4 Case Theory

These notes are in part based on the following sources:Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Roberts, I. (1997). Comparative Syntax. London: Arnold.

4.1 The distribution and form of overt DPs

Case theory accounts for the distribution and form of overt DPs (as opposed to covert DPs, such as traces of movement). It defines contextsin which DPs are assigned abstract case and then imposes the requirement that overt DPs have abstract case; a condition known as theCase Filter.

(1) Case Filter *DP if DP is phonologically realized and not case-markedThus, the contrast between (2a) and (2b) could be attributed to the case-assigning abilities of the selecting heads involved: a verb assignsaccusative case to its complement, but a noun derived from this verb fails to do so. The structure can be rescued by the insertion of the‘dummy’ preposition of.

(2) (a) [VP destroy Rome]

(b) *[NP destruction Rome]

(b’) [NP destruction [PP of Rome]]

Adjectives appear to pattern with nouns in this respect:

(3) (a) Poirot [VP envies him]

(b) *Poirot is [AP envious him]

(b’) Poirot is [AP envious [PP of him]]

Case theory is based on the premise that morphological case (e.g. case endings on nouns in languages like German or Latin) is the overtreflex of abstract case (that is, syntactic case features). On this view, languages show parametric variation in the manifestation ofmorphological case forms, but their underlying system of abstract case is the same.

The initial motivation for case theory came from looking at environments in which overt DPs are not allowed but covert ones are. Infinitivalclauses generally cannot have overt subjects:

(4) (a) *Alan's plan [he/him to sell marijuana] (a') Alan's plan [ __ to sell marijuana] (b) *It's illegal [one to sell marijunana] (b') It's illegal [ __ to sell marijunana] (c) *[I/me to be president] is nice (c') [ __ to be president] is nice (d) *Phil tried [he/him to play the marimba] (d') Phil tried [ __ to play the marimba](5) (a) Alan's plan [that he would sell marijuana] (b) It's illegal [if one sells marijunana] (c) [That I am president] is nice (d) no paraphrase for (4d)(6) (a) Alan's plan [for him to sell marijuana] (b) It's illegal [for one to sell marijunana] (c) [For me to be president] is nice (d) Phil wanted [himself to play the marimba]The ungrammaticality of the examples in (4a-d) could be dealt with as follows.

We assume, as before, that subject agreement (AgrS) and tense (T) are located in a node I. Now suppose that nominative case is a relationbetween AgrS in the I-node and the DP in its specifier. If infinitival clauses lack (sufficient) marking for subject agreement to assign case tothe subject, then the Case Filter rules out overt subjects in infinitival clauses.

Overt subjects are possible in tensed clauses, which, by hypothesis, carry subject agreement in I (cf. (5)). However, they are also possible ininfinitival clauses if the subject is preceded by the prepositional complementizer for, as in (6a-c). We know independently that Englishprepositions assign either accusative or dative case (I gave a book to him). Since subjects preceded by a preposition carry such a case, thesimplest assumption is that they are assigned case by the preposition.

In (6d), too, the overt subject of the infinitival clause has accusative case, even though it is not preceded by a preposition. However, it isdirectly preceded by a verb, opening up the possibility that the verb assigns it accusative case across a clause boundary. This in turn raisesthe question why (4d) is ungrammatical. We return to this problem below.

For the moment, we can summarize the configurations for case assignment as follows.

Case assigners with their assignment configurations:

Verbs: accusative % under a relation resembling sisterhoodPrepositions: accusative, dative or

ablative

(depending on thepreposition and thelanguage)

% under a relation resembling sisterhood

AgrS (or I) nominative % in a Spec-Head relation (not undersisterhood)

Confirmation for the idea that AgrS is involved in the licensing of overt subjects comes from the fact that in some languages in whichinfinitival verbs are inflected for person and number (such as Portuguese) the subject in such clauses can be overt:

(7) Sera dificil [eles aprovar-em a proposta]Will-be difficult they to-approve-3Pl the proposal'It will be difficult for them to approve the proposal'

What is somewhat unpleasant, however, is that such an account of the contrast between English and Portuguese, makes reference tomorphological case (as opposed to abstract case). Of course one could maintain that the difference in morphological case forms in this casereflects a difference in abstract case, but that of course undermines the idea that abstract case is independent of morphological case.

4.2 Inherent case

The examples we have looked at so far clearly show that a DP may receive case from a head that does not θ-mark it. For instance, thesubject a sentence receives its θ-role from the verb, but is normally case-marked by AgrS. Similarly, in the examples in (6), the embeddedsubject receives its θ-role from the embedded predicate, even though it is dependent for accusative case on a preposition or a higher verb.So both nominative and accusative case assignment appear not directly related to θ-marking.

