Pronouns and Case

Abstract Subject—object distinctions in pronominal systems of languages like Dutch and English are not similar to nominative—accusative oppositions in languages with morphological case, since pronouns do not show the syntactic effects of morphological case. This does not mean that these pronominal distinctions are only relics of earlier stages with a richer inflection. In fact, they do show a fundamental distinction between what is sometimes called head marking (here: agreement) and dependency marking (here: case marking). Consequently, subjects are DPs and objects are extended with a Case Phrase. However, in languages like Dutch and English dependency marking is not morphologically specified, i.e. the head of the Case Phrase is empty. The special property of pronouns is that they are not just nouns, since they only contain functional information. They are organized in a paradigm and correspond to (or spell out) some higher, extended nominal projection. More specifically, Dutch and English object pronouns spell out the Case Phrase, whereas the subject pronouns in these languages correspond to a DP (licensed by agreement). As a result, object pronouns differ in form from subject pronouns. Ordinary nouns, containing lexical information, correspond to N. Since N can be present in subject as well as in object position, ordinary nouns can appear in both types of argument positions. Several peculiar characteristics of Dutch and English pronouns follow from this theory.

[1]  Richard Hudson,et al.  Does English really have case? , 1995, Journal of Linguistics.

[2]  J. Zwart.  The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[3]  Joseph E. Emonds,et al.  A unified theory of syntactic categories , 1985 .

[4]  Feature asymmetry and the nature of pronoun movement , 1993 .

[5]  Aaron L. Halpern,et al.  Approaching second : second position clitics and related phenomena , 1996 .

[6]  P. Kiparsky.  Explanation In Phonology , 1982 .

[7]  H. V. D. Voort,et al.  Die Creol Taal: 250 Years of Negerhollands Texts , 1996 .

[8]  Frederick August Stoett.  Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst : syntaxis , 1923 .

[9]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[10]  Carson T. Schütze.  INFL in child and adult language : agreement, case and licensing , 1997 .

[11]  H. V. Riemsdijk.  The Case of German Adjectives , 1983 .

[12]  Steven Abney,et al.  The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect , 1972 .

[13]  D. Wunderlich,et al.  Minimalist Morphology: An Approach to Inflection , 1995 .

[14]  M. R. Manzini.  Restructuring and reanalysis , 1983 .

[15]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[16]  R. Brown,et al.  A First Language , 1973 .

[17]  Willem Kaper.  Child Language: A Language Which Does Not Exist , 1985 .

[18]  Anne Vainikka,et al.  Case in the Development of English Syntax , 1993 .

[19]  F. Weerman,et al.  Oude zinnen; Grammaticale analyse van het Nederlands tussen 1200-1700 , 1992 .

[20]  Mark Aronoff,et al.  Word Formation in Generative Grammar , 1979 .

[21]  M. Rispoli,et al.  Pronoun case overextensions and paradigm building , 1994, Journal of Child Language.

[22]  Johannes Bernardus den Besten,et al.  Studies in West Germanic syntax , 1989 .

[23]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Language learnability and language development , 1985 .

[24]  S. Kouwenberg.  A grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole , 1994 .

[25]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Advances in psycholinguistics , 1970 .

[26]  Tim Stowell,et al.  Origins of phrase structure , 1981 .

[27]  Frans Plank,et al.  The Universals Archive: Α Brief Introduction for Prospective Users , 2000 .

[28]  Johan Kerstens.  The Syntax of Number, Person and Gender: A Theory of Phi-Features , 1993 .

[29]  Jan-Wouter Zwart,et al.  Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach , 1993 .

[30]  Pronominal Case-Errors. , 1976 .

[31]  O.N.C.J. Koeneman,et al.  The flexible nature of verb movement , 2000 .

[32]  Dawn MacLaughlin,et al.  Proceedings of the 19th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development , 1995 .

[33]  Fred Weerman,et al.  Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments , 2001 .

[34]  C. Tanz.  Cognitive principles underlying children's errors in pronominal case-marking , 1974, Journal of Child Language.

[35]  F. Weerman,et al.  The decline of the genitive in Dutch , 1999 .