From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Case Grammar (Was: Re. SVO -> VSO)
Date: 3 Oct 92 07:25:46 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <andaling.717972531@durras>, andaling@durras.anu.edu.au (Avery Andrews) writes:
> In Icelandic, NP's in passives & unaccusatives move optionally into
> subject position, regardless of whether they have structural nominative
> or some kind of quirky case.  The movement seems to be subject to a
> definiteness effect, however.
> 
> Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

The Icelandic situation is extraordinarily complicated in that a whole
range of sentences have non-nominative NPs with what are commonly
alleged to be "subject properties" (e.g. position, the ability to control
a reflexive), while there is usually (not always) also a nominative NP
that controls verb agreement.  (I can't cite data; they're in my office,
and I'm home).

I don't think "quirky case" is the best explanation for this phenomenon,
though of course it must be invoked for those non-passive sentences that
lack nominatives altogether.  Try a case grammar explanation as follows:

	(a) There is a hierarchy of deep cases.  That is, the deep
	    cases are ranked onto several levels.  I posit five levels
	    with cases as follows:
		1. agent
		2. experiencer, beneficiary
		3. (inanimate) effector, experiencer
		4. patient (aka "theme")
		5. time, place, target, equative, etc. (collectively
		   called "obliques")
	    Cases placed on the same level do not occur *as arguments*
	    and hence cannot be ranked relative to each other.
	                                                      
	(b) Accusative languages commonly make the highest ranking
	    NP argument of the verb ("HRNP") the morphological subject.
	    Such sentences exhibit "normal" syntax, whatever that may
	    mean for the language in question.

	(c) Not all verbs in all accusative languages make the normal
	    subject choice.  Such verbs are often syntactically peculiar,
	    though the details vary from language to language.  Thus
	    "wrong-choice" verbs in English do not passivize, and the
	    reason is not that they are unaccusative, else (iii) could
	    not passivize.

	    (i)     Mr. Reilly owns that castle.  (beneficiary, patient)
	            That castle is owned by Mr. Reilly.
	    (ii)    That castle belongs to Mr. Reilly.  (patient, benefic.)
	           *Mr. Reilly is belonged to by that castle.
	    (iii)   Everyone in town sat under the tree.
	            The tree was sat under by everyone in town.

	(d) In many languages HRNPs have "subject properties" even when
	    some lower-ranking NP is the morphological subject.  Positional
	    properties are perhaps the most common.  This is why Spanish
	    overwhelmingly says (iv), not (v): the experiencer outranks
	    the patient-subject and hence most naturally occurs in
	    "subject position".

	    (iv)   A Carlos no le gusta la mu'sica.
	    (v)  ??La m'usica no le gusta a Carlos.

	(e) I have defined the subject essentially as a morphological
	    subject.  Nevertheless, morphological subjects do have syn-
	    tactic properties, though again details vary.  Thus in most
	    languages, it is subjects rather than HRNPs that control
	    reflexives.  As noted above, Icelandic reflexives are con-
	    trolled rather by the HRNP.

	(f) A key element in the grammar of *any* language with morpholo-
	    gical subjects is the to determine which "subject properties"
	    actually belong to the morphological subject, and which to
	    the HRNP.

	(g) I know of no language where there is any need to speak of
	    "syntactic subjects". These turn out to be the HRNP.

	(h) Ergative languages have a case hierarchy but do not use it
	    to select subjects.  Regardless of rank, their normal subject
	    is the patient.

	    In the overwhelming majority of ergative languages, the HRNP
	    is very prominent and is targeted by a large number of syntac-
	    tic processes.  There are some exceptions: Dyirbal syntactic
	    processes target the subject to the exclusion of the HRNP.

	(i) "Active" languages lack (morphologiocal) subjects entirely,
	    but the HRNP is targeted by syntactic processes.

That's a long post to say that "quirky case" is not the whole story in
Icelandic, but I didn't just want to give my standard response that I
don't *like* someone's explanation.

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang