The Rise of Positional Licensing

Case is defined by the positive values [+H(ighest) R(ole)], [+L(owest) R(ole)], which are assigned to the Th-roles according to their relative position on the Th-role hierarchy (itself a projection of semantic form). (25) a. [+HR] is assigned to the highest role. b. [+LR] is assigned to the lowest role. Our notion of abstract Case resembles GB’s in that it is a syntactically assigned feature complex, but we construe it in a somewhat different way since abstract Case is not by itself a licensing property, but a set of featurally expressed constraints on morphosyntactic case. The licensing property is rather the successful unification (compatibility) of the case features at the different levels, in particular the unification of abstract case and morphosyntactic case. By (25), the three ordered Th-roles of the verb show projected in (22a) (shower, showee, thing shown) are assigned the abstract Case features in (26). (26) [ λz [+LR] ] [ λy [ ] ] [ λx [+HR] ] [x CAUSE [CAN [y SEE z ] ] ] The sole role of an intransitive verb gets both [+HR] and [+LR], and the middle role of a three-place predicate gets neither [+HR] nor [+LR]. The result is an inventory of four abstract structural cases, in Dixonian terms “A”, “S”, “O”, and “D”. (27) a. S: [+HR,+LR] b. O: [+LR] c. A: [+HR] d. D: [ ] Not explicitly indicated in (26) is the fact that all three Th-roles bear a feature of abstract structural case (say [+SC]), which is subclassified by the features [LR, HR]. For typographical simplicity, this will be tacitly assumed to be present in every bracketed feature matrix that follows, with the absence of structural case thus symbolized by the absence of a bracket. Because the case features are intrinsically relational, there can be at most one [+HR] role and at most one [+LR] role per argument structure. On the

[1]  R. Schreuder,et al.  From concepts to lexical items , 1992, Cognition.

[2]  Rita M. Manzini,et al.  Parameters, binding theory and learnability , 1987 .

[3]  Bernhard Wolfgang Rohrbacher,et al.  THE GERMANIC VO LANGUAGES AND THE FULL PARADIGM : A THEORY OF V-TO-I RAISING , 1994 .

[4]  M. Diesing.  Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish , 1990 .

[5]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[6]  Stephen Wechsler,et al.  Argument structure and linking , 1991 .

[7]  Aafke Hulk,et al.  Verb second, pro-drop, functional projections and language change , 1994 .

[8]  Ian Roberts,et al.  Clause structure and language change , 1995 .

[9]  I. Roberts.  Verbs and diachronic syntax , 1992 .

[10]  Elly van Gelderen,et al.  The rise of functional categories , 1993 .

[11]  A. Kemenade.  Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English , 1987 .

[12]  Ad Neeleman,et al.  Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon , 1994 .

[13]  Mürvet Enç.  The semantics of specificity , 1991 .

[14]  Ans van Kemenade,et al.  THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH MODALS; A REANALYSIS , 1992 .

[15]  John M. Anderson,et al.  Edinburgh Studies in the English Language , 1988 .

[16]  Noam Chomsky.  A minimalist program for linguistic theory , 1992 .

[17]  Richard Thomas Oehrle,et al.  The grammatical status of the English dative alternation , 1976 .

[18]  Fred Weerman,et al.  Deriving Functional Projections , 1993 .

[19]  G. Grewendorf.  Ergativity in German , 1989 .

[20]  A. Warner.  Reworking the history of English auxiliaries , 1990 .

[21]  Bruce Mitchell,et al.  Old English Syntax , 1985 .

[22]  Cynthia L. Allen,et al.  Reconsidering the history of like , 1986, Journal of Linguistics.

[23]  David Lightfoot,et al.  Principles of diachronic syntax , 1979 .

[24]  C. Allen.  Dummy Subjects and the Verb-Second Target in Old English , 1986 .

[25]  P. Kiparsky.  The Shift to Head-Initial VP in Germanic , 1996 .

[26]  Susan Pintzuk,et al.  Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order , 1999 .

[27]  David Lightfoot.  How to set parameters , 1991 .

[28]  Frederik Theodoor Visser,et al.  An Historical Syntax of the English Language , 2002 .

[29]  Robert P. Stockwell.  On the history of the verb-second rule in English , 1984 .

[30]  E. Reuland.  Head Movement and the Relation between Morphology and Syntax , 1991 .

[31]  Henry Smith.  Restrictiveness in Case Theory , 1996 .

[32]  F. Weerman,et al.  CASE THEORY AND THE DIACHRONY OF COMPLEX PREDICATES IN DUTCH , 1992 .

[33]  A. Kroch.  Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change , 1989, Language Variation and Change.

[34]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  The Syntax of Verb Movement in Middle English: Dialect Variation and Language Contact , 1994 .