FASL VI 5/10/97 ( 21) a Smatram da j e Ivan pameta·n consider15g that is Ivannom smartnom Exceptional Case Marking: 'I consider that Ivan is smart' Perspectives Old and New b *Smatram Ivana biti pametan/pametnim consider1og Ivanacc to be smartnom/inst Howard Lasnik 'I consider Ivan to be smart' University of Connecticut c Smatram [Ivana pametnim] consider1.g Ivanacc to be smartin•t (1) I believe John to have convinced Bill 'I consider Ivan smart' [Serbo-Croatian] (2) I believe that John convinced Bill (3) I believe Bill to have been convinced by John (22) (2lc) shows that exceptional objective case is possible ( 4) I compelled the doctor to examine John in Slavic, albeit in 'small clauses'. (5) I compelled John to be examined by the doctor (6) I believe there to be a man in the garden (23)a Ja s~itaju ~to Ivan umen (7) I believe advantage to have been taken of John I believe that Ivan-nom smart (8) *I forced there to be a man in the garden 'I believe that Ivan is smart' (9) *I forced advantage to have been taken of John b *Ja s~itaju Ivana byt' umnym cf. Rosenbaum (1967) I believe Ivan-ace to be smart-inst (lO)a Jack believed Joan/her to be famous 'I consider Ivan to be smart' b Joan/she was believed to be famous by Jack c Ja s~itaju Ivana umnym (ll)a *Jacki believed himi to be immoral I believe Ivan-ace smart-inst b Jack believed himself to be immoral 'I consider Ivan smart' [Russian] (12) They believed each other to be honest Postal (1974) (24) The phenomenon of object-like behavior for embedded subjects is limited even in English: it shows up only (13) John in (1) is thematically subject of the lower when the embedded clause is non-finite (and not even with predicate, but for virtually all other purposes all infinitives, as we will see later). (including morphological case), behaves like the object of believe. The mismatch between object case and (25)a *Jack believed [her was famous] downstairs subject 9-role is one of the 'exceptional' b *She was believed [ t was famous] by Jack properties of the construction. (26)a Jacki believed [hei was immoral] b *Jack believed [himself was immoral] (14) Boris considers Viktor to be acting badly (27) *They believed [each other were honest] (15) *Boris s~itaet Viktora vesti sebja ploxo [Russian] Brecht (1974) (28) Chomsky (1973) argues against a raising account of the object-like properties of embedded subjects of (16) What allows a downstairs subject to behave like an infinitives, rejecting a 'clause-mate' analysis of the upstairs object in English? And what disallows it in phenomena in (10-12). Instead, Chomsky proposes that Russian? positions in embedded sentences are in general accessible to matrix processes, subject, though, to certain general (17) *Boris smatra Viktora ponasati se lose [Serbo-Croatian] 'conditions on transformations'. The relevant one here is the Tensed Sentence Condition. (18) In theories of the 1960's, the situation was rather easy (29) Tensed Sentence Condition: (too easy?) to describe. The syntax of a particular No rule can involve X, Y in the structure language was thought to include a long list of specific ... x ... ["' ... ] ... transformations, selected from a very large set made where a is a tensed sentence available by the syntactic component of the language faculty. Different languages had different lists. (30) The rule assigning an antecedent to an anaphor; the one (19) One such transformation (as in Rosenbaum (1967)) had the forbidding a pronoun from having a nearby antecedent; and effect of raising the lower subject into higher object the one moving an NP to subject position; can apply position. English has the rule; Russian doesn't. freely, as long as they obey TSC. Plausibly, the rule by (20) Alternatively, Russian and similar languages (whether which a verb assigns accusative case to an NP 'is similar. they have the ralslng rule or not) disallow the This gives the finite vs. non-finite contrast directly. 'exceptional' divorce between objective case and 9-role. (31) In these terms, there is nothing obviously exceptional about the ECM construction, either for the infinitival version or for the small clause type.

-1- -2- (32) Chomsky (1980, p.28) in the context of a general theory (42) The phenomenon of ECM is once again relatively easy to of abstract case, now dubbed Case, begins to explicitly characterize (though relying on rather technical details treat ECM as exceptional: " ... in English, as in some of the definition of 'government'). But how can ECM be other languages, there are certain constructions with blocked? lexical subjects for infinitives. A special marked rule (43)a One possibility is •subcategorization' in the sense of is therefore required to accommodate them. Chomsky (1965). English (epistemic) verbs can take IP We have been taking Case Assignment to be clause­ complements; Russian ones cannot. bound in the unmarked case, as seems natural ... Suppose b Pesetsky (1982), though, argues on appealing conceptual that certain verbs are assigned a marked feature, call it grounds that subcategorization (which is known to largely F, which permits Case to be assigned across clause be redundant with semantic selection) should, in fact, be boundary. In English, for example, the verb believe with reduced to semantic selection. But then, as discussed by infinitival complement will be marked [+F], so that Case Boskovic (1996), we cannot arbitrarily assign IP to some will be assigned to the embedded subject NP in ... clausal complements and CP to others, when there is no I believe [;; [ 5 NP to be a fool]]" semantic difference determined by the V-clause relations.