Interestingly, this dissociation between θ-marking and case-marking is not found with marking for ablative, dative and genitive (excludingperhaps possessive genitive). Thus, there are no languages in which a verb marks dative on a DP that it does not θ-mark. Similarly,although there are languages that sometimes allow dative subjects (so-called quirky subjects), such a subject does not receive its caseunder agreement with AgrS (but possibly prior to movement, from the verb that selects it):

(8) Strakunum leiddist í skólann (Icelandic) the boys-DAT got bored-3sg in the school Notice that the subject does not agree with the verb, which appears in the default third person singular.

In order to capture this dichotomy, we assume that while the nominative and accusative case-marking ability of a head are unrelated to itsthematic properties, marking for ablative, dative and genitive case are directly linked to θ-marking.

(9)

We will henceforth refer to dative and its cousins as the inherent cases and to nominative and accusative as the structural cases.

4.3 More about configurations for case assignment

Data from OV languages like Dutch and German suggest that the configuration for checking of accusative case is weaker than sisterhood. Inthe Dutch example in (10), the object does not have to be adjacent to the verb:

(10) ... dat Jan het boek gisteren las... that John the book yesterday read'... that John read the book yesterday'

Assuming, as before, only binary branching tree structures, then het boek cannot be a sister to las in (10). But we must be careful not toweaken the required structural relation too much or we will for instance not be able to prevent the object from being assigned nominativecase.

We could make a step in the right direction by assuming that the configuration for case assignment and that of (internal) theta-marking areessentially the same: minimal m-command. In that case we would expect that the DP that is assigned case c-commands the case assigninghead and is contained in its maximal projection. This works fine for assignment of nominative to the DP in SpecIP: the DP c-commands I andis contained in IP. Similarly, a complement DP assigned accusative by a verb or a preposition will c-command the relevant head and becontained in its maximal projection. You may check this for I and V in the structure below:

(11)

That this cannot be the whole story becomes apparent when we return to the kind of data we left undiscussed earlier (4d) and (6d),repeated here as (12a-b), and indeed if we look a bit more closely at how a preposition could case mark the subject of an infinitival clause,as in (12c).

(12) (a) *Phil tried [he/him to play the marimba] (b) Phil wanted [himself to play the marimba] (c) Alan's plan [for him to sell marijuana]

(13)

Clearly, in these cases the argument does not c-command the head from which it receives case (although the opposite is the case). For thisreason, these configurations are usually referred to as exceptional case-marking (ECM) configurations. The existence of ECM constructionscreates difficult problems for case theory, because it makes it hard to define the configuration under which case-marking applies. Minimalm-command can only be maintained as a definition, if the infinitival I-nodes in (13) somehow do not count as closer commanders. Thisproblem has sparked off an alternative approach to case assignment in which complements move past the head that selects them to ahigher specifier position, where they check case with a head in a specifier-head configuration. We will discuss this approach to case theory inthe next instalment.

To summarize the discussion so far:

• The Case Filter limits the occurrence of overt DPs to case-marked positions.

• Case is assigned in a local domain of some sort.

• Tensed I, V and P are case assigners. It appears that, in English at least, A and N are unable to assign case.

• There is a distinction between inherent and structural case. Inherent case is linked to θ-marking, while structural case is not.

4.4 Passive

(14) (a) The enemy destroyed a city(b) A city was destroyed (by the enemy)(c) *There was destroyed a city (by the enemy) [bad in English](c') Er werd een stad verwoest (door de vijand) [but fine in Dutch and otherlanguages]

4.4.1 Properties of passives

• The subject of the passive corresponds to the internal argument of the corresponding active.

• The external theta role in the active is assigned in an optional by-phrase in the passive.

• It appears that the internal argument moves to SpecIP in order to receive nominative case from I (cf 14b).

• If SpecIP is available as a landing site for the object, then it must be the case that the passive verb does not have an externalargument. In other words, it should not assign an external θ-role. This is confirmed in languages such as Dutch, in which the subjectof a passive can be an expletive (14c).

(15)

We can find confirmation that these are indeed the properties of passive by looking at a passive verb which takes a clause as its internalargument. Consider the facts in (16). Example (16a) shows that believe is a so-called exceptional case marking verb: it assigns accusativecase to the subject of the infinitival IP. Example (16b) is ungrammatical because passive believed has lost its ability to assign accusativecase. That this is the correct account for its ungrammaticality is confirmed by (16c): here the complement of passive believed is a tensedclause. The subject of this clause receives nominative case from tensed I. Notice that the subject of the passive verb is expletive it. Thisconfirms that a passive verb does not assign an external theta-role. Now consider (16d), the grammatical counterpart of (16b). Just as in(14b), Move has raised the embedded subject DP, which cannot get case from the passive verb, to specIP, where it gets nominative casefrom tensed I.

(16) (a) We believe [him to have destroyed the evidence](b) *It was believed [him to have destroyed the evidence](c) It was believed [CP that he had destroyed the evidence]

(d) He1 was believed [IP t1 to have destroyed the evidence]

Of course we have no account of why passive verbs have these properties. There is some reason to believe that in the passive constructionthe external role of the verb, rather than being completely absent, is assigned to the passive morpheme on the verb. This θ-role is oftenreferred to as the absorbed role. The evidence for the view that the external θ-role is still somehow present in a passive comes from theremarkable contrasts below:

(17) (a) The boat was sunk deliberately ("absorbed" agent)(a') *The boat sank deliberately (absent agent)(b) The boat was sunk (in order) to collect the insurance ("absorbed" agent)(b') *The boat sank (in order) to collect the insurance (absent agent)

Adjuncts of manner, such as deliberately require the presence of an agent. The same is true of purpose clauses such as in order to collectthe insurance.

(18)

4.1 Raising

Now compare the paradigm in (16b-d) to that in (19a-c):

(19) (a) *It seems him to have destroyed the evidence(b) It seems [CP that he has destroyed the evidence]

(c) He1 seems [IP t1 to have destroyed the evidence]

4.1.1 Properties of raising

We conclude that seem has exactly the properties of passive believe:

• It cannot assign accusative case (and therefore (19a) is bad)

• It does not assign an external theta-role (and therefore its subject can be an expletive, as in (19b))

• It therefore provides an environment for DP-movement (as in (19c)).

4.1.2 Raising adjectives: raising is not restricted to raising verbs

(20) (a) *It is likely John to win(b) It is likely [CP that John will win]

(c) John1 is likely [IP t1 to win]

4.2 Raising versus control

Raising verbs must be distinguished from verbs of control, such as try. Such verbs are also followed by an infinitive with a null subject. Butthis subject cannot be trace, because the matrix subject occupies a theta-position:

(21) (a) John1 tried [IP PRO1 to win]

(b) *It tried that John wonWe must therefore assume that the null subject in question is a null pronominal element that acts as an argument. Hence, in (21a) bothJohn and PRO receive a theta-role (from try and win respectively).

4.3 Burzio's Generalisation

(i) A verb which lacks an external argument fails to assign accusative case(ii) A verb which fails to check accusative case fails to theta-mark an external argumentBurzio's generalisation predicts the existence of three types of verbs:

• VERB1: [ θ θ ] transitives

• VERB2: [ θ ] intransitives

• VERB3: [ θ ] unaccusatives

Only type three, the unaccusatives, do not assign accusative case. Passives and raising verbs are unaccusative-type verbs. But Burzio(1986) identifies another class of verbs that behave like passive verbs in many respects.

(22) (a) Giacomo telefona (intransitive, like sleep)Giacome telephones

(b) Giacomo arriva (unaccusative, like was seen) Giacomo arrives

4.3.1 One-argument verbs in Italian

Ne-cliticisation

(23) (a) Giacomo ha insultato due studenti G. has insulted two students

(b) Giacome ne ha insultato due (from complement DP) G. of-them has insulted two

(24) (a) Giacomo ha parlato a due studenti G. has spoken to two students

(b) *Giacome ne ha parlato a due (from complement PP) G. of-them has spoken to two

(25) (a) Giacomo passa tre settimane a MilanoG. passes three weeks in Mi

(b) Giacomo ne passa tre a Milano (from complement DP) G. of-them passes three in Milan

(c) Tre settimane sono state passate a Milano (ok to passivize)Three weeks have been passed in Milan

(26) (a) Giacomo resta tre settimane a Milano G. stays three weeks in Milan

(b) *Giacomo ne resta tre a Milano (from adjunct) G. of-them stays three in Milan

(c) *Tre settimane sono state passate a Milano (can't passivize an intransitive)Three weeks have been remained in Milan

(27)

The environment for ne-cliticization (only from a DP that is a complement to V):

