (inessive. Ablative extraction ? Kenen katolta huutelit nimeäni tultuasi pelastetuksi? whose roof-ABL shout-2SG my name rescued-after-2SG ‘*From whose roof did you shout my name after being rescued _?’ The judgements for (19) (i. Clearly. but not ‘ungrammatical’. elative.1. Rebecca Tollan 112 6. allative. The issue to address now is how this distinction can be encoded syntactically such that extraction of directional case DPs results in a slightly degraded-sounding question by comparison with stative case DPs. what is needed is an analysis which explains in particular why the structures in (17 b-c) and (19 b- c) are awkward-sounding. This analysis is immediately problematic though. One possibility is to appeal to Nikanne’s view of lexical (for my purposes here. since it would predict ungrammaticality (comparable to that for the question in (17d)) of questions with directional case extraction. (19) a. which he calls Place (stative) and Path (directional) (see 20). as discussed in sections 3.e. adessive) are DPs. ablative) are PPs with the structure in (9).2 Place and Path Peter Svenonius (2004) also observes the distinction between ‘stative location’ and ‘directional location’. . directional locative case phrases (illative. So instead. Allative extraction ? Mille helikopteri laskeutumisalustalle tarkistit ajan laskeuduttuasi? which-ALL helicopter pad check-2SG the time landing-after-2SG? ‘*Onto which helicopter pad did you check the time after landing _?’ c. 6. Adessive extraction Kenen kirjoituspöydällä nukahdit istuessasi? whose desk-ADE fall asleep-2SG sitting-whilst-2SG ‘*On whose desk did you fall asleep whilst sitting _?’ b. further formal testing is much-needed. Adjunct extraction is tested as a means of fairest possible comparison with (17 a-c). allative and ablative extraction results in a slightly less well- formed question than adessive extraction) mirror those for (17) and support the hypothesis that the semantics of motion and/or direction seem to be responsible for the awkwardness of allative/illative/ablative/elative extraction compared with the two stative locative cases. Suppose that. Extraction of external locative case Examples of extraction of external locative case-marked DPs are given in (19).2 and 5. and considers them as a separate class of syntactic entities. locative) case phrases as PPs with a null postposition. Please note also that these further grammaticality readings from here onwards are based only upon the judgement of one native speaker.

I have assumed that the preposition assigns (oblique) case. as in (22a).     . as in (21). it is unclear whether case is  assigned to the DP from the preposition. E. Path is selected by a by a preposition with directional semantics.   PathP     case:OBL]     (to)  [Path.   PlaceP     uplace  ]       Ø  [Place.g. but for the sake of arguments. and may specify the orientation of the trajectory.                                                                                                                         5 I have assumed here that the PP ‘onto’ is selected by ‘jump’.  uD]   DP       the  bench   [ucase:  OBL]   As Svenonius concedes. Path elements give information specifying whether a place is a goal or a source. whether or not the PP is a complement or an adjunct is irrelevant to this discussion. When no direction is involved.113 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   (20) Place and Path projections Place elements give information about the physical configuration of the relationship between a Figure and a Ground.   PP   uP]     onto  [P. (21) Path > Place > DP PathP     Path     PlaceP       Place   DP       In English. Svenonius argues in favour of a projection hierarchy in which Path occurs outside of Place. (22) a. ‘The child jumped onto the bench5’ VP     jump  [V.  upath. (Svenonius 2004) Using evidence from the Chadic language Zina Kotoko. a Place head only is selected (22b). as opposed to being a VP adjunct.

the structure of the VP ‘rescue (from)’ involves an extra projection. which refers to a Ground. Path selects D. and if we assume that ‘on’. non-stative semantics to be conveyed. So. a further modification is needed for Finnish lexical (locative) case. in English. as was established in section 5. whilst the analyses of the verb ‘sit (in)’ in (14) and (15) in section 5 (repeated for convenience) still hold. ‘istua’ sit) which assign stative locative case (inessive. is indeed a preposition generated in [head. In (b). such that no postposition is involved.  uP]   PP       on  [P. and as such. As such. case is assigned to the relevant noun by the preposition. P must select Path. in effect.  uplace. P].  uD]         the  bench   [ucase:  DAT]   The important suggestion here. the Place projection is. In order for any directional. as far  as an analysis of Finnish locative case is concerned. is that more structure is involved when the notion of direction is conveyed.g. Those with directional semantics (e. P selects D. by default. I will assume a slightly modified version of Svenonius’ analysis. Path conveys direction (‘to’). ‘pelastus’ rescue) must select Path. The semantic role of a P which selects Path is to give information about the beginning or end point of the trajectory of motion. Rebecca Tollan 114 b. it would make sense to assume that the semantics conveyed by Place are akin to those conveyed by P. ‘The child sat on the bench’ VP     sit  [V. Going forward then.   PlaceP   case:  DAT]       DP   Ø  [place. (23) P is. as in (23). obsolete. The semantics of P give information about the relationship between a figure and a ground point. as shown in (14’) for Finnish and (15’) for English. (24) Finnish verbs (e. it is questionable as to whether Place has any distinct semantics to P at all. the following (24) can be said for Finnish. In addition. I shall assume for consistency with prior argumentation that case in Finnish is assigned by the verb.g. Whilst we can assume that (23) is true of English syntax. since. lexical case is assigned to the DP by the selecting verb. adessive) select D. In other words. then Place plays no role (syntactic or semantic) in the structure. Since I have already assumed that. . which selects D.g. E. stative.

    .   DP   case:  OBL.  case:   ELATIVE.  Θ:   DP   Ø  [Path.   ucase:ILL.   Θ:  location]   puutarhassa  [D.  uΘ:   location]                                                                                                                               6 Since no distinction in extractability of external and internal cases has been observed.115 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   (14.  uP.  uD.   PP   Θ:location]   in  [P. English sit)   VP     sit  [V.  [uΘ:  location.  uD.   PathP   uPath. Finnish istua puutarhassa ‘to sit in the garden’) VP     istua  [V.  ucase:  OBL.  uΘ:  location]   (14’)6 Finnish pelastus ‘to rescue’ VP     pelastus  [V.  ucase:ELA]     (15.   DP   case:  ILLATIVE.  uD]   location    ]     D.]   the  garden  [D. repeated. I assume that Finnish locative verbs can assign either external or internal case. repeated.

allative and ablative cases) impedes extraction of a DP from a strong (e.   PP   Θ:  Location]       from  [P. As such. and the resulting question sounds slightly degraded due to the need for the syntactic processor to make a long distance semantic link. more likely option. across an island boundary. adjunct) island.   uΘ:  location]     Somehow. is judged to be a completely unacceptable construction (see 11).                                                                                                                         7 The distinction between directional and stative locative case and the effects of directional semantics on extraction can by substantiated with data from Turkish Whilst the questionnaire results suggest that Turkish (stative) locative case-marked DPs are able to be extracted from strong islands. This possibility seems slightly unfavourable. between DP and PathP (this account assumes that some element of the directional semantics is left behind in Path). the addition of an extra projection when directional case is assigned (i. the same is not true of Turkish ablative case. So how does it impede extraction? There are two possibilities. is that null Path is pied-piped with the DP. in which an ablative case-marked DP has been extracted from an adjunct island.  upath.   . consider that the null head of Path is stranded in situ. the need to pied-pipe (albeit a null element) over an island boundary causes the awkwardness of the resulting construction7.e. The other. whereas this extra structure is not present when stative case (inessive or adessive) is assigned. but we can only assume that some other syntactic or semantic factor is at work in Turkish which means that the presence of Path impedes upon extraction to a greater degree than in Finnish. however. (25) *Kimin catisindan kurtarildiktan sonra rahatlamis hissediyor muydun? whose roof-ABL rescue-ABL after relieved feel-2SG ‘*From whose roof were you feeling relieved after being rescued _?’ Why this directional case extraction should be less acceptable in Turkish than in Finnish is not clear. since we have already established that Finnish does not allow preposition stranding and it therefore seems unlikely that it should allow null Path stranding. elative. Rebecca Tollan 116 (15’) English rescue VP     rescue  [V. the effect of directional case is more severe in Turkish than in Finnish: the example in (25). illative.   PathP   case:    OBL]       DP   Ø  [uD]         D  [ucase:  OBL. Firstly.  uP. In fact.g.

117 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   7. As far as Cinque’s diagnostic is concerned. It is to be stressed. The original claim about DP extraction and resumption does not necessarily predict that any particular from of case marking should impede movement of a DP. further analysis is required in order to take into account the distinction between stative and directional locative case movement. that the analysis in this paper is a hypothesis only. on the whole. I have built up a theory. I adopt a ‘DP’ analysis in which case is assigned by the lexical and semantic properties of the verb which selects the DP in question. if ungrammaticality of PP extraction is due to unavailability of PP resumption. Based upon observations that extraction of a DP marked with directional locative case is somewhat degraded (although to a far greater degree in Turkish than in Finnish). though. which suggests that a null Path head is present in the syntax where directional semantics are involved. Conclusion I have shown through analysis of Turkish and Finnish long-distance question formation that Cinque’s strong/weak diagnostic for syntactic islands is. are not. PathP and its implications for Cinque’s strong/weak diagnostic Whilst the results of the questionnaire have shown Cinque’s diagnostic in (5) to be. The need to pied-pipe this extra (albeit null) material is what causes extraction from strong islands of directional case-marked DPs to falter. The degree of unacceptability which this causes may be due to whether or not Path resumption is licensed. which requires substantial testing with more example questions and more native speakers. Clearly. of a wider range of questions and from more speakers. Based upon the small amount of data in this study. we could claim that ablative extraction from strong islands in Turkish is ungrammatical because Turkish does not have a resumption mechanism for Path. The data for Finnish is a little less clear because extraction of elements with a Path head was judged as neither wholly acceptable nor wholly unacceptable. and slightly degraded (compared with stative case DP movement) in Finnish. correct. The movement of a directional locative case DP is unacceptable in Turkish. instead. on the whole. based upon Svenonius’ (2004) analyses of spatial prepositions. matrix C] when its selected D is extracted from a strong island. further grammaticality judgements. which involve PP extraction. whilst the equivalent constructions in English. are needed to allow for any firm hypothesis to be made. It seems that pied-piping an extra element across and island boundary leads to ungrammaticality in Turkish. I have claimed that this is due to the addition of null Path head which must be pied-piped to [spec. The extractability of Turkish and Finnish lexical case phrases does not favour Nikanne’s (1993) view that such structures are headed by a null postposition. then acceptability of Path + DP extraction in should depend upon whether nor languages such as Turkish or Finnish allow PathP resumption.     . and a slightly awkward-sounding question in Finnish. 8. Extraction from a strong island of a DP marked with lexical case is generally acceptable in these languages. correct.

HORNSTEIN. A.hum. ‘Structural case. Cambridge. 199-225. thesis. A. J. ‘Case Theory and Preposition Stranding’ in Linguistic Inquiry 12 (1). In Turkic Languages 9. A. 1990. Types of A-bar Dependencies. & Nikanne. Mass: MIT Press. C.pdf . U.let.’ In Dayal. available online at http://www. syntax and morphology’. New York University. (eds. 2005. AND NIKANNE.no/a/svenonius/papers/PEnglish3. ‘The Three Structural Cases in Finnish’. P. & Nikanne. VON HEUSINGER. POSTAL. K.uit. (eds. available at http://www-uilots. 2002. Turkey. Manuscript. P.) Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. A. ‘The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics. S. pp. AND KORNFILT. Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax.uu.) Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. POSTAL. U. 1990. 2009. Spatial P in English University of Tromsø. Islands. and Mahajan.nl/syncom/ VAINIKKA. D. 1993. U. Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. 1981. 1993. . A.A. SZABOLCSI. Rebecca Tollan 118 References AKAR. Lexical case and the verbal projection. 2004. N. In Holmberg. U. 1997. Weak Islands’ in The Syntax Companion. Studies in Generative Grammar 39: Mouton de Gruyter. 3-44. A. A. AND WEINBERG. CINQUE. NIKANNE. Boğaziçi University. Studies in Generative Grammar 39: Mouton de Gruyter. ‘On Assigning Semantic Cases in Finnish’. 1998. Cambridge: MIT Press DAVISON.55-91. HOLMBERG. ‘Strong vs. p. (eds). HUHMARNIEMI. ‘Extraction islands in Finnish’ in Biolinguistica Fennica Working Papers 1 21–78. V. SVENONIUS. Studies in Generative Grammar 39: Mouton de Gruyter. İstanbul. P. 2004. 1993. A. Three investigations of extraction. Dordrecht: Kluwer. In Holmberg. Unpublished M. Wh-questions in Turkish.

[Melike Katıldığı] hangi partide Sam'i kıskandırdı? Melike attend-PAST 3SG which party-LOC Sam jealous-make-PAST 3SG = *Which party did [that Melike attended _ ] make Sam jealous? 2.119 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   Appendix: Questionnaire constriction and distribution All questionnaire respondents were native speakers of the language in question. Kitabı verdikten sonra kime bıraktın? book-ACC give after who-DAT leave (= *To whom did you leave after giving the book _ ?) 4. All questions in the Turkish questionnaire are given in (1). Esra oturuken kimin bahçesinde güneşten yandı? Esra sitting-while whose-ACC garden-LOC sun burn =*?In whose garden did Esra get sunburnt whilst sitting _? 5. Merve'ye verdikten sonra ne bıraktın? Merve'ye-DAT to give after what leave (=*? What did you leave after giving _ to Merve?) 3. Each question was judged on the basis of acceptability. Kimin evi [Melike'nin gittiği] seni şaşırttı? whose house-GEN Melike-GEN go-PAST 3SG you-ACC surprise-PAST 2SG =*To whose house did [that Melike went _] surprise you?     . Kimin catisindan kurtarildiktan sonra rahatlamis hissediyor muydun? whose roof-ABL rescue-ABL after relieved feel-2SG =*From whose roof were you feeling relieved after being rescued _?’ Sentential subject island 1. (1) Turkish questions Adjunct island 1. Peter kimi gördükten sonra bıraktı? Peter who-ACC see after leave-PAST = Who did Peter leave after seeing? 2.

? Kenen taloon kiljuit nimeni käveltäysi? Whose house-ILL shout-2SG my name walking-after-2SG (*Into whose house did you shout my name after walking_?) Two types of filler were included: relative clause fillers (which are comparable on length to the types of questions in (1) and (2)) and questions with no island extraction. Missä talossa Sara sai tilaisuuden elää? Which-INE house-INE Sara receive-3SG opportunity live-INF (In which house did Sara receive an opportunity to live_?) Complex DP with relative clause 4. Fillers are given in (3). Sophie nin tatilde kaldigi ev yakin zamanda yikildi (=the house that Sophie stayed in whilst on holiday was knocked down recently) 4. Mitä lähdit sanamatta? what-PAR leave-2SG saying without-ABE (What did you leave without saying?) 2. All filler types were judged as fully acceptable. (3) Fillers (a) Turkish 1. dei pakeni muurin yli? Who-GEN with-INE Emmi see-ESG man that escaped-3SG over wall (*With whom did Emmi see the man that escaped over the wall_?) Adjunct 1. Kenen kanssa Sara sai tilaisuuden työskennellä? Who-GEN with-INE Sara receive-3SG opportunity work-INF (With whom did Sara receive an opportunity to work?) 3. Rebecca Tollan 120 3. partide cocuklari eglendiren kisiyi herkes sevdi. Kenen puutarhassa paloit istuessasi? who-GEN garden-INE sunburt-2SG sitting-whilst-2SG (*?In whose garden did you get sunburnt whilst sitting_?) 3. Anna kiminle seyahat etmeyi sever? (=with whom does Anna like to travel) 2. Neden Sophie kitabi Peter'a verdi? (=why did Sophie give the book to Peter) 3. . (2) Finnish questions Complex DP with infinitival complement 1. Kenen kanssa Emmi näki miehen. ? Kenen talosta huutelit nimeäni tultuasi pelastetuksi? who-GEN house-ELA shout-2SG my name after rescued-2SG (*from whose house were you shouting my name after being rescued?) 4. Mitä Sara sai tilaisuuden tutkia? what-PAR Sara receive-3SG opportunity explore-INF (What did Sara receive an opportunity to investigate?) 2. Kiminle [Melike'nin gizli kodu verdiği] Deniz'i çakıştırdı? whom-DAT Melike-GEN secret code give-PAST 3SG Deniz-ACC make cross-PAST 3SG =*To whom did [that Melike gave the secret code _] make Deniz cross? Finnish questions are given in (2).

A breakdown of results (excluding filler sentences) is given in (4) and (5). NA NA Sentential Locative / / / subject Sentential Genitive / / / subject Sentential Dative / / / Subject (5) Results (Finnish) Island Type Case of extracted Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 DP Complex DP.121 Island Constraints and Extraction of Lexical Case-marked DPs in Finnish and Turkish   (=everyone liked the person who entertained the children during the party) (b) Finnish 1. unacceptable (marked as -) or acceptable but unnatural (marked as ?). Mitä Paul antoi Saralle? (What did Paul give to Sara?) 4. Missä Anna asui viime vuonna? (Where did Anna live last year?) 2. Pyörä jonka Anna osti Peterille oli jo rikki. (4) Results (Turkish) Island Type Case of Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 extracted DP Adjunct Accusative / / ? Adjunct Dative / / / Adjunct Locative / / ? Adjunct Ablative . (The bike that Peter bought for Anna was already broken) Questionnaires were constructed such that no tokens that were of the same island or filler type occurred in succession. Partitive / / / infinitival complement Complex DP Inessive / / / infinitival complement Adjunct Partitive / / / Adjunct Inessive / / / Adjunct Elative ? ? ? Adjunct Illative ? / ?     . Sara puhui miehen kanssa joka voitti pääpalkinnon (Sara spoke to the man who won the top prize) 3. Participants said whether each sentence was acceptable (marked as /).

Rebecca Tollan 122 Rebecca Tollan Department of Language and Linguistic Science University of York Heslington York email: beckytollan@gmail.com .