Passivization possibilities in double-accusative constructions

Based on a diachronic corpus search, this paper proposes that dative rather than accusative-marking on the first object of German double-accusative verbs like lehren 'teach' (as also discussed in Lang 2007) and the corresponding passivization possibilities stem from the first object being interpreted as Recipient (sympathy-invoking co-participant, see Lehmann et al. 2004) rather than animate Patient and the second object being interpreted as inanimate Patient rather than adverbial accusative. In addition, a formal case-based account of German active and passive (di)transitive constructions is offered, making a three-way distinction between (i) structural, (ii) predictable inherent, and (iii) idiosyncratic lexical case (in line with Woolford 2006).

Quirky subjects in Icelandic, Faroese, and German: A Relational Grammar account

This paper presents a new analysis of quirky subjects according to which quirky subjects bear multiple grammatical relations and hence differ syntactically from regular subjects. This contrasts with the standard analysis of quirky subjects according to which quirky subjects are regular subjects bearing lexical case and therefore differ only morphologically from regular subjects. Based on the behavior of quirky subjects in Faroese and German, I argue that the syntactic account is superior. Faroese shows that the case borne by a quirky subject is not lexical, whereas German shows that quirky subjects are not regular subjects to begin with. The behavior of quirky subjects in Icelandic, on which the standard analysis is based, is argued to be the result of a morphosyntactic peculiarity of Icelandic.

The ‘believe’-construction in Standard Arabic

This paper presents an analysis for the ‘believe’-construction in Standard Arabic (SA). The analysis proposed here assumes theVisibility Condition, whereby structural Case is necessary to render arguments visible at LF for θ-role assignment (Aoun 1979, Chomsky 1981). The earlier approaches are untenable because they do not make proper provision for the Case-visibility requirements of the complement clause of ‘believe’. Thus, they are not extendable to SA since they ignore the Case-visibility requirements of the CP complement ofð̣anna‘believe’, assuming that CPs require Case for visibility (Uriagereka 2006, 2008). These requirements can be satisfied if we assume the distinction between structural Case and lexical case established in Al-Balushi (2011: 126–157) based on SA data, where structural Case is licensed on arguments and lexical case is assigned to non-arguments, nominals merged in A-bar positions. I thus propose that the Acc-marked DP (embedded subject/matrix object) does not receive structural Acc Case from the matrix v*0, but rather lexical Acc case from the matrix predicateð̣anna, as a lexical element, reserving the structural Acc Case for the CP argument. I also argue that this DP is an A-bar element, co-indexed with an empty category argumentproin the embedded clause.

Case distribution and φ-agreement with Polish genitive of quantification in the feature sharing theory of Agree

This paper offers a minimalist account of the distribution of the features of case, number and gender in Polish phrases with cardinal numerals and vague quantifiers (Q-NPs) in the presence and absence of genitive of quantification (GQ) based on the assumption that GQ-cardinal numerals and vague quantifiers are phrasal and are merged as adjuncts to the projection of a null functional head (F), a phase head that values its complement with GQ in contexts in which GQ is not overridden by inherent theta-related or lexical case. Whether the null head F inserted in the derivation has unvalued features of number and gender has consequences for the syntactic computation of agreement relations, in which features may be shared. Heterogeneous case distribution in Q-NPs in nominative-accusative case contexts provides evidence that F is a phase head and triggers transfer of its complement. Variable agreement patterns of both attributive adjectival modifiers and adjectival predicates in the presence of GQ are argued here to reflect attempted-but-failed syntactic agreement, which does not lead to ungrammaticality, as some features unvalued in narrow syntax can still be interpreted by morphological realization rules in PF. GQ is shown here to provide evidence that predicative adjectives cannot have their φ-features valued in situ and must be remerged in a position where their φ-probes can initiate Search for matching features. Agreement in the presence of GQ in Polish thus demonstrates that the need of features to be valued drives syntactic movement.

Passive in Danish, English, and German

We show how the variation in the passive in Danish, English, and German can be accounted for. The dimensions in which the three languages differ are the existence of a morphological passive in Danish a subject requirement in Danish and English resulting in expletive insertion in impersonal constructions in Danish and absence of impersonal passives in English the possibility to promote the secondary object to subject in Danish The differences are accounted for by differences in the structural/lexical case distinction and by mapping processes that insert expletives in Danish. The passive in general is accounted for by a lexical rule that is uniform across languages and hence captures the generalization regarding passive.

Two types of case variation

Building on data from Icelandic, this article argues that there are two kinds of case variation, formal and semantic. The first type features lexical case as one of the variants whereas the second type involves structural vs. inherent case. The semantic effect found with the latter kind of variation follows from the semantic requirements associated with inherent case and these may cut across different uses of the same verb. It is also shown how the weak status of disappearing lexical case manifests itself in the grammar of Icelandic and Faroese.

Long Distance Agreement and Restructuring

Agreement in Hindi/Urdu may optionally hold between the matrix verb and the object of a matrix infinitive. Bhatt 2005 reduces this optionality to Restructuring, the option of lacking a PRO subject in the infinitive. PRO in Hindi is subject to a lexical case condition, which should be obviated if PRO were missing in the restructured case with LDA. But sentences are ungrammatical both with and without LDA. I argue that PRO is always present, in both the LDA and default agreement cases. Restructuring is not an option for LDA matrix verbs in this language.