Abstract
The main claim of Lasnik’s paper is that in expletive NP chains, the post-verbal NP as well as the expletive needs Case. This differs from many of the traditional analyses in the belief that the NP does not get its Case via CHAIN formation with the expletive, but rather needs to get its Case independently. In these comments, I focus my attention on the nature of this Case assignment. Lasnik, in order to account for intralanguage and interlanguage variation makes certain proposals. In order to account for the difference in behavior between be and other verbs that take small clause complements such as consider, he links inherent Case assignment to theta-role assignment only for theta-assigning verbs (such as consider), and not for non-theta-as-signing verbs (such as be). To account for the ability of Italian passives to assign partitive Case, unlike their English counterparts, he proposes a parameter by which the passive morpheme itself assigns partitive Case in Italian but not in English (or alternatively, verbs in English can assign only one Case so that if they assign accusative Case they can never assign partitive). After a detour into the empirical arguments that Lasnik gives for assuming that existential be assigns Case to the following NP, I will turn to these two proposals. I argue that the difference in fofalls out from a structural distinction that distinguishes be from verbs like consider. Then, in an effort to link the Italian/English difference to already attested variations between these two languages, I argue that partitive Case assignment in Italian passives is due to the availability of restructuring in this language.
The work in this paper has benefited from discussions with Mark Baker, Lydia White, Maire Noonan and other members of the Syntax/Acquisition project at McGill and has been supported by FCAR grant #91-ER-0578 and SSHRCC grant #410-90-0523. I also thank Jon Bobaljik, Howard Lasnik and particularly Betsy Ritter for their input. Italian data was supplied by Jenn Wienstein and Spanish data by Joyce Garavito and Adriana Chamorro.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barss, A. (1985) Chains and Anaphoric Dependence: on Reconstruction and its Implications, unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.
Belletti, A. (1988) “The Case of Unaccusatives” Linguistic Inquiry 19. 1–34.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding approach, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.
Guasti, M.T. (1991) “Incorporation, Excorporation and Lexical Properties of Causative Heads” ms. University of Geneva.
Guasti, M.T. (1990) “The ‘Faire-Par’ Construction in Romance and in Germanic” in The Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Aaron L. Halpern, pp. 205–218.
Guilfoyle, E. (1990) Functional Categories and Phrase Structure Parameters, unpublished PhD dissertation, McGill University.
Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung, and L. Travis (1992) “Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 375–414.
Huang, J. (1990) “Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: some Theoretical Consequences” talk presented at NELS 21, Université de Québec à Montréal.
Johnson, K. (1991) “Object Positions” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577–636.
Larson, R. (1988) “On the Double Object Construction”, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–392.
Lasnik, H. (this volume) “Case and Expletives: Notes Towards a Parametric Account”
Mahajan, A. (1990) The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory, unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.
Manzini, R. (1983) Restructuring and Reanalysis, unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.
McCloskey, J. (1983) “A VP in a VSO language” eds. G. Gazdar, E. Klein, and G.K. Pullum Order, Concord, and Constituency, Dordrecht, Foris Publications.
Ritter, B. (1988) “Existentials, Possessives, and Locatives in Hebrew” ms. Université de Québec à Montréal.
Sportiche, D. (1990) “Movement, Agreement, and Case”, ms. UCLA
Travis, L. (1991) “Derived Objects, Inner Aspect and the Structure of VP” talk given at NELS 22, University of Delaware.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Travis, L. (1996). Notes on Case and Expletives: A Discussion of Lasnik’s Paper. In: Freidin, R. (eds) Current Issues in Comparative Grammar. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0135-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0135-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-3779-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-0135-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive