GUWPTL 2008 revised Dec 3 2008 - Challenges to Case Theory from Bantu

Challenges to Case Theory from Bantu Michael Diercks, Georgetown University

[email protected] Draft: December 3 2008

Challenges to Case Theory from Bantu

1

Challenges to Case Theory from Bantu Bantu languages display a number of constructions which raise serious questions about the validity of the theory of abstract Case as currently realized in the Minimalist Program. Chomsky (2000) claims that positing uninterpretable features (like Case features) is not purely stipulation, in that uninterpretable features are justified by their visible effects in the syntax. This paper presents evidence that the syntactic effects predicted by Case Theory are not borne out in Bantu languages, and that they actually display effects that are only predicted to be possible in the absence of uninterpretable Case features. The claim that is set forth is that uninterpretable Case features are not present in Bantu languages, and that instead it is the presence of interpretable gender features which make a goal active for Agree. There are several consequent arguments resulting from this proposal. The first is that noun phrases should be able to be licensed without being agreed with, because they do not have uninterpretable Case features which need to be checked via agreement. In a Case language, constructions would not converge due to an unchecked uninterpretable feature, but we would expect such sentences to be grammatical in Bantu. Locative inversion constructions demonstrate that this is in fact the case in Bantu languages.

Secondly, in constructions where a noun phrase was historically analyzed as moving to receive Case (e.g. passives), Bantu noun phrases should be licensed without either moving or being agreed with. That is, we should find noun phrases licit in what are traditionally considered to be “non-Case-marked” positions, which is what we find in possible-constructions and impersonal passives. Third, though on standard assumptions noun phrases should not move after their Case is checked, we would predict for Bantu that noun phrases should be able to move beyond this point. This claim is essentially that NPs will be able to move out of what are traditionally considered to be “Case-marked” positions. Evidence for this claim is found in compound tense constructions and raising constructions.

In addition, the proposal that gender features make a goal active for AGREE generates two more

theoretical claims. Because gender features are φ-features and φ-features are interpretable (and do not delete during the course of the derivation), a noun phrase should be able to be a goal in multiple AGREE relations and thus should be able to trigger multiple instances of agreement. Secondly, because AGREE is not limited to particular Case relationships, any gendered noun phrase could satisfy agreement relationships with any head. I show that both of these claims play out empirically.

Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics

2

1 Introduction∗∗∗∗

This paper addresses the viability of Case Theory as it stands within the Principles and Parameters framework based on evidence from Bantu languages, in essence reviving Harford-Perez’s (1985) claim that the GB system of Case is inoperative in Bantu languages.1 As will be discussed below, the requirements for Case theory are not met in certain constructions in some Bantu languages, yet the sentences are grammatical. Taking the strong hypothesis that Case is not active in Bantu languages, I propose that there is a ‘macro-parameter’ by which the Case system may be either active or inactive in a given language (and as an extension, generally so in a given language family).2

The implications for such a claim are far-reaching, and the resulting difficulties may in the end be insurmountable. I will nonetheless follow in this line of argumentation in a good faith effort to sufficiently consider the wealth of evidence from Bantu languages that seem to run counter to established Case Theory. A system of abstract Case has long been central to much syntactic theorizing and (what amounts to) discarding it requires a reanalysis of a number of syntactic structures, including (but not limited to) raising constructions, passives, control structures, NP-movement, and ECM constructions. This claim not only requires a reanalysis of these constructions, but it also predicts that they should display different properties from the same constructions in languages which are considered to have a system of abstract Case, and that there should be constructions in these non-Case languages which are not possible in other (Case-) languages. The Bantu data presented in this paper demonstrate that both of these predictions hold true.

Though specific constructions in Bantu will require a different explanation, there are many basic components of syntactic theory which rely on Case in some manner, and all of these ought to be addressed. How is the presence of noun phrases in a sentence licensed, and how is it constrained? What makes a phrase a candidate for movement, or for agreement? What constrains these processes? My claim is that Chomsky’s AGREE relation is sufficient to explain the Bantu data on the assumption that it is interpretable gender features, rather than uninterpretable Case features, which make a noun phrase active as a goal for AGREE in Bantu. Many of these ideas have their sources in previous work (Harford-Perez 1985, Carstens 2005); what is unique in my claim is the idea that the varied facts discussed in this paper find their single root cause in a single parametric choice, mainly, that abstract Case features are not present in (at least some) Bantu languages.

I will make three categories of theoretical claims (and, consequently, empirical predictions) that necessarily result if there is no abstract Case in certain languages. First, noun phrases should be licensed without being agreed with; the discussion of locative inversion (§2) provides direct evidence for this claim. Secondly, if there is no abstract Case in Bantu we would expect that in constructions where a noun phrase was historically analyzed as moving to receive Case (e.g. passives), Bantu noun phrases should be licensed without either moving or being agreed with. That is, noun phrases should appear in non-Case-marked positions, and we find that this is true for the Digo/Swahili

∗My deepest thanks go to Steve Nicolle, for graciously humoring inquiries regarding Digo. Ganana Kamwela provided the Swahili data (and tolerated Kiswahili changu kichafu). I also am indebted to Justin Kelly and John Beavers for reading an earlier version of this work and providing many helpful comments. Mark Baker’s advice early in the development of these ideas, as well as his own related work, were formative to the thesis presented here. I also owe thanks to Tegan Kroening Diercks for proofreading, editing, and making sense of my academic-speak. Any mistakes that survived their advice and scrutiny are undoubtedly my own. 1 Harford-Perez (1985) traces the idea that Case may be parameterized to Chomsky (1981: 50), though his proposal was not so much a parameterization of the entire subsystem of Case, but rather a parameterization of what heads were capable of assigning Case or under what configurations Case might be assigned. 2 Cf. Baker (1996, in prep), also fn. 10


3

possible-construction (§3.1) and the impersonal passive construction in Shona and Kiruúndi (§3.2). Finally, on standard assumptions there are noun phrases which should not move because they already have their Case checked. If there were not abstract Case in a language, however, we would predict that noun phrases should be able to move beyond the point where their Case would have been checked. Again, this is true for Bantu languages, evidenced in Shona raising constructions (§4.1), in compound tense constructions discussed in §4.2 (given in Swahili and Digo), and in Digo raising constructions (§4.3).

In addition to these claims there are two additional theoretical claims which arise from the claim that gender features are the relevant nominal features for agreement, rather than Case features. First, a noun phrase should be able to trigger multiple instances of agreement: we find that this is the case for all of the constructions discussed in §4. Second, we would expect that any gendered noun phrase could satisfy agreement relationships with any head. This prediction is borne out in locative inversion, as well as in one of the more peculiar Bantu constructions, subject/object inversion, discussed briefly in §5. Section 6 concludes. 2 Implications of Bantu Locative Inversion

2.1 Locative Inversion agreement facts

Locative inversion is a construction that is not unique to Bantu languages, but which has agreement properties in many Bantu languages which are in opposition to the agreement properties of many Indo-European languages (for example). The basic structure of locative inversion is that a locative adjunct or goal phrase occurs before the verb and the subject which normally occurs pre-verbally occurs post-verbally.3

(1) a. Down the hill rolls the ball b. Down the hill roll the balls

Generally the locative phrase has been considered to occupy normal subject position (which I assume in this work to be Spec, TP) (cf. Collins 1997, Bresnan 1994, Bailyn 2004, among others, though compare Stowell 1981, Rizzi and Shlonsky 2006, Diercks in progress for alternatives). As can be seen in the contrast between (1)a and (1)b, agreement on the verb in English is with the logical subject. In many Bantu languages, however, the verb agrees with the pre-verbal locative phrase. The following data come from Digo, a Bantu language spoken along the southern coast of Kenya, and Kifuliiru, from the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The Digo data in this paper have been kindly provided by Steve Nicolle (personal communication), and the Kifuliiru data by Roger and Karen Van Otterloo (cf. Van Otterloo and Van Otterloo in prep).4, 5

(2) Pho muho-ni pha-tuluka ng'ombe sabaa za kunona. (Digo) 16.dem river-loc 16.pst-emerge 10.cows seven of inf-be.fat ‘From the river emerged seven fat cows’

3 Cf. Collins (1997) for an early Minimalist account of English locative inversion 4 The numbers in the glosses of all of the Bantu data represent different noun classes, which can most simply be considered to be gender, part of a noun phrase’s phi-features. 5 I will attempt to use data from Digo wherever it is possible, not necessarily because Digo differs substantively from other languages for any given construction, but largely because Digo is not largely reported in the generative theoretical literature at the present time. Most if not all of these constructions have close analogues in other Bantu languages. Please refer to Nicolle (in progress) for a much more comprehensive consideration of Digo grammar.