(33) Objective Case assignment is regulated by: (44) At this point, there are really two difficulties: -NP is objective when governed by V a The quite technical nature of the definition of -a is governed by ~ if a is c-commanded by ~ and no major government needed for the instances of Case assignment at category or major category boundary appears between a and issue; ~- b Once (a) is accepted, the problem of blocking 'exceptional' government in, e.g., Slavic. (34) Developing these ideas in more detail, Chomsky (1981) presents a full-blown theory of Case assignment and (45) Note that on standard assumptions, structural Case government at the core of the 'Government-Binding' appears to involve three distinct structural theory. The fundamental idea, as in (33), is that a configurations, which I will represent here in terms of maximal projection is a barrier to government. one version of Pollock's (1989) 'split Infl' hypothesis. (35) Access to the lower subject is via 'S-Deletion', a marked rule eliminating the S boundaries (of an ( 46) He saw her infinitive) leaving just the S.

(36)a I believe [;; [ 5 NP to be a fool]] <4> AGR5 P b I believe [ 5 NP to be a fool] I \ SPEC AGR5 ' (37) What are S and S and how do they fit into a principled Be I \ theory of phrase structure? Notice that this notation ~GRs TP merely masquerades as an instance of X-theory, since S I is not an X0 so cannot be the X-theoretic head of S, and T' S itself seems to have no head at all. \ (38) For this reason, among several others, Chomsky (1981) c~ VP proposed that S is really CP, the maximal projection of I Complementizer, and S is really IP, the maximal v• projection of Infl, the tense-agreement inflectional I \ morpheme. v NP saw her (39)a I believe [ep [IP NP to be a fool]] <4> ~ b I believe [1p NP to be a fool]

(40) But now believe doesn't govern NP even after •s• Deletion'.

(4l)a Chomsky (1986) redefines 'government' in such a way that government does obtain in the ECM configuration (with government of IP by V in such cases entailing government of the Specifier of IP). b Further, S-Deletion is crucially eliminated in favor of direct selection of IP by the governing verb (since the extension to government of Specifier of IP by V requires 9-marking of IP by V).

-3- -4-

----··------··· ·------··· ··--···---····· (47) He believes her to be intelligent (54) In fact, we should go further. Both in terms of morphology and in te.rms of syntactic behavior, English VP exceptional accusative behaves like simple accusative. I Thus, the null hypothesis is that they are licensed in v• the same position, i.e., that even simple accusative is I \ licensed in the SPEC of AGR0 , as in (55): V AGR5 P (55) AGR,P belrves~~E/ \rGRs~ I \

~ AGR 5 TP I T' I \ T VP

( 48) Lasnik and Saito (1991) (based on arguments like those in Postal (1974) that the ECM subject does move into the (56) Structural Case licensing then is invariably a SPEC-head higher clause) and Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) (see also relation with an AGR head, though, under standard Lasnik (1993)) suggest a structural unification of assumptions, for nominative the Case licensing must be assignment of nominative Case and 'exceptional' overt, while for accusative, it is covert. (But see accusative Case, in terms of the Chomsky (1991) extension Koizumi (1993;1995) and Lasnik (1995a;1995b) for of the split Infl hypothesis. The unification is arguments that even the latter is overt.) 'Minimalist' eschewing arbitrary geometric notions like government and instead relying on core X-theoretic (57) We are thus rather close to a principled description of relations. ECM, yet (as a consequence?) farther than ever from an account of lack of ECM. ( 49) AGR5 P I \ (58) There are at least two major types of infinitive SPEC AGR 5 ' constructions in English, the ECM type we have been I I \ considering, and the 'control' type with null thematic 8 subject • PRO • : U ~P (59)a Mary wants [PRO to leave] l T' b Mary persuaded John [PRO to leave] I \ T AGR,P (60) As Brecht (1974) observes, while Russian lacks the former I \ class of infinitives, it has the latter. (And this seems SPEC AGR,' generally true of Slavic). I \ (61) Ivan obes~al zakon~it' rabotu v srok 'Ivan promised to finish the work on time' Brecht (1974) A~~ r. (62) The class of matrix verbs permitting such complements are I \ "specified in the lexicon as permitting only the future V AGR5 P tense in [their] complement." Brecht (1974, p.202) I NP ...... (63) In such sentences, "the time frame of the infinitival clause is unrealized with respect to the tense of the (50) Note the parallelism between (51) and (52): matrix in which it appears. In other words, the tense ... (51) T raises to AGR5 and, when T is finite, the combination is that of a possible future ... " Stowell (1982, p.562) licenses nominative Case in SPEC of AGR5 • (52) V raises to AGR,, and, when V has the accusative feature, (64) PRO is licensed by [-finite, +future] Infl; perhaps this the combination licenses accusative Case in SPEC of AGR,. licensing involves a special (null) Case for PRO. Any Infl that is finite or has tense would then license a (53) Nominative and exceptional accusative are now both Case on its Specifier. This is a refinement by Martin licensed in the same X-theoretic configuration: SPEC­ (1996) of a proposal by Chomsky and Lasnik (1993). head.

