The parameters of case marking and spell out driven movement

Abstract

This paper proposes that case decomposes into a number of separate functional projections, which are ordered in a universal functional sequence. Cross-linguistic variation in position and complexity of case morphology is then accounted for in terms of differential noun phrase movement within the invariant sequence (Cinque 2005). I further investigate the possibility that variation in movement may be reduced to variation in the shape of the actual lexical entries. In order to implement this idea, the model of cyclic spell out by Starke (2009b) is adopted. In this model, each step of external merge is followed by lexical access. Consequently, evacuation movements may be triggered after each step of external merge in order for successful lexicalization to take place.

Some aspects of agreement with numeral phrases in Polish

“…The NP headed by the noun with [+N] feature, moves up to a given position within the case projection sequence, i.e., to the specifier of what we call Nominative Phrase (NomP), Accusative Phrase (AccP) or other case projections where a given case is licensed. The exact motivation for this movement is the need for a successful Spell-Out of a given case suffix, in line with Caha (2009Caha ( , 2010:…”

“…(20) a) tym sześciu paniom these DAT six DAT ladies DAT 13 We propose one KP per a nominal projection, i.e., the head noun and its modifiers, which is a crucial difference between Caha's (2009Caha's ( , 2010 account, in which projection of every declining element is topped with a separate KP, and ours. This way we can adequately represent the structure of quantified phrases which have changed from a binominal into a single phrase, i.e., a single set of case projections over the QP is a result of the diachronic change discussed in Rutkowski (2007), here examples (11) Upon the merger of a (quantified) nominal with a full inventory of cases with the probe, v or P, selecting for an argument in a particular case, a relevant case projection becomes activated (20b) and attracts the QP (20c).…”

“…In the syntax of nominals, the nanosyntactic model (cf. Starke 2009;Caha 2009Caha , 2010Taraldsen 2009) provides means to derive various case patterns allowing for movement of the entire NP within the set of case projections (split KP). The analysis of the position of the nominal head with respect to its satellites (demonstratives, numerals, adjectives) is based on Cinque 2005 which restricts certain types of movement, i.e., rightward and downward movement are forbidden, and determines which chunk of the structure can be moved, i.e., the one with the nominal head.…”

“…The peculiarities of agreement patterns in these languages have led us to resume a discussion of different facets of agreement, but this time, in the light of a nanosyntactic approach to grammar (cf. Starke 2009;Caha 2009Caha , 2010 inter alia) which seems to adequately capture problematic paradigms with GoQ.…”

Suppletion and morpheme order: Are words special?

“…The reason why there is actually no observable problem in ordering in (34) is that all the illegally reversed elements are spelled out as one morpheme, naj, so that the mutual order of the heads is irrelevant. Caha (2011) proposes in this context that there are ways of restricting head movement to occur precisely under these conditions, i.e. only when it leads to a portmanteau spell-out of the moved element.…”