This chapter is devoted to a discussion of case, a
morphosyntactic property of noun phrases. We begin by illustrating the
basic purpose of case, which is to identify a noun phrase's grammatical relation in the sentence (for
instance, whether a noun phrase is the subject or object). We also show
that particular lexical items can impose morphological case requirements
on noun phrases, a phenomenon known as case government. We then
turn to how case is expressed across languages, focusing on older and
more modern stages of Indo-European, the language family to which
English belongs. Universal Grammar allows case, just like tense, to be
expressed either synthetically (as suffixes on nouns) or analytically
(by means of prepositions or other syntactic heads that take an entire
noun phrase as their argument). As we will see, English allows both
ways of expressing case (just as it allows both ways of expressing tense
in watch-ed and will watch). It is possible to describe
both expressions of case in a unitary way by treating case as a feature
on a noun phrase that is checked by a head. As we will show,
case checking is subject to structural as well as nonstructural
licensing conditions.
A first look at case
The basic purpose of case
In order to understand the purpose of case in human language, it is useful
to consider languages in which constituent order is not as fixed as it is
in English. In German, for instance, unlike English, the subject of an
ordinary declarative clause needn't precede the verb, as shown in (1) and
(2) (we discuss the structure of German sentences in a later chapter; for
now, only the variable constituent order is of interest).
In the examples, boldface indicates the subject, and italics indicates the
object.
| (1) | a. | German | 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) | |||
| (2) | 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 dog same as (2a) |
Since German speakers can't reliably identify subjects and objects in terms of their order with respect to the verb, how is it possible for them to keep track of which constituent expresses which grammatical relation? The answer is that grammatical relations are encoded in German in terms of morphological case marking. In particular, the subjects of finite clauses in German appear in a form called the nominative case, whereas direct objects appear in the accusative. (3) gives a morphological analysis of the noun phrases in (1) and (2).
| (3) | a. | d- er Mann, d- er Hund the nom man the nom dog |
As is evident from (3), the distinction between nominative and accusative case is marked in German on the head of the noun phrase, the determiner.
Case distinctions are usually expressed only on the determiner in German, but there are certain exceptional nouns that can be case-marked, as illustrated in (4). '0' indicates a zero nominative suffix; -(en) is the optional accusative suffix.
| (4) | a. | Nominative | d- er Bär- 0, d- er Student-0 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 |
In (4), case is marked on the noun phrases redundantly, once on the determiner, and once on the noun. In German, this is a historical relic from an earlier stage of the language where such redundant case marking was more extensive. In certain languages, however, redundant case marking on the determiner and the noun is the norm. This is illustrated for modern Greek in (5). In Greek, any of the six possible permutations of subject, verb, and object (SVO, SOV, OSV, OVS, VOS, VSO) in either (5a) or (5b) is a grammatical declarative clause, although not every permutation is felicitous in every discourse context.
| (5) | a. | Modern Greek | O andr-as vlepi to skil-o. the.nom man nom sees the.acc dog acc 'The man sees the dog.' | |
| b. | O skil-os vlepi ton andr-a. the.nom dog nom sees the.acc man acc 'The dog sees the man.' |
Finally, in languages without articles, case can be expressed solely on the noun. This is illustrated for Latin in (6); as in modern Greek, all six permutations of subject, verb, and object in (6a) and (6b) were grammatical.
| (6) | a. | Latin | Av- us can-em videt. grandfather nom dog acc sees 'The grandfather sees the dog.' | |
| b. | Can-is av- um videt. dog nom grandfather acc sees 'The dog sees the grandfather.' |
As the examples in this section show, noun phrases can be case-marked
either on the determiner, on the noun, or redundantly on both. But
regardless of the exact form that case marking takes, it has the same basic
purpose: it visibly expresses a noun phrase's function in a sentence.
Case government
In many languages, the particular morphological case that a noun phrase
appears in depends not only on its function in the sentence, but also on
particular lexical items that it stands in relation to. For instance, in
German, the object in a sentence appears in the dative or the accusative,1 depending on the verb, as illustrated in (7)
and (8).
| (7) | a. | Dative | ok |
{ d- em Hund, d- er Frau } { helfen, nachlaufen }
the dat dog the dat woman help after.run
'to { help, run after } the { dog, woman }'
|
| b. | Accusative | * |
{ d- en Hund, d- ie Frau } { helfen, nachlaufen }
the acc dog the acc woman help after.run
| |
| (8) | a. | Accusative | ok |
{ d- en Hund, d- ie Frau } { unterstützen, verfolgen }
the acc dog the acc woman support pursue
'to { support, pursue } the { dog, woman }'
|
| b. | Dative | * |
{ d- em Hund, d- er Frau } { unterstützen, verfolgen }
the dat dog the dat woman support pursue
|
In traditional grammar, the verb is said to govern the case of the object (for instance, helfen 'help' governs the dative, unterstützen 'support' governs the accusative, and so on). An attractive hypothesis is that the morphological case that a verb governs correlates with the verb's meaning, the idea being that variation in case government as illustrated in (7) and (8) correlates with (possibly subtle) differences in the semantics of helfen 'help' and nachlaufen 'run after' on the one hand and unterstützen 'support' and verfolgen 'pursue' on the other. At present, however, such a hypothesis remains to be fleshed out in detail.
Case government in Latin is illustrated in (9). As in German, each particular verb governs the case of its object, but in Latin, the choice of case ranges over dative, accusative, and ablative.
| (9) | a. | Dative |
{ femin-ae, *femin-am, *femin-a } { subvenire, succurrere }
woman dat acc abl help help
'to help the woman'
| |
| b. | Accusative |
{ femin-am, *femin-ae, *femin-a } adiuvare
woman acc dat abl support
'to support the woman'
| ||
| c. | Ablative |
{ femin-a, *femin-ae, *femin-am } frui
woman abl dat acc enjoy
'to enjoy the company of the woman'
|
In both German and Latin, prepositions resemble verbs in governing the case of their complement. In German, prepositions govern the accusative, the dative, or (rarely) the genitive; in Latin, they govern the ablative or the accusative.
| (10) | a. | German | durch d- ie Tür, bei d- er Kirche, während d- es Krieges through the acc door by the dat church during the gen war 'through the door, by/near the church, during the war' |
Finally, in both German and Latin, certain prepositions can govern more than one case. In such cases, the accusative marks direction, and the other case (dative in German, ablative in Latin) marks location.
| (11) | a. | German |
in { d- ie, *d- er } Bibliothek schicken; in { d- er, *d- ie } Bibliothek arbeiten
in the acc the dat library send in the dat the acc library work
'to send into the library, to work in the library'
| |
| Latin |
in { bibliothec-am, *bibliothec-a } mittere; in { bibliothec-a, *bibliothec-am } laborare
in library acc abl send in library abl acc work
'to send into the library, to work in the library'
|
Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the reconstructed ancestor of the Indo-European language family (which includes English) which was spoken thousands of years ago, had eight cases, which were expressed synthetically. The nominative marked the subject of finite clauses, the accusative and dative (and perhaps other cases) marked objects (depending on the verb, as just discussed), and the genitive indicated possession. The PIE ablative indicated the source of movement (as in I drove from Chicago), the locative was used for locations (as in I used to live in Chicago), and the instrumental marked instruments or means (as in He cut it with his pocketknife). Finally, the vocative was used to address persons (as in Hey, Tom, come on over here).
The original PIE case system is essentially preserved in Sanskrit, although the distinction between the ablative and the genitive is somewhat obscured in Sanskrit because ablative and genitive forms were often homophonous. Such homophony among two or more case forms is called case syncretism. Among living languages, the PIE system is best preserved in the Baltic languages (Latvian and Lithuanian) and such Slavic languages as Ukrainian and Czech. In these languages, the genitive and the ablative have merged completely, leaving seven cases. In other words, in the history of these languages, case syncretism affected all forms of the genitive and the ablative, not just some of them, and so children learning the language no longer had any evidence anywhere in the language for distinguishing between the two cases. Several other Slavic languages, including Russian, have in addition almost completely lost the vocative, leaving only six cases. In Latin, the PIE ablative, instrumental, and locative merged into a single case, called the ablative, which serves all three functions, leaving six cases. In Ancient Greek, the ablative, instrumental, and locative were lost, leaving five cases. Finally, Germanic languages like German and Old English have retained only the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, leaving four cases. The developments just sketched for Indo-European are summarized in (12). "R" indicates that a particular case has been retained, whereas "---" indicates that it has been lost. When a merger of two or more cases has taken place, the table gives the name under which the resultant merged case is known.
| (12) |
|
(13) shows the complete case paradigms for the Latin nouns avus 'grandfather' and femina 'woman'. These two nouns are each representative of two word classes, or declensions. Latin had five such declensions, each of which was characterized by unique endings for combinations of case and number. For instance, in the declensions to which avus and femina belong, dative singular is expressed by -o and -ae, respectively, whereas in the remaining three declensions, the same combination is expressed by -i. The three declensions in question are in turn distinguished by separate endings for, say, the nominative singular.
| (13) | Latin | o- declension | a- declension | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 'grandfather' | 'woman' | ||||||
| Sg | Pl | Sg | Pl | ||||
| Nominative | av-us | av-i | femin-a | femin-ae | |||
| Genitive | av-i | av-orum | femin-ae | femin-arum | |||
| Dative | av-o | av-is | femin-ae | femin-is | |||
| Accusative | av-um | av-os | femin-am | femin-as | |||
| Vocative | av-e | av-i | femin-a | femin-ae | |||
| Ablative | av-o | av-is | femin-a | femin-is | |||
As (13) shows, Latin exhibited some case syncretism. For instance, the dative and ablative singular are homophonous for avus 'grandfather', the genitive and the dative singular are homophonous for femina 'woman', and the dative and the ablative plural are homophonous for both nouns.
In the descendants of Latin, the Romance languages, case is still expressed synthetically on pronouns. For instance, the distinction between dative and accusative pronouns is illustrated for French in (14). (Note that unstressed pronouns in French are clitics; unlike full noun phrases, they precede the verb they are construed with.)
| (14) | a. |
Je veux lui parler.
I want 3.ps.sg.dat talk
'I want to talk to { him, her. }'
| |
| b. |
Je veux { le, la } voir.
I want 3.ps.sg.acc.masc. 3.ps.sg.acc.fem see
'I want to see { him, her. }'
|
With full noun phrases, however, the same distinction is expressed analytically by the presence or absence of the case marker à.
| (15) | a. |
Je veux parler à votre { frère, soeur. }
I want talk your brother sister
'I want to talk to your { brother, sister. } '
| |
| b. |
Je veux voir votre { frère, soeur. }
I want see your brother sister
'I want to see your { brother, sister. }'
|
This case marker is etymologically related to the spatial preposition à 'to', but is distinct from it. This is demonstrated by the fact that the pro-form for phrases in which à is a spatial preposition is not lui, as in (14a), but y, just as it is for other spatial prepositions like dans 'in' or sur 'on'.
| (16) | a. | Nous avons envoyé le vin à Toulouse; mon ami habite à Paris. we have sent the wine to Toulouse my friend lives in Paris 'We sent the wine to Toulouse; my friend lives in Paris.' | |
| b. | Nous y avons envoyé le vin; mon ami y habite. we there have sent the wine my friend there lives 'We sent the wine there; my friend lives there.' | ||
| (17) | a. | Le cadeau se trouve dans mon sac; nous avons mis le cadeau sur la table. the present refl finds in my bag we have put the present on the table 'The present is (literally, finds itself) in the bag; we put the present on the table.' | |
| b. | Le cadeau s' y trouve; nous y avons mis le cadeau. the present refl there finds we there have put the present 'The present is there; we put the present there.' |
As mentioned earlier, Old English had four cases, which are illustrated in (18) for three declensions. As is evident, case syncretism is more extensive in Old English than in Latin.
|
| Note that Latin is the ancestor of French, but not of Old English; click here for one recent hypothesis for how Latin and Old English are related. |
| (18) | Old English | Masculine | Feminine | Neuter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 'fox' | 'learning' | 'animal' | |||||||
| Sg | Pl | Sg | Pl | Sg | Pl | ||||
| Nominative | fox | fox-as | lar | lar-a | deor | deor2 | |||
| Genitive | fox-es | fox-a | lar-e | lar-a | deor-es | deor-a | |||
| Dative | fox-e | fox-um | lar-e | lar-um | deor-e | deor-um | |||
| Accusative | fox | fox-as | lar-e | lar-a | deor | deor | |||
In the course of Middle English (1150-1500), the old genitive case suffix was lost, and its function was taken over by a syntactic head---the possessive determiner 's (in the plural, the possessive is spelled out as a silent determiner that is orthographically represented as an apostrophe). The old synthetic genitive case is illustrated in (19). As in the previous chapter, +t stands for the Middle English character thorn, which represented the voiceless 'th' sound in thin and thorn.
| (19) | +te king-es suster of France (CMPETERB,59.593) the king gen sister of France 'the king of France'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 (king), but rather analytically case-marks an entire DP (the king of France). This is clear from the fact that it follows postnominal adjuncts like the prepositional phrase of France in the translation of (19). The difference between the old synthetic genitive suffix and the analytical possessive determiner that replaced it emerges even more sharply from examples like (20), where the possessive determiner obligatorily follows an element that is not even a noun. For clarity, the noun phrase that is case-marked by the possessive determiner is underlined in (20a); the entire sequence in (20a) from the to cat is of course also a noun phrase.
| (20) | a. | the guy (that) I used to go out with 's cat | |
| b. | * | the guy's (that) I used to go out with cat |
| We ordinarily think of the possessive form of singular noun phrases as containing 's. Under the analysis just given, however, the nominative, possessive, and objective case of a full noun phrase are all homophonous in Modern English, and the determiner 's in the king's is a case marker on a par with the preposition of in of the king. |
Although the possessive is marked analytically on full noun phrases, it is spelled out synthetically on pronouns. Much as the combination of a verb like sing and a silent past tense morpheme is spelled out as sang, a pronoun like we (or more precisely, the feature combination first person plural) and a silent possessive morpheme is spelled out as our.
