This article investigates the morpho-syntactic and discourse properties of preverbal constituents in Finnish, providing a new interpretation of the distinction between Subjects and Topics, as well as an explanation for the Case forms that characterize the Object realization in this language. Based on a cartographic approach to Finnish clause structure, evidence is provided for a functional ‘separation’ between the evaluation of the EPP feature and the domain of Nominative Case assignment. Specifically, a functional ‘split’ is proposed in the high IP-zone between the TP projection, where Nominative Case is checked by the sentential Subject triggering verb agreement, and the SubjP position, dedicated to the EPP requirement and hosting the Subject of predication. Based on this distinction, preverbal constituents only qualify as ‘full Subjects’ if they pass through both Spec positions. Specific consequences apply to Subject agreement and the realization of Accusative Case when these projections host different constituents (e.g., necessive, existential and passive clauses). This split account can also provide a distinction between the Subject of predication (in the IP-zone) and a Topic (in the C-domain), showing that not any preverbal constituent can be a Subject, while any constituent can be topicalized, with specific discourse functions and language-specific restrictions.

本文研究了芬兰语前言成分的形态句法和语篇属性，为主题和主题之间的区别提供了新的解释，并解释了用这种语言描述宾语实现的案例形式。基于芬兰条款结构的制图方法，为EPP功能评估与主格案例分配域之间的功能“分离”提供了证据。具体来说，建议在TP投影与主jp位置之间的高IP区域中使用功能性“拆分”，在TP投影中，主格由潜在主语触发动词协定检查，SubjP位置专用于EPP要求并主持谓语主语。。基于这种区别，前言成分仅在通过两个Spec位置时才有资格成为“完整主题”。当这些预测包含不同的成分（例如，必要的，存在的和被动的条款）时，特定的后果适用于主体协议和宾格的实现。此拆分帐户还可以区分谓词主语（在IP区域中）和主题（在C域中），表明没有任何谓词成分可以是主语，而任何成分可以被主题化，特定的话语功能和特定于语言的限制。