The Accusative Case parameter - A synopsis of work in progress.
Tanya Reinhart Eric Reuland and Tal Siloni
1. The problem: Variation in auxiliary selection.
Auxiliary selection shows some unexplained variation across languages:
A. In some languages the formation of unaccusatives enforces selection of be (1a)
(Italian, French, Dutch, German). In others it does not (1b) (Spanish, Greek).
(1) a.
b.
(2) a.
b.
La porta si è chiusa. /La porte s'est fermée. (The door SE is closed - The door
closed)
La puerta se ha cerrado. (The door SE has closed)
Max si è lavato. / Max s’est lavé. (Max SE is washed - Max washed)
Max heeft zich gewassen./ Max hat sich gewaschen. (Max has SE washed)
B. In Romance, if a language selects be with unaccusatives, it does so also with
reflexives (French, Italian) (2a). In Germanic be is used with unaccusatives, but have
is used with reflexives (Dutch, German) (2b). We will show that these variations
follow from the Accusative Case parameter that we proceed to outline.
2. Accusative Case.
A central question in Case theory since the eighties has been the relation between
Case and the thematic system. Purely structural Case (Nominative, Accusative) was
contrasted with Case dependent on the verb's thematic structure (e.g. Instrumental and
Oblique). Structural Case was determined by syntactic relations such as government,
or later Spec-head, while inherent Case was determined thematically (Chomsky 1981,
1986). The view that the Case the verb assigns to its object is necessarily a structural
Case was challenged by Belletti (1988) and Belletti and Rizzi (1998), who argued that
it can be either structural or inherent (within the same language). Torrego (1998)
further pursues such a line in accounting for variation in object marking in Spanish (as
in (3) below).
We go a step further and argue that Acc is both structural and thematic (inherent).
More broadly this reflects a different perspective on the relations of Case and Theta. It
is not that the Cases themselves are divided into structural and thematic, but rather all
Cases have these two components. Case thus encodes two different relations: that of a
θ-argument, and that of a syntactic complement. We conceive of the former as the
implementation of the θ-criterion, namely, each θ-role when assigned requires some
formal checking, which is universally executed through the Case system. The verb
always checks directly the thematic Case (at least when VP internal arguments are
concerned). But the structural and thematic components of Case may be checked
independently. In the oblique case, the full PP checks the verb’s thematic Case. But
the preposition checks the structural Case feature of the DP. Acc Case is a special
instance, where the DP is a direct complement of the verb. This means that the verb
should be able to check both the thematic and the structural Case, or that the
accusative Case is composed, in fact, of two distinct components, which can both be
checked directly by the verb. Nevertheless, the structural and thematic Acc
components can also be checked independently. In ECM structures like I expect [him
to win], IP checks the thematic Acc component, and him checks its structural
component.
3. The structural Acc parameter.
Not all languages have both these accusative components. While the thematic
component is universal (being the implementation of the θ-criterion), structural Case
is parameterized. (This direction was proposed in Danon (2002). Chomsky 1981
argued regarding variations in P-stranding, that whether P has a structural Case is
parameterized. For other cases see Belletti and Rizzi 1988, Torrego 1998.) A major
indication for the parameter comes from ECM. If a language has no structural case it
has no real ECM. This is so because the thematic Acc of the verb checks the IP, and
there is no structural case to check the DP subject. This is borne out in Hebrew (as
shown by Danon (2002), Spanish and Greek.
There is further language specific evidence for an Acc parameter: Danon (2002)
argues that Hebrew and Spanish do not have structural Acc. This is based on two
observations: a. In these languages definiteness/animacy are syntactically coded. b.
While an indefinite/inanimate DP can occur as a direct complement of the verb (3a), a
coded (definite/animate) DP requires a dummy preposition (3b). (See Torrego 1998
for more detail.)
(3) a.
b.
Vimos (*a) una mesa. (We see a table)
Vimos *(a) Roberto. (We see A/to Roberto)
The coded DPs carry a Case feature that can only be checked by structural Case. In
the absence of structural Acc, a preposition is inserted to check structural Case.
4. Aux selection and the Acc parameter.
We assume, following Ackema (1995) and others, that Aux selection is related to Case
considerations, rather than either Theta or Aspect. (Have has full accusative Case, while
be does not.) Next, we argue that unaccusative and reflexive entries are derived from
basic transitive entries by arity operations, which can apply either in the lexicon or in
Syntax along the lines of Reinhart and Siloni (2003). The effect of these operations is
that one of the verb's original θ-roles is not syntactically realized. Arity operations have a
uniform effect on the Acc features of the verb - They eliminate the thematic Acc
component, but they cannot affect the structural Acc component, which is purely
syntactic. The rest depends on the Acc parameter.
With this we can turn to problem A in section 1.: If the language is set on the structural
Acc value, it still has to take care of this component in the syntax, and we argue that this
happens by checking in the I projection. If an auxiliary needs to be inserted, the default
have is excluded, since it adds a structural Case feature in conflict with the derivation's
attempt to get rid of a superfluous Acc. Thus be- selection is a reflex of the checking of a
structural Acc residue. As we saw, Spanish and Greek have no structural Acc. Hence, no
residue checking takes place, and nothing blocks the default have. French and Italian
have structural Acc, reflected also in their be selection.
Turning to auxiliary problem B, Dutch and German also have structural Case,
witnessed by their be selection with unaccusatives. But Germanic differs from
Romance in its lexico-morphological inventory. While the Romance SE is an
inflectional clitic, its counterpart (zich/sich) in Germanic is a nominal that can serve
also as an LD anaphor. As such, it is an argument, though it is Case deficient
(Reinhart and Reuland 1993). We argue that it cannot indeed check thematic Case,
but it still can check structural Case. With unaccusatives (Jan is gearriveerd t),
zich/sich cannot be used, since the object argument position is occupied by the trace.
Hence, as in Romance, the Acc residue must be checked by the Inflection mechanism.
But with reflexives (which, we argue, do not have an unaccusative derivation),
zich/sich are inserted in the object position, where they can check the structural Acc
residue. Hence, there is no need for further inflection checking, and have is not
blocked (2b). Note that in (2b), the thematic Acc of the verbs has been eliminated by
the arity operation, as in Romance.
The distinction between the thematic and structural components of Acc enables a
solution to a long standing puzzle of Germanic. On the LD use of zich it can occur
inside a PP (4a), but not as a direct object (4b).
(4) a.
Jani hoorde [jou tegen zichi argumenteren] (Jani heard you argue against
himi)
b. *Jani hoorde [jou zichi critiseren] (Jani heard you criticize himi )
The reason is that in (4a) zich does not check thematic Case. The verb argue checks
its thematic Case against the PP, zich only checks the structural case of P. In (4b) both
thematic and structural Acc must be checked by zich. Since zich cannot check the
thematic Case, the derivation is filtered out.
References
Ackema, P. 1995. Syntax below Zero. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: UiL OTS, Utrecht
University
Belletti, A. 1988. The Case of Unaccusatives. LI 19, 1-35
Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi. 1988 Psych-Verbs and Theta Theory, NLLT 6.3, 291-352.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language, its Nature Origin, and Use. New York:
Praeger
Danon, G. 2002. Case and Formal Definiteness. PhD Dissertation. Tel Aviv
University
Reinhart, T. & E. Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. LI. 24.4 657-720
Reinhart, T, & T. Siloni. 2003. Thematic Arity Operations and Parametric Variations.
Ms Utrecht/Tel Aviv
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.