Beginning in late Old English (ca. 1000 C.E.), the distinction between the dative and the accusative weakened, and the distinction was lost completely in the course of Middle English (1150-1500). We refer to the case that resulted from the merger as the objective. The distinction between nominative and objective case continues to be expressed synthetically in modern English on most ordinary pronouns, as illustrated in (21).
| (21) | Nominative | Objective | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 sg | I | me | |||
| 2 sg, pl | you | you | |||
| 3 sg m, f, n | he, she, it | him, her, it | |||
| 1 pl | we | us | |||
| 3 pl | they | them | |||
With the two pronouns you and it, however, the
nominative and the objective are homophonous, just as in the case of
full noun phrases.
Consider the contrast between (22) and (23).
Case features
In the remainder of this chapter, we introduce some concepts and syntactic
conditions that enable us to derive the distribution of the various case
forms of noun phrases in English and other languages. This section
introduces the notion of case feature.
| (22) | a. | ok | They will help her. |
| b. | ok | She will help them. | |
| (23) | a. | * | Them will help she. |
| b. | * | Her will help they. |
Why are the sentences in (23) ungrammatical? The answer is that noun phrases in English are subject to the requirements in (24).
| (24) | a. | Subjects of finite clauses appear in the nominative. | |
| b. | Objects appear in the objective. |
As is evident, both of the subjects in (23) are objective forms, and both of the objects are nominative forms. Each of the sentences in (23) therefore contradicts the requirements in (24) in two ways.
Now compare the examples in (22) and (23) with those in (25).
| (25) | a. | You will help her. | |
| b. | She will help you. |
As we saw in (21), they and she exhibit distinct forms for the nominative and objective, whereas you doesn't. But because case syncretism between the nominative and the objective is not complete in English (in other words, because most of the pronouns have distinct forms for the two cases), we will treat you as a nominative form in (25a), equivalent to they and she, but as an objective form in (25b), equivalent to them and her. For the same reason, we treat the noun phrase my big brother as a nominative form in (26a) and as an objective form in (26b).
| (26) | a. | My big brother will help her. | |
| b. | She will help my big brother. |
In order to disambiguate instances of case syncretism like you and my big brother, it is useful to assume that each noun phrase in a language bears a case feature. Each case feature can assume a value from among all the various case forms in that language (regardless of whether the case forms are expressed synthetically or analytically). In English, for instance, there is a choice among three values (nominative, possessive, objective), whereas in Russian, there is a choice among six (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, locative, instrumental). We can represent the values of case features as in (27) and (28).
| (27) | a. | [DP-nom They ] will help [DP-obj her. ] | |
| b. | [DP-nom You ] will help [DP-obj her. ] | ||
| c. | [DP-nom My big brother ] will help [DP-obj her. ] | ||
| (28) | a. | [DP-nom She ] will help [DP-obj them. ] | |
| b. | [DP-nom She ] will help [DP-obj you. ] | ||
| c. | [DP-nom She ] will help [DP-obj my big brother. ] |
Earlier, we said that the purpose of case
is to encode a noun phrase's function in a sentence. More specifically, we
can think of a noun phrase's function as being tied to some particular
syntactic head. A widespread way of putting this is to say that the case
feature on a noun phrase needs to be checked against a
corresponding case feature on a head. If the case features on the two
participants in a checking relationship 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 head ends up checking
case features on more than one noun phrase), then the sentence is
ungrammatical. On the other hand, if every case feature in a sentence
stands in a one-to-one relationship with a corresponding partner, then all
is well with the sentence as far as case theory is concerned. A question
that arises is whether case checking is subject to structural constraints.
If so, we are of course interested in providing as general a formulation of
those constraints as possible.
There is reason to believe that there is more than one type of case
checking. We can distinguish between what we will call case
licensing, which holds between a noun phrase and a head external to
the noun phrase (say, a verb or preposition), and case
agreement, which holds within a noun phrase (say, between a
determiner and a noun). In the current version of this book, we will
discuss only case licensing. In this section, we motivate various
conditions (primarily structural, but also nonstructural) on the
relationship between the two participants in a case-licensing relation.
In the first half of the section, we present three structural
configurations in which case licensing is possible: the
specifier-head configuration, the head-specifier
configuration, and the head-complement configuration.
Beginning in the 1990's, attempts have been made to simplify the theory
of case licensing by identifying a single case-licensing configuration.
For 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 a silent head, and that case is
uniformly licensed in the specifier-head configuration. Our own
discussion will remain somewhat agnostic on this point, but we will show
that the head and the noun phrase in the three configurations mentioned
above lie on a particular type of path. In the second half of the
section, we discuss three further nonstructural conditions on case
licensing: biuniqueness, exocentricity, and
matching.
Specifier-head licensing.
Case licensing
|
| In what follows, it's important to distinguish carefully between finite
verbs on the one hand and finite clauses on the other (see Verbs for more discussion). In
English, finite clauses are clauses that can stand on their own. Finite
verbs are ones that aren't infinitives or participles. All four of the
clauses in (i) and (ii) are finite because they can stand alone. But
the verbs (in italics) are nonfinite in (i), and finite only in (ii).
English also has nonfinite clauses, which cannot stand alone. These may contain the nonfinite Infl element to. The verb of a nonfinite clause is always nonfinite; hence the grammaticality contrast in (iii).
|
We begin by considering how case is licensed on the subjects of sentences. Since subjects of sentences start out as specifiers of verbs, one's first impulse might be to propose that nominative case is checked by V. Although we will reject this approach, let us pursue it for the moment in order to show why it is unsatisfactory. The proposal is that what checks the nominative case of He (or more precisely, its trace in Spec(VP)) is the finite verb understands in (29a) and the bare (nonfinite) form of the verb understand in (29b). This putative checking relationship (which we are assuming for the sake of argument, but will reject) is indicated by the red boxes. (We further assume that DPs whose case feature is checked are free to move on to other positions in the sentence.)
| (29) | a. | 
| b. | 
| |||
| Finite clause, finite verb form | Finite clause, nonfinite verb form | ||||||
Now if verbs were able to check nominative case, regardless of whether they are finite or nonfinite, we would expect the nonfinite verb in the lower IP in (30) to be able to check nominative case on the lower he, on a par with the nonfinite verb in (29b).3
| (30) | * | 
| |
| Intended meaning: He claims that he understands Hegel. | |||
However, (30) is completely ungrammatical. We therefore reject the idea that nominative case is checked by V, concluding rather that it is checked by finite I. The contrast between (29) and (30) then follows directly since I is finite in (29) ([pres], does), but not in (30) (to).
|
| The ungrammaticality of (30) isn't due to semantic anomaly, since
the intended meaning is both expressible and semantically
well-formed, as indicated by the gloss to (30). Neither is the
ungrammaticality of (30) due to the split infinitive, since (i)
is as ungrammatical as (30).
|
One might attempt to rescue the idea that nominative case is checked by finite V by replacing (31a) with (31b).
| (31) | a. | Nominative case is checked by finite I. | |
| b. | Nominative case is licensed by finite V where possible (that is, in clauses that contain a finite V), and by finite I otherwise. |
Although there is no empirical argument against (31b), we reject it
because it violates conceptual economy. Clauses with finite V
invariably also contain a (silent) finite tense element in I, whereas
the converse is not true. Moreover, a clause can contain a finite I in
the form of a modal, in which case the V is nonfinite. Clauses with
finite I thus form a proper superset of clauses with finite V. As a
result, (31a) and (31b) are empirically equivalent, but (31b) is
unnecessarily more complicated and hence less preferable.
The upshot of the discussion so far is
that the head that checks nominative case in English is finite I, and
that the licensing configuration for checking nominative case in English
is the specifier-head configuration. This is shown in (32)
(which supersedes (29)).4 The term
'specifier' is generally abbreviated to 'spec' (read as 'speck').
| (32) | a. | 
| b. | 
|
Nominative case is not the only case to be licensed in the spec-head configuration in English. So is possessive case, the case-checking head being the possessive determiner ('s or its silent plural variant), as discussed earlier.
|
| In possessive constructions like (i), there are two noun phrases: a
lower one (the possessor) and a higher one (the entire noun phrase that
contains both the possessor and the thing possessed).
It is important to keep in mind that each of the two noun phrases has a case feature of its own that needs to be checked. The lower DP has a possessive case feature. The higher DP generally has a nominative or an objective case feature, but it might itself bear a possessive case feature if it is part of an even larger possessive construction, as it is in (ii). |
(33) illustrates the spec-head configuration in its general form (YP is the specifier of X, and YP and X are in the spec-head configuration). As is evident, the head X and the noun phrase YP that bear the shared case features to be checked form the endpoints of the path indicated by the red nodes.
| (33) | 
|
Head-spec licensing. A second configuration that licenses case checking is head-spec licensing, which we motivate on the basis of sentences like (34a).
| (34) | a. | He expected her to dislike him. | |
| b. | He expected that she would dislike him. |
In both sentences, what is expected is a state of affairs
| (35) | 
|
Before addressing our main concern---how objective case is licensed on the embedded subject her, we digress briefly to provide an independent piece of evidence in favor of the structure in (35), which is based on the distribution of expletive there. As the contrast in (36) indicates, expletive there can be the subject, but not the object, of a sentence.
| (36) | a. | ok | There was a fly in his soup. |
| b. | * | He dislikes there in his soup. |
In sentences like (37), however, there is able to appear in immediately postverbal position.
| (37) | ok | He expected there to be a fly in his soup. |
The contrast between (36b) and (37) would be mysterious if there occupied the same structural position in both sentences (namely, the complement position of the matrix verb expected). But the mystery disappears if there is the subject of an IP in (37), just as it is (36a), with the IPs differing only in their finiteness.
Let's now return to our main concern: how objective case is licensed on the embedded subjects in (34a) and (37). Consider the schemas in (38).
| (38) | a. |
| b. | 
| |||
| Spec-head licensing | Head-spec licensing | ||||||
Notice that the head-spec configuration in (38b) is the mirror image of the spec-head configuration in (38a), already familiar from (33), in the following sense. In both cases, the case-licensing configuration can be characterized as in (39).
| (39) | A case-licensing configuration is defined as follows: | ||
| a. | a head X | ||
| b. | the nonterminal node closest to X (i.e., the intermediate projection X') | ||
| c. | a node closest to X' that is distinct from X | ||
| d. | the specifier of the node specified in (c) |
The difference between spec-head and head-spec licensing simply concerns the direction that the path takes in (39c) (imagine placing a mirror along the X-X' axis in (38a), and you'd get (38b), and vice versa). Spec-head licensing chooses the mother of the head's intermediate projection; head-spec licensing chooses the daughter.
|
| It is standard to refer to the construction in (34a) and (37) as the Exceptional Case-Marking (ECM) construction because it is cross-linguistically rare. Given the analysis that we have just presented, the term is a bit of a misnomer. The construction is exceptional not for reasons having to do to case theory, but because of the rarity (for whatever reason) of V heads that take IP complements and at the same time are able to check objective case. However, because the term is prevalent in the literature, we will use the term "ECM construction" to refer to the construction under consideration and "ECM verbs" to refer to verbs with the two properties just mentioned (IP complements, ability to check objective case). |
Given (39), we can say that objective case is
checked on the complement subject her by the verb expected in
the head-spec configuration.
In the previous section, we presented
nominative case as being checked in English in Spec(IP) in the spec-head
configuration. If this is so, then subject movement in English can be
derived from considerations of case checking. In other words, the
subject must move from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) because nominative case
can't be checked in its original position. However, the availability of
head-spec licensing opens up the possibility that nominative case is
checked in the head-spec configuration, rather than in the spec-head
configuration. The case-checking head continues to be finite I, for the
reasons discussed in the previous section. If this possibility is
correct, then subject movement in English must be derived from
considerations other than case theory, such as predication. Given the word order facts
of English, it is very difficult to determine which of the two
possibilities just outlined is correct. Currently, most generative
syntacticians take the position (conceptually odd, because uneconomical)
that nominative case is checked in the spec-head configuration, and that
subject movement is motivated by considerations of predication.
Head-complement licensing.
A third and final case licensing configuration arises in connection with
simple transitive sentences like (40).
| (40) | a. | He expected her. | |
| b. | 
|
Here, objective case on her is checked by the verb expected in the head-complement configuration, schematically indicated in its general form in (41).
| (41) | 
|
Notice that the head-complement configuration is a subconfiguration of the head-spec configuration just discussed. This means that a general structural constraint on case licensing, subsuming all three configurations discussed so far, can be formulated as in (42).
| (42) | Structural licensing condition: The nodes in a case-checking relationship as well as the nodes on the path connecting them must be members of a licensing configuration of the form in (39). |
The head in a case-licensing relationship always corresponds to (39a). The noun phrase corresponds to either (39c) (head-comp licensing) or (39d) (spec-head licensing, head-spec licensing).
Nonstructural conditions on case licensing. In what follows, we further illustrate the structural licensing condition on case checking in (42), and we introduce three additional, nonstructural conditions on case-licensing: biuniqueness, exocentricity, and matching.
First, consider (43), where we treat their as the spellout of they and possessive 's.
| (43) | a. | He expected their approval. | |
| b. | 
|
In (43), objective case on the higher boxed DP is checked by the verb expected, being licensed by the head-comp relation between them. Possessive case on the lower DP is checked by the possessive morpheme 's, being licensed by the spec-head relation between them. So far, so good.
However, a question that arises in this connection is what rules out (44) (with the same intended meaning as (43)), where the objective case feature on expected checks the objective case feature on them in the head-spec licensing configuration.
| (44) | * | He expected them approval. | |
| b. | 
|
The answer is as follows. Assume a case-checking relationship between expected and the lower boxed DP them. This leaves the higher DP with a case feature that must be checked. Although the higher DP is in a head-complement relationship with expected, it is unable to enter into a case-checking relation with the verb because such a relationship would violate the condition in (45).
| (45) | Biuniqueness condition: Case features on heads and noun phrases stand in a one-to-one relationship. |
There is no other structurally licensed head with which the higher DP can enter into a case-licensing relationship. In particular, the mirror image of the head-complement relationship,5 the relationship between the higher DP's silent head and the higher DP itself, is not a possible case-licensing relationship because it violates (46).
| (46) | Exocentricity condition: Case licensing is a relationship between a head and an 'outside' noun phrase (that is, a noun phrase distinct from any projections of the case-checking head). |
Finally, (44) is ruled out even if the silent D bears no case feature. This is because D heads that do not bear case features (like a or the in English) don't license specifiers. In other words, there are no elementary trees of the form in (47), which would be needed to derive the higher DP in (44b).
| (47) | 
|
It is worth noting that the biuniqueness and exocentricity conditions we have just laid out have the joint effect that when a head has the potential to enter into a case-licensing relationship with two noun phrases, it must enter into a relationship with the closer one. We can formulate this effect as in (48).
| (48) | Minimality condition on case licensing When a case-checking head has the possibility in principle of entering into a case-licensing relation with two noun phrases, it is the minimal configuration that is the grammatical one. |
Thus, we consider the minimality condition as a consequence of the more basic biuniqueness and exocentricity conditions in (45) and (46), rather than as a theoretical primitive.
We can illustrate the effects of the minimality condition on case licensing in connection with German examples like (49). These examples show that the verb kennen `know' and the preposition mit `with' govern the accusative and dative, respectively. (Unbelievable as it may seem, German speakers really do pay attention to the minimal difference between dem and den.)
| (49) | a. | den Mann mit dem Hut kennen the-acc man with the-dat hat know 'to know the man with the hat' | |
| b. | * | dem Mann mit den Hut kennen the-dat man with the-acc hat know | |
| c. | * | den Mann mit den Hut kennen the-acc man with the-acc hat know | |
| d. | * | dem Mann mit dem Hut kennen the-dat man with the-dat hat know |
The schematic structure for all four verb phrases is given in (50).
| (50) | 
|
In (49a), kennen checks accusative case with the higher DP, and
mit checks dative case with the lower DP, each in the head-comp
licensing configuration (recall from
| (51) | Matching condition: A case feature on a head and its corresponding case feature on a noun phrase must match in value. |
Specifically, even though kennen and the DP would stand in a legitimate licensing configuration (head-comp), the accusative case feature of kennen doesn't match the dative case feature on the higher DP. Moreover, the accusative case feature of kennen is unable to check the matching accusative case feature on the lower DP, because a checking relationship between these two participants would violate the structural licensing condition in (42) (the verb and the lower DP are too far apart). Analogous considerations hold for mit and its potential checking relationships with the lower and higher DPs, respectively.
(49c) is ruled out as follows. Case checking on the higher DP is
unproblematic; accusative case is checked by kennen in the head-comp
configuration. However, case cannot be checked on the lower DP. Checking
accusative case with mit in the head-comp configuration violates the
matching condition (dative and accusative don't match), and checking
accusative case on the lower DP with kennen violates both the
structural licensing condition and the biuniqueness condition on case
checking. (49d) is ruled out for analogous reasons.
1.
A very small number of German verbs governs a third case, the genitive.
We don't discuss these verbs here, because they are felt to be archaic.
2.
Note how the -s-less plural of deer, which is exceptional
in modern English, goes back to Old English, where it was simply the
ordinary plural form for the declension (= word class) to which
deer belonged.
3.
The structure in (30) is analogous to the structure for its grammatical
counterpart, He claims to understand Hegel. Details are
discussed in connection with the phenomenon of control
in the next chapter.
4.
The spec-head configuration is also frequently, though somewhat
misleadingly, referred to as spec-head agreement. The reason for
this is that subjects and verbs of sentences, which are in the
spec-head configuration in the VP, agree in number (the man
runs/*run; the men run/*runs). The reason that the term
is misleading is that agreement relations don't necessarily imply
a spec-head configuration. For instance, determiners agree in
number with the head of their NP complement (that
woman/*women; those women/*woman), but the D and the N
aren't in a spec-head configuration.
