Basic English Syntax with Exercises

nominative Case

1.3.5.1 Inflections

This distinction is traditionally called a Case distinction, which has to do with the forms that certain nominal arguments appear in. In English there are not many Case distinctions to be seen as it is only the pronouns which have Case forms, but in other languages there can be more such distinctions made (think of Hungarian János, Jánost, Jánosnak, etc.). The he form of the pronoun (similarly, she, I, we, they) is called the nominative case form, while the him form (her, me, us, them) is the accusative case form. Note, finite clauses must have nominative elements in the relevant position, whereas, if the position is filled at all in non-finite clauses, it must be by an accusative element:

1.3.5.4 Complementisers

The remaining set of categorial features that has not been assigned to a category is [+F, –N, –V], that is ‘functional prepositions’. One argument for treating complementisers as functional prepositions is the fact that at least one of them, for, has certain prepositional properties (it is sometimes called the prepositional complementiser). Note that prepositions take nominal complements that are always in the accusative Case, and never in the nominative:

2.2.1 The subject

Another aspect of the subject that shows up in finite clauses concerns the form of the subject itself. Previously we introduced the notion of Case, which is morphologically apparent only on pronouns in English. The subject of the finite clause is the only position where a nominative pronoun (I, he, she, we, they) can appear. In all other positions English pronouns have the accusative form (me, him, her, us, them – you and it are the same in nominative and accusative):

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

In chapter 2 we mentioned the grammatical notion of Case, pointing out that certain pronouns in English have different Case forms. Nominative pronouns include he, she, I and we while accusative pronouns are him, her, me and us. What determines which form the pronoun appears in is apparently its S-structure position. If a pronoun is the subject of a finite clause it will be nominative, anywhere else it is accusative (we ignore the possessor position inside the DP which is associated with genitive Case: his, her, my and our):

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

In (84a) the clause is finite as tense is marked on the auxiliary verb. The subject he is in the nominative form, not the accusative him. However, the object of the verb help, her, is in the accusative not the nominative she. In (84b), while the main clause is finite and has a nominative subject, I, the embedded clause is non-finite. This clause has an accusative subject him. The object of the preposition in this clause is also accusative, us.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

The pronoun is in the subject of a finite clause and so naturally is in the nominative. However, as this clause is passive, the pronoun originates from the object position at D-structure. But this fact does not seem to have any bearing on the case of the pronoun: the pronoun is nominative not accusative as a non-moved object would be. Clearly, then, it is the position that a pronoun sits in at S-structure that determines its case. We might claim therefore that there are positions which are Case positions, specifically nominative positions and accusative positions, and there are positions which are not Case positions.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

But if there are nominative and accusative case positions, what are we to say about the non-pronominal DPs that sit in these positions as no other DP demonstrates morphological Case distinctions? There are two things that we might say. One is that Case positions are only Case positions when occupied by a pronominal DP. This would be rather difficult to arrange however, as it appears that apart from the fact that Cases are only visible on pronominals, what defines Case positions is fairly general: the subject of a finite clause is nominative, the object position of a verb or preposition is accusative and the subject position of a non-finite clause is accusative. It is not clear how to include the presence of the pronominal into the definition of a case position.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

One reason to believe that case positions are generally defined but just morphologically distinguished on certain elements is the fact that case is not distinguished on all English pronouns. For example there is no distinction between nominative and accusative for the pronoun it:

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

The third person singular masculine pronoun demonstrates a Case distinction between subject and object position in (86), but not the pronoun it. It would be extremely difficult to account for why Case positions are only defined in the presence of pronouns, except for it and would be much better to say that the Case position is defined in the presence of it but this pronoun does not realise the distinction overtly. In other words, it is the nominative form of this pronoun and it is the accusative form. But once we have accepted this as a possibility it is reasonable to accept it for all other nominal elements as well.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

One way to view this situation is to separate two notions of Case. One notion of Case, relating to the traditional view, is that Case has to do with the form a nominal element takes dependent on its position or, in some languages, its function in a sentence. We can call this phenomenon Morphological case. The other view of Case is that this is something a DP gets simply by occupying a certain structural position, whether or not it is realised overtly. We call this Abstract Case, or just Case (spelled with a capital). From this perspective then, any DP that occupies the subject position of a finite clause has nominative Case irrespective of whether that DP looks different from what it would if it were sitting in an object position and bearing accusative Case.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

