Inherent Case and Locality Requirement: Evidence from Ditransitives and their Nominalizations

University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 17 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 34th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium Article 12 2011 Inherent Case and Locality Requirement: Evidence from Ditransitives and their Nominalizations Vera Dvorak Rutgers University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Dvorak, Vera (2011) "Inherent Case and Locality Requirement: Evidence from Ditransitives and their Nominalizations," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 17 : Iss. 1 , Article 12. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/12 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/12 For more information, please contact . Inherent Case and Locality Requirement: Evidence from Ditransitives and their Nominalizations Abstract Inherent Case is understood as Case, the assignment of which has to be accompanied by thetaassignment (Chomsky 1995). While Nominative on the subject and Accusative on the direct object are typical representatives of structural Case, Genitive or Dative are usually taken as representatives of inherent Case. In this paper I first review the properties of ditransitive verbs in Czech explored in Dvořák (in press) who argues that there are two types of inherent Datives in Czech: a high Dative assigned by an applicative head and associated with a recipient/benefactive theta-role, and a low Dative associated with a path theta-role. I provide the evidence for the independent existence of both of these Datives outside of ditransitives: in unaccusative structures and in structures with only a dative object. After that I draw my attention to the properties of the postnominal Genitive in Czech, especially the Genitive that is assigned to the direct object of nominalized ditransitive verbs. Even though these constructions reveal that Genitive is similar to Dative in terms of the local relationship between the Case-assigning head and the Caseassigned DP, I show that we do not need to refer to Genitive’s “inherentness” in order to derive the fact that the Genitive DP always immediately follows the assigning noun. I employ the data from nominalized ditransitives, in which the theta-marking and Case-marking of the object DP is dissociated, complemented by data on nominalizations with small clause subjects in Genitive, to argue for the “structuralness” of the postnominal Genitive in Czech. This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/12 Inherent Case and Locality Requirement: Evidence from Ditransitives and their Nominalizations Věra Dvořák 1 Background The distinction between structural and inherent Case introduced in Chomsky 1986 belongs nowadays to one of the well-established dichotomies in generative linguistics. Chomsky (1995) attributes the “structuralness” of Case to the observation that such Case is “assigned solely in terms of S-structure configuration” while Case “inherentness” is associated with θ -marking. This distinction was utilized as an explanation of the behavior of ECM verbs in English as illustrated in the following contrast: (1) a. b. John believes [the rumor to be false]. * John’s belief of [the rumor to be false]. While Accusative can be assigned to the external argument of the embedded infinitival clause, Genitive cannot because the noun can neither assign a θ -role to it nor has it a structural Case to assign: (2) Inherent Case is assigned by α to NP only if α θ -marks NP. (Chomsky 1995:114) 2 Thesis • There are two types of ditransitives in Czech due to two Dative-assigning heads: a higher applicative head and a lower P head incorporated into V (see McFadden 2004 for the parallel distinction in German). Each of the two Datives is associated with a different θ -role. The same inherent Dative assigning heads can be found in unaccusative structures, in monotransitive structures with a dative object, and also in the nominalized structures. • When ditransitives are nominalized, an underlying direct object always bears Genitive while an indirect object always retains its Dative. I show that the postnominal Genitive assignment is similar to Dative assignment in terms of structural requirements (locality). • On the other hand, Genitive behaves like structural Case regarding θ -roles because its assignment does not have to be accompanied by θ -assignment. Moreover, the locality requirement on the assignment of Genitive can be derived from the fact that the nominalized vP constitutes a Spell-Out phase. I conclude that Chomsky’s definition of inherent Case and and an analysis of the Czech postnominal Genitive as inherent Case do not fit together. 3 Two Types of Ditransitive Verbs 3.1 Data In Dvořák (in press) I have shown that Czech ditransitive verbs belong to two distinct classes exemplified in 3a and 3b. I label the two classes as Acc-Dat verbs and Dat-Acc verbs because of their underlying word order. (3) a. Karel podřı́dil Marii svoje plány. / . . . podřı́dil svoje plány Marii. Charles.NOM adjusted Mary.DAT his plans.ACC / adjusted his plans.ACC Mary.DAT ‘Charles adjusted his plans to Mary.’ b. Karel poslal Marii dopis. / Karel poslal dopis Marii. Charles.NOM sent Mary.DAT letter.ACC / Charles.NOM sent letter.ACC Mary.DAT ‘Charles sent Mary a letter.’ U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 17.1, 2011 96 VĚRA DVOŘÁK 3.1.1 Word Order One of my arguments for the existence of two types of ditransitives is based on a default word order. Both word orders, Acc before Dat as well as Dat before Acc, are possible in Czech for all ditransitives as shown in 3. However, in neutral contexts, i.e. contexts where all information is new and equally important, only the Acc≫Dat word order is unmarked for the verbs like 3a while the Dat≫Acc word order is unmarked for 3b verbs. The other order is unexpected in the all-new context below. It is associated with the presupposition that the content of the clause is known except for the last argument which represents the prominent/unexpected piece of information. (4) context: “Copak se stalo?” ‘What happened?’ a. Karel podřı́dil svoje plány Marii. / #. . . podřı́dil Marii svoje plány. Charles adjusted his plans.ACC Mary.DAT / adjusted Mary.DAT his plans.ACC ‘Charles adjusted his plans to Mary.’ b. Učitel vystavil děti nebezpečı́ / #. . . vystavil nebezpečı́ děti. teacher exposed children.ACC danger.DAT / exposed danger.DAT children.ACC ‘The teacher exposed the children to a danger.’ c. Karel poslal Marii dopis. / #. . . poslal dopis Marii. Charles sent Mary.DAT letter.ACC / sent letter.ACC Mary.DAT ‘Charles sent Mary a letter.’ d. Petr opravil Lence počı́tač. / #. . . opravil počı́tač Lence. Petr.NOM repaired Lenka.DAT computer.ACC / repaired computer.ACC Lenka.DAT ‘Peter repaired Lenka’s computer.’ 3.1.2 Dative Argument Obligatoriness Acc-Dat verbs (...truncated)