4

(3) Kú-yì-kyó kí-tì; kw-áàlì shòn-ír-ì ú-mú-lándírà. (Kifuliiru)

17-that.N-7 7-tree 17-P2.ST climb-RS-Fi AU-3-vine ‘On that tree; had climbed a vine.’

As is evident in (2) and (3), verbs in Digo and Fuliiru agree with the fronted locative phrase and do not agree with the logical subject. These basic agreement facts are replicated across a large number of Bantu languages.6

2.2 Parameters of AGREE

A number of agreement facts like these prompted Baker (2008) and Carstens (2005) to propose a parameterization of Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) AGREE relation with the goal of providing a unified theory of agreement to account for the cross-linguistic patterns of agreement. Carstens (2005) builds on suggestions from Baker (2003) resulting in a theory similar to that of Baker (2008). Based on evidence of agreement with operators in Kilega, Carstens claims that what is apparently spec-head agreement in Bantu may be explained by parameteric choice (cf. Kinyalolo 1991; Baker 2003; Koopman 2000; Henderson 2003; Demuth and Harford 1999; among others on spec-head agreement in Bantu). Her formulation is in (4):

(4) Bantu φφφφEPP: uφ-features have EPP features, in Bantu

Her claim is the EPP features are a sub-feature of uninterpretable φ-features, so that the checking of

φ-features also necessitates the checking of EPP features. In this way she effectively links agreement and movement in Bantu (without conflating the separate concepts of AGREE and EPP), as any time

that φ-features of a head are checked via Agree with a noun phrase, the noun phrases must necessarily move to the specifier of that head to check the EPP feature of the head. Carsten’s claim, therefore, is that the spec-head configuration is the necessary result of agreement, rather than the trigger for agreement. Her account of the cross-linguistic variation between Bantu languages and Indo-European languages can therefore be accounted for with what she terms a Feature-linking parameter, shown in (5).

(5) Feature-linking parameter: uφ has as a subfeature, a. EPP, in Bantu b. (Case), in Indo-European Baker’s (2008) account differs somewhat in implementation from that of Carstens, as he instead claims that AGREE (generally assumed to be constrained to instances of a head asymmetrically c-commanding a DP) can in fact probe upwards. He then also claims that in Bantu languages AGREE is not contingent on Case the way it is in Indo-European languages. Both of these claims together derive the possibility of verbs agreeing with adjunct locative phrases and not their logical subject, as is the case with locative inversion. What is important to note is that both Carstens (2005) and Baker (2008) conclude, from a variety of Bantu data, that (abstract) Case is not relevant to agreement patterns for Bantu languages.7

6 Though not all Bantu languages: cf. fn. 7 below. 7 Mark Baker (personal communication) informs me that he has been made aware of a Bantu language (Makua, Mozambique) which has an agreement system that seems to pattern with Indo-European languages rather than other


5

Both of these accounts recognize three distinct subsystems present (or available) to the human language faculty, which may affect each other in different ways. There is a system of movement/ displacement, currently implemented theoretically via EPP-features on probes, a system of noun phrase licensing implemented via uninterpretable structural Case features on DPs (specifically, those DPs that are thematic arguments of a verb), and there is the agreement system, implemented via the operation AGREE. Chomsky (2000, 2001) proposes that Case and AGREE are linked (uCase features make a goal active and thus able to be agreed with), and EPP-features are in many ways arbitrarily assigned as they are not directly associated with either of the other two subsystems.8 Both accounts (Carstens 2005 and Baker 2008) propose that these distinct subsystems may be related to each in a different manner via parameterization, essentially proposing that movement in Bantu languages is connected with agreement (whether it is agreement that triggers movement or movement that triggers agreement).9 Corollary to this, then, is that Case is disconnected from these systems.

2.3 Case in locative Inversion

Carstens’ and Baker’s analyses both raise the question of how exactly abstract Case operates in Bantu. First, let us consider how Case functions in a Case-language like English. I assume that the locative phrase in this instance is located in the specifier of VP. It does not change the analysis if it is considered instead to be an adjunct (nor does the analysis change substantially in instances where the locative phrase is clearly an adjunct):

(6) a. Down the hill rolls the ball. b. TP

3

down the hill TP 3

T VP [PRES] 3

[3rd SG] down the hill VP [EPP] 3

V the ball rolls [uCase] AGREE [NOM]

Bantu languages. I have also seen this in KiKwaya, a Bantu language from northwest Tanzania. It should be clear that every language retains its own set of parameters, and does not necessarily inherit a given set of parameters based solely on its familial relationships. Rather, these claims about Bantu languages should be understood to probably have been true about proto-Bantu, and which are therefore usually true of its descendant languages, though not without exception. See also Diercks (in progress) for a much more detailed treatment of apparent Indo-European-style agreement in Bukusu which does not abandon the account of agreement for Bantu which is discussed here. 8 The only direct connection between movement and agreement/Case in the most widely accepted version of the Minimalist Program seems to be that probes are assumed to possess EPP features. This seems to me to be no more than a stipulation attempting to maintain a connection between these subsystems. This connection does seem merited in certain languages, but not necessarily so for the human language faculty more generally. 9 Diercks (in progress) shows that Bukusu (a western Kenyan Bantu language) provides evidence in its complementizer agreement system that would support Baker’s claim for upward agreement, as opposed to Carsten’s claim of EPP-linked agreement. Embedding complementizers in Bukusu (i.e. “I know that …” agree with the matrix subject. This is clearly not the result of a ‘downward’ Agree relation followed by movement, which is predicted by Baker’s account but not by Carstens’. For convenience’s sake, however, Carstens’ account is adopted here.


6

For a fuller analysis of English locative inversion, see Collins (1997); for the moment I am concerned with the agreement facts and how Case is checked in this construction. When T—a

probe due to its uninterpretable φ-features— is merged with VP, it probes downward looking for an

uninterpretable Case feature. As a result AGREE values the φ-features of T and checks the uCase feature of the ball. It is not relevant when in the derivation the locative PP raises and checks the EPP feature on T (i.e. before or after AGREE) – crucial here is that these processes are separate. To highlight the differences between English and Bantu, consider the Kilega example in (7), taken from Kinyalolo (1991).

(7) mu-zízo nyumbá mu-á-nyám-é bána wálúbí (Kilega) 18-10that 10house 18SA-FUT-sleep-FV 2child one.day.period ‘There will sleep children in those houses tomorrow’

We see here that in Kilega the verb agrees with the locative phrase, rather than with the logical subject. This derivation is shown in (8). I assume V-T movement of verbs (following Ngonyanyi 1999 and 2001, among others), and I also assume Carstens’ (2005) account of Bantu AGREE.

(8) TP wo

muzízo nyumbái TP wo

T VP muányáméj wo

[LOC] muzízo nyumbái VP [EPP] [LOC] ro

[FUT] V bána muányáméj [uCase] AGREE As can be seen in (8), when T merges with the VP it probes downward and enters into an AGREE relation with the locative phrase muzízo nyumbá, whose locative gender features of value the

uninterpretable φ-features of the T head. Because EPP is a subfeature of the uninterpretable φ-features which trigger AGREE, the locative phrase subsequently raises to Spec, TP to check the EPP feature of T. Crucially, the uninterpretable Case feature of the logical subject bána goes unchecked in this derivation. Neither Carstens’ or Baker’s theories address the subsequent question: if AGREE

doesn’t check the uCase feature of the logical subject DP in Bantu locative inversion, how is it checked? The same question arises with the locative inversion constructions in (9) from Digo.10 10 Justin Kelly brings to my attention the fact that Icelandic (and, as Maria Polinsky pointed out to me, Romanian as well) has similar sorts of constructions. Most well-known are Quirky subject constructions (cf. Zannen, Maling, and Thráinsson 1985) and transitive expletive constructions (cf. Bobaljik and Jonas 1996). The main distinctions I draw here are that locative inversion is a more productive process than quirky subjects in Icelandic (not lexically defined by specific predicates as much as structurally restricted by argument structure), and that in any of these constructions in Icelandic the verb still agrees downward with the logical subject, the crucial distinction.


7

(9) a. Muho-ni pha-na-heka atu madzi.11 river-LOC 16-CONT-draw 2.people 6.water ‘People are drawing water at/from the river.’

b. Tsaka-ni ku-na-imba atu. forest-LOC 17-CONT-sing 2.people ‘People are singing in the forest.’

c. Tsaka-ni ku-na-imba atu mawira. forest-LOC 17-CONT-sing 2.people 6.song

‘People are singing songs in the forest.’

d. Mo chumba-ni mu-na-andika mutu baruwa. 18.DEM room-LOC 18-CONT-write 1.person 9.letter ‘Someone is writing a letter in the room.’

(9)b is an example of a simple unergative, while (9)c shows its transitive counterpart. (9)a and (9)d demonstrate locative inversion with transitive sentences. In these instances there are now two arguments that, if they had uninterpretable Case features, would not be able to have these features checked and deleted.12

As I see it, there are three possible ways to address this issue. First, the uCase feature of the logical subject may still be checked by an AGREE relation, but a second AGREE relation that does not have a morphological reflex. Second, it may checked by some other operation designated for Case-checking (we could call it CASE). Third, it is possible that in these constructions Case is not checked at all. The first two options seem to share the same downfall, mainly that there does not appear to be independent motivation for either of these operations (either a second AGREE operation, or a distinct CASE operation) apart from the instances where the morphologically evidenced AGREE operation cannot check the Case feature of an argument. Without independent motivation, these operations would simply be theoretical stop-gaps which conveniently check Case when the standard mechanisms cannot. Beyond this, on the AGREE account there is the additional problem that this AGREE operation would have to work differently than the other (morphologically realized) AGREE operations in Bantu.

This is not to say that the third option is immediately palatable either. To say that an uninterpretable Case feature is not checked, but the derivation converges, amounts either to saying that the features are in fact interpretable, or to admitting some sort of corruption of the computational system. Therefore, to say that uninterpretable Case features are not checked in a grammatical sentence essentially throws out some basic Minimalist assumptions about the faculty of language (mainly concerning the interpretability of features at the interfaces). It seems then that the only feasible theory which says that Case is not checked in these instances (while still maintaining basic assumptions) is one which states that there are not Case features there to be checked in the first place.

11 Interestingly, the sentence is ungrammatical without the overt locative phrase (* Pha-na-heka atu madzi), while this is not the case with other Bantu ‘locative inversion’ constructions, though these are often analyzed as expletive constructions despite being structurally and morphologically very similar if not identical. What exactly allows locative inversion here, but disallows a transitive expletive construction, is an important question which due to space considerations I must leave it to future research. 12 That is, both arguments fail to have their Case checked according to the theories of object agreement that result from the agreement theories considered here. For a discussion of object agreement and Case checking, see section 7.2 below.


8

Immediately relevant is the fact that Bantu languages display no morphological case, that is, noun phrases appear in the same form whether they are a subject, a primary object, a secondary object, or an oblique. Though recent work (cf. Zannen, Maling, and Thráinsson 1985; Chomsky 1995, 2000) has widened the chasm between abstract Case and morphological case, much of the original motivation for the concept of abstract Case was rooted in an assumption that there was some sort of dependence between the two (cf. Fillmore 1968; Chomsky 1981). And while we don’t want to disregard our established knowledge about the nature of language (in the broad sense of human language), in the words of Charles Fillmore, “Looking for one man’s case system in another man’s language is not, of course, a good example of the study of case” (1968: 5). The point is, of course, if we make the move to assume a syntactic feature which has no phonological reflex at all, we need to be certain to definitively demonstrate its syntactic reflexes. If these cannot be demonstrated sufficiently, the argument for the existence of this abstract feature is doubtful at best, despite the appeals of a strong theory of Universal Grammar.

Chomsky (2001) states that “We adopt the conventional assumption that [a given language] L makes a one-time selection [FL] from [the set of features] F. These are the features that enter into L; others can be disregarded in the use of L.” The absence of abstract Case features in a given language or family of languages may well be an example of this sort of variation of feature-selection. The result will be a macro-parameter (in the spirit of Baker 1996, Baker 2008) that can be formulated as in (10):

(10) Case Parameter: Uninterpretable Case features are present in a language This is not the first claim to the effect that Case may be parameterized. Chomsky (1981: 50, 172) observes that Case could possibly be parameterized in a variety of ways; specifically, he conjectures that the identity of Case-assigning heads could vary between languages, or that the configuration under which Case is assigned (i.e. the precise definition of government) could vary between languages as well. This, however, could be taken to reflect earlier GB theory which at the time maintained some sort of connection (though still a somewhat vague connection) between morphological case and abstract Case. Later work (e.g. Zannen, Maling, and Thráinsson 1985) has served to draw a sharper distinction between abstract Case and morphological Case and in doing so has extended a more uniform application of abstract Case to all languages, codified in Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) formulation of Minimalist syntax (see also Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2006). Be that as it may, my claim that abstract Case is not active in Bantu languages is not new in itself either: Harford-Perez (1985) made this claim based on raising constructions in Kiruúndi, Shona, and Kikuyu, and Alsina (2001) makes a similar claim based on certain differences between Chichewa and Catalan ditransitives. This paper bolsters this claim in two ways: First, what I offer here is a more precise formulation of that claim in a modern architecture together with new evidence from Swahili and Digo. Secondly, I demonstrate that a number of previously noted (peculiar) properties of Bantu languages can be derived from this single Case parameter, and the subsequent requirement that AGREE is gender-based, rather than Case-based; it is this argument to which I now turn.

2.4 Gender-Based AGREE

The discussion above leaves us with an interesting question: what exactly are the consequences for our Minimalist architecture if there is no system of abstract Case in the language? What is it that makes a noun phrase a candidate for movement? Or at least, what is it that makes a noun phrase a candidate to check an EPP-feature? The relationship of Case and movement is often embedded in assumptions like those that say that only probes may bear EPP-features. Likewise, if Case features


9

are not present to make a noun phrase active as a goal of agreement (and we are unwilling to discard the rest of Minimalist machinery), what is it that makes noun phrases goals for agreement?

Carstens (2005: 263-264) has an interesting proposal in this regard; maybe the feature that makes a noun phrase a goal for AGREE in Bantu is gender. The derivation of a basic transitive sentence with subject agreement would proceed in the same way as which we are familiar, except that it is the gender feature of the external argument in Spec, vP that makes that noun phrase active in Chomsky’s sense. AGREE therefore targets the external argument and the result is agreement on T (subject agreement), as well as movement of that noun phrase to Spec, TP (on the assumption that Carstens’ feature-linking account is on the right track). In fact, little changes about the basics of the operation, but there are certain benefits to such a theory. The largest difference between this

assumption and standard assumptions about Case is that gender is a PF-interpretable φ-feature whereas Case features are assumed to be uninterpretable at PF (Chomsky 2001), the implications of which are discussed in the next section.

2.5 The Predictions of this Analysis

This analysis makes a number of predictions, which I addressed in the introduction and will be empirically validated in the sections that follow. Rejecting the notion of abstract Case in Bantu leads to three distinct but related claims. The first claim is that noun phrases should be able to be licensed without being agreed with, because they do not have uninterpretable Case features which need to be checked via agreement. In a Case language, constructions would not converge due to an unchecked uninterpretable feature, but we would expect such sentences to be grammatical in Bantu. The discussion of locative inversion above demonstrates that this is in fact the case in Bantu languages (though similar facts also arise in constructions like impersonal passives and transitive expletive constructions).

Secondly, in constructions where a noun phrase was historically analyzed as moving to receive Case (e.g. passives), Bantu noun phrases should be licensed without either moving or being agreed with. That is, we should find noun phrases licit in what are traditionally considered to be “non-Case-marked” positions. Data relevant to this claim are considered in section 3. Third, though on standard assumptions noun phrases should not move after their Case is checked, we would predict for Bantu that noun phrases should be able to move beyond this point. This claim is essentially that NPs will be able to move out of what are traditionally considered to be “Case-marked” positions. Data relevant to this point are considered in section 4.

Additionally, the claim that gender features make a goal active for AGREE generates two

more theoretical claims. Because gender features are φ-features and φ-features are interpretable (and do not delete during the course of the derivation), a noun phrase should be able to be a goal in multiple AGREE relations and thus should be able to trigger multiple instances of agreement. Secondly, because AGREE is not limited to particular Case relationships, any gendered noun phrase could satisfy agreement relationships with any head. These claims are addressed in sections 4 and 5, respectively.

3 NPs in non-Case-marked positions

3.1 Non-finite complementation in Digo and Swahili

The purpose of considering non-finite complementation is that GB/Minimalist theory holds that overt noun phrases (as opposed to PRO) are prohibited as subjects of nonfinite clauses. This is implemented in various ways, usually in some manner of saying that non-finite T is not capable of assigning / checking Case. The exception to this generalization are those instances where a noun


10

phrase’s Case may be checked by the matrix verb, often termed Exceptional-Case-Marking or Raising-to-Object constructions. I adopt the term Raising to Object (RtO) (cf. Postal 1974) due to the fact that these constructions in Bantu seem to be able to be identified by the fact that it is possible for the matrix verb to exhibit object agreement with the embedded subject. Consider the Digo examples in (11) and Swahili examples in (12):

(11) Ni-kubali nilole mi-fugoyo rero. (Digo) 1.OM-allow 1.SM-look-SUBJ 4-flock today ‘Allow me to look at your flock today.’

(12) a. Ni-na-m-kubali pro a-som-e ki-tabu changu. (Swahili)

1S.SM-PRES-1.OM-want 1.SM-read-SUBJ 7-book 7.my ‘I want him/her to read this book.’

b. Wa-toto w-ote wa-li-ni-taka ni-wa-p-e hera. 2-child 2-all 2-PAST-1.OM-want 1.SM-2.OM-give-SUBJ money ‘All the children want me to give them money.’

In order to find direct evidence that there is not abstract Case in Digo or Swahili, then, we

must identify a non-RtO construction which allows an overt noun phrase as the subject of a non-finite clause.13 This thoroughly restricts to set of constructions potentially relevant to our concerns here, and as a result we are left with a construction which is indicative of the inherent difference regarding Case between English and Digo/Swahili, which I will refer to as possible-constructions. Consider the familiar English data in (13):

(13) a. It is possible that Mike will call Tegan. b. It is possible for Mike to call Tegan. c. *Mike is possible to call Tegan. d. *It is possible Mike to call Tegan.

This is an instance in English where a RtO configuration (however that might be formulated) is not possible, and a subject raising configuration is not possible (demonstrated by (13)d and (13)c, respectively).14, 15 (13)a shows that the possible-construction can take a finite complement clause, and (13)b shows that it can take an infinitival complement clause, but only with the ‘case-marking’ complementizer for. I maintain the traditional assumption here that for carries some special case-checking ability in English which licenses a subject in a non-finite clause. Now consider the Swahili and Digo data below, in (14) and (15) respectively:16,17

13 It should be noted that there are still ‘control’ constructions in Digo and Swahili. If control constructions (and the existence of PRO) are still considered to be full under the purview of abstract Case, this could prove problems for my analysis here. There are alternatives, however; for example, Hornstein (2000, forthcoming) proposes an analysis that PRO and reflexives are both results of movement. Such a theory requires a significant theoretical shift in allowing arguments to be assigned more than one theta role, which would be an interesting proposal considering the necessity of theta role assignment as a constraint on argument structure in a proposal like mine which eliminates Case in certain languages. 14 I will assume that this is due to semantic restrictions of the verb to be possible, though this will not prove relevant to my analysis. 15 Note that the entire embedded clause in (14b) may raise as a sentential subject. I am not concerned with that particular construction here. 16 INF in the glosses here stands for ‘infinitive’, which I take to be the morphological realization of non-finite T.


11

(14) a. I-na-wezakana kwamba Maiko a-ta-m-pig-i-a Tegani simu 8.SM-PRES-possible that 1.Michael 1.SM-FUT-1.OM-beat-APPL-FV 1.Tegan phone

‘It is possible that Michael will call Tegan’ b. *I-na-wezakana kwa Maiko ku-m-pigia - Tegani simu

9.SM-PRES-possible for 1.Michael INF-1.OM-beat-APPL-FV 1.Tegan phone c. *Maiko a-na-wezakana ku-m-pigia Tegani simu. 1.Michael 1.SM-PRES-possible INF-1.OM-beat-APPL-FV 1.Tegan phone d. I-na-(*m)-wezakana Maiko ku-m-pigia Tegani simu 9.SM-PRES-(*1.OM)-possible 1.Michael INF-1.OM-beat-APPL-FV 1.Tegan phone ‘It is possible (for) Michael to call Tegan’ In the examples above the class 9 subject agreement is the default agreement with an interpretation equivalent to an English expletive construction, for which reason I consider this to be agreement with a null expletive. (14)a is equivalent to English, with a tensed CP complement of ‘possible’. (14)b is the direct English equivalent of a non-finite complement CP, which interestingly is ungrammatical in Swahili, though an exploration of this fact is beyond the scope of this paper. (14)c is included merely to show that it is not possible to raise the embedded subject to matrix subject position, showing that this construction is not a standard raising-type construction despite the fact that the matrix subject position is non-thematic.18 (14)d is the key construction. The impossibility of the object marker I interpret to mean that this construction is not included in the class of RtO verbs discussed above, meaning that the embedded subject does not appear to be licensed by the matrix verb. If the matrix verb cannot check the Case of the embedded subject (parallel to the English examples) and non-finite T is understood to be defective and non-Case-checking, we are left without an explanation for how the uCase feature of the embedded subject Maiko is checked in (14)d. The data from Digo displays the same characteristics:

(15) a. i-na-wezekana kukala Mike a-nda-muiha Tegan 9.SM-PRES-possible that 1.Mike 1.SM-FUT-call Tegan ‘It is possible that Mike will call Tegan’ b. i-na-wezekana Mike ku-muiha Tegan19 9.SM-PRES-possible 1.Mike INF-call Tegan

‘It is possible (for) Mike to call Tegan c. Chahi i-na-wezekana mutu ku-olagb-w-a kpwa sababu ya mutu mnono sana. maybe 9-PRES-possible 1.person INF-kill-PASS-FV for reason ASSOC 1.person 1.good very

“Maybe it is possible [for] a person to be killed because of a very good person.” d. Kpwa hivyo ta-i-nda-(*mu)-wezekana mutu ku-chimbira mashaka higa.

For these NEG-9-PRES-(*OM)-possible 1.person INF-flee 6.problem these “Therefore it is not possible [for] a person to flee these problems.”

17 As pointed out to me by Vicki Carstens (personal communication), there can be many difficulties in finding a Swahili speaker with ‘pure’ Swahili intuitions. Given Swahili’s nature as a widespread trade language there are many generally competent Swahili speakers who nonetheless lack native speaker intuitions of the language (very often substituting certain grammatical constructions from their mother tongues). For reference, my main Swahili informant for this data is an L1 speaker of Swahili who grew up in Dodoma and currently lives in Dar-es-Salaam. 18 This restriction is what makes this construction a reliable diagnostic for the Case-marking status of the embedded subject position, given the alternative analyses (Hornstein 2000, forthcoming) for PRO constructions. 19 Steve Nicolle points out to me that the subjunctive complement clause (Inawezekana Mike amuihe Tegan) is just as acceptable in this case. Again, a full investigation of non-finite complement clauses needs to consider these different possibilities.


12

Unless we accept the idea that infinitival T is in fact not defective, or the idea that there is some additional Case-checking operation (which was entertained and dismissed above) we are forced to concede that if the subject Maiko in (15d) and (16b) and the subject mutu in (16c,d) had uninterpretable Case features, they could not be checked in this construction. If we instead adopt the analysis that Bantu languages (or at least in this case, Swahili and Digo) do not have abstract Case features, this construction is actually predicted. And even if we were to instead entertain the possibility that non-finite T is not defective this would effectively be equivalent to eliminating Case features, as either analysis eliminates (some of) the basic distinctions for which Case theory was originally employed.20

3.2 Impersonal Passives

Harford-Perez (1985) presents an argument very similar to this paper’s claims, mainly that the Principles and Parameters theory of Case should be parameterized due to evidence from Bantu languages. Her argument derives from a different class of data and her specific argumentation is embedded in Government and Binding theory, so her work merits revisiting from two perspectives: first, for the further evidence her research provides bolstering the argument for parameterization of Case, and second, for providing a more modern analysis of her data. Harford-Perez refers to a construction which she terms the impersonal passive, a passivized verb that bears a generic, expletive-type agreement (and most relevant, does not agree with the underlying object, as the more standard passive construction does). Her examples from Shona and Kiruúndi are included below.

(16) a. Kw-á-uray-iw-a mu-rúmé né-shumba ku-ru-kova (Shona) 17-PAST-kill-PASS-FV 1-man by-9.lion 17-11-river ‘There was a man killed by a lion at the river. b. Ha-ra-shoor-w-a u-bu-kawáavu mu-rí i-yi sokó21 (Kiruúndi) 16-PRES-sell-PASS-FV PP-14-rabbits 18-be this-9 9.market ‘There are sold rabbits in this market.’

The examples which she gives bear a striking resemblance to locative inversion, bearing a typically locative subject agreement, despite the fact that the locative has not raised to subject position. (16)b displays a locative subject agreement marker on the verb that is not the same noun class as the class 18 marker on the locative phrase. Clearly, then, the subject agreement marker on the verb is not agreeing with any of the lower arguments, and must instead be considered to be agreeing with an expletive subject. These constructions are also at times referred to as transitive expletive constructions and are also found not infrequently in Bantu languages. Her argument is that the logical subject is not in a Case-marking position and therefore cannot receive Case, so the sentence should be ungrammatical. The same problem is encountered in a Minimalist architecture, specifically for the same reasons discussed above for locative inversion; the verbal agreement is not with the logical subject, and there is no apparent way in which the uninterpretable Case feature of the logical subject would be checked. For brevity’s sake I will let the

20 This is not to deride this potential analysis, but only to state that we are dealing with the same issue: a difference in the basic theory of Case. 21 For this data I use the glosses provided in Harford-Perez (1985): in this case I PP seems to represent what is referred to in Bantu as a pre-prefix, a vocalic addition to the normal CV- prefix structure that has been said to serve different functions (contributing referential and presuppositional meaning, among others), or to serve no specific function at all (Karen Van Otterloo, personal communication).


13

discussion and derivations presented in the discussion of locative inversion above suffice for any parallel (or repetitive) arguments that could be presented here. 4 NPs move out of “Case-marked” positions

4.1 Bantu Raising Constructions

Harford-Perez (1985) also addresses a peculiar class of raising constructions in a variety of Bantu languages which offer an additional piece of evidence against abstract Case. The English data below serve to introduce the basic paradigm of raising constructions.

(17) a. [IP The thief is believed [IP [e] to be hidden in the cave]]. b. [IP *The thief is believed [CP that [IP [e] is hidden in the cave]]]. c. [IP It is believed [CP that [IP the thief is hidden in the cave]]]. d. *[ IP It is believed [IP the thief to be hidden in the cave]].

In (17)a the lower clause is non-finite, and I° therefore cannot assign Case. The subject ‘thief’ therefore receives its theta role from the lower verb, but must raise to the matrix Spec, IP to receive Case. This is licit because the higher verb is passive and does not assign a theta role to an external argument, meaning that ‘thief’ can raise to this higher subject position without receiving a second theta role. (17)d is ungrammatical for related reasons, as an overt noun phrase cannot remain in the embedded spec, IP because it cannot receive Case in this position (thus violating the Case Filter).

(17)b is ungrammatical because the lower CP is tensed and therefore the lower Spec, IP is a Case-assigning position, meaning that ‘thief’ has no motivation to move further. In this way movement out of a ‘Case-marking position’ is illicit—according to standard GB theory, empty categories (traces, here) are only licensed in Caseless positions. This, however, is why the noun phrase ‘thief’ is licensed in (17)c, because ‘thief’ receives Case in this position. Because the higher verb is passive (and therefore assigns no external theta role), an expletive may fill matrix Spec, IP.

The expletive construction is found in Shona (Mozambique) in (18)a as in English, but the English-like raising construction in (18)b is not possible.22

(18) a. [IP proEXPL zví-no-fungir-w-a [CP kuti [IP mbavhá y-aka-vánd-á mú-bako ]]] 8.EXPL 8-PRES-suspect-PASS-FV that 9.thief 9-FAR.PAST-hide-FV 18-cave ‘It is suspected that the thief is hidden in the cave.

b. *Mbavhá i-no-fungir-w-a [e] ku-vánd-á mú-bako 9.thief 9-PRES-suspect-PASS-FV INF-hide-FV 18-cave c. [IP Mbavhái i-no-fungir-w-a [CP kuti [IP [ei] y-aka-vánd-á mú-bako]]] 9.thief 9-PRES-suspect-PASS-FV that 9-FAR.PAST-hide-FV 18-cave ‘The thief is suspected to be hidden in the cave.’ According to GB theory (18)c should be impossible, as a noun phrase has moved from a Case-marked position to a non-Case marked position. This must necessarily be the analysis, as the presence of the expletive in (18)a makes it clear that the higher Spec, IP is not a theta-position, so

22 Harford Perez (1985) does not offer an explanation for the ungrammaticality of forms like (20b) except to say that Bantu languages do not allow infinitival complements. As apparent from the Digo data, this generalization does not hold across all Bantu languages. A specific explanation for the ungrammaticality of the (20b)—the equivalent of a grammatical English form—I leave for future research. To be noted also, on this point, is the ungrammaticality of Swahili (15b).


14

the overt NP subject mbavhá must not have originated in the matrix clause. Looking at (18)c, both the higher and lower verbs agree with the overt NP subject mbavhá. The conclusion then is that the NP mbavhá must have originated in the lower clause, despite the fact that it is a finite clause with a complementizer. Harford-Perez goes on to provide similar data from two other Bantu languages, Kikuyu and Kiruundi.

The argument in Harford-Perez (1985) is framed in terms of the theory of empty categories: there is a trace is in a Case-marked position, which is supposedly impossible. Based on the fact that there is no morphological Case in Bantu, and if Case Theory proves not to be necessary for Bantu (and in fact proves to make incorrect predictions), then there is no reason to assume that it is active in these languages. When we consider this from a Minimalist perspective, we find that the updated framework does not buy us any further ground on resolving these conflicts. (19) provides a derivation of (18)c:23 24

(19) TP 3

DP TP mbavhái 3

T VP inofungirwav 3

inofungirwav CP 3

C TP kuti 3

mbavhái TP AGREE 2 3

T vP yakavándá 3

mbavhái vP 3

yakavándák VP AGREE 1 3

yakavándák DP mú-bako Abstracting away from the potential difficulties of this long-distance agreement and raising operation, let us focus on the Case-relevant issues. The probe T triggers AGREE, which looks downward for the DP subject mbavha (presumably an active goal due to its uninterpretable Case

23

This assumes that in a passive verb v is not present (though this assumption is not crucial to the analysis here). 24 I treat the movement of the DP to matrix subject position as happening in “one fell swoop” from the lower Spec, TP to the higher Spec, TP rather than assuming that there is A’-movement to the specifier of CP (and then speculating as to the landing position of the subject in the higher clause). This A’ analysis is a feasible analysis, and it has been established that there is an active left-periphery in Bantu languages, including instances of CP-landing sites above an overt complementizer (cf. Henderson 2003). Either analysis gives problems to standard assumptions, yielding either a problem with look-ahead with the A’-movement analysis, or yielding problems for a theory of phases with an A-movement analysis. Given that the raised NP triggers subject agreement and is interpreted as a normal, non-focused subject noun phrase, I assume the A-movement account.


