On a ``make-believe'' argument for Case Theory
Description
I argue here that evidence from Icelandic challenges one argument for Case Theory given in Chomsky's seminal paper \textit{On Binding}. Chomsky suggested that a locality (adjacency) condition on structural case assignment explains the systematic absence of ditransitive ECM verbs. I argue here that Icelandic lacks this adjacency condition: structural Case in Icelandic is available to the second argument of a ditransitive in Icelandic. The Case-theoretic account would predict that Icelandic should therefore contrast with English and allow ditransitive ECM constructions. It does not. The absence of ditransitive ECM predicates is thus part of a broader generalization than Case Theory can explain.
Files
11.pdf
Files
(115.2 kB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:6ca0b570b173d9a06a98d618cbaf9b7d
|
115.2 kB | Preview Download |