-5- -6- (65) ECM infinitives "do not have a regular internally tense sentences is finite (licensing nominative Case on specified 'unrealized' tense. Instead, the understood the subject) but non-tensed. [Eng (1991)] tense of these complements with respect to the tense of the matrix is determined largely by the meaning of the ( 84) Ivan be:Ht po ulice (v dannyj moment) [Russian] governing verb •.. " Stowell (1982, p.566) Ivan runs down street in given moment 'Ivan is running down the street (at this moment) ' (66) One statement of Stowell's proposal: Tense must raise to (85) Ivan bezi niz ulicu [Serbo-Croatian] Comp (by LF) so a clause with tense must be a CP. CP is Ivan runs(escapes) down street a barrier to A-movement (e.g., to SPEC of AGRo in the higher clause). ( 86) Conjecture (following Pesetsky (1992); see also Martin (1996)): what is 'exceptional' about English is that Infl (67)a *John tried [ep [IP Mary to buy a car]] need not be tensed. Slavic Infl represents the unmarked b *Mary was tried [ [ ! to buy a car]] situation in always carrying tense.

(68) In English, infinitival complements of epistemic verbs References lack tense, hence are (or at least can be) bare IPs. Bach, Emmon. 1977. Review article on On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Language 53: 621-654. Thus, ECM is possible, and raising to subject position is Bo.SkoviC, 2eljko. 1995. Principles of economy in nonfinite complementation. Doctoral allowed. dissertation, University of Connecticut. (69) John is considered [ ! to be smart] BoSkoviC, ~eljko. 1996. Selection and the categorial status of infinitival comple­ ments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:269-304. Brecht, Richard D... 1974 .. Tense and infinitive complements in Russian, Latin and (70) This result is reminiscent of that sought by McCawley English. In Slavic Transformational Syntax, ed. Richard D. Brecht and Catherine V .. (1970): the unification of raising to subject position Chvany. University of Michigan. with 'raising to object position'. Bresnan, Joan W. 1970 .. On cornplernentizers: Towards a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6: 297-321. Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Doctoral disserta­ (71) Prediction: since ECM is impossible in Slavic tion, MIT. infinitivals, raising to subject is also: Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press. (72) Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, *Smatram Ivana biti pametan/pametnim ed. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (I) consider"• Ivanacc to be smartnom/in•t Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1-46. (73) *Ivan je smatran biti pametan/pametnim Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding .. Dordrecht: Foris. 'Ivan is considered to be smart' [Serbo-Croatian] Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers .. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noarn .. 1991. Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation .. In Robert Freidin, ed. Principles and Parameters in Comparative Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT (74) And since ECM is possible 'into' small clauses, raising Press. out of them is expected to be available: Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.. In Kenneth Hale and (75) Smatram [Ivana pametnim] Samuel J. Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik.. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters.. In consider1, 9 Ivanacc smart1 n•t Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research 1, ed .. Joachim Jacobs, 'I consider Ivan smart' Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann, 506-569. Berlin: Walter (76) Ivan je smatran [ t pametnim] de Gruyter. Enc;, Murvet. 1991. On the absence of the present tense morpheme in English. Unpub­ 'Ivan is considered smart' [Serbo-Croatian] lished ms., U. of Wisconsin. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Object Agreement Phrases and the Split VP Hypothesis. MIT (77) Ivan smatra sebe pametnim Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 18.. · Ivan considers himself smart Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995 .. Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax .. Doctoral Disserta­ tion, MIT. (78) *Ivan smatra da je sebe pametan Lasnik, Howard. 1993. Lectures on Minimalist Syntax. UConn Working Papers Occasional Ivan considers that is himself smart Papers in Linguistics 1 .. (79) ??Ivan smatra da j e on pametan Lasnik, Howard. 1995a. A Note on Pseudogapping. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics Ivan considers that is he smart Volume 27. 1 1 Lasnik, Howard. 1995b. Last Resort and Attract F. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual (80) *Ivan smatra njega pametnim Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America. Ivan1 considers him1 smart Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito .. 1991. On the ubject of infinitives. CLS 27 .. Martin, Roger. 1996. A Minimalist theory of PRO and Control. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. (81) This difference between English and Slavic follows if all McCawley, James D. 1970. English as a VSO language. Language 46:286-299. 'full' clauses in Slavic must be CPs, while certain Pesetsky, David. 1982.. Paths and categories.. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. infinitivals in English are IPs. And this, in turn, will Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero syntax, volume 2. Unpublished ms. MIT. follow if Infl in Slavic is invariably tensed, even when Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP .. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. it is not finite. (There is no reason to think that Postal, Paul. 1974 .. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical small clauses have Infl at all; and, by Stowell's implications.. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press. semantic criteria, they have no tense.) Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967.. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions .. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Stowell, Timothy. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561-570. (82) *John runs down the street right now Watanabe, Akira. 1993. AGR-based Case theory and its interaction with the A'-systern. (83) English lacks present tense. Infl in apparent present Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

-7- -8-

------