1

Discontinuous constituents or independent constructions? The case of the Finnish “split genitive” Constructions and Frames 4:1, 56–75.

TUOMAS HUUMO

JAAKKO LEINO

In many formal theories of grammar, pairs of expressions such as the active and the passive are treated as variants of each other – the passive typically being a secondary construction derived from the active by operations that change the syntactic structure. Recent accounts based on Cognitive Grammar and Construction Grammar have questioned the validity of such an analysis, arguing that these “variants” are actually independent constructions with their own usage conditions and meaning. An important piece of evidence comes from so-called split constituents, discussed by Croft (2001: 191), who argues that expressions like A guy who I hadn’t seen since high school came in vs. A guy came in who I hadn’t seen since high school differ in their grammatical structure and usage. In this paper we discuss the Finnish split genitive construction where the assumed genitive modifier is separated from its head by intervening material, typically the finite verb. In many respects, the split genitive resembles constructions of external possession, but its range of usage is relatively limited, and in the grammatical system of Finnish it can be seen in an intermediate position between adnominal genitive constructions, on the one hand, and productive external possessor constructions based on local cases, on the other hand. Traditionally, the split genitive has been taken to be a discontinuous variant of a contiguous NP where the genitive is positioned next to its head. However, this study shows that the two constructions differ in pragmatic, semantic and grammatical terms. The split genitive construction is more limited in its usage, and it serves more specific semantic functions such as the topicalization of the genitive-marked element that carries the role of an experiencer. As in many external possessor constructions cross-linguistically, these constraints restrict the types of genitive modifiers that are available in the split genitive construction.

Keywords: genitive, Finnish, constituent structure, information structure, external possession

1. Introduction: Constituency and the problem of discontinuous constituents.

In Cognitive Grammar, constituency is not seen as an autonomous principle of syntax but as a secondary feature of linguistic structure motivated by our cognitive abilities. Langacker

2

(1997:9) argues that constituents are neither essential nor fundamental to linguistic structure, but emerge in special circumstances and reflect the basic psychological capacity for grouping, which is guided by the gestalt principles of contiguity and similarity. Croft (2006) discusses noun phrase structure from the viewpoint of Radical Construction Grammar and questions the principle that evidence for the syntactic category membership of a particular element can be found by studying distributional analysis and by using tests such as passivization. Croft points out that both the syntactic structure and the pragmatic function of such contrasting pairs of expressions may differ to the extent that it is more reasonable to treat them as individual constructions with their own form and function than variants of one and the same construction. Croft argues that tests such as passivizability are language-specific, and points out that different tests often produce conflicting results. He also discusses examples of so-called discontinuous constituents, e.g. A guy who I hadn’t seen since high school came in vs. A guy came in who I hadn’t seen since high shool, arguing that the two are independent constructions with their own functions, e.g. as far as their grammatical structure is concerned.

In the current paper we study one (assumed) discontinuous constituent type in Finnish, the “split genitive”, which is a genitive-marked element separated from its presumed head by inteverning material, typically the finite verb. The received view in Finnish linguistics holds that such constructions consist of a discontinuous NP. However, alternative analyses have been proposed according to which the genitive expression forms a constituent of its own. In our paper we demonstrate that this last-mentioned analysis is more adequate than the one based on a discontinuous constituent, and point out that there are many reasons to consider the split genitive an instance of external-possessor constructions, as defined by Haspelmath (1999:109): “In an external-possessor construction, a possessive modifier does not occur as a dependent constituent of the modified NP, but NP-externally as a constituent of the clause”.

To support our analysis, we show that the split genitive differs from genitive modifiers adjacent to their head, not only in information structure but also semantically and grammatically. We also show that there are crucial differences between the two constructions that concern their range of usage, meaning, and grammatical structure. In general, the split genitive turns out to be more restricted than the adjacent genitive, in both semantic and grammatical terms. There are many types of adjacent genitives that do not have a split genitive counterpart. In certain instances, the opposite is true, as certain split genitives do not allow a corresponding adjacent genitive expression. The range of usage of the two constructions thus overlaps only to a certain extent. This suggests that the split genitive and the adjacent genitive are two constructions, with their own grammatical structure, meaning and information structure.

3

2. The Finnish / Finno-Ugric genitive

2.1. The main grammatical functions of the Finnish genitive

The Finnish genitive has a vast number of grammatical functions extending from noun-modifying functions to the function of marking the subject of certain infinitival constructions. For considerations of space, it is not possible to discuss all these functions in detail here; however, we give a summary and discuss possible semantic motivations that connect the different uses.

The basic function of the genitive is that of an adnominal possessive case, and it has this function also in other Baltic-Finnic languages and Sami, Mordvin and Mari (Jaakola 2004; Huumo and Inaba 1997). Consider (1).i

(1) Liisa+n jäätelö putos+i.

Name+GEN ice-cream fall.down+PST.3SG ‘Liisa’s ice cream fell down.’

In canonical possessive expressions, the genitive designates an animate entity who is the possessor in the relationship; the possessee is indicated by the head. However, the use of the adnominal (noun-modifying) genitive is not limited to possessors but it can also be used to indicate many other kinds of relations. Jaakola (2004) describes the general function of the adnominal genitive with the reference point model (Langacker 1991: 170–171, 1993): the genitive sets up a reference point for locating the referent of the entity designated by the head noun. Among these are for instance part–whole relationships (2), locative relationships (source or goal ) (3), inanimate possessors (4) agent of activities (5), patients of activities (6), duration (7) and price (8).

(2) Puu+n oksa+t heilu+vat tuule+ssa.

Tree+GEN branch+PL swing+PRES.3PL wind+INE ‘The branches of the tree are swinging in the wind.’

(3) Helsingi+n juna on myöhä+ssä.

Name+GEN train be.PRES.3SG late+INE ‘The Helsinki train is late.’

(4) Yliopisto+n professori+t matkusta+vat paljon.

University+GEN professor+PL travel+PRES.3PL a.lot ‘University professors / The professors of the university travel a lot.’

4

(5) Professori+n puhe yllätt+i minu+t. Professor+GEN speech surprise+PST.3SG me+ACC ‘The professor’s speech surprised me.’

(6) Kirko+n polttaminen on vakava rikos.

Church+GEN burning be.PRES.3SG serious crime ‘Burning a church is a serious crime.’

(7) Viiko+n loma virkistä+ä.

Week+GEN vacation refresh+PRES.3SG ‘A week’s vacation refreshes you.’

(8) Euro+n jäätelö on hyvä+ä.

Euro+GEN ice.cream be.PRES.3SG good+PAR ‘The one euro ice cream is good.’

These functions of the genitive set up a radial category where the canonical possessive function (e.g., ‘Liisa’s book’) forms a prototype. It is cross-linguistically typical (see Heine 1997: 35–36) that possessive expressions are extended to indicate inanimate possessors, as in examples (2) and (4), and, if one wishes, (3), where the goal or source location [the example is indifferent as to which] of implicit motion by the train serves as a reference-point with regard to which the train is identified. Subject-like (5) and object-like (6) genitives are also common, and in such constructions the reference-point function of the genitive is motivated by the cognitive ability to locate a process via its participants (for reference-points and possessive expressions, see also Langacker 1993; Nikiforidou 1991). The genitives in (7) and (8) indicate a measure, which is an inherent quality of the entity modified, and thus seem to deviate from the prototype more than the other examples discussed here. Jaakola (2004: 140–142) argues that such expressions build a continuum between noun-modifying and adjective-modifying modifying genitives; an example of the latter is sinise+n harmaa [blue+GEN grey] ‘bluish grey’, as the expression type represented by (7) or (8) often implies a quality which is being measured, e.g. viiko+n pituinen loma [week+GEN long vacation] in (7).

In addition, the genitive has other grammatical functions: it is for instance used to mark the complement of many adpositions that historically go back to nouns ( pöydä+n pää+llä [tree+GEN head+ADE] ‘on the table’; note that in FInnish pää is still a productive noun meaning ‘head’ or ‘end’), and an adverb modifier (mukava+n pehmeä+sti [nice+GEN soft+ly] ‘nicely sotfly’). It also marks the predicate nominal in certain possessive copulative constructions (9) and indicates the subject of many infinitival constructions (as opposed to the nominative subject of finite verbs), (10–11).

(9) Kirja on minu+n.

Book be.PRES.3SG I+GEN ‘The book is mine.’

5

(10) Professori+n täyty+y luke+a kirja.

Professor+GEN must+PRES.3SG read+INF book ‘The professor must read the book.’

(11) Liisa näk+i hevose+n syö+vän ruoho+a.

Name see+PST.3SG horse+GEN eat+PRTC grass+PAR ‘Liisa saw (that) the horse (was) eating grass.’

In (9–11), the genitive does not modify another nominal within the same NP but functions as the head of a separate NP. The classical analysis of examples like (10–11) assumes the genitive to be the subject of the infinitive (not of the finite verb, even in 10), though more recently alternative analyses have been proposed where the clause-initial genitive of constructions like (10) is analyzed as the subject of the finite verb. Historically, the genitive in construtions like (10) goes back to an old dative –n that expressed the experiencer or undergoer of a modal force. According to Korhonen (1991), the genitive may have originated as a lative case in the Uralic protolanguage, later grammaticalizing into a dative case and further into an adnominal genitive. The genitive in example (11) in turn goes back to an accusative case, which had formerly the ending *-m but changed into –n and coalesced with the genitive as a result of a sound change where word-final *–m became –n (see e.g. Anttila 1989). The genitive-marked noun (‘horse’) was thus originally the object of the finite verb, and the infinitive was a modifier (e.g. ‘Liisa saw the horse [which was] eating grass’ > ’Liisa saw [that] the horse [was] eating grass’). The genitive thus has both adnominal and adverbial uses, and it has grammaticalized into the function of marking many infinitival subjects.

2.2. The possessive genitive

In the possessive domain, the genitive also has an adverbal function when it is used in the so-called verbal possessive construction (Kangasmaa-Minn 1993) indicating an external possessor. In such constructions the possessor is indicated by a separate genitive form, followed by the possessive verb ‘be’ and finally the NP indicating the possessee. However, this construction has become marginal in modern Finnish, where it can only be used to indicate internal states, feelings, conditions etc., but not proper possession.

(12) Minu+n on nälkä ~ kuuma ~ *talo.