In (87) we have a series of pronominal subjects of non-finite clauses. In the one grammatical case the subject is accusative, demonstrating that this is an accusative position. The ungrammaticality of the nominative pronoun in (87b) is therefore understandable. That (87c) should be ungrammatical is interesting as here we have an accusative pronoun. In this case the complementiser for is absent, indicating that this element is in some way responsible for the accusative case in (87a) in which it is present. This is understandable as this complementiser is similar to a preposition, and in fact is often called the prepositional complementiser, and as we know, the complement of prepositions is in the accusative. To account for this let us assume that Case is rather like Θ-roles and is assigned by certain elements to certain positions. The prepositional complementiser therefore assigns accusative Case to the subject of the non-finite clause that it introduces:

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

Although this might explain why the subject has accusative Case in (87a) and cannot have nominative Case in (87b), by itself it does not account for why (87c) and (d) are ungrammatical. To understand what is going on here we must attend more closely to the facts. Firstly the element that we have assumed to assign accusative Case to this position is absent and so we might assume that no accusative Case is assigned in these circumstances. Presumably whatever it is that assigns nominative Case is not present in a non-finite clause. Therefore in this situation it seems that neither accusative nor nominative case are assigned to the subject position.

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

The position to which the subject moves is typically a nominative position and so we might assume that the movement has something to do with placing this argument in a Case position. The reason why these verbs are called ‘unaccusative’ is because unlike with transitive verbs, which share the possibility of having theme arguments, the theme of the unaccusative cannot normally remain inside the VP to receive accusative Case.

5.2.2 Light verbs

This is identical to what happens with unaccusative verbs (compare (31) with (22)): the theme subject receives no Case in its original VP internal position and hence has to move to the nominative subject position. So how does the theme get Case in (30)? The obvious difference is the presence of the light verb and therefore we might assume that it is this verb that is responsible for assigning accusative Case to the theme:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

Let us consider further aspects of the analysis of the ergative verbs. In the causative construction, the agent is the subject and moves to the nominative position in finite clauses. However the theme stays put inside the VP. In the non-causative, unaccusative form, however, the theme is the subject and moves to the nominative position. Thus in the causative construction the theme must be assigned Case in its original position and this position must be Caseless in the absence of the causative light verb. This clearly points to the light verbs as being responsible for the accusative Case of the theme, just as we claimed for the overt causative structure:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

This observation clearly calls out for an explanation. Another thing in need of explanation is the fact the post-verbal theme obviously receives Case in this position and does not have to move to subject position. It seems that this fact goes hand in hand with the presence of the there subject as, in its absence, the theme must move to the subject position to get Case. This has led some to the conclusion that the there somehow has a role in the assignment of Case to the theme. One possibility is that the difference between an expletive there and an expletive it is that the former has the ability to transmit the Case that it receives by occupying the subject position. If this is so, then the post-verbal theme should get nominative Case as this is the Case that the expletive gets:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

The observation that the post-verbal DP is limited to indefinites has led to the claim that neither nominative nor accusative Case is assigned to this position, but a special Case which can only be born by indefinite DPs. Belletti (1988) proposed that partitive Case is incompatible with definite DPs for semantic reasons and therefore only indefinites can bear it. Thus if we assume that partitive Case is assigned to the post-verbal position in there constructions, we can account for why only indefinite DPs can appear in this position. The problem with this is that under these assumptions it is not entirely clear why we have a there expletive and not an it. It would seem then that the key to the proper analysis of this construction is the link between the there subject and the Case marked indefinite DP in the post-verbal position.

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

The verb movement is as we have seen before. As both light verbs are bound morphemes, both will need supporting and so the verb will move from one to the other forming a complex head adjunction structure in the top head position. As far as Case relationships are concerned, the subject DP is in a Caseless position and hence will move to the clause subject position to get nominative Case. The indirect object gets accusative from the upper light verb in the position it moves to and the direct object gets Case from the lower light verb without moving. The word order is as predicted with the verb preceding both the objects and the indirect object moved in front of the direct object.

6.1 The structure of IP

Inflections similarly impose Case restrictions on their subjects. For example, when there is a finite inflection, the subject is always nominative though this is not so with non-finite clauses:

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

This must be a Case position as the sentence is grammatical with the subject sitting in it and therefore the Case Filter must be satisfied. If we assume that it is the inflection which is responsible for assigning the Case we account for why this is the landing site for this movement. Moreover, we also account for the difference between the subjects of finite and infinite clauses. Recall that while the subject of the finite clause has nominative Case, the typical Case for the subject of the non-finite clause is accusative:

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

Presumably the agreement element is different in both these cases. For one thing, modal auxiliaries can appear in the agreement position of finite clauses, but not of non-finite clauses. Moreover, finite inflection selects for a finite tense headed phrase as its complement while the one in (63b) clearly selects for a non-finite complement. I will not have anything to say about the accusative Case of the subject of the non-finite clause at present, leaving this for future discussion. Instead, we will concentrate on the finite inflection, which assigns nominative to the subject.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

The Case assigned by the finite agreement element is very different from that assigned to the object. Obviously the former is a nominative Case while the latter is accusative, but the differences extend further than this. For one thing assuming that it is the agreement element which is responsible for nominative Case, this Case must be assigned in a leftward direction:

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

Furthermore, this case is assigned by a functional element, something that is not involved in Θ-role assignment. For accusative Case the Case assigner necessarily Θ-marks its subject in order to be able to assign accusative Case. But the same is not true for the inflectional assigner of nominative Case.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

There are two basic positions linguists take with respect to these observations. One is to assume that nominative and accusative Case are similar and the other assumes that they are fundamentally different. From the first perspective the challenge is to come up with restrictions which define the conditions under which Case can be assigned generally. For example, there are three positions to which we have seen a Case assigned: the specifier of the inflection; the specifier of the complement, and the complement position itself:

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

The other point of view observes that it does not seem to be mere coincidence that the two instances of rightward Case assignment in (65) happen to involve accusative Case while the leftward Case assignment involves nominative. The assumption is then that there are two different processes at work here. For nominative the relevant relationship is supposed to be specifier–head agreement, something we mentioned in the previous chapter. The idea is that the finite inflectional element can assign nominative Case to whatever it agrees with, and this will be its specifier. For accusative Case however, government is the relevant relationship, though defined in a slightly different way as it is no longer required to extend to the subject. Informally, this version of government can be defined as:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

One difference between the finite embedded clause and the non-finite one is that the former has a nominative subject and the latter an accusative one. We saw in chapter 5 how the finite inflection is responsible for assigning nominative Case to its specifier. A relevant question is where the accusative Case of the non-finite subject comes from: does the non-finite inflection assign accusative Case? The answer would appear to be no because not all infinitival clauses can have an accusative subject, and if the non-finite inflection were able to assign accusative Case, we would expect an accusative subject to be a permanent possibility, just like the nominative subject is always possible in a finite clause:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

One difference between the finite embedded clause and the non-finite one is that the former has a nominative subject and the latter an accusative one. We saw in chapter 5 how the finite inflection is responsible for assigning nominative Case to its specifier. A relevant question is where the accusative Case of the non-finite subject comes from: does the non-finite inflection assign accusative Case? The answer would appear to be no because not all infinitival clauses can have an accusative subject, and if the non-finite inflection were able to assign accusative Case, we would expect an accusative subject to be a permanent possibility, just like the nominative subject is always possible in a finite clause:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

In this case the subject of the complement clause gets nominative Case from its own finite inflection and so the replacement of the light verb with the passive morpheme makes no difference.

8.2.1 Raising

In a number of ways this is similar to the kinds of movements we have seen previously which take a DP from one position and move it to a subject position, such as the movement of the subject from the specifier of a VP or the movement of an object of a passive or unaccusative verb. Those kinds of movements, we saw, were motivated by the fact that the DP started off in a Caseless position and hence in order to satisfy the Case filter it had to move into a Case position. The subject of a finite clause is a Case position as this is where nominative Case is assigned to by the finite inflection. In (52a) we see a DP that is moved into the subject of a finite clause, and so it may be that this movement is also Case motivated. If this is so, we expect to find that the position it moves from is a Caseless position. Is this prediction accurate? Consider the relevant structure in a little more detail.

8.2.1 Raising

Here, the verb first moves to the tense position, and then into the I to support the bound tense and agreement morphemes. The subject in its D-structure position is Caseless, so it moves into the vacant specifier of the IP where it is assigned nominative Case.

8.2.1 Raising

Next, consider the restrictions on the movement shown in (52b) and (c). The subject of the embedded clause cannot undergo raising if it is in a finite clause, or in an object position. In both of these cases, the DP is sitting in a Case position, therefore regardless of any other restriction, there would be little point in it moving to the specifier of the higher clause as once it has satisfied the Case Filter, it does not need to do so again. We might assume a kind of laziness to the system (some call it ‘economy’) such that if something doesn’t need to happen, it will not happen. If the clause is finite and hence the subject gets nominative from the finite inflection, then the higher subject position will be unfilled. It is under these circumstances that the EPP will force the insertion of a pleonastic subject: