Θ-role Assignment Research Articles

The relationship between agreement and morphological case: Evidence from arabic

This paper argues for the dissociation between agreement and structural Case, based on data from Standard Arabic (SA) and the Omani variety of Arabic (OA), and makes two claims in this regard. First, agreement is related to morphological case (m-case) in two ways: 1) agreement deputizes for m-case when m-case is absent (either because m-case is not realized or because the DP is not overt); and 2) the agreement affixes (subject vs. object) reflect the case values (Nom vs. Acc) that DPs surface with. This applies to structural and lexical as well as default case types, thus indicating lack of connection to arguments. Second, using data from OA, whose DPs do not bear m-case and verbs bear full agreement with both arguments, it will be argued that the proposed relationship between agreement and m-case, where agreement deputizes for m-case in the morphological component, helps in θ-role assignment.

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.

The subject of adjectives: Syntactic position and semantic interpretation

It is widely accepted that subjects of verbs are base-generated within the (extended) verbal projection. In this paper I argue that the same is not true for predicative adjectives. In line with Baker (2003), I argue that while subjects of adjectives originate below spec,TP, they are not generated within the AP (or aP), but rather in the specifier of a higher functional projection, PredP. I further propose that the semantic relation between an adjective and its subject is not established by direct θ-role assignment. Unlike in the verbal domain, one of the adjective's θ-roles is lexically marked to undergo λ-abstraction in the semantic interface, and cannot be assigned syntactically to the subject. The discussion has consequences for the debate over the base position of subjects of verbs, providing evidence that they are generated in the specifier of the lexical verb, rather than in that of a higher “little-v” head.

Tough-Constructions and Their Derivation

This article addresses the syntax of the notorious tough(-movement) construction (TC) in English. TCs exhibit a range of apparently contradictory empirical properties suggesting that their derivation involves the application of both A-movement and Ā-movement operations. Within previous principles-and-parameters models, TCs have remained “unexplained and in principle unexplainable” (Holmberg 2000:839) because of incompatibility with constraints on θ-role assignment, locality, and Case. This article argues that the phase-based implementation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004) permits a reanalysis of null wh-operators capable of circumventing the previous theoretical difficulties. Essentially, tough-movement consists of A-moving a constituent out of a “complex” null operator that has already undergone Ā-movement, a “smuggling” construction in the terms proposed by Collins (2005a,b).

θ-Role Assignment in Derived Nominals

Chomsky and Stowell attribute an asymmetry in noun and verb complement systems to how these categories assign Case. Here, Case assignment is dependent on structural configurations that θ-role theory determines; it is the latter which explains asymmetries in the noun and verb complement systems. Several predicate attribute and Vk (clausal) complement types are examined, and all confirm the θ-role theory in which V can assign θ-roles directly to sisters of any phrasal type, while N and A can assign θ-roles only "indirectly," to Ymax appearing in PP structures. This predicts the new patterns examined here, as well as the asymmetry in how objects of verbs and derived nominals are syntactically realized.

Ditransitive idioms and argument structure

One controversial issue in the literature on Japanese concerns the question of whether the surface accusative-dative order of ditransitive constructions is base-generated or derived by syntactic movement. In the light of nominalized clauses in which dative-V and accusative-V idioms are embedded, this article shows that ditransitive verbs project an argument structure whereby dative arguments could be base-generated to either the left or the right of accusative arguments, as countenanced by the base-generation hypothesis for the argument order of ditransitive verbs. Nevertheless, dative arguments are not freely ordered relative to accusative arguments. We argue that with ordinary ditransitive verbs, only the dative-accusative order is available by base-generation, the reverse order being derived via syntactic movement, as conceived by the movement hypothesis. We suggest that the dative position below an accusative argument does not reside in a θ-marking domain, and thus it can be filled only by idiomatic dative arguments that are interpreted without θ-role assignment. The data show that both base-generation and movement analyses are necessary for characterizing the word order variation of Japanese ditransitive verbs.

On the Relation between Expletive There and Its Associate: A Reply to Williams

The relation between expletive there and its associate involves agreement, as suggested in Hazout 2004, and not θ-role assignment, as suggested in Williams 1994, 2006. This difference reflects radically different assumptions about the nature of the subject-predicate relation. The analysis in Hazout 2004 provides a superior account of the empirical facts and affords insights that are missed by the account in Williams 1994.

