The present paper examines the coding of Direction in Finnish. It will deal with both typical and less typical instances of Direction in light of features, such as animacy, size of the landmark and the nature of the reference to the landmark. The paper pursues two goals. First, it will show that the coding of Direction in Finnish is determined by markedness. In other words, the coding of Direction can be explained by referring to the typical vs. atypical nature of Direction (which depends on the landmark in question), and more importantly, canonical instances bear less elaborate coding than non-canonical instances. In so doing, the paper sheds more light on the semantic role of Direction, i.e. the question what the features are that should be considered in the studies dealing with Direction. Second, the paper aims at contributing to our understanding of the differences between cases and adpositions. Cases and adpositions unarguably share common features, and both of them can be used to express similar functions (such as coding of semantic roles). However, they differ crucially from each other as regards their use as markers of Direction, as already hinted at above. Keywords: Finnish; allative; illative; directional cases; markedness
Blansitt, Edward L. Jr. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Studies in Syntactic Typology, Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 173–191. Cambridge: CUP.
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In Markedness, Fred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds), 85–106. New York NY: Plenum.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Spatial cases. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 609–625. Oxford: OUP.
Huumo, Tuomas & Ojutkangas, Krista. 2006. An introduction to Finnish spatial relations: Local cases and adpositions. In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 277], Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds), 11–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huumo, Tuomas & Ojutkangas, Krista. 2010. Mikä erottaa muodot sisällä ja sisässä? “Synonyymisten” muotojen analyysi (What is the difference between sisällä ‘in’ and sisässä ‘in’? An analysis of two “synonymous” forms). Sananjalka 52: 19–45.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. On distinguishing between recipient and beneficiary in Finnish. In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 277], Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds), 129–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12: 245–268.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2010. Beneficiary coding in Finnish. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies [Typological Studies in Language 92], Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds), 245–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Klavan, Jane, Kaisa Kesküla & Laura Ojava. 2011. The division of labour between synonymous locative cases and adpositions: The Estonian adessive and the adposition peal ‘on’. In Case, Animacy and Semantic roles, Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi and Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), 1134–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lauerma, Petri. 1990. Spatiaalinen kenttä (spatial tier). In Suomen kielen paikallissijat konseptuaalisessa semantiikassa (Finnish local cases in conceptual semantics), Pentti Leino, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Petri Lauerma, Urpo Nikanne & Tiina Onikki (eds), 108–145. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish.
2017. <i>Perspectives on Semantic Roles</i>. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 33:2 ► pp. 567 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.