Free inversion

With transitives

(28) (a) Tre regazze hanno mangiato un dolce Three girls have eaten a sweet

(b) Hanno mangiato un dolce tre regazze (nom) Have eaten a sweet three girls

With passives

(29) (a) Molti studenti furono arrestatiMany students were arrested

(b) Furono arrestati molti studenti (nom) Were arrested many students

With one-argument verbs

(30) (a) Molti studenti telefonanoMany students telephone

(b) Telefonano molti studenti (nom)Telephone many students

(31) (a) Molti studenti arrivanoMany students arrive

(b) Arrivano molti studentiArrive many students

4.3.2 In what position are the postverbal subjects?

Postverbal subject in transitives

(32) *Ne hanno mangiato un dolce tre (suggests adjoined to V' or VP) Of-them have eaten a sweet three

Postverbal subject in passives

(33) Ne furono arrestati molti (must be a complement!) Of-them were arrested many

Postverbal subject in one-argument verbs

(34) (a) *Ne telefonano molti (suggest adjoined to V' or VP) Of-them telephoned many

(b) Ne arrivano molti (must be a complement!) Of-them arrived many

4.3.3 Auxiliary selection

(35) (a) Giacomo ha telefonato (intransitive)Giacomo has telephoned

(b) Giacome è arrivato (unaccuastive)Giacomo is arrived

Essere-selection (Burzio)There is a chain between the subject position and the complement position of the verb.

4.3.4 Conclusion

Telefonare is a true intransitive verb (like English sleep). Arrivare is an unaccusative verb:

EITHER: molti studenti1 arrivano t1OR: ecexpl arrivano molti studenti

The surface order is derived by moving the underlying object to specIP or by inserting a non-overt expletive in the vacant subject position.Notice that the occurrence of a phonetically null expletive in a language like Italian should not come as a surprise. Italian is a so-called pro-drop language and allows its subject pronouns to be phonetically empty:

(36) ec ha mangiato un dolce has eaten a sweet

This ec behaves like a true pronoun. We will call it pro (pronounce "small pro"). Since pronouns can be phonetically null in Italian andexpletives are always pronouns, we would expect to find phonetically null expletives in Italian, as indeed we do.

4.4 Unaccusatives in English

Raising verbs and passives are unaccusative verbs, as discussed above. But what about arrive and other verbs which are unaccusatives inItalian?

4.4.1 Avere/essere

English does not have the avere/essere distinction, but older stages of the language did and showed the expected pattern.

4.4.2 Ne-cliticisation

English does not have ne-clicisation but we can infer something from the use of expletive there:

(37) (a) Three men arrived (b) There arrived three men(38) (a) Three men slept (b) *There slept three men(39) (a) Three men bought a book (b) *There bought three men a bookFinally, verbs like arrive pattern with passive participles in being able to occur in prenominal position:

(40) The recently promoted recruit(41) The recently arrived recruit(42) *The recently slept recruit

References

4.5 Problems

Problem 1

For the following sentences, indicate the case of each DP and specify how it is assigned:

(43) (a) He gave her a book. (b) The book was given to her. (c) The destruction of Rome was a surprise to no one. (d) Rome’s destruction surprised no one.Problem 2

We have seen that the preposition of appears to act as a dummy case-assigner when nouns want to take a DP complement:

(44) (a) *The destruction Rome. (b) The destruction of Rome.What problems are created for this view by the following examples:

(45) (a) The belief that John will win. (b) *The belief John to win. (c) *The belief of John to win. Problem 3

We have now seen a number of examples where the subject position is filled by an expletive. With unaccusatives, both English and Italianallow this:

(46) (a) Three men arrived (b) There arrived three menBut we saw the same pattern in examples involving raising:

(47) (a) There seems to be a man in the garden (b) A man seems to be in the gardenAn important property of these sentences is that the subject agrees with the subject if the subject is not an expletive, but agrees with theexpletive's 'associate' if the expletive is the subject:

(48) (a) *There seems to be three men in the garden (b) *There seem to be a man in the gardenHow could these facts be accounted for?

Problem 4

Draw a tree for the following sentence. Give arguments for your analysis. Include theta-relationsand case assignment.

This book was written in 1988.

Problem 5

For each of the following underlined items decide whether it triggers control or raising:

(49) (a) John appears to be a great swimmer. (b) John managed to swim across the Channel. (c) John wants to swim across the Atlantic as well. (d) But it is possible that he will not make it.

4.6 Further reading

Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. [chapter 3: Case theory; on departmental file]

Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. [chapter 5: Non-Overt Categories: PRO andControl; on departmental file].

Roberts, I. (1997). Comparative Syntax. London: Arnold. [chapter 2: case and agreement; on departmental file]

Hans van de Koot/20 October 2003