{"id":4694,"date":"2012-11-19T05:02:20","date_gmt":"2012-11-19T09:02:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=4694"},"modified":"2012-11-18T22:46:16","modified_gmt":"2012-11-19T02:46:16","slug":"syntax-square-1120-ted-levin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2012\/11\/19\/syntax-square-1120-ted-levin\/","title":{"rendered":"Syntax Square 11\/20 - Ted Levin"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Speaker: Theodore Frank Levin<br clear='none'\/>\nTitle: Dependent Case is Licensing<br clear='none'\/>\nDate\/Time: Tuesday, Nov 20, 1-2p<br clear='none'\/>\nLocation: 32-D461<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Baker and Vinokurova (2010) suggest that some languages (including Sakha) may utilize both configurational (i.e. Marantz 1991) and functional-head driven (i.e. Chomsky 2000, 2001) approaches to case-assignment. I have argued elsewhere that Sakha is not such a language (Levin and Preminger 2012). However, I will argue that English is such a language.<\/p>\n<p>Under common assumptions regarding Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001), a probe must c-command its goal and that probe must have an uninterpretable (and hence unvalued) feature. <\/p>\n<p>(1) AGREE (Chomsky 2000, 2001)<br clear='none'\/>\n                        (i) An unvalued feature F (a probe) on a head H scans its c-command domain for<br clear='none'\/>\n                                another instance of F (a goal) with which to agree.<br clear='none'\/>\n                     (ii) If the goal has a value, its value is assigned as the value of the probe.<\/p>\n<p>Given this assumption, the functional-head driven account of Case assignment is unexpected: A functional head with unvalued ?-features probes its c-command domain for a nominal with valued ?-features and enters an Agree-relationship. As a consequence of this, the c-commanded nominal\u0092s unvalued Case-feature is valued. This valuation is unexpected, as the unvalued Case-feature is not in a position to act as a probe given (1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of proposals have attempted to eliminated instances of \u0093Reverse Agree\u0094 (e.g. Boskovic 2007, Zeiljstra 2011).  Boskovic (2007) suggests that if (some) probes cannot find a goal in their c-command domains, they will move successive-cyclically until they come to c-command an appropriate, valued feature.  An immediate advantage of this account is that it allows us to derive the EPP. In intransitive clauses a DP base-generated in Spec-vP or Compl-V will raise to Spec-TP, because the unvalued Case-feature on the DP triggers movement. Once in Spec-TP, the DP c-commands T0, and is able to value its Case-feature.<\/p>\n<p>However, there is a problem if we assume that both T0 and v0 assign Case in transitive constructions.  A subject DP, base-generated in Spec-vP, should be able to value its Case-feature against v0.  If this occurs, the object DP should move to Spec-TP to value its Case-feature by Agreeing with T0. Proponents of unvalued-feature driven movement have suggested that accusative case in transitive clauses may be lexically assigned by V0.  While only accusative assigned in ECM constructions is assigned by v0.<\/p>\n<p>I will suggest that in a hybrid approach to case-assignment, we can maintain the account of the EPP and treat ECM and transitive accusative uniformly.  Specifically, nominative case is assigned under a functional-head driven approach whereby a DP must occupy Spec-TP to be valued nominative. Both ECM and transitive accusative are assigned configurationally. Under this approach accusative case is assigned to an object DP, because it is c-commanded by an as-of-yet caseless nominal.  Crucially dependent case must be assigned within the narrow syntax (Baker & Vinokurova 2010; Preminger 2011) contra Marantz (1991) and Bobaljik (2008).  Evidence from Case Adjacency effects in English will be utilized to argue for the proposed hybrid theory.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Speaker: Theodore Frank Levin Title: Dependent Case is Licensing Date\/Time: Tuesday, Nov 20, 1-2p Location: 32-D461 Baker and Vinokurova (2010) suggest that some languages (including Sakha) may utilize both configurational (i.e. Marantz 1991) and functional-head driven (i.e. Chomsky 2000, 2001) approaches to case-assignment. I have argued elsewhere that Sakha is not such a language (Levin [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-talks"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4694"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4694\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4695,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4694\/revisions\/4695"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}