Download 89212104-Ch.8

Ya-Ting Yang
楊雅婷
Syntax Chapter 8 Case Theory 8.4-8.6 pp. 201-220
8.4.1 DP Hypothesis
The subject of NP’s was assigned possessive Case.
59a.
His/John’s house
59b.
[NP his /John’s [N’ [N house]]]
The technical term used to refer to this type of Case is genitive Case.
NP
Spec
N’
his/John’s
N
house
60a.
Her/Mary’s translation of the book
60b.
[NP her/Mary’s [N’ translation [of the book]]]
NP
N’
Spec
NP
Her/Mary’s
N
(P NP)
translation
of the book
61a.
Its/the city’s destruction by the barbarians
61b.
[NP its/the city’s [N’ destruction [by the barbarians]]]
62.
NP
N’
Spec
NP
N
Its/the city’s
(P NP)
destruction
by the barbarians
1) A genitive subject can have one of a number of possibleΘ-roles/readings.
59: His/John’s house: possessor
60: Her/Mary’s translation of the book agent
She/Mary translates the book.
61: Its/the city’s destruction by the barbarians theme
The barbarians destructs the city.
2) Pronouns (her/his/my…) have overt marking of the genitive Case assigned to the subject of NPs (house/book/car…).
3) Non-pronominal subjects are marked with 's. the nature of which has been subject to debate.
the overt realization of the genitive Case assigned to the subject of NPs.
If this idea is plausible, it turns out that Case is
less abstract in English than we previously thought.
Questions we will concern ourselves with in this section are the following:
1.)
What is the source of genitive Case in noun phrases?
2.)
Under which condition is genitive Case assigned?
(62.) is an abstract version of the structure of NP we have been assuming so far.
62.
NP
Spec
N’
1
It is possible to view 's as
NP
N
(P NP)
(1)
Nouns do not assign Case because their internal NP argument is preceded by a preposition.
(2)
If Nouns have the ability to assign Case, it would assign to the complement, not the subject because nouns have closer
relationship with their complement (sister relationship) than with the subject.
(3)
Thus, we have a revised structure which will reveal a clear source for the genitive Case assigned to the subject of noun
phrases.
Before we see the revised structure, we are going to see the resemblance between noun phrases and full clauses.
63a. Mary’s translation of the book
63b. Mary translated the book.
Similarities:
63a.
noun phrase
64b.
clause
Subject
Lexical category
A complement
Mary’s
translation (N)
of the book
Mary
translated (V)
the book
Differences:
The noun phrase:
(1) The lexical category is a noun rather than a verb, and the complement is preceded by a preposition. (for the purpose of
assigning a case to the second NP (the book)).
(2) It lacks a Tense category.
A complete sentence is a proposition which is anchored in time in terms of Tense.
Because noun phrases do not have Tense, so they cannot function as complete sentences even though they may have a
prepositional content.
Base on the observed similarities between noun phrases and clauses, we can construct a structure of noun phrase which
parallels that of clauses as illustrated below.
(D: Determiner)
65b.-clause
IP
Spec
I’
I
VP
Spec
VP
Spec
V’
…
V
65a.-NP
DP
Sepc
D’
D
NP
Spec
NP
Spec
N’
…
N
1)
D is the head of the noun phrase rather than its specifier.
2)
D is the equivalent of I in IP. Like I, D is a non-lexical category which takes (the maximal projection of) a lexical
category as its complement.
3)
The complement of D is NP.
The subject position of the noun phrase is Spec,DP in much the same way that the subject position of IP is Spec,IP.
2
The claim that noun phrases have the structure in (65a) is known as the DP Hypothesis.
It is believed that noun phrases include the category Agr under D which parallels the Agr category of I in IPs.
Spec-head agreement phenomenon in DP, too. English does not have rich agreement inflection.
So, there is
However, a residue of
agreement in number between N and the subject can still be seen in demonstrative noun phrases such as 66a and 66b.
Presumable, Agr includes the other members of the set of Ø-features, except that they do not have phonetic realization in
English. For example:
(1) Number agreement
66a.
This/that book
66b.
These/those books
67a.
DP
Spec
D’
D
NP
Dem
This/these Agr
N’
[number]
N
Spec-head agreement
(Dem: Demonstrative)
(2)
Genitive Case is assigned via Spec-head agreement with the (Agr element of) D.
DP
Spec
D’
D
NP
Agr
N’
Mary’s
[
]
N
Spec-head agreement
The Agr of D and the Agr of I differ in that the Agr of D carries the genitive Case feature, while the Agr of I carries the
nominative Case feature.
IP
Spec
I’
I
NP
VP
Agr
[+nominative
]
Spec-head agreement
Accordingly, a noun phrase such as (68a) has the structure shown in (68b) with the subject Mary in Spec,DP, and receives
genitive Case via Sepc-head Agreement with D.
We will continue to assume that the morpheme “ 's ” is the spellout of the
genitive Case.
3
68a.
Mary’s translation of the book
68b.
DP
Spec
D’
DP
D
NP
Agr
N’
N
Mary’s
DP
translation
to the book
IP
Spec
I’
I
VP
NP
Agr/to
(Refer to the above diagram)
(1)
We saw that I includes Agr (and Tense) in finite clauses but not in non-finite clauses.
(2)
In non-finite clauses, I is spelled out as the infinitival marker “to”.
The infinitival marker “to” and Agr (Tense) are
therefore in complementary distribution.
(3)
The subject of finite clauses is Case-marked internally (i.e. from inside the finite clause) via Spec-head agreement with I.
(4)
This is not the case in non-finite clauses.
When a non-finite clause has an over subject, the subject can only be
Case-marked by an external governor (ECM).Exceptional Case Marking Because non-finite clauses do not include Agr
under I, they do not have an internal source of Case for the subject.
69b.
For example:
Bill believes John/him to be incompetent.
Believe assigns an accusative Case to John.
This situation is similar to that of noun phrases.
70a.
*Mary the translation of the book
correct/incorrect
70b.
*[DP Mary [D’ the [NP translation of the book]]]
DP
Spec
D’
DP
D
NP
(Agr)
Det
( ’s)
the
N’
N
DP
4
Mary
71.
translation
to the book
DP{ Det
DP } D’
(1)
Agr and Det, both members of D, are in complementary distribution.
The presence of Det signals the absence of Agr.
(2)
(70) lacks Agr under D, and with the consequence that the subject “Mary” does not have a source of genitive Case, and
(70) is incorrect.
8.4.2 Gerundive noun phrases
Sentences contain gerundive noun phrases:
72a.
72b.
John’s keeping a rottweiler frightens his neighbors.
[John’s
keeping
a rottweiler]
Subject
gerund
complement
frightens his neighbors.
Subject position
73a.
Bill resents John’s keeping a rottweiler.
73b.
Bill resents [John’s keeping a rottweiler]
74a.
Mary is against John’s keeping a rottweiler.
74b.
Mary is against [John’s keeping a rottweiler]
The type of gerundive phrases we will concentrate on here have the following two crucial properties:
1) their subject is in the genitive form
2) the complement of the gerund is not preceded by a preposition
The gerundive phrase in 72-74 have certain properties usually associated with noun phrases.
For example, they occur in
positions typically reserved for noun phrases, such as:
72:
subject position of the sentence
73:
object position of transitive verb
74:
object position of preposition
1)
The DP complement of the gerund in 72-74 is not preceded by a preposition, and therefore is different from complements
of Ns which tend to be preceded by a preposition. (e.g., Mary’s translation of the book)
2)
This was attributed earlier to the fact that nouns do not assign Case.
3)
Thus, the form of the DP complements of gerunds suggest that gerunds are verbs rather than nouns.
illustrated as below.
76
DP
D’
Spec
DP
D
VP
John’s
Agr
keeping
a rottweiler
Gerund
complement
1) D takes VP as a complement
5
That’s why noun phrases need prepositions.
The diagram is
2) The subject is located in Spec,DP and is assigned genitive Case via Spec-head agreement with D.
3) The complement of V is included inside VP and receives accusative Case under government by V.
8.4.3 Pronouns as D elements
Pronouns, she/he/they/her…, show number, gender, person and Case distinctions.
with the Agr element of D.
These are exactly the features associated
In other words, pronouns are no more than the spellout (i.e. phonetic realization) of the bundle of
features associated with (the Agr member of) D as illustrated as follow.
DP
D’
D
Agr
(+singular, +female,+third person+nominative)she
There is some fairly robust evidence for the conclusion that pronouns are located under D as shown below.
79a.
we linguists
79b.
you politicians
DP
Spec
D’
D
NP
we
N’
you
N
linguists
politicians
1)
The claim that the pronoun is the head of the noun phrases in (79) is consistent with the fact that the pronoun displays the
Case of the whole noun phrase.
2)
It is natural for the Case property of a noun phrase to be displayed by its head.
80a.
We politicians are disliked by most people.
80b.
[IP [DP we politicians] I [VP are disliked y most people]]
When such noun phrases are in the subject position of a finite clause, the pronoun has the nominative form.
81a.
Most people dislikes us politicians.
81b.
[IP most people I [VP dislike [DP us politicians]]]
 When they are in the object position, the pronoun has the objective form.
82a.
Most people believe us politicians to be hypocritical.
82b.
[IP most people I [VP believe [VP believe [IP [DP us politicians] to be hypocritical]]]
6
When they are in the subject position of an ECM clause, the pronoun has the objective form.
8.4.4 Head-movement in DPs
The parallelism we have drawn between noun phrases and clauses, in particular the idea that the D of noun phrases may
include Agr, raises the interesting question of how Agr merges with N.
85. the books
The plural number morpheme in noun phrases may originate under Agr/D and is subsequently merged with N.
DP
Spec
D’
D
NP
Agr
[+plural]
books
85a. the book
The singular noun could be said to involve an abstract or a zero singular number morpheme with a bound property similar to
that of the plural morpheme.
DP
Spec
D’
D
NP
Agr
[+singular]
book
zero morpheme
It seems that as in clauses, noun phrases involve a process of Affix-hopping (or D-lowering) in their derivation shown in (89):
89.
John’s unfounded allegations
DP
D’
Spec
D
DP
NP
Spec
N’
Agr
N’
ti
AP
N
John’s
allegation [-s]i
unfounded
Affix-hopping (D-lowering)
The idea that Det and Agr are in complementary distribution appears to be inconsistent with the fact that Det can co-occur with
a number morpheme on the noun such as:
90a. The continuous donations to the fund
90b. The fat/red books
7
90c. The unfounded allegations
DP
D’
Spec
*D
DP
NP
Spec
N’
Agr
Det
N’
ti
the
AP
N
allegation [-s]i
unfounded
Answers:
1.) Number morpheme is independent of Agr and therefore no D-lowering.
2.) Agr and D are not necessarily one and the same category, and that the impression that they are in complementary
distribution reflects some selectional restrictions between two separate categories.
8.5
Case and Movement: We will see how Case theory interacts with movement transformations.
There are (1)
DP-movement, (2) Wh-movement and (3) Operator-movement (Quantifier Raising)
8.5.1
DP-movement
8.5.1.1
Raising sentences
91a. John seems to be happy.
91b. [IP [DP John i ]seems [IP [ t i ] to be happy]]
1) Raising sentences involve movement of a DP subject from an embedded non-finite clause to the subject position of the
root (finite) clause.
2) When the embedded clause is finite, DP-movement is prevented from taking place by TSC.
Consequently, an expletive
DP appears in the subject position of the root clause as below.
92a. It seems (that) John is happy.
3) As a matter of fact, DP-movement and the expletive DP is inserted in the subject position of the root clause are motivated
by Case rather than EPP.
A) When the embedded clause is non-finite, as in 91, its overt DP subject cannot receive Case (internally) via
Spec-head agreement with (non-finite) I.
B)
As we know, the Tense feature of I can assign Case to the Spec, IP.
To satisfy the Case Requirement, the DP subject moves to the subject position of the root finite clause where it
receives nominative Case via Spec-head agreement with (finite) I.
8.5.1.2
(1)
Passives and unaccusatives
Passives:
94a. The ball was kicked.
94b. [IP [DP the ball i ] I [VP was [VP kicked [t i ]]]
8
95a. *it was kicked the ball.
95b. * [IP [DP it] I [VP was [VP kicked [DP the ball]]]]
1)
DP-movement in passives is also motivated by Case considerations rather by EPP.
2)
The idea that movement of the DP object in passives is motivated by Case implies that passive verbs cannot assign
(accusative) Case.
3)
In Chapter 7 we discussed evidence which showed that This is similar to the phenomenon that affixation of the passive
morpheme to an active base verb results in the derived (passive) verb being unable to assign its external Ө-role to the
subject position.
Now we are led to conclude that affixation of the passive morpheme to a transitive base verb also
results in the derived verbal passive being unable to assign accusative Case to its object.
Case absorption: Thus, the passive morpheme is said to “absorb” the (accusative) Case of the passive verb, thereby
4)
forcing the DP object to move to the subject position in search for Case.
(2)
Unaccusatives:
97a. The vase broke.
97b. [IP [DP the vase i ] I [VP broke [DP t i ]]]
internal argument
98a. * It broke the vase.
98b. *[IP [DP it] I [VP broke [DP the vase]]]
1)
Unaccusatives resemble passives in that their internal argument originates in the object position and is subsequently
moved to the subject position by DP-movement.
2)
As with passives too, the internal argument of unaccusative verbs cannot surface in the object position as shown in (98).
Reasons of the DP-movement for unaccusatives:
The reason resembles to that of DP-movement of passives.
1) The inability to assign (accusative) Case to their internal argument.
The internal argument has to seek for Case from I
through Spec-head agreement.
2) They do not assign an external Ө-role either.
 Verbs which do not assign an external Ө-role to the subject position seem also to be unable to assign accusative Case to
their internal argument (and vice versa).
Burzio’s Generalisation:
A verb (with an object) Case-marks its object iff it Ө-marks its subject.
8.5.1.3
Subject-inside-VP Hypothesis: How Spec, VP links with Case theory.
(The movement process which affects the auxiliary is ignored)
Following sentences include floating quantifier “all”.
100a.
All the travelers have drunk from the well.
100b.
The travelers have all drunk from the well.
9
Assumption 1:
100a.
DS:
is the base form of 100b as illustrated below.
All the travelers have drunk from the well.
[t i ] the travelers have [all] drunk from the well.
Application of Quantifier lowering:
SS:
The travelers have all drunk from the well.
Assumption 2:
100b is the base form of 100a and there are two different ways of deriving the sentences as illustrated below.
Derivation 1:
101b
DS: [The travelers] have all [t i ] drunk from the well.
DP movement—stranding the quantifier “all”
SS:
The travelers have all drunk from the well.
Derivation 2: 102b
DS:
[All the travelers] have [t i ] drunk from the well.
Quantifier Phrase movement (QP movement)---Pipe-piping the quantifier “all”.
SS:
All the travelers have drunk from the well.
If the analyses above are correct, 101b and 102b can be said to show that subjects are base-generated in Spec, VP and
subsequently moved to Spec, IP as illustrated below.
101b
IP
Spec
I’
I
The travelers
VP
Spec
have
V’
V
PP
all [t i ]
drunk
from the well
102b
IP
Spec
I’
I
All the travelers
VP
Spec
V’
V
PP
ti
drunk
from the well
10
This is called Subject-inside-VP Hypothesis.
Subject-inside-VP Hypothesis:
The subjects re base-generated in Spec, VP and subsequently moved to Spec, IP.
The movement of the subject to Spec, IP is motivated by Case rather than EPP-considerations
1)
Spec, VP is outside the government domain of V if we adopt the definition whereby a branching node such as V’ can
block c-command.
V therefore cannot assign Case to the subject in Spec, VP.
2)
Due to the reason that Spec, VP is assumed to be a non-Case-marked position, the DP subjects have to move to Spec, IP.
3)
“I” can assign nominative Case via Spec-head agreement.
4)
So, the movement of the subject to Spec,IP is motivated by Case rather than EPP-considerations.
Another theoretical advantage of Subject-inside-VP Hypothesis:
(1) The hypothesis (the movement of DP from Spec, VP to Spec, IP) makes possible a closer connection between the
structural representation of lexical categories and their argument structure.
That is:
drink:
agent <ø>
 the
agent “all the travelers” is closely connected to the lexical category “drink”.
(2) The implication of this idea is that expletive subjects do not originate in Spec, VP as they are not part of the
argument structure of the verbs they occur with.
Therefore, expletives are inserted directly under Spec, IP for
reasons having to do with the EPP applying at SS.
8.5.1.4
Q:
Case and A-chains
According to the uniqueness condition Ө-criterion, an A-chain can have one and only one Ө-role.
Does Case have this
uniqueness condition as well?
(1) The first step is to check whether A-chains with two Case positions are indeed excluded.
105a.
*John seems is happy.
105b.
*[IP [DP John] i seems [IP[ t i ] is happy]]
1)
Base on TSC, we have been excluding this example because the rule prevents moving a DP out of a finite clause.
2)
Base on Case theory
DP John moves from one Case-marked position (the subject position of the embedded finite
clause) to another Case-marked position (the subject position of the root clause).
This movement results in the derivation of an A-chain with two Cases (or two Case positions).
3)
106.
Conclusion:
An A-chain can only carry one Ө-role and one Case. (the uniqueness condition)
Case Requirement:
A chain is Case-marked if it contains exactly one Case-marked position.
P.S. This applies to both A-chains and A’-chains and now we turn to A’-chains.
8.5.2
1)
Operator-movement
DP-movement results in the derivation of A-chains where the head (i.e. the moved DP) is in a Case-marked position and
the tail/root (i.e. the initial trace) is in a non-Case-marked position as the example below.
[The ball]
was kicked [ti].
11
the head: Case-marked position
2)
the tail/root: non-Case-marked position
A’-chins derived by Wh-movement and QR differ in that it is their root/tail (original) position which is Case-marked as
shown below.
Wh-movement
107a.
What did John kick?
107b.
SS/LF: [CP what i [C’ did [IP John I [VP kick t i ]]]
the head: non-Case-marked position
107c.
the tail/root: Case-marked position
for which thing x, John kicked x
QR (Quantifier Raising)
108a.
John suspects everyone.
108b.
LF: [IP everyone i [IP John I [VP suspects t i ]]]
the head: non-Case-marked position
108c.
for every x, John suspects x
1)
the tail/root: Case-marked position
Case-marked
A’-chains in (107) and (108) involve the process of moving operators (wh-phrases and quantifier phrases) from
Case-marked position to non-Case-marked positions.
Still, the A’-chains are consistent with the Case Requirement in
that they include a unique Case position.
2)
The difference between A’-chains and A-chain:
The movement of operators in A’-chains (wh-phrases and quantified
phrases) is not motivated by Case considerations but have to do with their scope.
3)
Assuming an approach to Case in terms of the Visibility Hypothesis, variables have Case because as arguments they are
required to be assigned a Ө-role.
Recall that in the context of the Visibility Hypothesis the assignment of Ө-roles to arguments is dependent on arguments
4)
having Case which makes them visible to Ө-marking.
5)
The fact that traces of operators have Case as a defining property then follows.
8.5.3
Expletive-argument chains
109a.
Three girls arrived.
109b.
There arrived three girls.
110a.
A red car approached.
110b.
There approached a red car.
1)
Arrive and approach are unaccusative verbs.
2)
Their unique arguments “three girls” and “a red car” can either appear in the subject position (Spec,IP), as in (109a) and
(110a), or in the postverbal position, as in (109b) and (110b).
Question:
How does the DP in the postverbal position satisfy the Case Requirement given that the verb is unaccusative, i.e.
unaccusative verb does not assign accusative Case?
12
Answer:
1)
Through the notion of Case-transfer.
The idea is that the expletive in the Case-marked subject position and the DP in the postverbal position are co-indexed
and form an “expletive-argument chain”.
109b.
There arrived [ three girls].
transfer the nominative Case to the DP.
2)
Within this chain, a process of Case transfer takes place whereby the expletive in the Case-marked subject position
transfers the nominative Case it receives to the DP argument in the non-Case-marked postveral position.
3)
This way, the postverbal DP, or rather the expletive-argument chain, can be said to satisfy the Case Requirement.
4)
Another examples:
111a.
It is clear that John left suddenly.
 extraposition from the subject position
111b.
It i is clear [CP that John left suddenly] i
expletive-argument chain: transmits the nominative Case it receives to the extraposed clause.
1)
(111) is said to involve extraposition of the clause from the subject position (cf. That John left suddenly is clear),
understood as an argument of the predicate be clear.
2)
The clausal argument, though not a DP, is expected to have Case under the Visibility Hypothesis.
3)
The clausal argument can be said to satisfy the Case Requirement by being linked to the expletive element in the subject
position in an expletive-argument chain.
4)
The expletive element is in a Case-marked position and transmits the nominative Case it receives to the extraposed
clause.
112a.
They consider it inappropriate that John left suddenly.
small clause complelment
112b.
Extraposed CP
They consider [AP it i [A’ inappropriate]][CP that John left suddenly] i
expletive-argument chain: receives accusative Case from the root ECM Verb and transmit it to the extraposed CP.
1)
(112) involves a similar link.
The expletive element in the subject position of the small clause complement receives
accusative Case from the root ECM Verb, and transmits it to the extraposed CP it is linked with in an expletive argument
chain.
2)
The Case assigned to the expletive element in (111) and (112) makes the expletive-argument chain visible for
Ө-marking.
8.5.4
I.
Structural versus inherent Case
refer to the tree diagram above
Two significant properties in common between “nominative” and “accusative” Cases.
1.
They do not necessarily involve a thematic relation between the assigner and the assignee.
2.
They are both determined at SS.
13
Nominative:
1)
Nominative Case is assigned to the subject via Spec-head agreement with finite I and does not involve a thematic
relation between I and the DP subject.
2)
Refer to the diagram above.
Nominative Case is determined at SS in the sense that it takes place subsequent to movement of the DP subject to
Spec,IP.
(Subject-inside-VP Hypothesis)
Accusative:
1)
As for accusative Case, in most situations it involves DPs which are thematically related to the verb.
However, it
can also involve DPs which are not thematically related, as is the case in ECM contexts as shown in examples
below.
113a.
Bill believes John/him to have been sacked.
113b.
Bill believes [IP John/him i [I’ to [VP have [VP been [VP sacked t i ]]]]]
In (113) assignment of accusative Case to John/him by the ECM verb believe takes place subsequent to movement
of John/him from the object position of the embedded passive verb to the subject position of the embedded clause
2)
II.
The movement takes place from Spec, VP to Spec, IP of the same (embedded) clause.
114a.
Bill expected John/him to abandon the race.
114b.
Bill expected [IP [John/him i ] to [VP [t i ] [V’ abandon the race]]]
Structural Case vs. Inherent Case
Structural Case:
(1)
A Case that is determined at SS.
(2)
A Case that does not necessarily involve a thematic relation between the assignee and the assigner.
Nominative and accusative (in ECM contexts)
Inherent Case:
(1)
A Case that is determined at DS.
(2)
A Case that involves a thematic relation between the assigner and the assignee.
Oblique Case (assigned by prepositions to their object) and partitive Case
Oblique Case:
Tom gave a book to John.
#exception:
115a.
For John to be sacked is surprising.
115b.
[CP for [IP John i [I’ to [VP be sacked t i ]]]] is surprising
The Case assigned by a preposition to a DP appears to be determined at SS subsequent to movement.
Partitive Case:
The indefinite postverbal noun phrase
116a.
There arrived three girls.
116b.
There approaches a red car.
1)
The argument of the verb in the postverbal position must be indefinite.
14
2)
This restriction does not hold of the argument when it is in the preverbal subject position as shown below.
117a.
*There arrived the girls.
117b.
*There approached the red car.
118a.
The girls/three girls arrived.
118b.
The red car/a red car approached.
1)
English is simply masked by the fact that the language has poor Case morphology.
2)
All verbs have, as a lexical property, the ability to assign partitive Case to a noun phrase they Ө-mark.
3)
However, only indefinite noun phrases are compatible with partitive Case.
When the internal argument noun phrase of
a given verb is not indefinite, assignment of partitive Case does not take place.
15