Download Lecture 03 - ELTE / SEAS

Lecture 3:Case Theory
ADVANCED SYNTAX
CASE

Case is (understood most obviously):
 Something
that affects the form of nominal
elements in some languages
 nouns,
adjectives, determiners
 German
der alte Name
 den alten Namen
 dem alten Namen
 des alten Namens

Nominative
Accusative
Dative
Genitive
CASE

Case is:

Something that is associated with grammatical function
 subject,
object, indirect object
 German

der neue Chef ist respektabel



indirect object
I spoke to the new boss
Einfluss des neuen Chefs

object
I respect the new boss
Ich sprach mit dem neuen Chef


the new boss is respectable
Ich vertraute den neuen Chef

subject
the new boss‘s influence
possessor
CASE AND ENGLISH

In English only pronouns show Case
distinctions:
CASE AND ENGLISH

In English only pronouns show Case
distinctions:

The ‘s’ is not a Case morpheme
CASE AND ENGLISH

In English only pronouns show Case
distinctions:
The ‘s’ is not a Case morpheme
 So we can ignore it

CASE AND ENGLISH

Only in one case is the paradigm fully distinct
CASE AND ENGLISH

Only in one case is the paradigm fully distinct
 the

1st person singular
All other cases have just one genitive form
CASE AND ENGLISH

Only in one case is the paradigm fully distinct
 the
1st person singular
All other cases have just one genitive form
 So perhaps we can ignore Genitive 2

CASE AND ENGLISH

Typically it is said that the nouns in English do
not have Case
CASE AND ENGLISH

Typically it is said that the nouns in English do
not have Case
 So
are we to say that not all pronouns have Case
either?
CASE AND ENGLISH

What about cases where there are only two
distinct forms?
 do

these not have Case in the relevant instances?
This sounds doubtful
 rather
they are cases of Case syncretism = two
Cases with the same form
CASE AND ENGLISH

So why not say that nouns show Case
syncretism?

It will turn out that this is not such a bad idea!
CASE AND GOVERNMENT

In some languages, Case depends on the verb or
preposition:

German

accusative




folgen den Kindern
aus dem Museum
follow the children
from the museum
genitive



drink a beer
against the idea
dative


trinkt ein Bier
gegen die Idee
des Mordes angeklagt
Trotz des Regens
accused of the murder
despite the rain
Traditionally it is said that the verb/preposition ‘governs’
the Case
CASE AND GOVERNMENT

We can see this as a process in which
verbs/prepositions assign the Cases they are
lexically associated with to their objects
accusative

V/P DP
dative


V/P DP
We call this process Case assignment
ABSTRACT CASE AND MORPHOLOGICAL CASE
This idea suggests that Case is not just something
that certain nominal elements bear
 It is also something that certain elements assign
to the nominal elements related to them
 These nominal elements may or may not be
pronouns
 It would be odd if a verb assigned a Case only to
its pronominal objects but not to other objects

accusative

hit
him
hit
John
ABSTRACT CASE AND MORPHOLOGICAL CASE
We might therefore say that non-pronoun objects
are assigned appropriate Cases, but only
pronominal objects show this in their
morphological form
 We separate the two notions

Abstract Case = the Case assigned to an object
 Morphological Case = the form a nominal element has


These are connected but not equivalent:
morphological Case  abstract Case
 abstract Case  morphological Case

ARGUMENTS FOR ABSTRACT CASE


What Case does a noun govern?
A noun cannot appear with any pronominal object:





It seems that a noun does not govern (assign) any Case
at all
If a noun requires an object, there must be a preposition
present:


* a picture him
* a picture his
* a picture he
a picture of him
We know prepositions do govern Case, so it seems that
this is the function of this preposition
ARGUMENTS FOR ABSTRACT CASE

This is true even of nouns derived from verbs
(which can assign Case)
 observe
him
 * observation him
 observation of him
ARGUMENTS FOR ABSTRACT CASE

Now consider the following:






