Layers of (un)boundedness: The aspectual– quantificational interplay of quantifiers and partitive case in Finnish object arguments

Abstract

<p>I present an account of the interplay between quantifiers and the<br>partitive–accusative case alternation in Finnish object marking, with special<br>reference to the aspectual and quantificational semantics of the clause. The<br>case alternation expresses two oppositions (in affirmative clauses): (a) bounded<br>(accusative) vs. unbounded (partitive) quantity, (b) culminating (accusative) vs.<br>non-culminating (partitive) aspect. The quantifiers analyzed are of two main<br>types: (i) mass quantifiers (e. g., <i>paljon </i>‘a lot of’, <i>vähän </i>‘(a) little’), which<br>quantify a mass expressed by a mass noun or a plural form, (ii) number<br>quantifiers (e. g., <i>moni </i>‘many’, <i>usea </i>‘a number of’), which quantify a multiplicity<br>of discrete entities expressed by a count noun in the singular or plural. Finnish<br>mass quantifiers only quantify nominals in the partitive, while number quantifiers<br>agree with the quantified nominal in number and case and are used<br>throughout the case paradigm. With a mass quantifier, the partitive form of<br>the quantified nominal expresses unbounded quantity, which the quantifier<br>then renders bounded (quantized). This is why object phrases with mass quantifiers<br>behave like accusative objects: they express a bounded quantity together<br>with culminating aspect. Number quantifiers quantify both accusative and partitive<br>objects, in the singular and plural. Such objects are able to express aspect<br>and quantity at two levels: (i) that of the individual component events which<br>concern one entity each; (ii) that of the higher-order event which concerns the<br>whole quantity expressed. I argue that the case marking of the object relates<br>primarily to level (i), while the meaning of the number quantifier relates to level<br>(ii). This is why a number quantifier typically renders the quantity bounded and<br>the aspect culminating at level (ii), even when the partitive case expresses<br>unboundedness or lack of culmination at level (i).<br></p>