Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

Multiple Case Valuation and Its Implications
永盛貴一（明治学院大学・獨協大学）

2. Multiple Case Valuation via Agree: English and Icelandic
2.1 Introduction(1) The system of multiple Case valuation via Agree is schematically illustrated below.
Agree

Agree

H2[uϕ]…XP[vϕ][Case2]…H1[uϕ]…XP[vϕ][Case1]
Internal Merge(2) (i) H1 agrees with XP and the unvalued Case feature of XP gets valued.
(ii) XP undergoes IM into the edge of the phase head H1 at Transfer. (Agree only
values the unvalued Case feature of XP and the inactivation is suspended till the
point when it undergoes Transfer.)(iii) XP remains active and retains its ability to receive another Case value via
further Agree.
(iv) H2 agrees with XP and the Case feature of XP gets revalued.
(3) I argue that English instantiates the first possibility (3i) and Icelandic instantiates
the second possibility (3ii).
(i) Case2+Case1(ii) Case2+Case1
2.2 CaseNOM+CaseACC: English Middles
2.2.1 Preliminaries(4) English middles are formed by a transitive predicate.
a. Bureaucrats bribe easily.
b. The wall paints easily.
c. Chickens kill easily.
d. The floor waxes easily.

(Keyser and Roeper 1984: 384)

e. This vinyl floor {lays/*lies} in a few hours.
f. These mosquitoes {kill/*die} only with a special spray.
g. The engine {lifts/*rises} out easily.
1(Fellbaum 1986: 2)

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

2.2.2 The Agent Theta-Role and Accusative Case
(5) There are two opposing views about the Agent theta-role.
(i) The Agent theta-role is lexically saturated (cf. Fagan 1988, 1992, marelj 2004,
Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994, 1995, 2006, among others).
(ii) The Agent theta-role is structurally present (cf. Stroik 1992, 1995, 1999,
2006, Hoekstra and Roberts 1993, Fujita 1994, Fujita and Matsumoto 2005, among
others).
(6) Empirical evidence seems to argue for the latter position.
(i) Anaphors like oneself
a. Books about oneself never read poorly.
b. Letters to oneself compose quickly.
c. Arguments with oneself generally end abruptly.

(Stroik 1992: 129)

d. Books about herself read quickly for Mary.
e. *Books about oneself read quickly for Mary.
f. *Books about himself read quickly for Mary.
g. *Books about themselves read quickly for Mary.

(Stroik 1992: 136)(ii) For-Phrases
a. That book reads quickly for Mary.
b. No Latin text translates easily for Bill.

(Stroik 1992:131)(iii) Secondary predicatesa. This car fixes easily even unaided.
(cf. b. This car broke unaided.)(Fujita and Matsumoto 2005: 118)(7) It can be concluded that the middle verb syntactically projects its entire argument
grid <Agent, Theme>.
(8) The middle verb retains the ability to assign accusative Case to its object.
EnglishThis book just sells itself.

(Levin 1993: 84)

GermanDieses Buch
liest *(sich)leicht.
this book NOM read reflexive-pronoun-ACC easily‘This book reads easily.’
2(Steinbach 2002:1)

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②(9) The reflexive pronoun is not an adverbial element, but an argument of the verb.
(i) Condition on Case adjacency
a. This book sells itself here.
b. *This book sells here itself.

(Tokizaki 1998: 244)(ii) Difference of meaninga. This book sells itself.
b. This book itself sells. (But its cassette doesn’t.)
cf. an adverbial reflexive⇒the meaning does not change
a. Mary has come to recognize this herself.
b. Mary herself has come to recognize this.

(Tokizaki 1998: 243-244)(Tokizaki 1998: 244)

(10) It can be concluded that the middle verb assigns an external theta-role (i.e., Agent)and retains the ability to assign accusative Case to its object.
2.2.3 Derivation(11) Various attempts have been made to motivate the movement of the object.
(i) The verb does not assign Agent theta-role to the subject position⇒The verb
does not assign accusative Case, either (cf. Keyser and Roeper 1984, Carrier andRandall 1992).
(ii) Agent Demotion⇒The verb does not assign accusative Case (cf. Stroik 1992,
1995, 1999).
(iii) A special functional head μ (above vP) absorbs accusative Case (cf. Fujita
and Matsumoto 2005).
(12) We need not posit any special mechanisms whereby the middle verb’s ability toassign accusative Case is “absorbed.” The derivation of the middle is illustrated
below.

3

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

a. This book reads easily.
b. ei<ϕ,ϕ>
C
ei
nP
ei
T[uϕ] eithis book[vϕ][vCase]nPei
PRO/proei
this book[vϕ][vCase]vei<ϕ,ϕ>easily einPeiread[uϕ]nPthis book[vϕ][vCase]
this book[vϕ][uCase](13) Assumptions:(i) The external argument is PRO/pro (cf. Stroik 1992, 1995, 1999, Hoekstra andRoberts 1993). It is inert in English and does not have formal features (cf. Ikawa
2013).
(ii) Adjuncts like easily are invisible to LA and the label of the set {easily, VP}
remains <ϕ,ϕ> (cf. Hornstein 2009, Oseki 2015).
(14) Derivation:(i) The object undergoes “raising” into “SpecVP” and the unvalued Case feature
gets valued via Agree (i.e., Minimal Search).1(ii) At Transfer of VP, the nP undergoes IM into the edge of v. (This makes it
possible for the nP to remain active.)(iii) The nP moves into “SpecTP” and the Case feature of it gets revalued via
Agree with T.
(15) Labeling:(i) {V, tthis book}: label = V(ii) {this book, {V, tthis book}}: label = <ϕ,ϕ>(iii) {easily, {this book, {V, tthis book}}}: label = <ϕ,ϕ>(iv) {v, {easily, {this book, {V, tthis book}}}}: label = v(v) {PRO/pro, {v, {easily, {this book, {V, tthis book}}}}}: label = v (At Transfer
of VP, this book undergoes IM into the edge of v. Transfer reduces the set {thisMiddles like (9iia) in which a reflexive pronoun appears will be compatible with the movement approach if we
follow Hornstein (2001), Kayne (2002), and Tonoike (2008) in assuming that the genitive parts of the reflexives are
the “trace” left behind after the movement of the possessor to a higher position, though the exact details remain to
be worked out. For relevant discussion, see Stroik (2006).
1

4

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

book, {PRO/pro, {v, VP}}} into the set {this book, {PRO/pro, {v}}}. If asingleton set is equivalent to its member, the set {this book, {PRO/pro, {v}}} will
be regarded as the set {this book, {PRO/pro, v}}. Thus, the label of the set{PRO/pro, v} will be determined to v.
(vi) {this book, v}: label = v ({this book, {PRO/pro, v}}⇒{this book, {v}}⇒{this book, v})(vii) {T, {this book, v}}: label = T(viii) {this book, {T, {tthis book, v}}}: label = <ϕ,ϕ>(ix) {C, {this book, {T, {tthis book, v}}}}: label = C(16) Evidence against lexical approaches: Resultative Predicatesa. New seedlings water t flat easily.
b. Those cookies break t into pieces easily.
c. My running socks don’t scrub t clean easily.
d. Permanent press napkins iron t flat easily.

(Carrier and Randall 1992: 218)2.2.4 What Happens at the Interfaces?
(17) I will consider some “possible” stages of the derivation and make sure that the
proposed system does not generate unwanted derivations.
(i) What if this book does not undergo IM into the edge of v?⇒The result is
ungrammatical!
a. This book reads easily.
b. {T, {PRO/pro, {v, {easily, {this book, {V, tthis book}}}}}}➢ PRO/pro is inert and we cannot encode agreement features (cf. Ikawa 2013).
Therefore, T has nothing to agree with since this book has already undergone
Transfer. Consequently, the unvalued ϕ-features of T cannot be valued, causing thederivation to crash.2(ii) What if this book undergoes IM into the edge of v before the external

One might wonder why an expletive pronoun it cannot be inserted into “SpecTP.” It should be noted, however,that the use of the expletive pronoun it is not that free. Radford (2009) offers the following generalization about theuse of the expletive pronoun.
(i) An expletive can only be merged as the highest argument of a verb with no external argument.
(Radford 2009: 298)
As observed in 2.2.2, the middle verb projects its external argument. Thus, the expletive pronoun it cannot be merged
as the highest argument of the middle verb.
52

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

argument is merged? ⇒ If this book moves into “SpecTP,” the result isgrammatical!3a. This book reads easily.
b. {T, {PRO/pro, {this book, {v, {easily, {tthis book, {read, {tthis book}}}}}}}}➢ Upon completion of the vP phase, Transfer reduces the set {this book, {v, VP}}
into the set {this book, {v}}. ({this book, {v}} = {this book, v}) Then, PRO/pro ismerged, forming {PRO/pro, {this book, v}}. Here, if this book undergoes IM into
“SpecTP” at Transfer, it agrees with T. Then, the derivation converges. But if it
does not undergo IM into “SpecTP,” T will have nothing to agree with.
(iii) What if the object in a regular transitive sentence undergoes IM into theedge of v?⇒The result is ungrammatical in English, but grammatical in the
Scandinavian languages.4
a. John reads this book.
b. {T, {this book, {John, {v, {tthis book, {V, tthis book}}}}}}➢ If this book undergoes IM into “SpecTP,” it agrees with T and the Case feature ofit gets revalued as nominative. But, if so, the subject John would remain Case-less,causing the derivation to crash.
➢ In contrast, if John undergoes IM into “SpecTP,” it agrees with T and the Casefeature of it gets valued as nominative. However, the result is ungrammatical, as
shown below.
c. *John this book reads.
➢ But note that the occurrence of an object at the edge of v, clearly excluded in
English, is possible in the Scandinavian languages.
Icelandic
d. Nemandinn las
student-the read

ekki
not

bókina.
book-theI would like to thank Takaomi Kato for bringing this possibility to my attention. Kato et al. (2014) argue that in
the derivation of who does John love, the wh-phrase who undergoes IM into the edge of v before the externalargument is merged. See Kato et al. (2014) for further discussion.
4Note that the properties of “object shift” in the Scandinavian languages are in fact very complicated. For an
overview of the nature of “object shift,” see among others Thráinsson (2001) and Vikner (2006).
63

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②‘The students didn’t read the book.’e. Nemandinn las bókinai ekkiti‘The students didn’t read the book.’(Thráinsson 2001: 148)
(bókina ‘the book’ is moved in front of negation ekki ‘not’ (which resides in“SpecVP”) and presumably stays at the edge of v.) (cf. Chomsky 2001, Gallego2013).
➢ Holmberg (1986):“Object shift” is possible only if the main verb is finite and has moved out of theverb phrase (i.e., vP).
・English does not have V-to-T movement⇒”object shift” is impossible
・Icelandic has V-to-T movement⇒”object shift” is possible➢ Note that there is a way to make the sentence *John this book reads grammaticalin English. It will be grammatical if this book undergoes further IM into the edgeof C (i.e., an instance of topicalization).
f. {this book, {C, {John, {T, {tthis book, {tJohn, {v, {tthis book, {V, tthis book}}}}}}}}}
g. This book, John reads.
2.3 CaseNOM+CaseACC: Icelandic Tough-Constructions(18) In Icelandic, when a nominal phrase receives two Case values, the first Case value
received will be realized/retained morphologically (cf. Bejar and Massam 1999,
Yoon 1996, Jónsson 1996, Svenonius 2005, Narita 2007). I will argue that ToughConstructions (TCs) in Icelandic instantiate such a possibility.
a. Þennan leik
var erfitt
að PRO dæmathis.ACC game.ACC was difficult.DFLT toreferee.INF‘This game was difficult to referee.’__.

b. Var þennan leik
erfittað PRO dæma__?
was this.ACC game.ACC difficult.DFLT toreferee.INF‘Was this game difficult to referee?’(Sigurðsson 2016: 180)
➢ In (18b), þennan leik ‘this game’ is located in “SpecTP” and structural accusative
Case is preserved (cf. Wood 2015).
2.3.1 A/A’ Properties(19) Sigurðsson (2016) argues that the derivation of Icelandic TCs involves movement
7

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

from an A’-position into an A-position (cf. Wood 2015).
➢ A’-properties(i) Reconstruction
Context: It is easy to trust one’s friends but…
?...ég telóvini sínum
vera
erfittað PRO treysta.
I believe enemy.DAT self.DAT be.INF difficult.DFLT totrust.INF‘…I believe it is difficult to trust one’s enemy.’(Sigurðsson 2016: 183)
・Biding of the moved nominal phrase (by PRO) is not ungrammatical.
(ii) Preposition strandinga. Ég telVigdísivera mikilvægt
að talavel um
?
I believe Vigdís.ACC be.INF important.DFLT to talk.INF well of‘I believe it is important to talk well about Vigdís.’(Sigurðsson 2016: 184)b. *Ég tel
Vigdísivera oftasttalað
vel um
.
I believe Vigdís.ACC be.INF most.often talked well of(ibid.; cited from Maling and Zaenen 1985: 156)
・Prepositions in Icelandic can only be stranded by A’-movement.
(iii) Successive-cyclic movement
Af hverju er þessa kenningui
ekki hægt
[CP ti að PRO reyna
whyis this.ACC theory.ACC not possible.DFLT
totry.INF[CP ti að PRO afsannati]]?
todisprove.INF‘Why is it not possible to try to disprove this theory?’(Sigurðsson 2016: 186)
・The nominal phrase þessa kenningu ‘this theory’ moves successive-cyclicallythrough phase boundaries.
➢ A-properties(i) Yes/No questions
Context: A says to B: “You said that it was important to avoid this woman overthere, but…” (pointing to another woman)... er þessa konu
ekki mikilvægara
að forðast?
is this.ACC woman.ACC not more.important to avoid.INF‘…isn’t this woman more important to avoid?’(Sigurðsson 2016: 182)8

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

・Since er ‘is’ is located in C, þessa konu ‘this woman’ is located is “SpecTP.”(ii) ECM
Ég hef alltaf talið
þennan mannvera mikilvægt
að forðast.
I have always believed this.ACC man.ACC be.INF important.DFLT to avoid.INF‘I have always believed this man to be important to avoid.’(Sigurðsson 2016: 182)(iii) The Definiteness Effecta. *það er þennan misskilning
mikilvægt
að forðast.
EXPL is this.ACC misunderstanding.ACC important.DFLT to avoid.INF
b. það er sumamenmikilvægara
að forðast en aðra.
EXPL is some.ACC men.ACC more.important toavoid than others.ACC‘Some people are more important to avoid than others.’(Sigurðsson 2016: 182-183)
c. Það hefur *þessi köttur/*köttur Péturs verið í
EXPL has this cat/cat Péturs
been ineldhúsinu.
the.kitchend. Það hafa nokkirir kettir/sumir kettirverið íeldhúsinu.
EXPL hassome cats/some.of.the cats been in the.kitchen(Vangsnes 2002: 48)
・In (c-d), the associate subject resides in the “intermediate position,” which is
identified as “SpecTP” (cf. Bobaljik and Jonas 1996). In that position, definite
noun phrases are not allowed, while indefinite noun phrases are allowed. The
same definiteness effects are observed in (a-b).
2.3.2 Derivation(20) Following Sigurðsson (2016), I assume that the nominal phrase moves from within
the infinitival clause to the subject position of the matrix clause. But Sigurðsson’s(2016) assumption and mine differ with respect to Agree.
➢ Sigurðsson (2016)
Only nominative DPs can value T’s ϕ-features.
➢ My assumption
Case-valued nominal phrases can agree with T.
(21) The following example shows that the accusative-valued nominal phrase agrees
9Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

with T.
þessi
leikurvar erfiðurað dæma.
this.M.NOM.SG game.M.NOM.SG was difficult.M.NOM.SG to referee.INF‘This game was difficult to referee.’(Sigurðsson 2016:181,fn.6)➢ In Icelandic TCs, quite markedly, nominative Case is realized morphologically (cf.
Thráinsson 2007, Wood 2015). I take this to be an indication that nominative Casevaluation takes place in Icelandic TCs.
(22) The derivation of Icelandic TCs proceeds as follows.
a. Varþennan leik
erfitt
was this.ACC game.ACC difficult.DFLT‘Was this game difficult to referee?’að PRO dæma__?
toreferee.INF(Sigurðsson 2016: 180)b.
qpþennan leik[vϕ][uCase]qpPRO
qp<ϕ,ϕ>v
qpþennan leik[vϕ][vCase] qp
V[uϕ]þennan leik[vϕ][uCase]
c.

d.

qp
C
qp
að
T
qp
þennan leik[vϕ][vCase]v
qp<ϕ,ϕ>C
qp
var þennan leik[vϕ][vCase]qp
T[uϕ]
qp
var
erfittqpþennan leik[vϕ][vCase]Cað➢ Derivation:(i) The object þennan leik ‘this game’ moves successive-cyclically into the edge ofthe embedded C.5 At Transfer of VP, the object gets valued as accusative.
5

I assume that the Icelandic infinitive marker að ‘to’ belongs to C (cf. Sigurðsson 1989 and Wood 2015).
10Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②(ii) The object þennan leik ‘this game’ moves into the matrix “SpecTP” and agrees
with T. It gets revalued as nominative.
(iii) Var ‘be’ moves into C.
➢ Labeling:(i){V, þennan leik}: label = V(ii) {þennan leik, {V, tþennan leik}}: label = <ϕ,ϕ>(iii) {v, {þennan leik, {V, tþennan leik}}}: label = v(iv) {PRO, {v, {þennan leik, {V, tþennan leik}}}}: label = v (Transfer reduces theset {þennan leik, {PRO, {v, VP}}} into the set {þennan leik, {PRO, {v}}}. If asingleton set is equivalent to its member, the set {þennan leik, {PRO, {v}}} will
be regarded as the set {þennan leik, {PRO, v}}. Thus, the label of the set {PRO, v}
will be determined to v.
(v) {þennan leik, v}: label = v ({þennan leik, {PRO, v}}⇒{þennan leik, {v}}⇒{þennan leik, v})(vi) {T, {þennan leik, v}}: label = T(vii) {þennan leik, {T, {tþennan leik, v}}}: label = <ϕ,ϕ>(viii) {C, {þennan leik, {T, {tþennan leik, v}}}}: label = C(23) Following Bejar and Massam (1999), Yoon (1996), Jónsson (1996), Svenonius(2005), Narita (2007), I assume that in Icelandic when a nominal phrase receives
two Case values, the first one received will be realized/retained morphologically.6(24) Note that the null operator (i.e., Op) movement approach (cf. Chomsky 1977,
Hicks 2009) would have difficulty explaining the derivation of Icelandic TCs
because under the null operator approach the accusative object would have to be
based-generated in the matrix subject position, as illustrated below.
[TP nP T … [AP A [CP Opi to PRO verb ti]]]predication

Op movement(25) It is more straightforward to assume that the object is moved from the embedded
object position into the matrix subject position without recourse to the null
operator.

There is firm empirical grounding for relating agreement on T and nominative Case. Given this, it would not be
implausible to suppose that agreement on T is effectively nullified when nominative Case is not realized
morphologically, hence the default form of T (see Bejar and Massam 1990, Yoon 1996, Narita 2007 for somerelevant discussion).
116Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

2.4 A Note on Improper Movement(26) It is widely assumed that movement from an A’-position into an A-position isbanned as improper movement (cf. Chomsky 1973, Obata and Epstein 2011).
(27) Sigurðsson (2016) proposes that in Icelandic TCs, T inherits not only ϕ-features
but also an A’-feature (i.e., focus or topic) from C. If so, “SpecTP” can be seen asa mixed A/A’ position. This means that the movement into this position can be
regarded as (partly) A’-movement (cf. Longenbauch 2017). Thus, the general ban
on improper movement can be circumvented.
(28) The following example shows that T can sometimes inherit an A’-feature from C.
What kinds of giftsi are there rules about [CP ti who can give ti to whom]?
(Chung and McCloskey 1983: 708)(29) As Sigurðsson (2016) notes, however, a better understanding of when T can haveboth ϕ-features and an A’-feature is needed.7
2.5 Case Resolution Strategies(30) There are three possibilities to consider.
(i) Case2+Case1: The last Case value received is realized morphologically.
(ii) Case2+Case1: The first Case value received is realized morphologically.
(iii) Case2+Case1: All the Case values received are realized morphologically.
(31) In languages where the Case morphology is agglutinative (i.e., languages where anominal stem is separate from the inflection), it is in principle possible to adopt(30iii) as a Case resolution strategy. 8
Koreana. Cheli-hanthey-ka
Cheli-DAT-NOM‘Cheli has money.’

ton-i
isse.
money-NOM haveb. Swunhi-ka
Yenghi-hanthey-lul chayk-ul cwuesse.
Swunhi-NOM Yenghi-DAT-ACC
book-ACC gave
‘Swunhi gave Yenghi the book.’(Levin 2017: 448)

7

For an alternative approach to the issue of (im)proper movement, see for instance Mizuguchi (2014).

8

I would like to thank Ryoichiro Kobayashi for helpful discussion.
12

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

Cuzco Quechua
Pi-qpa-ta-ni
muna-nki[ ti platanu ranti-mu-na-n-ta]
who-GEN-ACC-AF want-2
bananas buy-NML-3-ACC‘Who do you want to buy bananas?’(Lefebvre and Muysken 1988: 161)
(32) On the other hand, in languages where the Case morphology is fusional (i.e.,languages where a nominal stem is not separate from the inflection), either (30i)or (30ii) is usually chosen as a Case resolution strategy.
(i) Case2+Case1
English, Greek, Niuean, Hungarian…
(ii) Case2+Case1
Icelandic, Persian, Tongan…
PersianNominative Case is retained.
a. In Lazem æst-Ø [ke tobe-ræv-ianja].
it necessary is-3SG that you SUB-go-2SG there‘It is necessary for you to go there.’b. toi lazem
æst-Ø [ke ei
be-ræv-ianja].
you necessary is-3SG that
SUB-go-2SG there(Lit.) ‘You are necessary to go there.’ (Yoon 1996: 135; see also Dazzi 1993)
TonganErgative Case is retained (though the verb lava should assign absolutive Case).
a. ‘Elava [ketemate’i‘e he mahina ‘a e la’a].9
UNS can
COMP shut
ERG the moon
ABS the sun‘It is possible for the moon to block out the sun.’b. ‘Elava ‘e he mahinai [‘o tamate’i ei ’a e la’a].
UNS can
ERG the moon
COMP shut
ABS the sun‘The moon is likely to block out the sun.’(Yoon 1996: 136; see also Chung 1978)(33) Norwegian, though it is a fusional language, chooses (30iii) as a Case resolution
strategy (cf. Bejar and Massam 1999). In Norwegian, multiple Case valuation is
resolved syncretically.
9

UNS stands for unspecified tense-aspect-mood.
13

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

a. Peri hadde de trodd [ti [ti ville komme
Peter had they thought
would arrive‘Peter had thought they would arrive too late.’

forsent]]
too lateb. {*jeg, *du,*vi}i hadde de trodd[ti [ti ville komme forsent]]{*I, *you.SG.NOM, *we} hadthey thought
would arrive too fastc. {*meg, *deg,*oss}i hadde de trodd{*me, *you.SG.ACC, *us} had they thought[ti [ti ville komme forsent]]
would arrive too fastd. derei
hadde de trodd [ti [ti ville komme forsent]]
you.PL.NOM/ACC had they thought
would arrive too fast
(Bejar and Massam 1999: 67; see also Taraldsen 1981)(34) The proper noun is allowable because it is underspecified for nominative andaccusative. But this construction is ungrammatical when the topicalized subject is
any of the pronouns in (33b-c). (33d) is grammatical because the second-pluralpronoun dere ‘you’ is syncretic for nominative and accusative.
(35) In Norwegian topicalization, multiple Case valuation results in grammaticality justin case there is no morphological conflict between the stacked Case values (cf.
Bejar and Massam 1999).
2.6 Conclusion(36) I have argued that English and Icelandic fall within the theory of multiple Casevaluation via Agree and that English chooses (36i) as a Case resolution strategy,
whereas Icelandic chooses (36ii) as a Case resolution strategy.
(i) Case2+Case1: The last Case value received is realized morphologically.
(ii) Case2+Case1: The first Case value received is realized morphologically.
(iii) Case2+Case1: All the Case values received are realized morphologically.
(37) Yoon (1996) states that the language-specific nature of Case resolution strategies
is expected because there is no UG principle which requires a structural Caseassigned earlier to be maintained throughout the derivation.

14

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

References
Ackema, Peter, and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 1994. The middle construction and thesyntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93: 59-90.
Ackema, Peter, and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 1995. Middles and nonmovement.
Linguistic Inquiry 26: 173-197.
Ackema, Peter, and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 2006. Middles. In The Blackwellcompanion to syntax, Volume III, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk,
131‐203. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carrier, Jill, and Janet Randall 1992. The argument structure and the syntactic structureof resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 173-234.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for MorrisHalle, ed. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Peter Culicover,Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71-132. New York: Academic Press.
Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Chung, Sandra, and James McCloskey. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island
facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 704-713.
Dazzi, Ali. 1993. Raising in Persian. Proceedings of the 10th Eastern State Conferenceon Linguistics, 81-92.
Fagan, Sarah. 1988. The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 181-203.
Fagan, Sarah. 1992. The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1985. Adverbs in agentless actives and passives. Proceedings ofthe 21st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 21-31.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1986. On the middle construction in English. Bloomington:
Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Fiengo, Robert. 1980. Surface structure: The interface of autonomous components.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fujita, Koji. 1994. Middle, ergative, and passive in English: A minimalist perspective.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 71-90.
Fujita, Koji, and Masumi Matsumoto. 2005. Goihantyuu (I): Doosi (Lexical category(I): Verb). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Gallego, Ángel. 2013. Object shift in Romance. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
31: 409-451.
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40:
535-566.
Hoekstra, Teun, and Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle constructions in Dutch and English. In
Knowledge and language, Volume II: Lexical and conceptual structure, ed. Eric
Reuland and Werner Abraham, 183-220. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
15

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian
languages and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.
Hornstein, Nobert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hornstein, Nobert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal
grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ikawa, Hajime. 2013. What the ineligibility of wh-phrases for argument ellipsis tells
us: On the inertness of phonetically null elements. Online Proceedings of GLOWin Asia IX.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanationin the minimalist program, ed. Samuel Epstein and Daniel Seely, 133-166.
Malden: Blackwell.
Keyser, Samuel, and Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions
in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 381-416.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Longenbauch, Nicholas. 2017. Composite A/A’-movement: Evidence from English
tough-movement. Ms., MIT.
Maling, Joan, and Annie Zaenen. 1985. Preposition-stranding and oblique Case.
Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 149-161.
Marelj, Marijana. 2005. Middles and argument structures across languages. Doctoral
dissertation, Utrecht University.
Mizuguchi, Manabu. 2014. Superiority effects in minimalism: A case study of Amovement. English Linguistics 31: 563-582.
Narita, Hiroki. 2007. Spelling-out Case-values: In view of passive constructions, withspecial reference to Japanese possessor passive. Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Meeting of the Sophia University Linguistics Society, 23-49.
Obata, Miki, and Samuel Epstein. 2011. Feature-splitting internal Merge: Improper
movement, intervention, and the A/A’ distinction. Syntax 14: 122-147.
Oseki, Yohei. 2015. Eliminating pair-Merge. Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, 303-312.
Radford, Andrew. 2009. Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2016. Circumventing the ban on improper movement in
Icelandic. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the North East LinguisticSociety, 179-192.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral
dissertation, Lund University.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the licensing oflexical arguments. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 327-363.
Steinbach, Markus. 2002. Middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16

Keio Colloquium
9/5/2020
Handout②

Stroik, Thomas. 1992. Middles and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 127-137.
Stroik, Thomas. 1995. On the middle formation: A reply to Zribi-Hertz. Linguistic
Inquiry 26: 165-171.
Stroik, Thomas. 1999. Middles and reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 119-131.
Stroik, Thomas. 2006. Arguments in middles. In Demoting the agent: Passive, middle
and other voice phenomena, ed. Benjamin Lyngfelt and Torgrim Solstad, 301326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1981. Case-conflict in Norwegian topicalization. Proceedingsof the 11th Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society, 377-398.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. In The handbook ofcontemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 148-202.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Tokizaki, Hisao. 1998. Saikidaimeisi to Tyuukantaikoobun (Reflexive pronouns andmiddle constructions). JELS 15: 241-250.
Tonoike, Shigeo. 2008. The general minimalist framework. Ms., University of Hawaii.
Vangsnes, Øystein. 2002. Icelandic expletive constructions and the distribution ofsubject types. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, ed. Peter Svenonius, 43-70.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka
Bor. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Vikner, Sten. 2006. Object shift. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume III,ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 392-436. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wood, Jim. 2015. On improper movement of accusative subjects. Proceedings of the
45th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 203-216.
Yoon, James. 1996. Ambiguities of government and the chain condition. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 14: 105-162.
Zushi, Mihoko. 2005. Deriving the similarities between Japanese and Italian: A casestudy in comparative syntax. Lingua 115: 711-752.

17