The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann Published in: Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax 2006 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Sigurðsson, H. A. (2006). The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic. Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax, 13- 50. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000299 Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson 1 Introduction* In this paper I discuss the distribution of accusative case and the nature of the nominative / accusative distinction in the Germanic languages. In generative approaches (Chomsky 1981, Burzio 1986, etc.), three different kinds of accusatives have been generally assumed: Structural (object) accusatives, default accusatives, and other non-structural accusatives, as described with English examples in (1): (1) a. She saw me. structural Acc b. It is me. default Acc c. I arrived the second day. other non-structural Acc The class ‘other non-structural Acc’ includes not only adverbial accusatives but also inherent accusatives. I will here adopt a different view, arguing that there are basically only two accusative types: Relational Acc, and Non-relational Acc, where the notion ‘relational’ means dependent on the presence of a nominative DP. On this view, so-called default, predicative accusatives are a well-behaved subtype of Relational Acc. Many of the Germanic languages, however, apply nominative case-marking of predicative DPs. This predicative Nom/Acc variation is a central topic of this work. In section 2, I discuss Burzio’s Generalization (BG) and describe accusative case- marking in the Germanic languages, concentrating on accusatives that are apparent or real exceptions to BG, in particular accusative subjects and the above mentioned predicative accusatives. Section 3 argues for a morphological, non-syntactic understanding of the relational (‘structural’) cases, where Nom is seen as simply the first, independent case, CASE1, and Acc as the second case, CASE2, dependent on Nom being present in the structure. Section 4 argues that this morphological understanding enables us to analyze the English type of predicative Acc as involving an extension of the general Nom/Acc distinction between arguments to DPs. In the concluding section 5, I suggest, on the basis of the presented facts and analysis, that we need to abandon the view that morpho(phono)logy is a straightforward reflection of syntax. Rather, we must see morphology and syntax as distinct ‘languages’ or codes, mutally understandable but foreign to each other. That is, morphology does not mirror or ‘show’ syntax, it translates it into its own ‘language’, which is radically different from the ‘language’ of Narrow Syntax (in the sense of Chomsky 2000 and subsequent works). * For generous help with data, many thanks to: Heidi Quinn, Andrew McIntyre, Joan Maling, Dianne Jonas (English), Marcel den Dikken, Sjef Barbiers, Hilda Koopman, Jan-Wouter Zwart (Dutch), Jarich Hoekstra (North and West Frisian), Theresa Biberauer (Afrikaans), Beatrice Santorini, Sten Vikner (Yiddish), Valentina Bianchi (Italian), Ellen Brandner, Gisbet Fanselow, Josef Bayer, Markus Benzinger, Philipp Conzett, René Schiering (German and German varieties), Marit Julien (Norwegian), and Ulf Teleman and other friends and colleagues in Lund: Camilla Thurén, Cecilia Falk, Christer Platzack, David Håkansson, Henrik Rosenkvist, Martin Ringmar, and Verner Egerland (Swedish and Swedish varieties). 2 2 The distribution of Nom/Acc across the Germanic languages In this section, I will describe the distribution of accusative case and how it interacts with nominative case in the Germanic languages, mainly the standard ones. Three major domains will be considered. In 2.1, I discuss the relational or ‘structural’ cases in the sense of Burzio (1986) and the scope of his famous generalization. In 2.2., I discuss argumental and adverbial accusatives that do not fall under BG, above all certain Icelandic accusative subjects that have sometimes been considered to be mysterious and a major challenge to BG. Finally, in section 2.3, I describe the Germanic predicative Nom/Acc variation. Sections 2.1 and 2.3 lay the foundations for the discussion in later sections, whereas section 2.2 is more of an intermezzo, a long detour I have been forced to make in order to be able to later proceed on the main road, so to speak. Many of the accusatives discussed in 2.2 are problematic and interesting, but those readers who are only interested in the predicative Nom/Acc variation might opt for taking a bypass more or less directly from section 2.1 to section 2.3. The Germanic languages divide into (relatively) case-rich and case-poor languages, the former having (at least some) case-marking of full NPs, whereas the latter have Nom/Acc marking of only pronouns. In addition, the case-rich languages have morphological dative and genitive case (to a varying extent). Case-rich: Icelandic, Faroese, German, Yiddish Case-poor: Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, North Frisian, English, West Frisian, Dutch, Afrikaans Many of the Germanic languages show considerable dialectal variation with respect to the distribution of nominative and accusative case. Thus, some Swedish and Norwegian varieties have partly neutralized the Nom/Acc distinction (see Eklund 1982, Holmberg 1986), while other Swedish and Norwegian varieties have retained even dative case (Reinhammer 1973), some German varieties have some instances of accusative instead of the general German type of nominative predicative DPs, and so on. Also, many varieties that are often referred to as dialects are more properly regarded as separate languages, from a linguistic point of view, including for instance the ‘Swedish’ Älvdalsmålet (see Levander 1909) and the ‘German’ Cimbrian in northernmost Italy (see Tyroller 2003). I will however largely limit the present study to the 12 above listed ‘standard languages’, only mentioning other varieties occasionally. 2.1 Germanic relational case-marking All the standard Germanic languages show the core properties of accusative systems, assigning nominative to (non-quirky) subjects and accusative to most objects. This is illustrated below for three of the languages: (2) a. She(/*Her) had seen me(/*I). English NOM ... ACC b. Hun(/*Hende) havde set mig(/*jeg). Danish NOM ... ACC c. Hún(/*Hana) hafði séð mig(/*ég). Icelandic NOM ... ACC A basic (and a generally known) fact about the standard Germanic languages is that they all adhere to Burzio’s Generalization. The nontechnical version of BG is as follows (Burzio 1986: 178; for exceptions, see below and, e.g., Burzio 2000): 3 (3) All and only the verbs that can assign a θ-role to the subject can assign accusative case to an object An alternative simple formulation of this correlation is given in (4): (4) Relational Acc is possible only if its predicate takes an additional, external argument As I have argued in earlier work, however, the true generalization is evidently not about the relation between the external role and the internal case, but between the cases themselves, nominative versus accusative. I have referred to this as THE SIBLING CORRELATION (in e.g. Sigurðsson 2003: 249, 258), formulating it as follows: (5) (ACC → NOM) & ∼ (NOM → ACC) In other words, a relational (‘structural’) accusative is possible only in the presence of a nominative, whereas the opposite does not hold true, i.e. the nominative is the first or the independent case (an ‘only child’ or an ‘older sibling’, as it were). A similar or a related understanding has been argued for by others, most successfully by Yip et al. (1987), but also by, e.g., Haider (1984, 2000), Zaenen et al. (1985), and Maling (1993). Importantly, however, the Sibling Correlation only makes sense if it applies generally, in non-finite as well as in finite clauses (see Sigurðsson 1989, 1991). I will discuss the nature of the Sibling Correlation in section 3. In accordance with BG or SC, unaccusative (or ergative) verbs like arrive, unergative verbs like run and raising verbs like seem take nominative rather than accusative subjects in nominative-accusative languages like English. This is illustrated by the following examples. (6) a. She arrived late. / *Her arrived late. b. She ran home. / *Her ran home. c. She seemed to be shocked. / *Her seemed to be shocked. More tellingly, an accusative object argument of a transitive verb turns up as nominative subject in passive and unaccusative constructions: (7) a. They fired her. b. She was fired. / *Her was fired. (8) a. They drowned her. b. She drowned. / *Her drowned. These facts are well-known and have been widely studied and discussed (for a recent detailed study of case-marking in English, see Quinn 2005a). As one would expect, much the same facts are found in the other Germanic languages. This is illustrated below for only transitive/passive pairs in German, Swedish and Icelandic, respectively: (9) a. Sie haben ihn gewählt. they have him.ACC chosen ‘They chose him.’ b. Er wurde gewählt. / *Ihn wurde gewählt. he.NOM was chosen / *ACC 4 (10) a. De valde honom. they chose him.ACC b. Han valde-s. / *Honom valde-s. he.NOM chose-PASS / *ACC ‘He was chosen.’ (11) a. Þeir völdu hana. they chose her.ACC b. Hún var valin. / *Hana var valin. she.NOM was chosen / *ACC 2.2 Non-Burzionian accusatives A priori, it is not clear why BG or SC should hold, that is, it is not obvious why the subjects in the examples above cannot be accusative. It is appropriate to further highlight this seemingly unexpected fact: (12) a. *Her arrived late. b. *Her ran home. c. *Her seemed to be shocked. d. *Her was fired. e. *Her drowned. Why is this the case in not only the other Germanic languages but in accusative languages (and accusative subsystems) in general? We shall return to this question in section 3. Irrespective of the answer, these facts illustrate a truly striking generalization, and it is indeed proper that it has a name of its own. As acknowledged by Burzio (1986, 2000), however, it is not the case that all accusatives fall under his generalization. Adverbial accusatives in languages like German and Icelandic are perhaps the most obvious case of Non-Burzionian accusatives: (13) a. Dann regnete es den ganzen Tag / *der ganze Tag. then rained it the.ACC whole.ACC day / *NOM ‘Then, it rained all day.’ b. Þá rigndi allan daginn / *allur dagurinn. then rained all.ACC day.the.ACC / *NOM ‘Then, it rained all day.’ Accusative adverbial NPs most commonly have a temporal reading, as in these examples, but local (path) readings also occur, as illustrated below for Icelandic: (14) a. Hún synti heilan kílómetra / *heill kílómetri. she swam whole.ACC kilometre.ACC / *NOM b. Hann gengur alltaf sömu leið / *sama leið. he walks always same.ACC route.ACC / *NOM 5 As discussed by (Zaenen et al. 1985: 474–475), path adverbials of this sort often show up in the nominative in passives, thus behaving similarly as Burzionian accusatives.1 In contrast to argumental accusatives, however, path accusatives may also be retained in impersonal passives, that is, the Acc passive (?)Það er/var gengið þessa sömu leið til baka daginn eftir ‘it is/was walked this same route.ACC back the day after’ is fairly acceptable, whereas, e.g., *Það er/var teiknað þessa sömu leið ‘it is/was drawn this same route.ACC’ is impossible.2 Another type of Non-Burzioninan accusatives is accusative complements of prepositions. As illustrated below for English, German, Swedish and Icelandic, in that order, accusative prepositional complements are well-formed in the absence of an external argument: (15) a. There is much talking about him here. b. Hier wird (*es) viel über ihn gesprochen. here is (*it) much about him.ACC talked c. Här talas (det) mycket om henne. here is-talked (it) much about her.ACC d. Hér er (*það) talað mikið um hana.3 here is (*it) talked much about her.ACC These types are not problematic for BG, as it is formulated specifically for arguments of verbs, but they illustrate that morphological accusatives can be used for Non-Burzonian purposes, even in basically accusative systems. On the other hand, QUIRKY ACCUSATIVES are unexpected under BG and SC. Consider the Icelandic examples below: (16) a. Mig vantar peninga. me.ACC lacks money.ACC ‘I lack/need money.’ b. Mig langar heim. me.ACC longs home ‘I want to go home.’ c. Mig furðar á þessu. me.ACC surprises in this ‘I’m surprised by this.’ As seen, the accusatives in these exampels are well-formed irrespective of whether their predicate takes an additional argument. That is, BG and SC would seem to make a wrong prediction for these predicates (but see below for a different interpretation). Jónsson (1998: 35f) lists almost 60 predicates that take an accusative subject in (standard) Icelandic. As demonstrated below, Faroese (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 253f) and German also have examples of this sort, albeit much less frequently: 1 In Finnish, this even applies to temporal adverbials (Maling 1993). 2 This applies to my own grammar, which, as far as I can tell, is the standard variety in this respect. In the so- called ‘new passive’ variety, on the other hand, Það er/var teiknað þessa sömu leið ‘it is/was drawn this same route.ACC’ would be grammatical (see, e.g., Maling and Sigurjónsdóttir 2002). 3 The d-example illustrates the well-known fact that the Icelandic expletive can only occur clause-initially (Thráinsson 1979; see also Sigurðsson 2004a for a feature based approach to this Clause Initial Constraint, CLIC). 6 (17) a. Meg grunaði hetta. Faroese me.ACC suspected this.ACC ‘I suspected this.’ b. Mich hungert. German me.ACC hungers ‘I am hungry.’ The German construction is peripherical (see, e.g., Wunderlich 2003), and it seems to be rapidly disappearing from Faroese as well (Eythórsson and Jónsson 2003). It is also losing some ground in colloquial Icelandic, through so-called ‘dative sickness’, whereby accusative experiencer subjects in examples like (16a-c) are replaced with datives (see Smith 1996 and the references there). Icelandic has a second type of quirky accusative subjects, where the subject is not an experiencer but a theme or a patient, as illustrated below (Zaenen and Maling 1984 and many since): (18) a. Okkur rak að landi. us.ACC drove to land (drove = ‘got-driven’) ‘We drifted ashore.’ b. Bátinn fyllti á augabragði. boat.the.ACC filled in flash (filled = ‘got-filled’) ‘The boat swamped immediately.’ c. Mig tók út. me.ACC took out (took = ‘got-taken’) ‘I was swept overboard.’ d. Mennina bar að í þessu. men.the.ACC carried towards in that (carried = ‘got-carried’) ‘The men arrived then.’ As we shall see shortly, this second, theme/patient construction has an uncontrolled process or fate reading. For convenience, we may thus refer to the accusatives in (16)/(17) versus (18) as PSYCH ACCUSATIVES and FATE ACCUSATIVES, respectively.4 While Psych Accusatives tend to get replaced by datives, Fate Accusatives often give way to the nominative in (mainly) colloquial Icelandic (see Eythórsson 2000), in which case they behave like ordinary unaccusatives in the language (see below). As discussed by Haider (2001) and Kainhofer (2002), German also has Fate Accusatives of a similar sort, as illustrated in (19) (ex. (7a) in Haider 2001: 6): (19) Oft treibt es ihn ins Gasthaus. often drives it him.ACC into-the bar ‘He often ‘drifts’ into the bar.’ 4 As pointed out to me by Kjartan Ottosson, the notion ‘fate’ may not be entirely satisfactory here. The most common type of these predicates typically involves the natural forces as the source or the ‘hidden agent’ of the event (as discussed in Ottosson 1988). However, this does not extend to all examples of this sort, for instance (18d) and (20) below. I therefore take the liberty of using the notion ‘fate’ as a cover term for forces that are not in human power. 7 However, the German construction has an expletive, which perhaps or even plausibly may be analyzed as carrying nominative case.5 An expletive is excluded in the Icelandic construction: (20) a. Mann hrekur stundum af leið. one.ACC drives sometimes off track ‘Sometimes one loses one’s track/gets carried away.’ b. * Það hrekur mann stundum af leið. it drives one.ACC sometimes off track Thus, the Icelandic construction differs from the German one. However, Icelandic has another construction that is to an extent similar to the German construction. This is the Impersonal Modal Construction, IMC, discussed in Sigurðsson (1989: 163ff), with an arbitrary external role and an optional expletive (the explitive is generally only optional in Icelandic, see Thráinsson 1979). IMC is exemplified in (21); as suggested by the postverbal position of the accusatives, they are regular objects and not quirky subjects (in contrast to the quirky accusatives in (16), (18) and (20)): (21) a. Það á að byggja húsið hér. it has to build house.the.ACC here ‘They are going to build the house here.’ b. Það þarf að aðstoða hana. it needs to assist her.ACC ‘One needs to assist her.’ c. Hér má ekki reykja vindla. here may not smoke cigars.ACC ‘One may not smoke cigars here.’ Possibly, however, both IMC and the German construction throw a light on the origin of the Icelandic Fate Accusative, that is, it may have grown out of a similar transitive construction, with an unexpressed ‘fate subject’, as it were. As discussed by Zaenen and Maling (1984) and by Sigurðsson (1989), ordinary unaccusatives have similar properties in Icelandic as in related languages, showing the familiar ACC-TO-NOM CONVERSION when compared to homophonous or related transitives, much like passives. Consider the following transitive-passive-unaccusative triple: (22) a. Hún stækkaði garðinn. Transitive: Nom-Acc she enlarged garden.the.ACC b. Garðurinn var stækkaður. Passive: Nom garden.the.NOM was enlarged c. Garðurinn stækkaði. Unaccusative: Nom garden.the.NOM enlarged In contrast, Fate Accusative predicates, like the ones in (18), show an unexpected and (what seems to be) a cross-linguistically very rare behavior, in taking an UNACCUSATIVE ACCUSATIVE, as it were: 5 This might extend to the ‘new passive’ in Icelandic (type ‘It was hit me.ACC’). I will not discuss this here, but see, e.g., Sigurðsson (1989: 355f), Sigurjónsdóttir and Maling (2001), Maling and Sigurjónsdóttir (2002). 8 (23) a. Hún fyllti bátinn. Transitive: Nom-Acc she filled boat.the.ACC b. Báturinn var fylltur. Passive: Nom boat.the.NOM was filled c. Bátinn fyllti. Unaccusative: Acc! boat.the.ACC filled In contrast, datives and genitives are regularly retained in both passives and unaccusatives:6 (24) a. Hún seinkaði ferðinni. Transitive: Nom-Dat she delayed journey.the.DAT b. Ferðinni var seinkað. Passive: Dat journey.the.DAT was delayed c. Ferðinni seinkaði. Unaccusative: Dat journey.the.DAT delayed On a lexical approach to quirky and inherent case-marking, we would seem to be forced to analyze the accusative in (23c) (and the ones in (18)) as lexical, that is, as selected by an quirky case requiring feature or property of the predicate (see the discussion in Sigurðsson 1989: 280ff). As seen in (23b), however, this accusative is not retained in the passive, instead undergoing the Nom-to-Acc conversion regularly seen for ordinary relational, non-inherent accusatives, as in (22b). That is, what would seem to be ‘one and the same’ accusative shows paradoxical behavior. We may refer to this state of affairs as the FATE ACCUSATIVE PUZZLE. As we shall see soon, however, the puzzle is in a sense not real, as the unaccusative accusative is arguably not the ‘same’ accusative as the transitive one. As recently discussed by McFadden (2004), McIntyre (2005) and Svenonius (2005), there are reasons to believe that the inherent cases are in fact structurally matched against syntactic heads or features rather than lexically licensed.7 In this vein, Svenonius (2005) argues for a structural solution to the Fate Accusative Puzzle, suggesting that the predicates in question “have a CAUSE component but only an optional VOICE, in the sense of Kratzer (1996) and Pylkkänen (1999)” – where VOICE is the head that licenses AGENT. In addition, Svenonius (2005) suggests that CAUSE is “implicated in the licensing of accusative case, and is absent from normal unaccusatives”. That is, predicates are varyingly complex, transitives 6 As opposed to nominalizations and the so-called ‘middle’ -st construction (see Zaenen and Maling 1984 and many since, e.g., Svenonius 2005). 7 Thus, as has been observed in the literature every now and then, there is generally no fixed linking between lexical roots and specific cases, as illustrated by numerous minimal pairs like the following one (involving various types of predicates): (i) a. Veðrið er kalt. weather.the.NOM is cold b. Mér er kalt. me.DAT is cold ‘I’m freezing.’ (ii) a. Húsið var lokað. house.the.NOM was closed ‘The house was (in the state of being) closed.’ b. Húsinu var lokað. house.the.DAT was closed ‘The house was (in the process of being) closed (by someone).’ 9 having both VOICE and CAUSE, Fate Accusative predicates or ‘accusative unaccusatives’ having only CAUSE, and regular unaccusatives having neither:8 (25) a. [VoicP DPNOM VOIC [CausP CAUS [VP V DPACC]]] Transitive Nom-Acc b. [CausP CAUS [VP V DPACC]] Acc unaccusatives c. [ V DP ] Nom unaccusatives VP NOM Dative taking unaccusatives, like seinka ‘delay’ in (24c), also have the CAUSE component plus a special dative or DAT feature, “necessary for the assignment of dative case” (ibid). The transitive and the dative unaccusative in (24a,c) thus have roughly the following structures: (26) a. [VoicP DPNOM VOIC [CausP CAUS [DatP DAT [VP V DPDAT]]] Transitive Nom-Dat b. [CausP CAUS [DatP DAT [VP V DPDAT]]] Dat unaccusatives Icelandic has many kinds of datives (Barðdal 2001, Maling 2002a, 2002b, Jónsson 2003, Sigurðsson 2003: 230ff), so we must understand DAT as a shorthand for an array of syntactic features (‘heads’) or feature combinations, each such feature or feature combination leading to dative case-marking in Icelandic morphology.9 With that modification, it seems to me that Svenonius has developed an interesting approach to many of the numerous facts known from the voluminous literature on Icelandic case. However, while a structural approach to the inherent cases is promising, such an approach to the relational, so-called ‘structural’ cases (Burzionian Nom/Acc) is fundamentally mistaken, I believe, contradictory as that may seem (see also Sigurðsson 2003, 2006). I will return to the issue in section 3. As mentioned above, the peculiar ‘accusative unaccusative’ construction in Icelandic has a special uncontrolled process semantics, a get-passive fate reading of a sort, hence the term Fate Accusative. Consider (18) = (27): (27) a. Okkur rak að landi. us.ACC drove to land (drove = ‘got-driven’) ‘We drifted ashore.’ b. Bátinn fyllti á augabragði. boat.the.ACC filled in flash (filled = ‘got-filled’) ‘The boat swamped immediately.’ c. Mig tók út. me.ACC took out (took = ‘got-taken’) ‘I was swept overboard.’ d. Mennina bar að í þessu. men.the.ACC carried towards in that (carried = ‘got-carried’) ‘The men arrived then.’ Importantly, this fate reading is not shared by the transitive or passive counterparts to these (or other Fate Accusative) predicates (as already pointed out by Ottosson 1988: 148). Thus, Icelandic “we filled the boat” and “the boat was filled” has much the same expected readings as English We filled the boat and The boat was filled, that is, it means that the boat was deliberately filled in some usual, expected manner, with fish or some cargo. Icelandic “the boat filled”, in contrast, has only one very specific meaning, namely that the boat 8 Svenonius assumes a slightly more complex analysis (where active versus passive or ACT and PASS play a crucial role), but the presentation in (25) is sufficiently detailed for our purposes. 9 The same features are arguably present in the syntax of languages, such as English, that ‘keep quiet’ about them in their morphology (cf. Sigurðsson 2003, 2004d).