Nominative Case and Agree(ment)

M. Nomura, 2005

for $22.95 x

ABSTRACT

This study attempts to understand the nature of Case marking and agreement through the detailed study of Icelandic and Japanese. My investigation focuses especially on nominative Case on certain objects and on non-finite subjects.

This dissertation addresses the question of how nominative case can surface on NPs other than finite subjects. In addressing this question, I develop a new theory of Case and agreement based on Chomskys (2000, 2001, 2004) recent theory of long distance agreement. I propose that AGREE by a single Probe with multiple Goals can take place sequentially (Sequential AGREE). Under the theory of Sequential AGREE, I make two significant assumptions: nominative is uniformly licensed by T and the size of infinitival complement clauses varies (Wurmbrand (2001b)).

   By investigating Icelandic, I show that not only finite T but also non-finite T licenses nominative. Evidence comes from the person restrictions in dative-nominative constructions, Case-marked PRO, and intervention effects in Icelandic. Adopting Wurmbrands (2001b) idea, I give a unified account for the distribution of embedded nominative NPs and optional agreement facts between such NPs and the finite verb in biclausal dative-nominative constructions in Icelandic. I propose that the optionality comes from whether the infinitival complement is TP or smaller than TP in Icelandic.

   Based on Japanese facts of scope interactions among the nominative object, potential verb, and negation, I argue that nominative is licensed only by T and not by any othercategory between T and the nominative argument licenses nominative. Case alternation in potential constructions in Japanese derives from Wurmbrands (2001b) idea: when the complement clause is larger than v*P, accusative is licensed on the object by v*, when the complement clause is smaller than v*P, nominative is licensed by the matrix T via Sequential AGREE.

   Providing relevant data from Icelandic and Japanese, I attempt to argue that nominative NPs in finite clauses are all licensed by the same T and that nominative NPs in non-finite clauses can be licensed exactly in the same way as the ones in finite clauses. Throughout the dissertation, I solidify the claim that regardless of its finiteness, only T licenses nominative Case.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ..................................................................................... xii

Abbreviations .......................................................................................... xiv

Chapter one ................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Discrepancies......................................................................................................1

1.2 Overview............................................................................................................7

Chapter two .............................................................................................. 13

2. Theoretical framework ...................................................................... 13

2.1 Mechanisms of Long Distance Agreement (LDA).............................................13

2.2 Sequential AGREE ...........................................................................................19

2.2.1 Sequence of AGREE..................................................................................................................... 19

2.2.2 Locality for AGREE ..................................................................................................................... 33

2.2.3 Case Filter ................................................................................................................................... 39

2.2.4 Multiple Case checking................................................................................................................ 45

Appendix: (Non-)obligatory movement out of expletive passive construction............47

Chapter three ........................................................................................... 55

3. Nominative Case licensed by non-finite T ........................................ 55

3.1 Overview of dative-nominative constructions in Icelandic.................................56

3.2 The Person restrictions in Icelandic...................................................................65

3.2.1 The person restrictions and nominative objects ...................................................................... 65

3.2.2 Previous analyses ......................................................................................................................... 68

3.2.2.1 Taraldsen (1995) and Sigursson (1996) ..............................................................................................69

3.2.2.2 Schtze (1997).......................................................................................................................................71

3.2.2.3 Anagnostopoulou (2003), Bjar (2003), and Bjar and Rezac (2003) ...............................................73

3.2.2.4 Boeckx (2003)........................................................................................................................................74

3.2.3 The generalization on person restrictions .................................................................................. 77

3.2.4 Proposal ....................................................................................................................................... 80

3.3 PRO in Icelandic...............................................................................................83

3.4 Intervention effect.............................................................................................88

3.4.1 Defective Intervention is not defective ........................................................................................ 89

3.4.2 No intervention but still default agreement ................................................................................ 95

3.4.3 Generalization on agreement with an embedded nominative NP ............................................. 98

3.5 Movement and agreement ...............................................................................103

3.6 The sizes of infinitival complements in Icelandic ............................................114

3.6.1 Restructuring infinitives and non-restructuring infinitives .....................................................114

3.6.2 Seem-type ECM..........................................................................................................................122

3.6.3 Seem-type raising .......................................................................................................................133

3.6.4 Believe-type ECM.......................................................................................................................137

3.7 Conclusion......................................................................................................145

Appendix I: Wh-movement in Icelandic ..................................................................146

Appendix II: Varieties of Raising ............................................................................152

Chapter four ........................................................................................... 157

4. Nominative Case licensed only by T................................................ 157

4.1 Potential constructions in Japanese..................................................................158

4.1.1 Previous approaches ..................................................................................................................159

4.1.1.1 Tada (1992)......................................................................................................................................... 161

4.1.1.2 Koizumi (1994)................................................................................................................................... 163

4.1.1.3 Ura (1996, 1999, 2000) ....................................................................................................................... 167

4.1.1.4 Problem in previous approaches......................................................................................................... 171

4.1.2 Scope of nominative objects in Japanese..................................................................................174

4.1.3 Scope of nominative objects with negation...............................................................................177

4.1.4 Claim..........................................................................................................................................179

4.1.5 Truth value judgments................................................................................................................179

4.1.6 Implications ...............................................................................................................................185

4.1.7 Scope freezing effect...................................................................................................................187

4.1.8 Two types of complement clauses in the potential constructions: VP and vP .......................192

4.1.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................202

4.2 V-te ar- constructions in Japanese...................................................................203

4.2.1 Two types of transitive V-te ar- constructions ..........................................................................203

4.2.2 Is a nominative marked argument in Nominative Transitive te ar- construction a subject?.206

4.2.3 Two types of complement clauses in the V-te ar- constructions: VP and vP..........................210

Appendix: VP-complementation vs. Complex Predicate ..........................................216

Chapter five ............................................................................................ 221

5. Conclusion........................................................................................ 221

5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................221

5.2 Remaining issues ............................................................................................236

5.2.1 Wh-movement in Icelandic revisited .........................................................................................236

5.2.2 Phrase-structural differences among Icelandic infinitives ......................................................238

Bibliography ........................................................................................... 243