* observation John
observation of John
Why is it ungrammatical for a noun to have a nonpronominal object?
It can’t be because the noun does not assign Case if we
assume that such objects don’t have Case
But the fact that the preposition makes it grammatical
suggests that this is to do with Case
Therefore we conclude that all nominals have (abstract)
Case even if they show no morphological Case
THE CASE FILTER

But the ungrammaticality of a nominal
complement of a noun shows more than this:
 it
also shows us that these nominal complements
MUST have Case
 otherwise a Caseless nominal would be perfectly
grammatical

We therefore derive the following principle
 all

DPs must be assigned Case
This is the first principle of Case theory
CASE AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

The traditional view is that Case is associated
with grammatical function
 nominative
= subject
 accusative = direct object
 genitive = possessor

We have seen that this is not totally accurate:
 some
direct object can be genitive (not accusative)
 some genitive nominals can be objects (not
possessors)
CASE AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

In English, some subjects can be accusative:
I
believe him to be innocent
Some have claimed that in sentences like
these the accusative DP is the object of the
verb
 If this is right, then the subject of the infinitive
must either be a trace or PRO

I
believe him1 [ t1 to be innocent]
 I believe him1 [ PRO1 to be innocent]
CASE AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

We know it cannot be a trace, because this
would involve movement to an object position
which would change the structure
 against
structural preservation
So it should be a PRO
 But if this is true it would be the same as:

I
persuaded him1 [ PRO1 to leave]
 this
is a case of object control
CASE AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION
But comparing these, we see they are not the same:


I believe him to be innocent
 2 arguments
I persuaded him to leave
 3 arguments

Experiencer = I
 proposition = him to be innocent





the pronoun + infinitive can
be replaced by a finite clause

I believe that he is innocent
 the
pronoun + infinitive can
be pronominalised

I believe it




agent
patient
Proposition
=I
= him
= to leave
the pronoun + infinitive
cannot be replaced
* I persuaded that he would leave
the pronoun + infinitive
cannot be pronominalised
* I persuaded it
CASE AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

We conclude that the accusative pronoun is the
subject of the infinitive:
I
believe [IP him to be intelligent]
Therefore we have accusative subjects
 Therefore Case is not straightforwardly related
to grammatical function

NOMINATIVE CASE
Accusative is governed by verbs and prepositions,
but what governs nominative?
 Subjects which are accusative are all in non-finite
clauses:

I believe [him to be intelligent]
 [for him to be elected] would be disappointing
 * I think [him has gone]
 * [that him will be elected] is worrying


So, the governor of nominative is unique to finite
clauses
NOMINATIVE CASE
One thing that only
appears in finite
clauses is the finite
inflection (the head)
 We might therefore
suppose that the finite
inflection governs
(assigns) nominative
Case to the subject

NON-FINITE INFLECTION
It might be thought that the non-finite
inflection assigns accusative Case
 But often no overt DP can appear as the
subject of a non-finite clause:

*
He tried [John to win]
 * [him to win] would be a miracle

In these cases, only PRO is grammatical:
 He
tried [PRO to win]
 [PRO to win] would be a miracle
NON-FINITE INFLECTION

In fact, PRO can only appear in these positions

It cannot be the object of a verb or preposition
*
I saw PRO
 * I spoke to PRO

It cannot be the subject of a finite clause:
*

These are positions which are governed


PRO is intelligent
By the verb, preposition and finite I
So it appears that:

PRO cannot be governed (the PRO theorem)
NON-FINITE INFLECTION
The fact that PRO can go in the subject
position of the non-finite clause means that
non-finite I is not a governor
 So the subject of a non-finite clause is not a
Case position

ACCUSATIVE SUBJECTS
This raises the question of where the
accusative subject of the non-finite clause gets
its Case from
 There are two sub-types of accusative subject

I
believe [him to be intelligent]
 [for him to win] would be a miracle
EXCEPTIONAL VERBS

In the first sub-type, the accusative subject is
dependent on the preceding verb:
I
believe/expect/want/consider ... [ him to ...
 * I tried/attempted/started/managed ... [ him to ...
The verbs which licence the accusative subject
tend to be psychological verbs
 They are sometimes called Exceptional Verbs
 It makes sense to consider these to be the
governors of the accusative subject

THE COMPLEMENTISER FOR

The other sub-type of accusative subject is dependent on the
for complementiser:




It makes sense to assume this is the governor of the
accusative subject
Complementisers are not usually associated with Case


[(that) he will win] ...
The fact that for governs accusative Case makes it similar to
a preposition


[for him to win] ...
* [ him to win] ...
(recall that complementisers are functional prepositions)
It is sometimes referred to as the prepositional
complementiser
VERBAL OBJECTS
Tradition holds that verbs govern their
accusative objects
 Transitive verbs have objects
 We know that transitive verbs are syntactically
complex

 They
involve a lexical component
 And an abstract verb responsible for the agent

So what exactly is responsible for assigning
accusative Case?
VERBAL OBJECTS

If it is the agentive
abstract verb, the
situation is similar
to the
complementiser
assigning
accusative to the
subject
VERBAL OBJECTS

If it is the thematic
verb, the situation
is like the finite
inflection assigning
nominative Case to
its subject
VERBAL OBJECTS
Both options seem reasonable
 But which is correct?
 An argument to favour the abstract verb as the
governor concerns the passive
 In the passive the abstract verb is replaced by
the passive morpheme
 The object subsequently moves to subject
position

 Why
does it do this?
VERBAL OBJECTS
We have previously assumed that the object
moves to subject position because the subject
position needs to be filled by something
 We know that we can fill the subject position
in one of two ways

 Move
an argument to it
 John1
 Insert
 It
seems [ t1 to be intelligent]
a pleonastic element (it)
seems [ John is intelligent]
VERBAL OBJECTS

In passives, only movement can satisfy the
requirement that there be a subject:
John1 was [murder2-ed [ t1 t2 ]]
 * it was [ murder1–ed [ John t1 ]

The reason for this might be that the object
doesn’t get Case and so violates the Case filter if
it doesn’t move
 The absence of accusative Case coincides with
the missing agentive verb
 This suggests that the agentive verb is
responsible for assigning the Case

BURZIO’S GENERALISATION

The passive is one of a number of structures where the
lack of an agent coincides with the lack of accusative
Case:

Unaccusative verbs (the theme cannot stay in object
position)
A letter arrived
 * it arrived a letter


Raising verbs (do not work like exceptional verbs)
John1 seems [ t1 to like Bill]
 *it seems [ John to like Bill]



Any verb which does not assign an agent role cannot
assign accusative Case to its object
The agentive abstract verb is what links these two
properties in a verb
CASE AND MOVEMENT

The Case Filter demands that all DPs be in
Case positions. These are:
 Subject
of a finite IP (nominative)
 Object of a preposition (accusative)
 Object of a verb (with agent) )accusative
 Subject of an infinitival complement of an
exceptional verb (accusative)
 Subject of an infinitival clause with a for
complementiser (accusative)
CASE AND MOVEMENT

The following positions are not Case positions
Specifier of agentive verb (agent)
 Specifier of thematic verb without an agentive verb
 Specifier of non-finite clause without a for
complementiser or an exceptional verb


If a DP is in one of these positions, it will have to
move or violate the Case Filter:
John1 will [VP t1 murder2-e [VP Bill t2 ]]
 Bill1 will be [VP murder2–ed [VP t1 t2 ]]
 John1 seems [IP t1 to be intelligent]

CONCLUSION

Case Theory

The Case Filter
 All

DPs must be assigned Case
Case assigners
 Finite
I (nominative)
 Agentive verb (accusative)
 Preposition (accusative)
 For complementiser (accusative)
- to own specifier
- to specifier of complement
- to own complement
- to specifier of complement
CONCLUSION