I+GEN be.PRES.3SG hunger ~ hot ~ *house ‘I am hungry ~ hot’ [lit. ‚I have hunger ~ heat’]; *‘I have a house’

6

In Modern Finnish, canonical possession is indicated by a historically younger construction where the possessor is indicated by the external local cases (the adessive, the ablative and the allative). This construction instantiates the common metaphor (see Heine 1997) where possession is conceptualized as spatial proximity between the possessor and the possessee with the possessor functioning as the landmark. The three local cases (unlike the genitive) make a clear distinction in the expression of directionality: when a possession is gained, it “moves to” the dominion of the possessor, as indicated by the allative case (the spatial meaning of which is ‘to’; example 14), and when a possession is lost, it “moves away” from the dominion of the possessor, as indicated by the ablative (‘away from’; example 15):

(13) Liisa+lla on kirje.

Name+ADE be.PRES.3SG letter ‘Liisa has a letter.’

(14) Liisa+lle tul+i kirje.

Name+ALL come+PST.3SG letter ‘There came a letter for Liisa.’

(15) Liisa+lta katos+i kirje.

Name+ABL vanish+PST.3SG letter ‘Liisa lost a letter.’

As pointed out by Haspelmath (1999: 116), Baltic Finnic and certain other European languages (such as Basque, Maltese, Armenian and Hungarian) have external possessor constructions that deviate from the European prototype which is based on a dative case. Among the three local cases used in Finnish (and the other Baltic Finnic languages) to indicate possessor, the allative is the most dative-like one, but its use is restricted to expressions indicating the acquisition of a possession. The adverbal genitive in (12) is more dative-like, in the sense that it has no directional counterparts.

Possible reasons for the replacement of the genitive possessive construction by the local cases in Finnish and in the other Baltic Finnish languages are the functional overload of the genitive case (especially after coalescing with the accusative ending it had a massive number of grammatical functions), and the ability of the new external local cases to indicate directionality. In many other Finno-ugric languages (e.g., Mari and Mordvin; cf. Huumo and Inaba 1997), the genitive construction is still a productive way to indicate possession. However, many Finno-Ugric possessive constructions also include possessive suffixes in the NP indicating the possessee. In such instances the genitive possessor is often optional:

(16) (M n) mašinam ulo. (Mari)

(I+GEN) car+1SGPX be.PRES.3SG ‘I have a car.’

7

(17) Mo i mašinam. (Erzya Mordvin)

I+GEN be.PRES.3SG car+1SGPX ‘I had a car.’

(18) Mašinam i. (Erzya Mordvin).

Car+1SGPX be.PRES.3SG ‘I have a car.’

It seems clear, then. that in Finnish the older adverbal genitive construction, which can be analyzed as a typical “Standard Average European” external possessor construction (cf. Haspelmath 1999),ii is disappearing and being replaced by the construction based on the external local cases. However, there are instances where the adverbal genitive is a viable means of indicating the possessor. In the next section we will introduce the “split genitive” construction in more detail and examine its function as an external possessor construction. We show that it has a functionally limited range of uses, when compared with the adnominal genitive, on the one hand, and with the external local case constructions, on the other hand.

3. The split genitive construction

In the split genitive construction, the noun in the genitive case is separated from the noun indicating the possessee by intervening material. This is a typical feature for external possessor constructions cross-linguistically. In earlier Finnish literature, such expressions have been analyzed as split genitives, where the adnominal genitive modifier has been moved away from its head (e.g. by a transformation). Compare 19–21 (split genitive) with 22–24 (contiguous genitive):

(19) Liisa+n men+i jalka poikki.

Name+GEN go+PST.3SG leg broken ‘Liisa broke her leg’

(20) Minu+n on pää+ni kovin kipeä.

I+GEN be.PRES.3SG head+1SGPX very sore ‘I have got a bad headache’

(21) Puhuja+n men+i+vät paperi+t sekaisin

Speaker+GEN go+PST+3PL paper+PL.NOM tangled ‘The speaker’s papers got tangled up’.

8

(22) Liisa+n jalka men+i poikki. Name+GEN leg go+PST.3SG broken ‘Liisa broke her leg’

(23) Minu+n pää+ni on kovin kipeä.

I+GEN head+1SGPX be.PRES.3SG very sore ‘I have got a bad headache’

(24) Puhuja+n paperi+t men+i+vät sekaisin

Speaker+GEN paper+PL go+PST+3PL tangled-up ‘The speaker’s papers got tangled up’.

In 19–21, the genitive starts the sentence, followed by the verb and then the subject. In 22–24, the genitive is adjacent to the nominative subject, and the two thus form a single NP. Classically, examples like 19–21 have been analyzed as involving a discontinuous constituent, where the NP has been split into two parts (as argued by Penttilä 1963:346, Kangasmaa-Minn 1972:33, Vilkuna 1989:170) by moving the genitive modifier to the beginning of the sentence (or possibly by splitting the subject NP into two parts by placing the finite verb between the genitive modifier and its nominative head). An alternative analysis (Setälä 1884:20–21, Jokinen 1988:351, Huumo and Inaba 1997) has proposed that the split genitive element is an independent possessive adverbial, which is semantically associated with another NP of the clause, typically the subject (as its possessee). Those analyses argue that the split genitive is similar to “dative genitives” exemplified by (12), which have no adjacent genitive counterparts (cf. the awkwardness of an expression like ‘?My hunger is’) and therefore cannot be, and have not been analyzed as discontinuous constituents even by those authors who argue for the discontinuous constituent analysis for genitives that do have an adjacent genitive counterpart.

The analysis with a discontinuous constituent assumes that examples like 19–21 are a variant of examples like 22–24. The alternative analysis takes the genitive to be an independent verb modifier, very much like the initial genitive form of the marginal possessive construction exemplified by (12). In contrast, the split genitive analysis implies that the initial genitive of 19–21 is completely different from the possessive genitive in 5.

In the following discussion, we argue that the split genitive construction is actually a construction of its own, and differs semantically from both the continuous NP construction and the possessive construction, though it is clearly more closely related to the latter. Its range of use is however limited, since it is being replaced by the younger external local case construction. We therefore hope that our analysis of the Finnish split genitive construction may open new insights into the general discussion on constructions and constituency in Construction Grammar, and also contribute to the debate on external possessor constructions.

9

4. Arguments against analyzing the split genitive as a discontinuous constituent

In this section, we present a number of arguments that suggest that the split genitive construction is not a variant of the adjacent genitive construction but a construction of its own. These concern the semantics, grammaticality, and range of use of the two constructions. It turns out that many of the features characterizing the Finnish split genitive construction are typical for external possessor constructions cross-linguistically; cf. Haspelmath (1999).

1. In the split genitive construction, the possessive relationship does not always prevail between the genitive and the subject but sometimes between the genitive and another constituent, or even many constituents.

This point can be as illustrated by the following examples from Penttilä (1963:346) and Kangasmaa-Minn (1966:42).

(25) Poja+n men+i tikku sorme+en.

Boy+GEN go+PST.3SG splinter finger+ILL ‘The boy got a splinter in his finger’

(26) Poja+n on men+nyt menestys pää+hän.

Boy+GEN be.PRES.3SG go+PRTC success head+ILL ‘The boy’s success has made him arrogant [lit. ‘gone into his head”].’

(27) Poja+n jä+i lakki pää+hän.

Boy+GEN remain+PST.3SG cap head+ILL ‘The boy left his cap on’

In 25, the possessive relation prevails between the clause-initial genitive and the final illative-marked noun meaning ‘finger’, not with the subject meaning ‘splinter’. Thus the sentence means (literally) ‘A splinter went into the boy’s finger’ rather than ‘The boy’s splinter went into a finger’. In fact, in the classical literature (e.g. the works by Penttilä and Kangasmaa-Minn cited above) only those examples where the possessive relationship prevails between the genitive and the subject are analyzed as discontinuous constituents, whereas the genitive forms of examples where the possessive relationship prevails primarily with another NP are analyzed as involving an autonomous genitive-case adverbial. However, such an analysis seems arbitrary as the dividing line between these two types is fuzzy, and (as argued by Huumo and Inaba 1997) many examples can be understood both ways. Cross-linguistically

10

there is also variation in external-possessor constructions, concerning the grammatical function of the NP that indicates the possessee (cf. Payne and Barshi 1999: 10–12). In Finnish, the possessive relationship may also prevail between the genitive and several other NPs (not only one).In the (metaphoric) example 26, the genitive could be associated with either one of the post-verbal NPs, i.e. ‘success’ or ‘head’, or most likely both (‘The boy’s success has gone into his head’, i.e. made him arrogant). Thus the assumption that the possessive relationship prevails between the genitive and the subject only would reduce the meaning of the example. Similarly in 27, both the cap and the head belong to the possessive dominion of the boy. Thus in 26 and 27 the possessive genitive form actually sets up a possessive setting for the indicated relationship (cf. Huumo 1995, 1996). Such a function makes it reminiscent of certain uses of the adessive-marked external possessor phrase (28–29), and clearly distinguish it from the NP-internal possessive genitive.

(28) Poja+lla jä+i lakki pää+hän.

Boy+ADE remain+PST.3SG cap head+ILL ‘The boy left his cap on’.

(29) Liisa+lla sö+i kissa papukaija+n.

Name+ADE eat+PST.3SG cat parrot+ACC ‘Liisa’s cat ate her parrot’

(30) Liisa+lta sö+i kissa papukaija+n.

Name+ABL eat+PST.3SG cat parrot+ACC ‘The cat ate Liisa’s parrot’

In 28 and 29, the adessive possessor has a wide scope over the indicated relationship (Huumo 1995). It can be argued that the adessive sets up a possessive setting within which the indicated relationship prevails. In 30, the ablative indicates that Liisa has the malefactive role of losing a possession, and therefore the possessive relationship in this example is understood as prevailing between Liisa and the parrot (but possibly not between Liisa and the cat). Thus the relationship between the split genitive and its supposed head is often understood in a looser sense than the relationship expressed by the genitive that occurs adjacent to is head, and often it is impossible to associate the genitive form with one particular NP only.

2. The semantic function of the split genitive is different from the NP-internal genitive:

A typical feature of external-possessor constructions (as opposed to constructions with an NP-internal possessive modifier), is that there are semantic constraints on the role of the possessor: the possessor must be affected by the event (cf. Haspelmath 1999: 111); Fried

11

(2009) even uses the term affected possessor systematically for Czech external possessors.. In terms of grammatical prominence, the role of the external possessor is more foregrounded than that of an adnominal possessor. The Finnish split genitive construction also foregrounds the possessor, selects it as the starting point and often conveys the meaning of affectedness. Thus 31 is a more neutral and objective statement than 32, which foregrounds the undergoer role and affectedness of the speaker (see also Fried's 2009:291–220 analysis of similar pairs in Czech).

(31) Minu+n jalka+ni men+i poikki.

I+GEN leg+1SGPX go+PST.3SG broken ‘I broke my leg’ [lit. ‘My leg went broken’]

(32) Minu+n men+i jalka+ni poikki.

I+GEN go+PST.2SG leg+1SGPX broken ‘I broke my leg’ [lit. ‘Of-me went leg broken’].

Another semantic difference is related to the range of semantic roles available to the genitive expression. As pointed out in Section 2.1., the adjacent genitive can express many kinds of relations, only some of which are possessive. These include part-whole relations (kuuse+n oksa [spruce+GEN branch] ’a branch of the spruce’), price (euro+n jäätelö [euro+GEN ice-cream] ‚an ice cream of one Euro’), quality (ihmise+n tyhmyys [man+GEN foolishness] ’the foolishness of man’), source and goal (Helsingi+n juna [Helsinki+GEN train] ’the train to/from Helsinki’). However, as argued by Huumo and Inaba (1997), none of the above-mentioned non-possessive relations can be expressed by the split genitive construction; thus for instance 33 and 34 are ungrammatical.

(33) *Euro+n katos+i jäätelö kaupa+sta.

Euro+GEN vanish+PST.3SG ice-cream shop+ELA ‘The ice cream that cost one euro vanished from the store.’

(34) *Helsingi+n myöhästy+i juna tunni+n.

Helsnki+GEN be.late+PST.3SG train hour+ACC. ‘The train to/from Helsinki was one hour late.’

This follows from the requirement that the referent of the split genitive must be affected by the event. Because inanimate entities are not understood as affected experiencers or undergoers, they are not natural in the split genitive construction. Even when the referent of the genitive is human, the split genitive construction cannot always be used. Example 35 is acceptable with its adjacent genitive, whereas 36 is ungrammatical because the president is the agent who gives the speech, not an experiencer affected by it.

12

(35) Presidenti+n puhe järkytt+i kansa+a. President+GEN speech shock+PST.3SG nation+PAR ‘The president’s speech shocked the nation.’

(36) *Presidenti+n järkytt+i puhe kansa+a.

President+GEN shock+PST.3SG speech nation+PAR

However, the agentive role of the genitive expression as such is not the reason for its incompatibility with the split genitive construction, given that the agent is also affected by the event. This is shown by examples 37 and 38. Example 38 is the split genitive version, and it is possible precisely because the difficulty of the running affects the runner in an uncontrollable way, and the runner is thus not purely an agent (of running) but also an experiencer affected by the change.

(37) Miehe+n juoksu muuttu+i vaivalloise+ksi.

Man+GEN running change+PST.3SG difficult+TRA ‘The man’s running became difficult.’

(38) Miehe+n muuttu+i juoksu vaivalloise+ksi.

Man+GEN change+PST.3SG running difficult+TRA ‘The man’s running became difficult.’

3. The syntactic structure of the supposed discontinuous NP would sometimes be ungrammatical if it were continuous.

A syntacit difference that distinguished split genitives from adjacent ones is that in the split genitive construction the pronominal, article-like modifier se (‘it’) may sometimes occur in the beginning of the postverbal subject NP even though in a continuous phrase it would precede the genitive modifier.

(39) Peka+n kuol+i se nuore+mpi veli syöpä+än.

Name+GEN die+PST.3SG it young+CPR brother cancer+ILL ‘That younger brother of Pekka’s died of cancer’. [lit. ‘Of-Pekka died that younger brother into-cancer’]

(40) Se Peka+n nuore+mpi veli kuol+i syöpä+än.

It name+GEN young+CPR brother die+PST.3SG cancer+ILL ‘That younger brother of Pekka’s died of cancer’.

(41) *Peka+n se nuore+mpi veli

13

Such expressions are obviously problematic for an analysis arguing that split genitives are discontinuous constituents where either the verb has been “moved” into an NP-internal position, or the initial (genitive) part of an NP has been “moved” into a clause-initial (preverbal) position. Movement of the verb alone would not suffice to change the mutual order of the determinative se and the possessor genitive, and movement of the possessor genitive would have to take place from within the NP where it is surrounded by other components on both sides. Thus a mere “splitting” of the the NP into two parts would not suffice. In both cases, the characterization of the possessor NP as a “split” constituent would not be adequate (see also Fried 2009: 231–233 for arguments for the status of Czech external possessors as a construction).

5. A non-constituent based constructional account

Given the data and discussion in sections 3 and 4, we may first conclude that the contiguous genitive and the split genitive are not, properly speaking, paraphrases of each other. While there is a certain similarity in meaning and overlap of distribution between them, there are contexts in which only one of the two is acceptable. Notably, as stated in point 4 in section 4, the split genitive has a narrower range of use than the NP-internal or contiguous genitive. And, as stated in points 1 and 2, there are semantic differences between the two: the split genitive is not always associated with the subject, and there is a difference in foregrounding of the referent of the genitive form between the two. We claim, therefore, that the contiguous genitive and the split genitive are, in fact, separate constructions separated by not only the syntactic difference in word order but also by semantic and pragmatic differences.

One systematic difference between these two constructions concerns information structure and the relative independence of the referents of the genitive form, on the one hand, and its “head”, on the other. Most information structure accounts (e.g. Lambrecht 1994) assign functions such as topic and focus, as well as activation statuses, to discourse referents. On a traditional analysis, the contiguous genitive and its head noun together refer to a single discourse referent. That referent may assume the function of, say, topic in a sentence like (42).

(42) Liisan äiti lukee paljon.

Name+GEN mother read+3SG much ‘Liisa’s mother reads a lot.’

14

The NP Liisan äiti (‘Liisa’s mother’) is the topic of the sentence insofar as the referent of that NP is “what the sentence is about”. However, it is not Liisa’s mother but rather Liisa herself that a sentence like (43) is about.

(43) Liisan kuoli äiti viime joulu+na.

Name+GEN die+PST.3SG mother last Christmas+ESS ‘Liisa’s mother died last Christmas.’ / ‘Liisa lost her mother last Christmas.’

If we look at all the “minimal pairs” discussed in the previous sections, e.g. examples 19–21 vs. examples 22–24 (repeated below), we find that this is indeed a systematic difference between the two constructions, rather than a coincidental difference between the sentences (42) and (43).

(19) Liisa+n men+i jalka poikki.

Name+GEN go+PST.3SG leg broken ‘Liisa broke her leg’ [lit. ‘Of-Liisa went leg broken’].

(20) Minu+n on pää+ni kovin kipeä.

I+GEN be.PRES.3SG head+1SGPX very sore ‘I have got a bad headache’ [lit. ‘Of-me is head very sore’]

(21) Puhuja+n men+i+vät paperi+t sekaisin

Speaker+GEN go+PST+3PL paper+PL.NOM tangled ‘The speaker got his/her papers got tangled up’.

(22) Liisa+n jalka men+i poikki.

Name+GEN leg go+PST.3SG broken ‘Liisa broke her leg’ [lit. ‘Of-Liisa went leg broken’].

(23) Minu+n pää+ni on kovin kipeä.

I+GEN head+1SGPX be.PRES.3SG very sore ‘I have got a bad headache’ [lit. ‘Of-me is head very sore’]

(24) Puhuja+n paperi+t men+i+vät sekaisin

Speaker+GEN paper+PL go+PST+3PL tangled-up ‘The speaker’s papers got tangled up’.

The example (19) seems to express Liisa more explicitly as the undergoer than (22). The same is true of (20) and (23): they might be paraphrased as ‘I have a bad headache’ (20) vs. ‘my head hurts badly’ (23). Corresponding to the difference in topic role assignment, (19) can only be used in a context where Liisa is being discussed, while (22) is possible in a conceivably broader set of possible contexts. For example, (22) is much more natural than (19) when talking about a situation where Liisa is part of a basketball team which loses an important

15

match because one of the key players (viz. Liisa) is injured. (19) would seem to imply too emphatetic a relationship to Liisa for such a context.

Similarly, the sentence (21) requires a context where “the speaker” is present in the situation, and the tangling up of his papers “happens to him”, so to speak. (24), however, is equally possible e.g. in a situation where the speaker has sent the papers in advance, and has not yet arrived, and the papers get tangled up (and possibly properly re-arranged) without the speaker ever even knowing about the whole event.

The split genitive construction is considered colloquial by many native speakers. Consequently, it is difficult to find a representative sample in standard language corpora. The construction is widespread in Finnish dialects, though it is used more in Western than Eastern Finnish dialects. The Syntax Archive compiled at the University of Turku consists of roughly 900,000 words of dialect speech and slightly under 200,000 words of standard language texts. The dialect data contain 116 occurrences of the split genitive construction, while the standard language data contain none.

In the 116 occurrences found in the Syntax Archive, there is not a single one in which the split genitive argument could not be interpreted as the topic of the clause. A slight majority of the split genitive arguments are 1st person pronouns: 40 singular, 19 plural. Also 3rd person pronouns are common, to the extent that non-pronominal split genitives are quite rare: only six of the 116 occurrences are lexical NPs (44). Much more typically, lexical NPs are introduced as new topics first and then referred to with an anaphoric pronoun (45).

(44) se talom men kaik nurka+t (SA: Lapinjärvi)

it house+GEN go.PST.3SG all corner+PL ‘The house lost all of its corners [in a fire].’

(45) tää nuor naine mikä tää o miu

this young woman what this be.3SG I+GEN tyttäre+in ja sit hänen om mies täs (SA: Muolaa) daughter+1SGPX and then (s)he+GEN be.3SG man here ‘This young lady here is my daughter, and here is her husband.’

The overwhelming majority of the split genitives in our data are clause-initial—or, more precisely, in what Vilkuna (1989) calls the T-position.iii The Syntax Archive dialect data contains only three exceptions in which a genitive element is placed after what seems like its head noun but otherwise seems like a split genitive (46–47).

(46) jalkaa niiem kumpasenkim pur. (SA: Sysmä)

foot+PAR they+GEN both+GEN bite+PST.3SG ’[A snake] bith both of them in the foot.’

16

(47) yks sisko mun elä viäl (SA: Eura) one sister I+GEN live.3SG still ‘I still have one sister alive.’

In example 46, the pronoun niiem refers to two girls who have been discussed in previous context, and in 47, the speaker has been speaking of her family, siblings, and most recently, a sister with whom she went to school together. Thus, the split genitive is topical even in those rare cases when it is not in the T-position.

Further evidence for interpreting the split genitive argument as topical may be sought in dislocation structures. Michaelis & Lambrecht (1996) discuss the English right dislocation constructioniv and point out, among other things, that the dislocated element corresponds to the topic of the sentence:

(48) They're red LEATHER, the shoes she's wearing. (Michaelis & Lambrecht 1996:

222) (49) They're AMAZING, the things children say. (ibid. 223)

Finnish has a very similar construction which also appears to assign the information structure role topic on the dislocated element, e.g. tää elokuva (and the coreferential sentence-initial pronoun tää) in example (50):v

(50) Tää on tosi hyvä tää elokuva.

this-NOM be+3SG true good-NOM this-NOM movie-NOM ‘This movie is really good.’

While it may be possible to combine this construction with the adjacent genitive, doing so shifts the topic role from the whole NP to the genitive argument:

(51) Se+n jalka men+i poikki sen Liisan.

It+GEN leg go+PST.3SG broken it+GEN name+GEN ‘She broke her leg, [that person named] Liisa.’

The sentence (51) cannot be said to be about Liisa’s leg but, rather, about Liisa. Also, the sentence (51) can only be used in a context where the referent of Liisa is active, either having been mentioned or for some other sufficiently prominent reason. The corresponding non-dislocated sentence (22) has no such requirement, and the sentence is construed as being about Liisa’s leg rather than about Liisa herself.

In contrast, it is quite systematically possible to combine this construction with the split genitive without causing any shift in topicality:

17

(52) Se+n men+i jalka poikki sen Liisan.

It+GEN go+PST.3SG leg broken it+GEN name+GEN ‘Her leg was broken [that of the person named Liisa].’

This systematic information structural compatibility with the right dislocation structure further suggests that the split genitive involves topicality of the “possessor” or, rather, the experiencer marked with the genitive case. And, indeed, labeling the split genitive as expressing the topic of the sentence is, in fact, very close to Vilkuna’s (1989: 170) analysis:

“Possessor Advancement: The phrase denoting the possessor of a sentence participant can occur as an unmarked T instead of the DT, if the state of affairs expressed in the sentence primarily affects the referent of the possessor phrase.”vi

Although Vilkuna is hesitant about equating her T function with topic, her analysis is rather close to ours. Adding to this the oft-noted “propensity for languages to order given, old, or topical information before new or focused information”, as Erteschik-Shir (2007: 7) puts it, one might point out that the possibility to topicalize an element of the sentence, be it a possessor, might not require a separate construction: e.g. the very simple left topic construction sketched out by Leino & Kuningas (2005, 2006) might be a sufficient explanation for the possibility of topicalizing the possessor.

However, as was pointed out in section 4, not any odd possessor can be topicalized. In addition to being the topic of the sentence, the referent of the split genitive is the affected experiencer of the event or state-of-affairs denoted by the sentence. Furthermore, as was also pointed out in section 4, only a rather limited part of the whole semantic range of the Finnish genitive is possible with the split genitive: e.g. part–whole relationships and spatial interpretations are ruled out. Therefore, the split genitive construction cannot be reduced to a mere information structure variant of the adjacent genitive. In comparison with the adjacent genitive, the split genitive does involve a difference in word order and an information structure peculiarity, but in addition, it assigns a more specific semantic interpretation to the genitive case, and a specific semantic role to the referent of the genitive-marked argument. The natural conclusion is that the split genitive is a conventional construction of its own in the Finnish language. It is a complex cluster of semantic features, stylistic flavor, and pragmatic properties, paired with a specific and easily recognizable morphosyntactic pattern.

18

6. Conclusions:

In the above discussion we have shown that the split genitive differs from the adjacent genitive a) semantically, b) grammatically and c) pragmatically in many ways.This suggests that the split genitive is a grammatical construction of its own, not the result of “transformations”. In the literature, it has also been assumed that a necessary condition for the consideration of the split genitive as an independent possessive adverbial would be the semantic identity of the split genitive construction and more complex possessive constructions based on the external local cases. Since these are not semantically identical, it has been assumed that the split genitive must be a discontinuous constituent. However, as the current study shows, it is not identical with the continuous NP construction either. Therefore the solution that suggests itself is to anlayze the split genitive as a construction of its own, with semantic qualities different from both the NP-internal genitive construction and the possessive construction based on the external local cases.

i The following abbreviations are used in the glossings: ACC=accusative, ABL = ablative ('from on/ from at'), ADE

= adessive ('at/on'), ALL=allative (to at / onto'), ELA = elative ('from in'), ESS=essive ('as') GEN = genitive, ILL =

illative ('into'), INE = inessive ('in'), INF = infinitive, NOM = nominative, PAR = partitive, PL = plural, PRES =

present tense, PRTC = participle, PST = past tense, PX = (Xth person SG or PL) possessive suffix, SG = singular

TRA=translative.

ii However, the Finnish split genitive construction does not seem to fit in with all characterizations of external

possession. For example, Payne & Barshi (1999: 3) “take core instances of external possession (EP) to be

constructions in which a semantic possessor-possessum relation is expressed by coding the possessor (PR) as a

core grammatical relation of the verb and in a constituent separate from that which contains the possessum (PM).

The PR may be expressed as subject, direct object, indirect object or dative, or as ergative or absolutive

depending on the language type—but not, for example, as an oblique.” The Finnish split genitive differs from

this view in that it does not code the possessor as a core argument of the verb but, rather, as a seemingly

detached adnominal modifier or, perhaps, as an oblique marked with the genitive case.

iii Vilkuna argues that Finnish has two pre-verbal positions which she labels K and T, specifically in order to

circumvent the problem of finding precise labels for the two. Roughly speaking, her characterization of T

corresponds to what is labelled topic in contemporary information structure literature, whereas the preceding K

position may be filled with conjunctions, relative pronouns, question words, contrastive elements, or the like. For

19

details, see Vilkuna (1989, esp. p. 37–43). For the purposes of this paper, it is crucial that the vast majority of

split genitives occur in the T position.

iv The main topic of their paper is the English Nominal Extraposition construction which superficially resembles

right dislocation. For the present discussion, however, it is specifically right dislocation that offers a fruitful

parallel.

v Etelämäki (2006, esp. p. 67–82) discusses right dislocation and related phenomena in Finnish. As she points

out, there are other superficially similar constructions in Finnish, much like in the case of the English right

dislocation and nominal extraposition (Michaelis & Lambrecht 1996). Crucially for this paper, however, there is

a right dislocation structure associated with topicality in Finnish as well.

vi Vilkuna (1989: 8) defines T as ”the function of a constituent, normally a NP, that immediately precedes the

finite verb in a textually neutral sentence”, and DT as ”default T, participant with a privilege to T function, e.g.,

grammatical subject”.

20

References:

Anttila, Raimo (1989). Historical and comparative linguistics. 2nd, rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Croft, William (2006). Noun phrase structure in Radical Construction Grammar. A plenary talk at the 7th Meeting of the High Desert Linguistic Society, Albuquerque.

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Etelämäki, Marja (2006). Toiminta ja tarkoite. Tutkimus suomen pronominista tämä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Fried, Mirjam (2009). Plain vs. situated possession in Czech: A constructional account.In Mc Gregor, William B. (ed.), The expression of possession. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 213–248.

Haspelmath, Martin (1999). External Possession in a European Areal Perspective. In Payne, Doris and Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. [Typological Studies in Language 39] (109–135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Heine, Bernd (1997). Possession: Cognitive sources, fores, and grammaticaliation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huumo, Tuomas (1995). Word Order and the Scope of Locatives and Possessives. In Word vol. 46 (3). 315-332.

Huumo, Tuomas (1996). A scoping hierarchy of locatives. In Cognitive Linguistics 7 (3). 265-299.

Huumo, Tuomas & Nobufumi Inaba (1997). Irrallinen genetiivi ja omistusrakenteen arvoitus. In Virittäjä 101. 27-48.

Jokinen, Kristiina (1988). Suomen substantiivilausekkeen rakenne. In Virittäjä 92. 348–375. Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva (1972). Genetiivin funktioista. Sananjalka 14. 27–35.

Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva (1993). Suomalais-ugrilaiset omistussuhteet. In Sirkka Saarinen et al (eds.), Systeemi ja poikkeama (46–54). Publications of the Department of Finnish and General linguistics of the University of Turku 42. Turku.

Korhonen, Mikko (1991). Remarks on the structure and history of the Uralic case system. In Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran aikakauskirja [Journal of the Finno-Ugric Society] 83. 163–180. Helsinki.

Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. In Cognitive Linguistics 4. 1–38.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1997). Constituency, Dependency, and Conceptual Grouping. In Cognitive Linguistics 8. 1–32.

21

Leino, Jaakko & Johanna Kuningas (2005). Structure informationnelle et l’ordre des mots avec les exemples du français, kabyle et du finnois. In Fernandez-Vest, Jocelyne (ed.), Les langues ouraliennes aujourd’hui – The Uralic languages today. [Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes] (587–598). Paris: Editions Honoré Champion.

Leino, Jaakko & Johanna Kuningas (2006). Word Orders and Construction Grammars. In Suominen, Mickael et al. (ed.): A Man of Measure. Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday. A special supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics, vol 19:2006. 301–309.

Michaelis, Laura & Knud Lambrecht (1996). Towards a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: the Case of Nominal Extraposition. In Language 72. 215–247.

Nikiforidou, Kiki (1991). The Meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. In Cognitive Linguistics 2(2). 149–205.

Payne, Doris and Immanuel Barshi (1999). External Possession: What, Where, How, and Why. In Payne, Doris and Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. Typological Studies in Language 39 (3–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Penttilä, Aarni (1963). Suomen kielioppi. Porvoo: WSOY. Setälä, E. N. (1884). Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Kouluja varten. 2nd, revised edition. Helsinki:

K. E. Holm. Vilkuna, Maria (1989). Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions.

Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.