15

feature). This operation would serve to check the Case feature of the subject and also triggers the probe’s EPP feature. According to standard assumptions, this DP no longer has an uninterpretable Case feature and is no longer active as a goal for AGREE. Nonetheless, the matrix T head agrees with the same DP, which then raises to the higher Spec, TP. As in the GB system, this construction should not be possible given standard assumptions about uninterpretable Case features. In contrast, if we assume that it is a noun phrase’s gender feature which makes it an active goal for AGREE, and that the noun phrase does not bear uninterpretable Case features, it is not surprising that we would find raising out of a finite embedded clause: that subject is still as much of a candidate for agreement and movement as it was when it was first merged.

4.2 Compound tense constructions

Carstens (2001) presents data on compound tense constructions in an argument against Chomsky’s conception of phi-completeness, that is, that there may be multiple AGREE operations

but only in the case that the uninterpretable φ-features of a probe are incomplete, agreeing only in a subset of the possible phi-features. An AGREE relation that is phi-incomplete in this sense does not check the uninterpretable Case feature of the goal, allowing for another AGREE relation to take place as the goal is still active. The standard example is from participle agreement in French, where the first agreement relation between the participle and the DP does not check the DP’s Case feature, and thus only the second does.

(20) a. Elle est morte. (Carstens 2001, (1)) ‘She is dead’ b. est probe 1 morte probe 2 elle goal AGREE 1 Past Participle Agreement

Subject Agreement: deletes Case feature of elle AGREE 2 deletes ϕ-features of est

Carstens’ characterization of Chomsky’s account is that both person and number together are necessary to delete Case. Carstens argues against this conclusion, however, citing evidence from

compound tense constructions (CTs) in Swahili, where there are multiple instances of full-φ-feature agreement:

(21) a. Juma a-li-kuwa a-me-pika chakula (Carstens 2001, (5)) J. 3SG-PST-be 3SG-PRF-cook 7.food

‘Juma had cooked food’ b. (Mimi) Ni-li-kuwa ni-ngali ni-ki-fanya kazi. (1sg-pron) 1SG-PST-be 1SG-still 1SG-prf-do 9.work ‘I was still working’ Many Bantu languages have similar constructions; I include some here from Digo.

(22) a. U-nda-kala u-na-m-lagiza ndi-go-gomba. 2SG.SM-FUT-be 2SG.SM-CONT-3SG-command 1SG.FUT-6.REL-speak ‘You will be commanding him what I tell you.’

b. a-ka-kala a-ka-vuka rira lichigo vino a-na-phiya. 3SG.SM-SEQ-be 3SG.SM-PFV-cross 5.DEM 5.fence now 3SG.SM-CONT-go ‘she had crossed the fence and was now going.’


16

Citing Carstens and Kinyalolo (1989), Carstens analyzes CTs as “a failure of aspect-bearing verbs to undergo raising,” so that an auxiliary is necessary to support the tense morpheme, and the subject then raises to the highest subject position. Under their original analysis this subject-raising was spec-

to-spec, which triggered agreement with both the Asp° and T° heads via spec-head-agreement (when the subject DP passed through Spec, TP and Spec, AspP, respectively).25

(23) [T’’ Jumai [ T’ a-li-kuwa [ASP’’ ti [ASP’ a-me-pikav [vP ti [VP tv chakula]]]]]] The problem this poses for the theory as proposed in Chomsky (2000) is that both instances of agreement involve the same features, so that it is unclear why the first should not delete the Case feature of the subject while the second one does. Carstens’ solution is a return to more traditional roots, claiming that there is a specific class of heads which may assign/check Case. She therefore reformulates AGREE as in (24).

(24) In the AGREE relation:

a. A probe α has uninterpretable φ-features.

b. A goal β has matching φ-features.

c. Uninterpretable φ-features are valued, and delete.

d. If αααα has an intrinsic structural Case value, it values any unvalued Case feature

of ββββ; the two Case features then delete.

In this way Case deletion would rely not only on φ-features but also on a probe’s ability to assign a Case value. Essentially, not all probes can check Case, and in the examples above the Case feature of the raised noun phrases is not deleted until the noun phrase agrees with the T head, which Carstens claims does have an intrinsic Case feature.

I would propose that the developments discussed to this point in this paper present us with

a more elegant option. Consider instead that it is the gender feature (or φ-features more generally) which make a goal active (in Bantu, at least). In a CT, the first instance of AGREE would not handicap the ability of T to agree a second time because gender features are interpretable, and not expected to delete. With the first instance of AGREE the subject raises to Spec, AspP to check the

EPP feature of Asp°. At this point a second agreement operation results in movement to Spec, TP and agreement appears on T. This is demonstrated in (25)b. The tense and aspect heads are in italics, with the agreement morphemes preceding them bolded.

(25) a. (uwe) U-nda-kala u-na-m-lagiza ndi-go-gomba.

(you) 2P.SG-FUT-be 2P.SG-CONT-3SG-command 1SG.FUT-6.REL-speak ‘You will be commanding him what I tell you.’

b. [T’’ proi [ T’ u-nda-kala [ASP’’ ti [ASP’ u-na-lagizav [vP ti [VP tv [NP ndi-go-gomba]]]]]]] AGREE 2 AGREE 1

The independently motivated proposal that interpretable φ-features make a goal active allows us to derive these agreement facts from more basic conditions, rather than introducing a small set of Case-checking heads.

25 Though as will be seen below, this analysis can be implemented equally via AGREE.


17

4.3 Digo Raising constructions

Raising constructions in Digo bear a certain resemblance to the compound tense structures considered above, but as can be seen by each sentence’s ‘expletive-construction’ counterpart it would appear that the lower verb is in fact in a full embedded clause, similar to constructions with the English raising verb ‘seem’. The problem is the same, however, as two different verbs exhibit full phi-feature agreement with the same noun phrase.

(26) … ili mu-onekan-e m-na-hend-a manono. COMP 2PL.SM-appear-SUBJ 2PL.SM-PRES-do-FV 6.good (things) ‘so that you be seen to be doing good’

(27) a. … hata ichikala hu-nda-onekan-a hu-ka-shind-w-a. even if 1PL.SM-FUT-appear-FV 1PL.SM-PFV-defeat-PASS-FV

‘even if we will be seen to have been defeated’ b. i-na-onekan-a kukala hu-ka-shind-w-a.

9.SM-PRES-appear-FV comp 1P.PL-PFV-defeat-PASS-FV ‘it appears that we have been defeated’

(28) a. Hu-na-onekan-a ta-hu-na chitu. 1PL.SM-PRES-appear-FV NEG-1PL.SM-have 7.thing ‘We appear to have/as having nothing’ b. i-na-onekan-a kukala ta-hu-na chitu. 9.SM-PRES-appear-FV comp NEG-1PL.SM-have 7.thing ‘It appears that we have nothing’

(27)b and (28)b show that these are in fact raising constructions, as the matrix subject position may be filled by an expletive. (26), (27)a and (28)a show that there may be multiple instances of AGREE with the same DP (pro, in these cases). This sort of raising has traditionally only been considered possible with a non-finite (non-Case-assigning) embedded TP, and therefore these sorts of Bantu constructions betray a typological difference which must be explained. It should be clear without rewriting the analysis presented above that this Digo construction falls in with the Bantu raising constructions of Harford-Perez as well as with compound tense constructions, displaying similar agreement and distributional properties and all creating similar problems for standard analyses. These constructions are likewise explained if interpretable gender features are taken to make a goal active for AGREE. 5 Pros and (apparent) cons Seeing that there are a number of constructions whose analyses benefit from a new formulation of the probe-goal relationship, I want to consider some of the pros and cons of this alternative analysis that gender features make a goal active for AGREE. The greatest argument in favor is that we could successfully discard uninterpretable Case features—a desirable result given the evidence from locative inversion and Digo possible-constructions, both of which license noun phrases where a Case-system presumably should not. Secondly, gender is an interpretable feature rather than an uninterpretable feature, which, as was demonstrated above, accords much better with the agreement behaviors of many Bantu constructions. Under Chomsky (2000, 2001) it is difficult to explain how a noun phrase is subject to two separate agreement operations, particularly two different agreement operations in two different clauses (cf. §5.1). Defining the probe-goal relation by an interpretable


18

feature rather than an uninterpretable one opens up these possibilities. At the same time, this may also help explain why agreement in locative inversion is possible with the locative adjunct; (many, if not all) locative adjuncts in Bantu may simply be analyzed as noun phrases in the locative noun class, or in more universal terms, with the locative gender. This does not come without cost, however. The first, most obvious cost is the additional modification of the language faculty, and particularly that the universal operation AGREE may take on different mechanical properties in different languages: triggered by Case in some languages, but by gender in others. This consequence seems unavoidable in some measure or another, however, given the different agreement properties of Bantu languages from the Indo-European languages. In addition, Chomsky (2001: 4-6) presents certain ideas about the purpose and characteristics of uninterpretable features. In particular, uninterpretable features should be the result of empirical observations, that there seem to be certain operations which must occur (and be finished) before a derivation hits Spell-Out. In Chomsky’s words, “uninterpretability of features—say, of phonological

features, φ-features of T or its EPP-feature, or structural Case—is not ‘stipulated.’ The existence of these features is a question of fact: does L have these properties or not?” For example, one benefit of a theory with uninterpretable features that can be deleted is that is can explain why something stops moving or stops agreeing at certain points. And while we have seen that this benefit is not necessary (or even desirable) for many Bantu constructions, it does present some even more fundamental problems with the most basic transitive sentences. On the theories presented here, if there is object agreement it is indicative that an object has raised to Spec, vP.

(29) a. a-na-ki-soma kitabu SM-PRES-7.OM-like 7.book ‘s/he is reading the book.’ b. TP 3

? TP 3

T vP a-na-ki-soma 3

DP vP kitabu 3

DP vP pro 3

v VP CL7.OM 3

V DP soma kitabu Under the system of Chomsky (2000, 2001) the DP kitabu would be ineligible for further agreement (and—related in Bantu at least—further movement) because its uCase would be checked and deleted. Under the analysis which I have presented, the object of the verb which has raised to Spec, vP, is as equal a candidate for AGREE with (and movement to) TP as the external argument merged

into Spec, vP: both have a gender feature and both are equidistant from the probe (T° in this


19

instance).26 If we want to maintain a distinction there needs to be some sort of mechanism to distinguish between these two phrases at this point in the derivation. Without delving into the entire theory of movement, I would have to assume that noun phrases can be marked in some way when they satisfy an EPP feature, so that the phrase which has already moved may be distinguished from the one which is still in its pure merge position. Alternatively, an application of Grohmann’s (2003) conception of anti-locality (along with the requisite phrase structure, namely an AgrO projection) would serve resolve this dilemma. As it turns out, however, this lack of distinction between arguments may not be a bad theoretical result. Consider (30) below from Kinyarwanda, taken from Morimoto (2000).

(30) a. Umuhuûngu a-ra-som-a igitabo 1.boy 1.SM-PRES-read-FV 7.book

‘The boy is reading the book’ b. Igitabo ki-ra-som-a umuhuûngu 7.book 7.SM-PRES-read-FV 1.boy (lit.) ‘The book is reading the boy’ (‘The book is being read by the boy’) These constructions are generally referred to as Subject-Object inversion, and often serve to demonstrate the flexibility of many Bantu languages in their phrase structure (cf. Ura 1996, 2000; Morimoto 2000, 2006; Barrett-Keach 1981; Ndayiragije 1999). (30)b is glossed as a passive to reflect the focal differences between the two sentences, but it is in fact not a passive either structurally or interpretationally. What I am suggesting is that given the structure in (29)b, the fact that the two DPs in Specs, vP are indistinguishable via c-command may explain how it is licit for an underlying object to raise to Spec, TP over an external argument. Again, without presenting an entire theory of Subject-Object reversal, what these basic facts do suggest is that (at least for some Bantu languages) there may not in fact be the strong distinction between the subject and object that we would expect from an Indo-European perspective. I suspect that these constructions are connected to the lack of uninterpretable Case features that otherwise would restrict an internal argument from raising all the way to subject position, even in the presence of an external argument. An important issue, of course, is that though these sentences are possible in Bantu languages, they are not possible in all of them, and that variation would need to be explained; this could possibly be done with some sort of movement-marking operation which is only present in some languages and not in others, but I leave that question open for further research.27 An anonymous reviewer points out that these facts raise an important question that has persisted (unaddressed) to this point in this paper: locality. In (30) for example, I have claimed that Agree from T can target an object, rather than the subject which would otherwise be presumed to be

26 This is relying on Kayne’s (1994) definition of c-command, these two higher vP nodes are ‘segments’ of the same maximal projection that cannot be distinguished by c-command. This definition will be seen to be favorable in what follows, but it is fully possible that a more articulated definition of c-command could help distinguish between the relevant DPs at this point in a derivation. I leave these details to further research. 27 The fact that there is not object agreement in the examples in (41) shows that there must be more to this story than what I have presented here, as a strict application of AGREE in a derivation of (41) should produce two agreements with the same grammatical subject (subject and object agreement). In this specific situation, a conception of anti-locality would again serve to explain why object agreement and subject agreement with the same phrase are not possible (though this doesn’t necessarily provide an analysis). Let my arguments here suffice to say that the structural differentiation between internal and external arguments which we would expect with Case theory is not present in (at least some) Bantu languages, disregarding the specific analyses (which do not in the end affect the force of my argument here).


20

more local. More of a problem are the examples in (7) and (9), where locative inversion is possible with unergatives and transitives, where the external argument subject is most probably merged at a point that is higher than the locative phrase. For the sake of space, I have set this important issue aside for the most part in this paper, though I will comment briefly here.

There are various ways to handle the locality question, which is a problem in any case of optionality in a strict derivational system. Perhaps the initial merge positions of locatives are different in locative inversion cases than they are in non-inversion cases. Perhaps T can bear a topic feature at times, which would trigger movement of the identified topic (the locative) in locative inversion. This would relate to Henderson’s (2006) analysis of subject-object inversion, which claims that it is only possible in languages where the subject position is actually an A’-topic position: Spec, CP. There are also less dramatic approaches such as those adopted in Collins 1997, where the locality problem is circumvented in specific contexts where the phrases in question would become somehow equidistant from the probe. Crucial for my point, however, is that no matter what the conclusion regarding how exactly the questions of locality are satisfied in these cases, the observations regarding the nature of Case persist. 6 Conclusions

6.1 Loose ends

I would like to address some significant residual issues that arise due to the proposal of a Case parameter. First, if the basic distribution of arguments (for example, constraining the number of arguments in a sentence) can still be considered to fall under the realm of Case theory, it need not be left unexplained in the system that I propose here. What I would suggest is that the number of arguments which a predicate maintains (together with the basic merge positions of those arguments) can for the most part be restricted by the dispersal of theta roles via Pure Merge (Chomsky 2000. 2001). Theta roles (and argument structure) are independently needed and independently constrain the number and types of arguments which a verb phrase may licitly contain, and as such there is no need to invoke a theory of abstract (uninterpretable) Case features to serve the same function.28

Likewise, there is no need to invoke Case to explain the behavior of passive verbs, as the failure of the verb to assign an external theta role restricts a noun phrase from undergoing Pure Merge into Spec, vP (and thus restricts that argument from occurring in subject position). Likewise, there is no need for a theory of Case to be invoked to explain the movement of the internal argument to subject position in passives if we retain a separate theory of movement via EPP: the reason the object may (not must) move to subject position is that there is no external argument which would fill it instead, and it is due to the presence of the EPP feature (presumably on the T head) that specifier must be filled by something.29 But as we have seen in a number of the raising constructions above, it is possible to have an expletive subject fill the subject position, as would be expected if Case does not factor into the equation as requiring a relationship between T and the logical object.

28 I also have a very strong intuition that the issue of constraining argument structure via theta roles could actually be accomplished via a morphosyntactic theory of PF-uninterpretable theta-features which are checked in the syntax under conditions similar to other feature checking. Unfortunately I do not yet have fully working model. 29 Admittedly, this still begs to question of how to explain / constrain the presence of EPP features, a question which I do not attempt to address here.


21

6.2 “Compelling evidence” to the contrary

Lying behind purely Minimalist methodology and theory is the broader concern for the issues of explanatory adequacy and learnability, describing a language faculty that is distinctly human and which has parameters (whether in the technical or non-technical sense) that are “easily detectable in data available for language acquisition” (Chomsky 2001). Given this goal, Chomsky then states that the study of this language faculty should be guided by the Uniformity Principle (p. 2):

(31) In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, assume languages to be uniform, with variety restricted to easily detectable properties of utterances.

Given the distribution and agreement behaviors of noun phrases in the Bantu languages which I have discussed in this paper I would argue that there is in fact compelling evidence that there is some underlying difference between Bantu languages and Indo-European languages which is unexplainable by simply applying the current Minimalist architecture. If we retained a theory of Case for all Bantu languages, there are a number of (common) Bantu constructions in which a noun phrase’s uninterpretable Case feature could not have been checked (e.g. locative inversion, Digo possible-constructions), and on the flip side there are a number of Bantu constructions where a noun phrase’s uninterpretable Case feature should have been deleted, but appears not to have been (e.g. long-distance raising constructions from Shona, Kikuyu, and Kiruundi, Digo raising constructions, Digo and Swahili CTs). By removing abstract Case features from the theory of Bantu languages (and making the subsequent modifications required by such a step), the basic Minimalist architecture may be maintained as universal while at the same time incorporating parameters which broaden the explanatory power of the theory. 30

6.3 For future research

There is considerable variation among Bantu languages concerning what constructions are allowed in any individual language (cf. Demuth and Mmusi 1997 and Martin 2006, also fn 7). In that sense most of the claims in this paper are very broad claims that must still be substantiated in more detailed ways.

Returning to the parameterized accounts of agreement discussed earlier in the paper, it would seem that selection of the ‘No-case’ parameter proposed in (11) would preclude one from selecting the ‘AGREE-joined-with-case’ parameter proposed by Carstens (2005) and Baker (2003, 2008). That is, this proposal could be a more precise formulation of Carstens’ and Baker’s proposal that there are languages where agreement doesn’t track Case. It would seem that all of these languages would end up with the same problem—Case cannot be checked via AGREE and therefore an entirely new system (or new round of unrealized AGREE operations) would need to be motivated to account for Case-checking. It would be an interesting result, however, if those other languages which Baker notes have the same parameter settings as Bantu languages do in fact share some of the other characteristics discussed in this paper.31 If so, it would seem that the ‘AGREE joined with

30 Justin Kelly suggests to me that there may be a correlation between this Case parameter and the proliferation of gender features in the languages which have no Case, like the Swahili and Digo. This is an interesting proposal deserving typological consideration, but I would find it questionable simply because of languages like Kwaya and Makua, both of which seem to have uCase features. This would suggest to me that it is in fact an entirely different parameter. 31 Specifically, those languages which Baker identified in his survey of 108 genetically and areally diverse languages as having agreement apart from case-checking are the following: Zulu, Swahili, Kinande, Berber, Arapesh, Tariana, Fijian, Tukang Besi, Slave, Canela-Krahô, Jarawara, Georgian, Arabic, Persian, Warlpiri, Dani, Kewa, Burushaski, Mayali, Halkomelem, Tauya, Ojibwa, Nez Perce, Karok, Otomi, Zoque, Ika, Basque, I. Quechua, and Guaraní.


22

Case’ parameter could be derived from the ‘no-Case’ parameter, along with some mechanism built into the theory of Agree that it may find its goals in different manners based on the features present in a language.

Another result of these proposals is that a language which on the surface has many familiar structures (control constructions, passives, raising verbs, etc) may in fact differ from our standard assumptions in important ways (e.g. abstract Case). This suggests that constructions that have traditionally considered to be explained by Case may in fact require an independent explanation since they occur in languages whether or not those languages have abstract Case. For example, since Digo and Swahili have control constructions despite lacking abstract Case, I am led to hypothesize that control should in fact be explained by constraints other than Case. Hornstein’s (2000, forthcoming) attempts to reduce control to movement therefore gain strength with this result.

In the end it seems that we must allow for more flexibility in some basic elements of the Minimalist architecture (e.g. basic feature inventories and AGREE) than have to this point been advocated. This of course still contributes to the express goal of generative syntax—to provide an analysis of the human faculty of language which is non-idiosyncratic and relevant for all languages.


23

7 References Alsina, A. 2001. Is Case another name for grammatical function? Evidence from object

asymmetries. In Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, edited by W.D. Davies and S. Dubinsky, 77-102. Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands.

Bailyn, J.F. 2004. Generalized inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 1-49. Baker, M. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ------. 2003. Agreement, dislocation, and partial configurationality. In Formal Approaches to

Function in Grammar, edited by A. Carnie, H. Harley, and M. Willie, 107-132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

------. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barrett-Keach, C. 1980. The syntax and interpretation of the relative clause construction in Swahili. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Bobaljik, J. and D. Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27,2: 195-236.

Bobaljik, J. and S. Wurmbrand. 2006. Case in GB/Minimalism. Ms, University of Connecticut. Bresnan, J. 1994. Locative inversion and universal grammar. Language 70: 72-131. Bresnan, J, and J. Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization

in gramamar. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1-50.

Carstens, V. 2001. Multiple agreement and Case deletion: Against φ-(in)completeness. Syntax 3:147–163.

------. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23: 219-279. Carstens, V. and K. Kinyalolo. 1989. On IP structure: Tense, aspect, and agreement. Ms, Cornell

University and UCLA. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. ------. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MIT Press. ------. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard

Lasnik, edited by R. Martin et al, 89-155. Cambridge, MIT Press. ------. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kan Hale: A life in language, edited by M. Kenstowicz, 1-

52. Cambridge, MIT Press. Collins, C. 1997. Local economy. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 29. MIT Press: Cambridge. Demuth, K. and C. Harford. 1999. Verb raising and subject inversion in comparative Bantu.

Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20, 1: 41-61. Demuth, K. and S. Mmusi. 1997. Presentational focus and thematic structure in comparative

Bantu. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 18: 1-19. Diercks, M. 2006. Object Marking as Agreement in Swahili. Ms. Georgetown University. ------. In progress. Subjecthood in Bukusu. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University. Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Kinyalolo, K. 1991. Syntactic dependencies and the SPEC-head agreement hypothesis in Kilega.

Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Koopman, H.J. 2000. The syntax of specifiers and heads. London: Routledge. Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by Emmon,

Bach and Harms, 1-88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Haegeman, L. 1994. An introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Blackwell: Oxford.


24

Harford Perez, C. 1985. Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Henderson, B. 2003. Evidence for Rizzi’s Left Periphery: Bantu Relative Clauses. In submission to Studies in the Linguistic Sciences. Accessed online at http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/ bhendrsn/ papers.htm.

------. 2006. The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hornstein, N. 2000. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell: Oxford. ------. 2007. Pronouns in a Minimalist setting. Ms, University of Maryland, College Park. ------. (forthcoming) On Control. In Contemporary Grammatical Theory, edited by R. Hendriks.

Blackwell: Oxford. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics

interface. Cambridge: MIT Press. Marten, L. 2006. Locative inversion in Otjiherero: More on morpho-syntactic variation in Bantu.

ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: 97-122. Morimoto, Y. 2000. Discourse configurationality in Bantu morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation,

Stanford University. ------. 2006. Agreement properties and word order in comparative Bantu. ZAS Papers in

Linguistics 43: 161-187. Ndayiragije, J. 1999. Checking economy. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 399-444. Nicolle, S. (in prep). Digo grammer (as how to cite) Postal, P. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications.

Cambridge: MIT Press. Rizzi, L. and U. Shlonsky. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English locative

inversion and Heavy NP shift. In Phases of interpretation, edited by M. Frascarelli, 341-362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rugege, G. 1984. A study of Kinyarwanda complementation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.

Seidl, A. and A. Dimitriadis. 1997. The discourse function of object marking in Swahili. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society, 33(1): 373-387.

Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Ura, H. 1996. Multiple feature checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Ph.D.

dissertation, MIT. ------. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford, Oxford

University Press. Van Otterloo, R. and K. Van Otterloo. 2007. A grammar of Kifuliiru. Ms, SIL. Zannen, A., J. Maling, and H. Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic

passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 441-483.

Documents

GUWPTL 2008 revised Dec 3 2008 - Challenges to Case Theory from Bantu