German possessor datives: raised and affected

The German Possessor Dative Construction (PDC) is an instance of External Possession: a single nominal acts simultaneously as possessor, that is, a subpart of a larger nominal phrase, and as a Benefactive or Malefactive (Affectee) argument of the verb. The challenge is to understand the mechanisms that make this dual functioning possible. Following Landau [Lingua 107 (1999) 1], this paper presents a Possessor Raising analysis, arguing that the Possessor Dative (PD) moves from the specifier of the possessed nominal to a verbal argument position. The analysis is implemented in a dynamic structure-building framework, where heads with their selectional features are introduced in the course of the derivation, and it is in principle possible that an argument that gets merged into the structure to take on one thematic role raises into a newly built sentence domain to fulfill another thematic role. This movement and the resulting double θ-role assignment are crucially driven by formal features; that is, both stem from the fact that, in its origin site, the raised argument is not case-licensed. An additional caselicensing head is needed for the derivation to converge. This head is an affectee light verb which assigns inherent dative case to the argument in its specifier. Thus, unlike Landau’s account of PDCs in Hebrew, where PDs can be interpreted as affected without actually being h-related to the verb, the analysis here offers an explanation for the crosslinguistically more general case of the PDC, where the PD’s role as both possessor and affectee needs to be syntactically encoded.

Syntactic predication in Japanese

This paper argues that Japanese provides evidence for an independent syntactic relation of predication. Predication is shown to be an independent syntactic relation in two respects. First, evidence from the multiple nominative construction in Japanese and two constructions in English demonstrates that predication is independent of the thematic structure of heads: a phrase may be the subject of a syntactic predicate in the absence of θ-role assignment. Second, it is argued that the subject—predicate relation is defined in configurational terms: a syntactic predicate is a maximal projection, and must have a subject in an external position. Consequently, complements of the verb cannot be syntactic subjects. This prediction is borne out by theDat-Nom constructions in Japanese, where the nominative argument is not a syntactic subject. These constructions are contrasted with apparently parallel constructions in German, the different behavior of which is argued to follow from the existence of a null expletive in this language. Finally, on the basis of the data presented in the paper, a revision to the θ-Criterion is proposed.

Arbitrary plural pronominals

In this paper we have developed an analysis for certain pronominal elements which are interpreted as arbitrary in reference. The pronominals in question appear in tensed clauses with a third person plural subject. We have considered the behavior and distribution of such elements in English and Spanish. Several important conclusions can be drawn from our investigation. First, the existence of identical constructions in English and Spanish indicate that the properties of arbitrary plural pronominals are quite independent of the setting of the so-called null subject parameter. Arbitrary plural pronominals occur equally well in a language like Spanish which allows null subjects in tensed clauses as in a language like English which does not allow null subjects in tensed clauses. In English, an overt pronoun, they, functions as an arbitrary plural pronoun. In Spanish, only a null pronoun can be interpreted as arbitrary in reference. An overt pronoun in Spanish can only be interpreted as non-arbitrary. Our analysis accounts for these facts as follows. The class of pronominals is subdivided by the feature [+/−dependent]. Pronominals have arbitrary reference if they are [+dependent] elements which lack an antecedent, in the relevant sense. A [+dependent] pronoun fixes its reference by linking to an antecedent, in an extended sense of the ‘binding’ relation. The antecedent of a [+dependent] pronoun, then, can be either a coindexed Operator, a coindexed argument NP, or a coindexed head which in agreement features (like INFL in Spanish). In Spanish, where pronouns in certain syntactic positions are allowed to be either overt or null, we claimed that all overt elements are specified redundantly as [−dependent]. Hence, an arbitrary interpretation is not possible for these pronominals. In English, overt pronouns are ambiguous: they are either [+dependent] or [−dependent]. Thus, in English an overt pronoun is allowed to function as an arbitrary pronominal. To the extent that this analysis is well motivated, it establishes one of our central points: an arbitrary interpretation for a pronoun results when a referentially dependent pronominal element lacks an antecedent. Secondly, we also investigated the distribution of arbitrary plural pronominals. We discovered that they are syntactically quite severely restricted. They are not allowed to appear in passive, ergative, or middle sentences. They appear only in transitive, unergative intransitive, or raising sentences. The structures where they are allowed have the following property in common: the position occupied by the arbitrary plural pronoun is neither assigned objective Case nor a ϑ-role directly by the verb, nor is it in a chain which is assigned a ϑ-role by the verb. We postulated that this peculiar distribution follows from the interaction of the Projection Principle, rules of Case and ϑ-role assignment, and the indexing rule for arbitrary plural pronominals. The Projection Principle, and the rules of objective Case and ϑ-role assignment require the presence of a referential index at D- and S-structure. But arbitrary plural pronominals lack an index at these levels of representation. Hence, they are restricted to appear in positions which do not enter into crucial Case or thematic relations until LF. This is precisely [NP, S] position. This position need not be assigned a ϑ-role at D-structure. It may contain expletive elements, for example. Furthermore, it is assigned nominative Case independently of the index of the category occupying that position: even expletive elements are automatically assigned nominative Case. Thus, the fact that arbitrary plural pronominals lack an index at D- and S-structure is without consequence provided the pronominal occupies subject position which is assigned nominative Case. The distribution of arbitrary plural pronominals, then, is exactly what we would expect given the interaction of the indexing procedure for such elements, and central principles of GB theory such as the Projection Principle, Case assignment rules, ϑ-role assignment rules, and the Extended Projection Principle.