Advanced Syntax

1. Lecture 3:Case Theory Advanced Syntax

2. Case is (understood most obviously): • Something that affects the form of nominal elements in some languages • nouns, adjectives, determiners • German • der alte Name Nominative • den alten Namen Accusative • dem alten Namen Dative • des alten Namens Genitive Case

3. Case is: • Something that is associated with grammatical function • subject, object, indirect object • German • der neue Chef ist respektabel subject • the new boss is respectable • Ich vertraute den neuen Chef object • I respect the new boss • Ich sprach mit dem neuen Chef indirect object • I spoke to the new boss • Einfluss des neuen Chefs possessor • the new boss‘s influence Case

4. In English only pronouns show Case distinctions: Case and English

5. In English only pronouns show Case distinctions: The ‘s’ is not a Case morpheme Case and English

6. In English only pronouns show Case distinctions: The ‘s’ is not a Case morpheme So we can ignore it Case and English

7. Only in one case is the paradigm fully distinct Case and English

8. Only in one case is the paradigm fully distinct • the 1st person singular • All other cases have just one genitive form Case and English

9. 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

10. Typically it is said that the nouns in English do not have Case Case and English

11. 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

12. 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

13. So why not say that nouns show Case syncretism? It will turn out that this is not such a bad idea! Case and English

14. In some languages, Case depends on the verb or preposition: • German • accusative • trinktein Bier drink a beer • gegen die Idee against the idea • dative • folgen den Kindern follow the children • ausdem Museum from the museum • genitive • des Mordesangeklagt accused of the murder • Trotz des Regens despite the rain • Traditionally it is said that the verb/preposition ‘governs’ the Case Case and Government

15. We can see this as a process in which verbs/prepositions assign the Cases they are lexically associated with to their objects V/P DP V/P DP We call this process Case assignment Case and Government accusative dative

16. 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 hit him hit John Abstract Case and Morphological Case accusative

17. 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 Abstract Case and Morphological Case

18. What Case does a noun govern? • A noun cannot appear with any pronominal object: • * a picture him • * a picture his • * a picture he • 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 of him • We know prepositions do govern Case, so it seems that this is the function of this preposition Arguments for abstract case

19. This is true even of nouns derived from verbs (which can assign Case) • observe him • * observation him • observation of him Arguments for abstract case

20. Now consider the following: • * observation John • observation of John • Why is it ungrammatical for a noun to have a non-pronominal 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 Arguments for abstract case

21. 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 The Case Filter

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Case and Grammatical Function • But comparing these, we see they are not the same: • I believe him to be innocent • 2 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 • I persuaded him to leave • 3 arguments • agent = I • patient = him • Proposition = to leave • the pronoun + infinitive cannot be replaced • * I persuaded that he would leave • the pronoun + infinitive cannot be pronominalised • * I persuaded it

26. 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 Case and Grammatical Function

27. 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

28. 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 Nominative Case

29. 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

30. 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: • * PRO is intelligent • These are positions which are governed • By the verb, preposition and finite I • So it appears that: • PRO cannot be governed (the PRO theorem) Non-finite inflection

31. 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 Non-finite inflection

32. 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 Accusative subjects

33. 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 Exceptional Verbs

34. The other sub-type of accusative subject is dependent on the for complementiser: • [for him to win] ... • * [ him to win] ... • 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 • (recall that complementisers are functional prepositions) • It is sometimes referred to as the prepositional complementiser The complementiser for

35. 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

36. If it is the agentive abstract verb, the situation is similar to the complementiser assigning accusative to the subject Verbal objects

37. If it is the thematic verb, the situation is like the finite inflection assigning nominative Case to its subject Verbal objects

38. 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

39. 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 seems [ t1 to be intelligent] • Insert a pleonastic element (it) • It seems [ John is intelligent] Verbal objects

40. 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 Verbal objects

41. 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 Burzio’s Generalisation

42. 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

43. 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] Case and Movement

44. Case Theory • The Case Filter • All DPs must be assigned Case • Case assigners • Finite I (nominative) - to own specifier • Agentive verb (accusative) - to specifier of complement • Preposition (accusative) - to own complement • For complementiser (accusative) - to specifier of complement Conclusion

45. Conclusion