Abstract
Languages differ in the number of cases that are realized morphologically. This raises the question whether case systems are the same across languages. GB theory generally adopts a rigid view: at least the four basic cases (nominative, accusative, dative and genitive) are universally present, although sometimes not spelled out. In this chapter we will argue for a more flexible theory, one in which no language has case distinctions beyond what is morphologically realized.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The distinction in form between subject and object pronouns is not necessarily represented in terms of morphological case, as we will argue in chapter 6. Object pronouns are lexically specified as having a case shell but this case shell is not filled in languages without morphological case. Consequently, the pronominal systems of modern Dutch and modern English do not affect the conclusions drawn in this chapter.
The ablative-a is a long vowel, as opposed to the short final vowel found in the nominative.
Forms that were originally accusative can be maintained in two ways. First, as a result of diachronic reanalysis, an originally accusative suffix may eventually also be attached to subjects in another quality. In some Dutch dialects, for instance, the case ending -n was reinterpreted as a gender suffix. In this capacity, it can of course be attached to subjects and objects alike. Second, if the accusative (for reasons to be discussed in section 4.1) lacks an overt affix, this may be the surviving form. This is what happened in at least some of the Romance languages.
Note that the second masculine declension in (16) illustrates the special status of the nominative with respect to the ‘genuine’ cases. In addition, the first declension shows that within the group of ‘genuine’ cases the accusative has a special status with respect to genitive and dative. We will argue in section 4.1 that it is indeed unmarked with respect to the other cases.
The codes following the Middle Dutch examples refer to Van Gestel, Nijen Twilhaar, Rinkel & Weerman 1992 (OZ), Gysseling 1977 (CG), De Bruin 1970 (LD) and Stoett 1923 (ST). Page numbers are indicated.
This does not imply that nominative DPs can only appear as subjects of finite clauses. In Middle Dutch, for instance, predicative DPs may be nominative. In Icelandic, nominative DPs can even appear in object position. Although the (limited) circumstances under which this is allowed require discussion (see footnote 5 in chapter 6), the important thing to notice is that, even in Icelandic, a verb cannot select for a nominative object.
The prediction, then, is that the effects of morphological case will be absent in the very first stages of acquisition. This seems to be correct, as we will briefly discuss in section 5.
Alternatively van is analyzed as a prepostion that governs the empty case shell of its DP complement (on a par with other prepositions). We will not pursue this option here, since it is unclear how it differs empirically from the suggestion made in the main text.
Obviously, if VP-shell formation (cf. chapter 2) is blocked in a VO language, the only way of licensing two internal arguments is by inserting a prepostion. Such a situation may have arisen in Romance, where the dative was replaced by a preposition after deflexion.
At first sight, the trace in spec-PP does not appear within the verb’s government domain, as it does not m-command the verb. The same seems to be true of the head of the case phrase. However, we have argued in chapter 2, footnote 7, that by X-bar theory the properties of heads are transferred to their maximal projection, and that this suffices for government. Similarly, we may assume that, as a result of specifier-head agreement and X-bar theory, the properties of specifiers may be copied onto the dominating projection. If so, the feature <+R>, which characterizes R-pronouns, will be present on PP. Consequently, the trace in (34b) satisfies the ECP. Note that this line of argumentation does not affect our analysis of exceptional case marking, as we do not view subjects as specifiers (cf. chapter 5).
See chapter 5 for the realization of the Agent. This is irrelevant here.
It is sometimes suggested that possible and impossible case syncretisms are implied by the organization of the paradigm. Syncretism would be the result of a union of two cells, much in the way we analyze dative case. This is not the only manner in which syncretism can come about, however. We have already seen that nominative and accusative have the same form if the accusative is not spelled out. Syncretisms can also be the result of generalizations concerning the realization of different cases. In the system at hand, dative-genitive syncretism, for instance, can be understood as the result of one form being used to express those cases characterized by a positive feature, whether <+MAR> or <+NOP>.
Recall that we have assumed that functional heads are underspecified in that they lack negative categorial features. Hence, auxiliaries in I, being <+V> are not proper governors for case shells, which are <+N>.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neeleman, A., Weerman, F. (1999). Morphological Case. In: Flexible Syntax. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 47. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4289-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4289-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-7199-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4289-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive