8 Case Theory

8/18/2019 8 Case Theory

1/31

8 Case theory

• A first look at case

o The basic purpose of case

o Case government

o Synthetic versus analytic case marking

• Case features

• Case licensing

o Spec-head licensing

o Head-spec licensing

o Head-comp licensing

o Nonstructural conditions on case licensing

o The dative-accusative distinction

• Notes

• Exercises and problems

• Supplementary material

o rammatical relations

This chapter is devoted to a discussion of case, a morphosyntactic property ofnoun phrases! "e begin by illustrating the basic purpose of case# $hich is toidentify a noun phrase%s function or grammatical relation in the sentence &forinstance# $hether a noun phrase is a sub'ect or ob'ect(! "e also sho$ that

particular lexical items can impose morphological case re)uirements on noun phrases# a phenomenon kno$n as case government. "e then turn to ho$ case isexpressed across languages# focusing on various *ndo-European languages &the

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#first-lookhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#basic-purposehttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#case-governmenthttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#two-wayshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#case-featureshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#case-lichttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#spec-headhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#head-spechttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#head-comphttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#nonstructuralhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#dat-acchttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#noteshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#exerciseshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-grs.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-grs.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#basic-purposehttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#case-governmenthttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#two-wayshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#case-featureshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#case-lichttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#spec-headhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#head-spechttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#head-comphttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#nonstructuralhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#dat-acchttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#noteshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#exerciseshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-grs.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-grs.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#first-look


2/31

language family to $hich English belongs(! +niversal rammar allo$s case# 'ustlike tense# to be expressed either synthetically &as suffixes on nouns( oranalytically &by means of prepositions or other syntactic heads that take an entirenoun phrase as their argument(! As $e $ill see# English allo$s both $ays ofexpressing case &'ust as it allo$s both $ays of expressing tense in watch-ed and will watch (! *t is possible to describe both expressions of case in a unitary$ay by treating case as a feature on a noun phrase that is checked by a head! As$e $ill sho$# case checking is sub'ect to structural as $ell as nonstructurallicensing conditions!

A first look at case

The basic purpose of case

*n order to understand the purpose of case in human language# it is useful to

consider languages in $hich constituent order is not as fixed as it is in English! *nerman# for instance# unlike English# the sub'ect of an ordinary declarative

clause needn%t precede the verb# as sho$n in &,( and & ( &$e discuss the structureof erman sentences in more detail in a later chapter. for no$# only the variableconstituent order is of interest(! *n the examples# boldface indicates the sub'ect#and italics indicates the ob'ect!&,( a! erman Der Mann sieht den Hund.

the man sees the dog'The man sees the dog.'

b! Den Hund sieht der Mann.the dog sees the man

same as (1a), not the same as (2a)& ( a! Der Hund sieht den Mann.

the dog sees the man'The dog sees the man.'

b! Den Mann sieht der Hund.the man sees the dogsame as (2a), not the same as (1a)

Since erman speakers can%t rely on constituent order to identify sub'ects andob'ects# ho$ is it possible for them to keep track of $hich constituent expresses$hich grammatical relation / The ans$er is that grammatical relations are encodedin erman in terms of morphological case marking! *n particular# the sub'ectsof finite clauses in erman appear in a particular form calledthe nominative case# $hereas ob'ects generally appear in the accusative. &0(gives a morphological analysis of the noun phrases in &,( and & (!

&0( a! d- er Mann, d- er Hundthe nom man the nom dog

b! d- en Mann, d- en Hundthe acc man the acc dog

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-grs.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#finitehttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-grs.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#finite


3/31

Notice that in &0(# the distinction bet$een nominative and accusative case ismarked once1 on the head of the noun phrase &the determiner(!

*n certain exceptional cases in erman# case distinctions are marked redundantly1on the determiner as $ell on the noun! This is illustrated in &2(! ∅ indicates a3ero nominative suffix. -(en) is the optional accusative suffix!

&2( a! Nominative d- er Bär- ∅ , d- er Student- ∅the nom bear nom, the nom student nom

b! Accusative d-en Bär-(en), d-en Student-(en)the acc bear acc the acc student acc

The redundant case marking in &2( is a historical relic from an earlier stage oferman $here this pattern $as more extensive! *n certain languages# redundant

case marking on the determiner and the noun is the norm! This is illustrated formodern reek in &4(!

&4( a! 5odern reek O andr-as v e!i t- o skil-o.the.nom man nom sees the acc dog acc'The man sees the dog.'

b! O skil-os v e!i t- on andr-a.the.nom dog nom sees the acc man acc'The dog sees the man.'

6inally# case can be marked solely on the noun! This is illustrated in &7( for 8atin #a language $ithout articles!

&7( a! 8atin Av- us can-em videt.

grand"ather nom dog acc sees'The grand"ather sees the dog.'

b! Can-is av- um videt.dog nom grand"ather acc sees'The dog sees the grand"ather.'

To summari3e the discussion in this section1 noun phrases can be case-markedeither on the determiner# or on the noun# or redundantly on both! 9ut regardlessof the particular pattern# case marking has the same basic purpose1 it visiblyexpresses a noun phrase%s function in a sentence!

Case government

*n many languages# a noun phrase%s particular morphological case depends notonly on its function in the entire sentence# but also on $hich particular lexicalitem it is most closely associated $ith! 6or instance# in erman# the ob'ect in asentence appears in the dative or the accusative# , depending on the verb# asillustrated in &:( and &;(!

http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Vati.html#LTNhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-1http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Vati.html#LTNhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-1


4/31

&:( a!


5/31

b! 8atin de sa!ienti-a, ad ri!- amabout &isdom ab to shore acc'about &isdom, to the shore'

6inally# in both erman and 8atin# certain prepositions can govern more than onecase! *n such cases# the accusative marks direction# and the other case &dative in

erman# ablative in 8atin( marks location!

&,,( a! erman in # d- ie, d- er % Bib iothe schic en/ in # d- er,d- ie % Bib iothe arbeiten

in the acc the dat ibrar+ send in the datthe acc ibrar+ &or'to send into the ibrar+, to &or in the ibrar+'

8atin in # bib iothec-am, bib iothec-a % mittere/ in# bib iothec-a, bib iothec-am % aborarein ibrar+ acc ab send in ibrar+ab acc &or'to send into the ibrar+, to &or in the ibrar+'

Synthetic versus analytic case marking

*n the languages that $e have been discussing so far# case is expressedsynthetically# by means of morphologically complex $ords! 9ut +niversal

rammar also allo$s noun phrases to be marked for case analytically! The casemarker is then not an affix# but a relatively independent syntactic head! "eillustrate these t$o options of expressing case in connection $ith a briefovervie$ of case in the *ndo-European language family# to $hich English

belongs!

@roto-*ndo-European &@*E(# the reconstructed ancestor of the *ndo-European language family &$hich includes English( $hich $as spoken thousandsof years ago# had eight cases# $hich $ere expressed synthetically! Thenominative marked the sub'ect of finite clauses # the accusative and dative &and

perhaps other cases( marked ob'ects &depending on the verb# as 'ust discussed(#and the genitive indicated possession! The @*E ablative indicated the source ofmovement &as in dro!e from Chica"o (# the locative $as used for locations &asin used to li!e in Chica"o (# and the instrumental marked instruments or means&as in #e cut it with his poc$et$nife (! 6inally# the vocative $as used to address

persons &as in #e%& Tom& come on o!er here(!

The original @*E case system is essentially preserved in Sanskrit # although thedistinction bet$een the ablative and the genitive is some$hat obscured becauseablative and genitive forms $ere often homophonous in Sanskrit!Such homophony among t$o or more case forms is calledcase syncretism. Among living languages# the @*E system is best preserved in

http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/Indo-European.htmlhttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/Indo-European.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#finitehttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Inda.html#SKThttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#homophonehttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/Indo-European.htmlhttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/Indo-European.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#finitehttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Inda.html#SKThttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#homophone


6/31

the 9altic languages &8atvian and 8ithuanian( and some Slavic languages &forinstance# C3ech and +krainian(! *n these languages# the genitive and the ablativehave merged completely# leaving seven cases! *n other $ords# in the history ofthese languages# case syncretism affected all forms of the genitive and theablative# not 'ust some of them# and so children learning the language no longerhad any evidence any$here in the language for distinguishing bet$een the t$ocases! Several other Slavic languages# including ussian# have in addition almostcompletely lost the vocative# leaving six cases! *n 8atin# the @*E ablative#instrumental# and locative merged into a single case# called the ablative# $hichserves all three functions# also leaving six cases! *n Ancient reek# the ablative#instrumental# and locative $ere lost# leaving five cases! >ld English had fivecases as $ell# having lost the ablative# locative# and vocative. in addition# theinstrumental had mostly merged $ith the dative! Another ermanic language#modern erman# retains four cases1 nominative# dative# accusative# and anincreasingly moribund genitive! The developments 'ust sketched for *ndo-European are summari3ed in &, (# $here D D and D---D indicate retention andloss# respectively!

