Abstract
This paper investigates case preferences for English pronouns in non-coordinated environments subject to variation: in isolation and after not, with following numeral, PP, and NP modifiers, in than and as comparatives, and as the foci of it-clefts. It uses an acceptability judgment experiment (Mechanical Turk) and corpus study (COCA) to investigate these preferences and presents an Optimality Theory-style analysis based on their results that models structural case assignment (case from an external head), default case, and prescriptivism as competing constraints. This model captures case preferences and their relative strengths and provides one possible explanation for the variation attested in these environments.
Highlights
Any native speaker of English who has thought significantly about his or her language would agree that a pronoun’s case is often not a matter of its function as subject or object
Perhaps the most attention has been given to coordinated pronouns (1a), which vary their case in a way that lone pronouns cannot (1b)
Mechanical Turk was used to advertise the survey to workers, but the actual survey was on Qualtrics; a link to the Qualtrics survey was given to workers who accepted the HIT (Human Intelligence Task) on Mechanical Turk. 200 native speakers of American English, 196 of whom finished the survey, rated 34 sentences for their acceptability on a 7-point Likert scale
Summary
Any native speaker of English who has thought significantly about his or her language would agree that a pronoun’s case is often not a matter of its function as subject or object. B. {She/*Her} went to the store yesterday. There are some non-coordinated environments that allow variation between nominative (I, he, she, we, they) and accusative (me, him, her, us, them) forms. Examples include pronouns with following NP modifiers (ignoring the argument-modifier distinction) (2), the foci of it-clefts (3), than comparatives (4), and at least for I, following not in an isolated utterance (5). These examples reveal that there are a number of environments that allow both nominative and accusative case forms. This variation is an interesting puzzle for linguistic theory. Why do these environments not require a specific case? Why do these environments not require a specific case? This question is certainly not fully resolved, but current theories (Quinn 2002, Schütze 2001, Parrott 2006, Grano 2006, and Sobin 1997 among others) attribute these patterns to a combination of prescriptivism, default case, and which environments unambiguous case assignment can penetrate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
