Cover not available
Part of
Finiteness Matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 231] 2016
► pp. 47–78

Finiteness and Pseudofiniteness

| University of Toronto
I argue that finiteness is a purely syntactic property, licensing case on the subject and agreement on the verb. Semantic properties associated with finiteness follow from the position of Finite in the geometry of clausal interpretable features. Considering possible counterexamples from Romance languages as well as West Flemish, modern Greek, and Turkish, I show that Romance personal and inflected infinitives are characterized by a pseudofinite Infl, available only in null-subject languages, which lacks Finite, but bears an unvalued case feature. Pseudofinite clauses, including the Southern Calabrian modo construction, must be assigned case externally. West Flemish personal infinitives are finite, headed by a hybrid Comp/Infl head. Turkish agreeing gerunds have nominal syntax, and Greek subjunctive clauses are either finite or nonfinite, depending on their case-assigning properties.
Keywords: agreement, case, clause structure, feature geometry, finiteness
Published online: 25 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.231.02cow
References (51)
References
Alboiu, Gabriela & Motapanyane, Virginia. 2000. The generative approach to Romanian grammar: An overview. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), 1–48. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999a. EPP without Spec,IP. In Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches, David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett & George Tsoulas (eds), 93–109. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 1999b. Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement. In WCCFL 18 Proceedings, Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen & Peter Norquest (eds), 14–26. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Raising without infinitives and the role of agreement. In Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 48], Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers, & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 17–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avery, J. Peter. 1996. The Representation of Voicing Contrasts. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
Béjar, Susana & Hall, Daniel Currie. 2000. Marking markedness: The underlying order of diagonal syncretisms. In Proceedings of ESCOL 99, Rebecca Daly & Anastasia Riehl (eds), 1–12. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Suzanne. 2002. A derivational relationship: The subjunctive-infinitive alternation in French. Ms, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sarah. 2013. Aspectual Scope and Contrast in English and Japanese. PhD disssertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. The geometry of interpretable features: Infl in English and Spanish. Language 81(1): 10–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth & Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The morphosyntactic manifestations of modality. In Proceedings of the 2007 CLA, Milica Radišić (ed.). Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Dyscolus, Apollonius. 1981. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1982. Intensionality and Romance Subjunctive Relatives. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
George, Leland & Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Binding and Filtering, Frank Heny (ed.), 105–127. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. INFL, COMP and nominative case assignment in Flemish infinitivals. In Features and Projections, Peter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 123–137. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel & Elsholtz, Christian. 2012. Feature geometry: Self-destructed. Ms, Queen Mary University of London and Technische Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2001a. Case and agreement: Morphology and its syntactic effects in Turkish. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of Germany.
. 2001b. Subjects and their case in Turkish/Turkic embeddings. Paper presented at the Workshop on Altaic Languages, MIT.
Kyriakaki, Maria. 2006. The Geometry of Tense, Mood and Aspect in Greek. MA thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 1998. Variation in the Romance infinitive: The case of the southern Calabrian inflected infinitive. Transactions of the Philological Society 96(1): 1–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luján, Marta. 1999. A unified approach to control and obviation. In Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 187], Jon A. Franco, Alazne Landa & Juan Martin (eds), 105–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mailhac, Jean-Pierre. 2000. Sens, choix et subjonctif. French Language Studies 10: 229–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), 495–537. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation: In Honor of Joseph Emonds [Linguistik Akuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1983. Germanic word order and the Comp/Infl parameter. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax (Trondheim) 2.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1991. The inherent variability of the French subjunctive. In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Nineteenth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 74], Christiane Laeufer & Terrell A. Morgan (eds), 235–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pountain, Christopher J. 1995. Infinitives with overt subjects: A pragmatic approach. In Portuguese, Brazilian and African Studies: Studies Presented to Clive Willis on his Retirement, Tom Earle & Nigel Griffin (eds), 11–25. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Google Scholar
Quicoli, A. Carlos. 1996. Inflection and parametric variation: Portuguese vs. Spanish. In Current Issues in Comparative Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed.), 46–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo. 1987a. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109.Google Scholar
. 1987b. Romance infinitival clauses and case theory. In Studies in Romance Languages, Carol Neidle & Rafael A. Nuñez Cedeño (eds), 237–249. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Prepositional infinitival constructions in European Portuguese. In The Null Subject Parameter, Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds), 277–305. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2001. Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. In Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages, María Luisa Rivero & Anna Ralli (eds), 74–104. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The Representation of Features and Relations in Nonlinear Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case, and Licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2009. On the emergence of personal infinitives in the history of Spanish. Diachronica 26(1): 36–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott & David M. Perlmutter. 1979. Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Subirats-Rüggeberg, Carlos. 1990. The relation between infinitival and sentential complements in traditional grammar. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 14(1): 81–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thiébault, Dieudonné. 1802. Grammaire philosophique, ou la métaphysique, la logique, et la grammaire réunies en un seul corps de doctrine. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall
2017. The rise of contrastive modality in English. Linguistic Variation 17:1 ► pp. 68 ff. DOI logo
Haegeman, Liliane & Andrew Weir
2016. Finiteness and response particles in West Flemish. In Finiteness Matters [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 231], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.