Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS

189
she believed to.have been bought.PLM.A several boats(M).PL.A
b. Það voru taldir [hafa verið keyptir
there were believed.PLM.N to.have been bought.PLM.N
einhverjir bátar].
several boats(M).PL.NOM
(286) a. Hún taldi [hafa verið bjargað einhverjum bátum].
she believed to.have been rescued.DFLT several boats(M).PL.D
b. Það var talið [hafa verið bjargað
there was believed.DFLT to.have been rescued.DFLT
einhverjum bátum].
several boats(M).PL.D
(Icelandic, Sigurðsson 1991: 355f.)
In contrast to structural Case stands inherent Case. In (286), the verb rescue
assigns dative to some boats as its thematic argument in a phrase-structurally local
relationship. The embedding of the dative in different structural Case environments
has no power to change the dative. There are different ways of conceiving
of inherent Case. For instance, the head Appl of applicative constructions might
select a preposition-like dative morpheme in its specifier. Different mechanisms
may be appropriate, for instance to dative direct versus applicative objects. However,
all are phrase-structurally local, go to an argument in virtue of its interpretive
relationships, typically thematic or aspectual, and block structural Case. 137
It is structural Case whose characteristics appear in the unaccusative PCC repairs,
as Finnish (287) illustrates. The nominative is assigned to the embedded object
se by the matrix raising verb täytyy across a sequence of subjectless infinitives.
In the PCC context, when the object is [+person] sinut below the applicative
argument minun, the repair switches it to accusative. Both the nominative and the
137 The purpose of this discussion is to highlight the distinctive character of structural Case. It
does not preclude various possibilities for inherent Case, including unification with structural
Case. Consider movement to the nonthematic object of a preposition known from Irish
(McCloskey 1984) and English (i) (Postal 2003: chapter 2). It seems implementable through P-
DP Agree and Move, the same mechanisms as for structural Case (Runner 2006: 206f., Rezac
2006: chapter 3). Yet the outcome is a DP in phrase-structurally local relationship to P and embedded
in a PP that plausibly prevents further structural Case assignment. If the P is a prepositional
complementizer, we get the oblique case often assigned to the subjects of nonfinite or modal
structures, under a local but nonthematic relationship to a high functional head such as C,
analogous to a prepositional complementizer in terms of its relationship to (i) (Moore and
Perlmutter 2000, Sigurðsson 2002, Franks and Lavine 2006, but see McCloskey 2005 for its assignment
at a distance). If instead of P we take v or a head selected by it, the outcome is the dative
of Icelandic direct objects, dependent on v to which it bears no thematic relation, unlike the
dative of indirect objects (Svenonius forthc, Sigurðsson 2010). True inherent Case might differ
only in P selecting its DP and Merging with it without Move.
(i) Don't count on there to be that many supporters in the organization.
(Postal 2003: 92)