Kai Lebeth (lebeth%neuwerk.iwbs.heidelbg.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com)
Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:27:11 +0200
Hi Gert, (Gert Webelhuth wrote) >I don't understand how your theory is supposed to get the right result >for [[Ein Held zu sein] macht Spass]: since [sein] is non-finite, it will >not assign nomininate to its subject and hence also not nominative to its >"object." Then, unless there is a principle or rule that assigns >nominative to the subjects of infinitives that are not structure-shared >with accusative objects of a higher verb, how do you guarantee that the >"object" of the copular in these constructions appears in nominative >case, since the accusative is ungrammatical: *[[Einen Held zu sein] macht >Spass]. Perhaps I am missing something, but I think your theory needs >such an additional principle as much as Jeff's theory, or any other for >that matter. For determining the nominative case in constructions like: [Ein Held zu sein] macht Spass, I assume the following structural case principle and a lexical entry for the copula: Structural Case Principle: The nominal C_DTR of a H_DTR, which head type is verb (infinite and finite) receives nominative, iff the INDEX-value of the C_DTR is coindexed with the PROM_ARG-value of the H_DTR and if the CASE-value of the C_DTR is of type structural case. The nominal C_DTR of a H_DTR, which head type is verb (infinite or finite) receives accusative, iff the INDEX-value of the C_DTR is not (!!) coindexed, i.e. different, with the PROM_ARG-value of the H_DTR and if the CASE-value of the C_DTR is of type structural case. The CASE-value of the nominal C_DTR of a H_DTR, which head type is verb (infinite or finite), is licensed iff the CASE-value is of type lexical case. Lexical Entry of the copula (infinite form): SYN: LOC: (CAT: (HEAD: PROM_ARG: [1] & SUBJ: <DP[1]structural-case>) & SUBCAT: <DP[1]structural-case>) & CONT: (INST: [2] state & RELN: <[copula_rel & INST: [2] UND: [1]]>) [Ein Held zu sein] : PHON:<ein,Held,zu,sein> SYN:LOC:CAT: (HEAD: (PROM_ARG:[1] & SUBJ: <DP[1]structural-case>) & SUBCAT<>) / \ C / \ H / \ / \ PHON:<ein,Held> & PHON: <zu,sein> & HEAD: CASE: nom & HEAD: (PROM_ARG: [1] & ... INDEX: [1] SUBJ<DP[1]>) & SUBC<DP[1]> If there is no argument attraction (i.e. no raising verb embedding for a copula, the infinite copula is the head of the infinite VP (ein Held zu sein). Thus, the case-principle applies, looking if the Index-value of a C_DTR is token identical with the PROM_ARG-value of the H_DTR. Standardly, this is not the case for object of, e.g., transitives, because it is only the subject for which an agreement-relation with the verbal head holds. But, due to the semantics of the copula, the index values of both arguments (in the case of identity-copula these could be both DPs) are coindexed, because they refer to the same entity. Please do not understand me wrong, there is no lexical case-assignment in this theory, but a (semantically) based lexical agreement relation between a verb and one of its argument. The case-assignment for nominative always follows this agreement-relation. Morphologically, agreement is only expressed in finite contexts, but the agreement relation also exists for infinite verbs, thus the case-principle can apply. Because the PROM_ARG-value is a HEAD-feature the things change in cases of coherent constructions, where the finite raising verb has either an own PROM_ARG (like ECM-verbs), or use the index of a certain non-subject argument of its infinite complement as its PROM_ARG (like in the case of the passive auxiliary "werden"), or they attract the agreement-relation of their embedded infinitives (like some modals do (sollen, koennen)). I think the same idea will also work for the "als"-constructions you discussed. If one assumes that the complement of "als" is token identical with the SUBJ of the verb , the agreement relation holds also between the complement of "als" and the verb. The case-principle above has only to be extended to apply to cases of A_DTRs of pp-type "als". In addition, we assume a lexical entry for "als, which percolates the case value to its complement. Maybe something like this: PHON:<als> ... HEAD: CASE: [2] & ... SUBCAT<DP[CASE:[2]> & ... INDEX: [1] Best Kai
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Dec 18 1998 - 20:33:03 PST