5. The relation between the silent
determiner and the higher boxed DP in (44) is a mirror image of
the head-comp relation in the following sense. The path between
the silent determiner and its NP complement involves a first segment
from D to D' and a downward turn at D' to give the second segment from
D' to NP. Now imagine taking an upward turn at D'. The resulting
second path segment ends at the higher boxed DP.
A. Using the grammar tool in English case
checking, build structures for the sentences in (1).
For the purposes of this exercise, disregard tense lowering.
Case agreement
(coming eventually...)
Notes
Exercises and problems
Exercise 8.1
| (1) | a. | I waited for her. | |
| b. | I waited for there to be a sale. | ||
| c. | It would be convenient for the parents for daycare to be available. | ||
| d. | It would be convenient for daycare to be available for the children. | ||
| e. | I suspect the class to be difficult. |
B. Describe briefly how case is checked on each of the DPs in (1).
Feel free to collapse the description of similar cases (!) of case
checking.
Exercise 8.2
|
| Assume that heads of different syntactic categories can have different case-checking properties. |
A. Using the grammar tool in English case checking, build structures for the noun phrases in (1) and (2).
| (1) | a. | ok | the destruction of the city | (the city bears objective case) |
| b. | ok | the city's destruction | (the city bears possessive case) | |
| (2) | * | the destruction the city |
B. Based on the structures you built in (A), derive the grammaticality contrast between (1) and (2) in terms of case theory.
C. Why is (3) ungrammatical in English?
| (3) | * | the city destruction Intended meaning: 'the city's destruction' |
D. Using the grammar tool in English case checking, build structures for the phrases in (4).
| (4) | a. | ok | fond of the children |
| b. | * | fond the children |
E. Derive the grammaticality contrast in (4) in terms of case theory. Your answer should include which case is checked on the children in (4a), how you know which case is checked, and which head checks it.
|
| Assume that the case-checking properties of heads of the same syntactic category can vary across languages. |
A. Using the grammar tool in German case checking, build structures for the adjective phrases in (1), and explain how case is checked on each of the DPs.
| (1) | a. | des Englischen unkundig the.gen English ignorant 'ignorant of English' | |
| b. | der Regierung treu the.dat government loyal 'loyal to the government' |
B. In German, case checking on noun phrases within larger noun phrases
has undergone change and continues to be subject to variation. The pattern
in (2a) was typical of Early New High German
| (2) | a. | Early New High German | der Stadt Zerstörung the.gen city destruction 'the city's destruction | |
| b. | Modern German, formal | die Zerstörung der Stadt the.nom destruction the.gen city 'the destruction of the city' | ||
| c. | Modern German, colloquial | die Zerstörung von der Stadt the.nom destruction from the.dat city 'the destruction of the city' |
C. Based on your answer to (B), what are the changes in case checking that have taken/are taking place in German? Your answer should include by which heads and in which configuration which case is checked on the DP der Stadt.
D. Based on your answers to this exercise and to Exercise 8.2, compare the way that case in noun phrases and adjective phrases is checked in English and German. Your answer should include by which heads and in which configurations which case is checked in comparable examples in the two languages.
| (1) | a. | ok | I would prefer his eating the pizza. |
| b. | ok | I would prefer him eating the pizza. | |
| (2) | a. | ok | I would prefer his eating of the pizza. |
| b. | * | I would prefer him eating of the pizza. |
There are no ECM adjectives in English, as illustrated in (1). Is this absence a statistical accident, or is there a deeper reason for it?
| (1) | * | I was expectant there to be a problem. |
| (1) | a. | Gwelai Emrys ddraig. see.conditional Emrys.nom dragon.obj 'Emrys would see a dragon.' | |
| b. | Disgwyliodd Emrys i Megan fynd i Fangor. expected Emrys.nom to Megan.obj go.infinitive to Bangor.obj 'Emrys expected Megan to go to Bangor.' |
B. How is case checked on each of the noun phrases in (1)? (As in English, nominative case cannot be checked in nonfinite clauses in Welsh.) Your answer should include which case is checked by which heads in which specific licensing configuration.
C. Proto-Indo-European (the ancestor of Welsh) is reconstructed as having had rich agreement, and so it presumably had verb raising. The Celtic languages, which are descendants of Proto-Indo-European and to which Welsh belongs, have lost agreement, yet they still exhibit verb raising. Why didn't the loss of agreement lead to the loss of verb raising in Celtic as it did in Mainland Scandinavian?
| (1) | a. | I disapprove of Kim impulsively hiring incompetents. | |
| b. | I'm concerned about there not being time for dinner. | ||
| c. | I watched them running down the street. | ||
| (2) | a. | % | Kim impulsively hiring incompetents has got to stop. |
| b. | % | There not being time for dinner is unfortunate. | |
| c. | % | Them running down the street is quite a sight. |
