Case and word order in Lithuanian

Abstract

This paper examines the unusual case and word order behavior of objects of infinitives in Lithuanian. In addition to lexically determined case idiosyncrasy, Lithuanian exhibits syntactically determined case idiosyncrasy: with infinitives in three distinct constructions, case possibilities other than accusative obtain. These cases (dative, genitive, and nominative) depend on the general clause structure rather than on the particular infinitive. Moreover, unlike ordinary direct objects, these objects appear in a position preceding rather than following the verb. It is argued that they move to this position in order potentially to be accessible for Case assignment by some higher Case-assigning head. In this way we unify the two superficially unrelated properties of non-canonical word order and Case. This movement, however, is not feature-driven in the sense of standard minimalist Case-licensing mechanisms. We characterize it as ‘agnostic’ in that it applies to an object with unvalued Case features, if that object reaches a point in the derivation where it has no recourse but to move because failure to do so would be fatal.

C-T Inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese

“…They can remain in the edge of the phase and simply be deleted when Agree takes place. Finally, base merger of adjuncts and agnostic (in the sense of Franks and Lavine 2006) movements of arguments, e.g. topicalization, will take place last, because these operations are not motivated by probes at the landing sites.…”

Rescue by PF Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace Effect

“…I assume that quite generally, when an NP is not located in a position where it can enter into a Caselicensing relation with its Case licenser because of a locality problem (either a Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) locality effect or an intervention effect), the NP will move to a position where it can get This also holds for NP-no, which will then also move to a position where it can get Case-licensed. What we are dealing with here is movement that is driven by an uninterpretable feature of the moving element, namely, Case (for relevant discussion, see Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005, Bo'ković 2007, Franks and Lavine 2006, Surányi 2004). Since, after object shift, NP-o intervenes between NP-no and its Case licenser, blocking the Case-licensing relation, 19 The external argument will then not induce an intervention effect for movement of the object.…”

New insights on Lithuanian accentuation from the unpublished manuscripts of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)

“…in the well known case of nominative objects in icelandic, nominative is clearly assigned by finite Tense, since there is overt agreement between the object and t for number (though not person) (see Boeckx 2000 for details). in lithuanian, Franks & lavine (2006) argue that nominative objects in infinitival complements of Experiencer predicates show 'object shift' over the verb to become 'visible' for case assignment by a higher nominative-assigning head. if nominative case on the object here were assigned by default, there would be no motivation for the object to shift 1 8 17 .…”