Case Theory

Adopting the concepts of traditional grammar, we can say that subjects of finite
clauses have Nominative case and that NPs that are complements of prepositions or
verbs as well as NPs that are subjects of infinitival clauses appear in Accusative.
But this is quite informal.

1.1 Complements: Accusative

1.1.1 V and P as case assigners

Transitive verbs and prepositions assign Acussative case to the NP they govern.
They case-mark an NP which they govern:

Love him
Towards him
The condition of case assigners are partly structural: Accusative case is assigned
under government. A verb cannot assign accusative case to an NP outside the VP
such as the subject: *Him found the evidence

In *Him found the evidence, the Verb does not govern the subject NP. The
possibility of case assignment is also of the type of verb. Only transitive verbs and
prepositions assign case to a complement NP. Intransitive verbs like wander or
overate cannot assign case to a complement NP:

*He wandered them

*He overate them

Nouns and adjectives also do not assign accusative case:

*John´s attack him

*John is envious him

Discuss which element is the case assigner in:

Move towards him

1.2 Subjects: Nominative and Accusative

3.2.1Nominative subjects

Subjects of finite clauses have nominative case. Subjects of infinitival clauses are
accusative. The assignment of nominative case is associated with finite INFL.
To ensure that I can case-mark [Spec,IP] under government in terms of m-command
because a definition in terms of c-commands would not suffice. why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
3.2.2 The subject of infinitival clauses

For as a case-marker
Consider the following example:

[For him to attack him] would be surprising

How do we account for the accusative case of the subject NP of the infinitival clause?
Is the infinitival I (to) responsible for case-marking de NP subject? Compare:

*Him to attack Bill would be illegal

That he should have attacked Bill was surprising

*I prefer very much him to go now

I prefer very much that he should go now

For him to attack Bill would be illegal

I prefer very much for him to go now

PRO to attack Bill would be illegal

I prefer very much PRO to go now

There is a universal requirement that all overt NPs must be assigned abstract case, the
case filter.

Case filter
Every overt NP must be assigned abstract case

Conclusions:

-Infinitival to is not able to assign case. Why?

- Element For under C enables the overt NP to survive. In this case we call for a
prepositional complementizer. When for is absent the subject pronoun must also
disappeared.

The question now is that we said that case is assigned under government. How could
you explain that prepositional complementizer for governs the NP him in:

[For him to attack John] would be surprising

Exceptional Case-marking:

John believes [him to be a liar]

Believe takes an infinitival clause as its internal argument, infinitival I is not a case
assigner. The obvious candidate for case-marking him is the transitive verb believe.

The situation in which a verb like believe can govern into an IP and assign case to its
subject NP is often referred as exceptional case-marking abbreviated as ECM.

Consider the following examples:

-I know [John to be the candidate]

-I don´t know [whether [ to go to the party]]
-*I don´t know [ whether [ John to go to the party]

Adjectives and nouns

Of-insertion

Let´s consider how the case filter applies to the following sentences:

-John envies Mary

-*John is envious Mary
-John is envious of Mary
-*John´s envy Mary
-John´s envy of Mary

Note: The genitive assignment of the NP in front of the head noun (John´s) is assumed
by an element POSS which assigns genitive case to this NP.

Adjacency and Case assignment

Consider the following examples:

John speaks English fluently

*John speaks fluently English

John sincerely believes English to be important

*John believes sincerely English to be important

John believes sincerely that English is important

Adjacency condition is required. Government is not a sufficient condition for case

assignment in English. So, the case assigner and the element to which case is assigned
should be adjacent. By this requirement, case assigners must not be separated from the
NPs which they case-mark by intervening material.

Now, work out the following sentences:

I prefer the boys to leave first

*I prefer very much the boys to leave first
I prefer very much for the boys to leave first
I prefer very much that the boys should leave first

Passivization: introductory description of passive sentences

Consider:

Italy beat Belgium in semi-finals

According to the case filter, are all NPs above assigned case?

Now, consider the passive pendant of the sentence above:

Belgium were beaten in semi-finals

The effects of passivization will be familiar from the traditional literature:

……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………….Furthemo
re, in the passive sentence the Agent of the activity is not expressed by an NP in A-
position, if you wish to refer to the agent of the action we need to use an adjunct PP
headed by the preposition by, which itself carries the notion of agentivity.

Belgium were beaten by Italy in the semi-finals

Practise:

-Consider the examples below. How do the NPs acquire case?

1.- John left the university at noon

2.- I expect him to have written the letter by Friday

3.- For Jane to have bought the house is rather remarkable

4.- It is odd that Bill should have refused the offer.