&, (

PI ,Sanskri

t

!altic,someSlavic

"therSlavic #atin

Ancient $reek

"ldnglis

h$erman

%ominative

&ative

Accusative

$enitive mergedas

genitive

mergedas

genitive

Ablative

mergedas

ablative

--- --- ---

#ocative --- --- ---

Instrumental

---

mostlymerged

$ithdative

---

'ocative --- --- ---

%umber ofdistinctcases

8 ( ) * +

http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/subfamily/Indo-European/Baltichttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/subfamily/Indo-European/Slavichttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/subfamily/Indo-European/Baltichttp://www.sil.org/ethnologue/families/subfamily/Indo-European/Slavic


7/31

&,0( sho$s the complete case paradigms for the 8atin nouns femina %$oman%and a!us %grandfather%! These t$o nouns are each representative of t$odistinct declensions, or $ord classes! 8atin had a total of five such $ord classes#each of $hich $as characteri3ed by uni)ue endings for combinations of case andnumber! 6or instance# dative singular is marked by -ae on femina and by -o on a!us. *n the remaining three declensions# the same combination happens to

be marked by the same suffix# namely -i&distinguishing three remainingdeclensions# rather than collapsing them into one# is motivated by otherdistinctions in the paradigms(! 6or more details# take a look at Allen and

reenough%s Ne$ 8atin rammar # available through the @erseus pro'ect!

&,0(#atin

a- declension o- declension -oman grandfather

Sg Pl Sg Pl

%ominative femin-a femin-ae av-us av-i$enitive femin-ae femin-arum av-i av-orum&ative femin-ae femin-is av-o av-isAccusative femin-am femin-as av-um av-os'ocative femin-a femin-ae av-e av-iAblative femin-a femin-is av-o av-is

As &,0( sho$s# 8atin exhibited some case syncretism! 6or instance# the genitiveand the dative singular are homophonous for femina %$oman%# the dative andablative singular are homophonous for a!us %grandfather%# and the dative and theablative plural are homophonous for both nouns!

*n the descendants of 8atin# the omance languages# case continues to beexpressed synthetically on pronouns! 6or instance# the distinction bet$een dativeand accusative pronouns is illustrated for 6rench in &,2(! &Note that unstressed

pronouns in 6rench are clitics. unlike full noun phrases# they precede the verb

they are construed $ith!(&,2( a! 0e veu leur !ar er.

&ant 3.! .dat ta' &ant to ta to them.'

b! 0e veu les voir. &ant 3.! .acc see

' &ant to see them.'

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001&query=toc&layout=&loc=36http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001&query=toc&layout=&loc=36


8/31

"ith full noun phrases# ho$ever# the same distinction is expressed analytically by the presence or absence of the case marker '.

&,4( a! 0e veu !ar er à vos voisins. &ant ta +our neighbors

' &ant to ta to +our neighbors'

b! 0e veu voir vos voisins. &ant see +our neighbors

' &ant to see +our neighbors.'

The case marker ' is etymologically related to the spatial preposition ' %to%# but isdistinct from it! This is demonstrated by the fact that the pro-form for phrases in$hich ' is a spatial preposition is not leur &orlui in the singular(# as in &,2a(#

but %& 'ust as it is for other spatial prepositions like dans %in% or sur %on%!

&,7( a! 4ous avons envo+5 e vin à Toulouse / mon ami habite àParis.

&e have sent the &ine to Tou ouse m+ "riend ives in6aris'7e sent the &ine to Tou ouse/ m+ "riend ives in 6aris.'

b! 4ous y avons envo+5 e vin/ mon ami y habite.&e there have sent the &ine m+ "riend there ives'7e sent the &ine there/ m+ "riend ives there.'

&,:( a! 8e cadeau se trouve dans mon sac / nous avons mis e cadeausur la table.the !resent re" "inds in m+ bag &e have !ut the !resenton the tab e'The !resent is ( itera +, "inds itse ") in the bag/ &e !ut the!resent on the tab e.'

b! 8e cadeau s' y trouve/ nous y avons mis e cadeau.the !resent re" there "inds &e there have !ut the !resent'The !resent is there/ &e !ut the !resent there.'

As mentioned earlier# >ld English had five cases# $hich are illustrated in &,;( for three declensions! As is evident# case syncretism is more extensive in >ld Englishthan in 8atin!

&,;(

"ld nglishasculine /eminine %euter

fo0 learning animalSg Pl Sg Pl Sg Pl

%ominative fox fox-as lar lar-a deor deor $enitive fox-es fox-a lar-e lar-a deor-es deor-a&ative fox-e fox-um lar-e lar-um deor-e deor-umInstrumental fox-e fox-um lar-e lar-um deor-e deor-umAccusative fox fox-as lar-e lar-a deor deor

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#reflhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-2http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#reflhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-2


9/31

*n the course of 5iddle English &,,4B-,4BB(# the old genitive case suffixes $erelost# and their function $as taken over by a syntactic head - the possessivedeterminer s &in the plural# the possessive is spelled out as a silent determinerthat is orthographically represented as an apostrophe(! The old synthetic genitivecase is illustrated in &, (! ecall that the thorn character & ( corresponds tomodern English %th%!

&, ( 9e ing-es suster o" $rance (cm!eterb, :;.:;3)the ing gen sister o" $rance'the ing o" $rance's sister'

Although the change itself is not yet fully understood# it is clear that the modern possessive marker is no longer a synthetic case suffix on a noun &N( & $in" (# butrather analytically case-marks an entire noun phrase &ld English &ca! ,BBB C!E!(# the distinction bet$een the dativeand the accusative $eakened# and the distinction $as lost completely in thecourse of 5iddle English &,,4B-,4BB(! *n $hat follo$s# $e $ill refer to the casethat resulted from the merger as the ob1ective. The distinction bet$een


10/31

nominative and ob'ective case continues to be expressed synthetically in modernEnglish on most ordinary pronouns# as illustrated in & ,(!

& ,( %ominative "b1ective

2 sg * me3 sg, pl you you4 sg m , f , n he# she# it him# her# it2 pl $e us4 pl they them

As the table sho$s# $ith the t$o pronouns %ou and it& the distinction bet$een thenominative and the ob'ective has been lost# and this is also true for full noun

phrases! 6inally# it is $orth noting that despite the efforts of prescriptivegrammarians to keep a distinction alive bet$een nominative who andob'ective whom& the t$o forms have merged as who. Games Thurber has adiabolically $itty essay on the topic!

Case features

*n this section# $e introduce some concepts and syntactic conditions that enableus to derive the distribution of the various case forms of noun phrases in Englishand other languages! "e begin by introducing the notion of case feature.

Consider the contrast bet$een & ( and & 0(!

& ( a! ok They $ill help her! b! ok She $ill help them!

& 0( a! = Them $ill help she! b! = Her $ill help they!

"hy are the sentences in & 0( ungrammatical/ The ans$er is that noun phrases inEnglish are sub'ect to the re)uirements in & 2(!

& 2( a! Sub'ects of finite clauses appear in the nominative! b! >b'ects appear in the ob'ective!

As is evident# both of the sub'ects in & 0( are ob'ective forms# and both of theob'ects are nominative forms! Each of the sentences in & 0( therefore contradictsthe re)uirements in & 2( in t$o $ays!

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#sghttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#sghttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#plhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#maschttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#femhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#neuthttp://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~heycock/thurber-who.htmlhttp://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~heycock/thurber-who.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#finitehttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#sghttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#plhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#maschttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#femhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#neuthttp://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~heycock/thurber-who.htmlhttp://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~heycock/thurber-who.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/glossary.html#finite


11/31

No$ compare the examples in & ( and & 0( $ith those in & 4(!

& 4( a! ou $ill help her! b! She $ill help you!

As $e sa$ in & ,(# the% and she exhibit distinct forms for the nominative andob'ective# $hereas %ou doesn%t! 9ut because case syncretism bet$een thenominative and the ob'ective is not complete in English &in other $ords# becauseat least some pronouns still have distinct forms for the t$o cases(# $e $illtreat %ou as a nominative form in & 4a(# e)uivalent to the% and she # but as anob'ective form in & 4b(# e)uivalent to them and her. 6or the same reason# $e treatthe noun phrase m% *i" *rother as a nominative form in & 7a( and as an ob'ectiveform in & 7b(!

& 7( a! 5y big brother $ill help her!

b! She $ill help my big brother!

*n order to disambiguate instances of case syncretism like %ou and m% *i"*rother& it is useful to associate each noun phrase in a language $ith a casefeature. Each case feature has a value that is selected from among all the variouscase forms in that language &regardless of $hether the case forms are expressedsynthetically or analytically(! *n English# for instance# a case feature can assumethe value DnominativeD# Dpossessive#D or Dob'ectiveD! *n ussian# a case featurehas a choice among six values &nominative# genitive# dative# accusative# locative#instrumental(! *f $e need to represent a noun phrase%s case feature# $e can do so

by means of labels as in & :( and & ;(!

& :( a! I


12/31

prepositions# but there are languages that allo$ ad'ectives and nouns to be case-licensers as $ell! *f the case features on the t$o participants in a checkingrelationship don%t match up &say# one is nominative and the other is accusative( or if they don%t stand in a one-to-one relationship &say# the case feature on a headends up checking case features on more than one noun phrase(# then the sentenceis ungrammatical! >n the other hand# if every case feature in a sentence stands ina proper relationship $ith a matching partner# then all is $ell $ith the sentence asfar as case theory is concerned! A )uestion that immediately comes to asyntactician%s mind is $hether case checking is sub'ect to structural constraints! *f so# $e are of course interested in providing as general a formulation of thoseconstraints as possible!

There is reason to believe that there is more than one type of case checking! "ecan distinguish bet$een case licensing, $hich holds bet$een a noun phrase anda head external to the noun phrase &say# a verb or preposition(# and caseagreement, $hich holds $ithin a noun phrase &say# bet$een a determiner and anoun(! *n the current version of this book# $e $ill discuss only case licensing! *nthis section# $e motivate various conditions &primarily structural# but alsononstructural( on the relationship bet$een the t$o participants in a case-licensingrelation! *n the first half of the section# $e present three structural configurationsin $hich case licensing is possible1 the specifier5head configuration# the head5specifier configuration# and the head5complement configuration! 9eginning inthe , B%s# attempts have been made to simplify the theory of case licensing byidentifying a single case-licensing configuration! 6or instance# it has been

proposed that complements of verbs are not directly licensed in the head-complement configuration# but that the complement moves to the specifier of asilent head# and that case is uniformly licensed in the specifier-headconfiguration! The follo$ing discussion $ill remain some$hat agnostic on this

point! Ho$ever# $e $ill sho$ that all three of the configurations mentionedabove are almost identical from a topological point of vie$! *n the second half ofthe section# $e discuss three further nonstructural conditions on caselicensing1 biuni6ueness, e0ocentricity, and matching.

Spec5head licensing

*n $hat follo$s# it%s important to distinguish carefully bet$een finite clauses onthe one hand and finite verbs on the other! *n English# finite clauses are clausesthat can stand on their o$n! The clauses in &i(-&iii( are finite. the ones in &iv( arenot!

&i( 6inite clause 6inite tense L finite verb * IpresJ do that. he

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-finiteness.html#clauseshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-finiteness.html#clauseshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-finiteness.html#verbshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-finiteness.html#verbshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-finiteness.html#clauseshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-finiteness.html#verbs


13/31

IpresJ does that.* IpastJ did that. heIpastJ did that!

&ii( a! 6inite clause 6inite tense L finiteauxiliary L nonfinite verb&present participle(

* IpresJ am doin" that. he IpresJis doin" that.* IpastJ $as doin" that. he IpastJ$as doin" that!

b! 6inite clause 6inite tense L finiteauxiliary L nonfinite verb&past participle(

* IpresJ have done that. heIpresJ has done that.* IpastJ had done that. he IpastJhad done that!

&iii( 6inite clause 5odal L nonfinite verb&infinitive(

* $ill do that. he $ill do that!

&iv( Nonfiniteclause

Nonfinite verb# no finiteauxiliary or modal

to do that. to be doin" that. tohave done that

6inite verbs are ones that aren%t participles or infinitives &see 6initeness inEnglish for details(! A finite clause al$ays contains some finite *nfl element# either a finite tense morpheme &i# ii( or a modal &iii(! A finite tense morpheme in turn isal$ays associated $ith a finite verb &i( or a finite auxiliary &ii(! A modal# on theother hand# is al$ays associated $ith an infinitive!

6rom this it follo$s that if a clause contains a finite verb or a finite auxiliary# theclause itself is finite! 9ut if a clause contains a nonfinite verb# it needn%t itself benonfinite! *f it contains a modal# it is finite &iii(. only if it doesn%t is it nonfinite&iv(!

"e begin by considering ho$ case is licensed on the sub'ects of sentences! Sincesub'ects of sentences start out life as specifiers of verbs# one%s first impulse might

be to propose that nominative case is checked by ?! Although $e $ill end upre'ecting this approach# let us pursue it for the moment in order to sho$ $hy it isunsatisfactory! The proposal is that $hat checks the nominative case of #e &ormore precisely# its trace in Spec&?@(( is the finite verb understands in & a( andthe bare &nonfinite( form understand in & b(! This putative checking relationshipis indicated by the red boxes! &"e further assume that


14/31

& ( a! b!

6inite clause# finite verb form&to be revisedM(

6inite clause# nonfinite verb form&to be revisedM(

No$ if verbs $ere able to check nominative case# regardless of $hether they arefinite or nonfinite# $e $ould expect the nonfinite verb in the lo$er *@ in &0B( to

be able to check nominative case on the lo$er he# on a par $ith the nonfiniteverb in & b(!0

&0B( =

*ntended meaning1 He claims that he understands Hegel!

Ho$ever# &0B( is completely ungrammatical! "e therefore re'ect the idea thatnominative case is checked by ?! "e conclude instead that it is checked by finite*! The contrast bet$een & ( and &0B( then follo$s directly since * is finite in & (&+pres,& does(# but not in &0B( &to(!

Notice# by the $ay# that the ungrammaticality of &0B( isn%t due to semanticanomaly# since the intended meaning is both expressible and semantically $ell-formed# as indicated by the gloss to &0B(! Neither is the ungrammaticality of &0B(due to the split infinitive# since &0,( is as ungrammatical as &0B(!

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-3http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-3


15/31

&0,( =

>ne might attempt to rescue the idea that nominative case is checked by finite ? by replacing &0 a( $ith &0 b(!

&0 ( a! Nominative case is checked by finite *! b! Nominative case is licensed by finite ? $here possible &that is# in

clauses that contain a finite ?(# and by finite * other$ise!

Although there is no empirical argument against &0 b(# $e re'ect it because itviolates conceptual economy! >ur reasoning is as follo$s! A finite ? in a clauseimplies a finite * &in the form of a silent tense morpheme(! The converse is not

true# ho$ever! Although a finite * in a clause is consistent $ith a finite ?# as 'uststated# it is also consistent $ith a nonfinite ? &the finite * might be a modal(!Clauses $ith finite * thus form a proper superset of clauses $ith finite ?! Thismeans that &0 a( and &0 b( are empirically e)uivalent! Ho$ever# the statement in&0 b( is unnecessarily more cumbersome and therefore less preferable!

The upshot of the discussion so far is that the head that checks nominative case inEnglish is finite *# and that the licensing configuration for checking nominativecase in English is the specifier5head configuration. This is sho$n in &00( &$hichsupersedes & ((!2 The term %specifier% is generally abbreviated to %spec% &read as

%speck%(!

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-4http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-4http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#notes-4


16/31

&00( a! b!

6inite clause# finite verb form&final(

6inite clause# nonfinite verb form&final(

Nominative case is not the only case to be licensed in the spec-headconfiguration in English! So is possessive case! Here# the case-checking head isthe possessive determiner & s or its silent plural variant(# as discussed earlier!

*n possessive constructions like &i(# there are t$o noun phrases1 a lo$erone &the possessor( and a higher one &the entire noun phrase that contains

both the possessor and the thing possessed(!

&i( &ii(

*t is important to keep in mind that each of the t$o noun phrases has acase feature of its o$n that needs to be checked! The lo$er


17/31

&02(

7ead5spec licensing

A second configuration that licenses case checking is head5spec licensing, $hich$e motivate on the basis of sentences like &04a(!&04( a! He expected her to disli$e him.

b! He expected that she would disli$e him.

*n both sentences# $hat is expected is a state of affairs &K a proposition(! iventhe semantic parallel bet$een the t$o sentences# it is reasonable to supposethat e pect in &04a( takes a single complement &the entire italici3ed se)uence her

to disli$e him (# rather than a se)uence of t$o complements &the


18/31

>n the other hand# if $e $ere to treat the postverbal


19/31

the literature# $e $ill continue to use %EC5 construction% to refer to theconstruction in )uestion and %EC5 verb% to refer to any verb $ith the t$o

properties 'ust mentioned &takes *@ complement# able to check ob'ectivecase(!

EC5 constructions are not the only ones $here case is checked in a head-specconfiguration! The same configuration is also relevant for the constructionsdiscussed in Chapter : # ?@ shells and small clauses! *n a language like English#$hich does not distinguish bet$een a dative and an accusative case# but has onlya single ob'ective case# case checking proceeds along exactly the same lines asdescribed above! *n &2Ba( &K &0( of Chapter :(# for instance# the head of the higher ?@ checks ob'ective case on the specifier of the lo$er ?@! *n &2Bb( &K &:a(of Chapter :(# let checks ob'ective case on the small clause sub'ect there !

&2B( a! b!

*n languages $ith a dative-accusative distinction# case checking in ?@ shells andsmall clauses is a bit more involved than in English# and $e therefore deferdiscussion of these constructions in these languages until the end of the chapter !

*n concluding our discussion of the head-spec configuration# let us briefly returnto nominative case checking in English! *n the previous section# $e argued thatnominative case is licensed in Spec&*@( by the spec-head configuration! *f this isso# then sub'ect movement in English can be derived from considerations of casechecking! *n other $ords# the sub'ect must move from Spec&?@( to Spec&*@(

because nominative case can%t be checked in its original position! Ho$ever# theavailability of head-spec licensing opens up the alternative that nominative caseis checked in the head-spec configuration! The case-checking head continues to

be finite *# for the reasons discussed earlier! *f this possibility is correct# thensub'ect movement in English must be derived from considerations other thancase theory# such as predication ! iven the $ord order facts of English# it is verydifficult to determine $hich of the t$o possibilities 'ust outlined is correct!Currently# many generative syntacticians take the &some$hat odd( position thatnominative case is checked in the spec-head configuration# but that sub'ectmovement is motivated by considerations of predication!

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch7.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#dat-acchttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#dat-acchttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch3.html#predicationhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch7.htmlhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch8.html#dat-acchttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch3.html#predication


20/31

7ead5comp licensing

A third and final case licensing configuration arises in connection $ith simpletransitive sentences like &2,(!&2,( a! He expected her.

b!

Here# ob'ective case on her is checked by the verb e pected in the head-

complement configuration# schematically indicated in its general form in &2 (!

&2 (

Notice that the head-complement configuration is a subconfiguration of the head-spec configuration 'ust discussed! This means that a general structural constrainton case licensing# subsuming all three configurations discussed so far# can be

formulated as in &20(!

&20( Structural licensing condition The nodes bearing the case features in a case-checking relationship as $ell as thenodes on the path connecting them must all be a &not necessarily proper( subset ofthe set of nodes in &0 (!

The head in a case-licensing relationship al$ays corresponds to the nodespecified in &0 a(! The noun phrase corresponds to either &0 c( &head-complicensing( or &0 d( &spec-head licensing# head-spec licensing(!

%onstructural conditions

*n $hat follo$s# $e further illustrate the structural licensing condition on casechecking in &20(# and $e introduce three additional# nonstructural conditions oncase-licensing1 biuni6ueness, e0ocentricity, and matching.

6irst# consider &22(# $here $e treat their as the spellout of the% and possessive s.


21/31

&22( a! He expected their approval!

b!

*n &22(# ob'ective case on the higher boxed


22/31

ungrammatical# $e conclude that case-checking is sub'ect to a condition as in&27(!

&27( !iuni6ueness condition Case features on heads and noun phrases stand in a one-to-one relationship!

*s there any head other than e pected that the higher


23/31

The third and final nonstructural condition on case licensing is one alreadymentioned informally at the very beginning of our discussion of case licensing!6or ease of reference# $e no$ give it a name!

&4B( atching condition A case feature on a head and the corresponding case feature on a noun

phrase must match in value!

*n the remainder of this section# $e illustrate the interplay of the variousconditions that $e have proposed# both structural and nonstructural# $ithreference to the erman examples in &4,(! The verb $ennen %kno$% governs theaccusative# and the preposition mit %$ith% governs the dative! &+nbelievable as itmay seem# erman speakers# including children learning the language# really do

pay attention to the tiny difference bet$een dem and den # and have been doing sofor centuriesM(

&4,( a! d- en Mann mit d- em Hut ennenthe acc man &ith the dat hat no&'to no& the man &ith the hat'

b! = d- em Mann mit d- en Hut ennenthe dat man &ith the acc hat no&

c! = d- en Mann mit d- en Hut ennenthe acc man &ith the acc hat no&

d! = d- em Mann mit d- em Hut ennenthe dat man &ith the dat hat no&

The schematic structure for all four verb phrases is given in &4 ( &recallfrom Chapter 2 that verbs are head-final in erman# $hereas &most( prepositionsare head-initial(!

&4 (

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch4.html#mixedhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch4.html#mixed


24/31

*n &4,a(#$ennen checks accusative case $ith the higher


25/31

&42( a! b!

6rom &40(# $e conclude that CA+SE checks accusative case# and $e $ouldtherefore expect the recipient in the double ob'ect counterpart of &40( to appear inthe accusative case as $ell! 9ut &44( sho$s that the recipient must instead appearin the dative case!

&44( a! dass ich dem 0ungen den


26/31

Ho$ever# the situation in the t$o languages is not completely identical. indeed#the case marking facts for the erman counterpart of &4:( are exactly the reverseof those in Gapanese!

&4;( a! dass der Ste"an den Man"red einen =!"e essen iessthat the.nom the.acc an.acc a!! e eat made'that Ste"an made Man"red eat an a!! e'

b! = dass der Ste"an dem Man"red einen =!"e essen iessthat the.nom the.dat an.acc a!! e eat made

The challenge facing us is ho$ to make sense of three separate and apparentlycontradictory case-marking facts1

,! the alternation bet$een accusative and dative case-marking on the lo$erspecifier in &40( and &44(#

! the parallel constraint on double accusative marking in &44( and &4:(# and

0! the contrasting case-marking pattern bet$een &4:( and &4;(!

So far# $e have been assuming that $hen a head and a noun phrase occur in somecase-licensing configuration# this state of affairs both licenses the noun phrase%soccurrence in its particular syntactic position &spec or comp position( anddetermines the particular case that appears on the noun phrase &nominative#accusative# etc!(! 8et us no$ $eaken this latter assumption some$hat! *n

particular# $e $ill allo$ the case that appears on a noun phrase to be only

partially determined by the case features of the head that licenses its position inthe structure. the case can also reflect further details of the structure# includingthe case features of other heads! *n &40( and &42(# case licensing proceeds as

before! > takes a @@ complement and has no case feature! Not surprisingly#therefore# $hen > ad'oins to CA+SE# there is no effect on the accusativefeature of CA+SE# $hich $e $ill assume gets shared by the ? node formed byad'unction &the ? that dominates both > and CA+SE in &42b((! *n &44( and&47(# on the other hand# ET has an accusative feature of its o$n! "hat $e

propose is that once ET ad'oins to CA+SE# the presence of the case feature onET is able to change the value of the case feature on CA+SE from accusative to

dative! This dative feature then percolates up to the ? node formed by ad'unction&the ? dominating both ET and CA+SE in &47b((! 9ecause small clauses arestructurally analogous to ?@ shells# moving the lo$er verb ta*e- %eat% to thehigher causative -sase- in the Gapanese causative has the same effect# changingthe accusative case feature on -sase- to dative! This still leaves us $ith the case-marking contrast bet$een &4:( and &4;(! "hat could it be due to/ ecall thatin the previous chapter # $e motivated verb movement in the Gapanese causative

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch7.html#parallelshttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch7.html#parallels


27/31

on the grounds that the causative morpheme -sase- is a bound morpheme! Theerman verb lassen %let%# on the other hand# is not a bound morpheme and there is

no reason to assume that the lo$er verb moves to it! "e can therefore derive thecontrast bet$een &4:( and &4;( by permitting case features to be changed in the$ay that $e have 'ust proposed only in connection $ith the movement of a case-checking head! This is schematically illustrated in &4 ( &headedness irrelevant(!

&4 ( a! b!

No verb movement ?erb movement


28/31

N@ complement &that woman /women . those women /woman (# but the < and the N aren%t in a spec-head configuration!

4! The relation bet$een the silent determiner and the higher boxed


29/31


30/31

agreement lead to the loss of verb raising in Celtic as it did in 5ainlandScandinavian/

0ercise 8.(

iven the discussion in the textbook so far# exactly one of the follo$ingstatements is true! "hich is it/ 9riefly explain your choice!&,( a! All sub'ects are agents!

b! All agents are sub'ects!c! All sub'ects check nominative case!d! All noun phrases that check nominative case are sub'ects!

0ercise 8.8

9oth sentences in &,( are intended to have the same meaning! *n a sentence or

t$o# explain $hy they contrast in grammaticality!

&,( a! ok *t appears that they may solve the problem! b! = They i appear that t i may solve the problem!

Problem 8.2

>n the one hand# erman appears to have a double accusative constraint &&44b( isungrammatical(! >n the other hand# it appears not to &&4;a( is grammatical(! Canyou resolve the paradox/

Problem 8.3

A! +se the grammar tool in x-bar ch; to build structures for the gerunds in &,(and & (! ou can reuse structures for &,a#b( if you have already built them inconnection $ith Exercise 4!; ! >n the basis of the structures you build# explainho$ case is checked on the sub'ects of the gerunds &the noun phrases in

boldface(! our ans$er should include $hich case is checked# by $hat head# andin $hat configuration!

&,b( and & a( are not identical!

&,( a! * disapprove of 9im s impulsive hiring of incompetents! b! * disapprove of 9im s impulsively hiring incompetents!

& ( a! * disapprove of 9im impulsively hiring incompetents! b! *%m concerned about there not being time!c! * $atched them running do$n the street!

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch6.html#cuesftp://babel.ling.upenn.edu/papers/faculty/beatrice_santorini/250/s12/xbar-ch8.tgrhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch5.html#e5.8http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch6.html#cuesftp://babel.ling.upenn.edu/papers/faculty/beatrice_santorini/250/s12/xbar-ch8.tgrhttp://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch5.html#e5.8


31/31

9! "hy are the sentences in &0( ungrammatical/ 9uild trees if necessary# but$here possible you can explain your ans$er $ith reference to trees that you have

built for &A(!

&0( a! = * disapprove of Oim%s impulsive hiring incompetents! b! = * disapprove of Oim impulsive hiring of incompetents!

C! Some speakers accept the gerunds in &2(# though not the one in &4(! Explainho$ case is checked on the sub'ect of the gerunds in &2(# providing the usualdetails# and also explain $hat rules out &4(!

&2( a! 9im impulsively hiring incompetents is unfortunate! b! There not being time is unfortunate!c! Them running do$n the street is unfortunate!

&4( = 9im impulsive hiring of incompetents is unfortunate!

8 Case Theory

Documents

Transcript of 8 Case Theory