The theory which I adopt and defend here is the so called Peeling theory of case, proposed by Starke (2005), and developed further in works such as Medov´a (2008), Taraldsen (2008c), Medov´a (2007), Medov´a and Taraldsen (2007), Jab lo´nska (2008). I introduce it briefly in this section, and then show how it derives the two observations noted above.
According to the Peeling theory, KP*s are base generated in a θ-position with a number of case layers on top of them.4 Individual KP*s are base-generated with the amount of case shells which is appropriate for the expres-sion of a givenθ-role: recipients in the dative, instruments in the instrumental, accompaniments in the comitative and so on. In each movement step the KP*
is subject to, (at least) one of the case shells gets stranded. The KP* thus appears to be “peeled” under movement: hence the Peeling theory. The pro-posal is schematically depicted below. K1, K2 etc. refer to case features, the phrasal projections K1P, K2P etc. represent individual cases.5
(9)
KP ... ...
K1P
K1 KP
...
...
K2P
K2 K1P
K1 KP
...
...
K3P
K3 K2P
K2 K1P
K1 KP
...
...
4The term KP* refers to a NP equipped with projections of case. It is apparently a near equivalent of the term NP* used in the preceding chapters, but there is an important difference. When I talk of KP* movement, I understand a movement of an extended NP within the projection of an embedding category, like the verb. NP*
movement refers to a movement of a constituent containing the head noun inside its own projection.
5Peeling bears certain resemblance to a much earlier proposal by Fillmore (1968).
The tree above reads as follows: K3 changes into K2 under movement, then into K1 under yet another movement etc.
Let me now illustrate the abstract idea on a couple of examples from Czech, noting that the same analysis applies to the English translations.6 I start by the derivation of an active/passive pair, such as (10), highlighted already in
§1.8. Of interest is the marking on the NP* ‘the grass’ (boldfaced).
(10) acc ⇒nom
‘Karel has loadedthe grass on the truck.’
b. Tr´av-a
‘The grasshas been loaded on the truck.’
The analysis of the differential marking of this argument in (10a,b) is the following. The argument is base-generated inside the VP with an (as yet) undetermined number of case projections, but surfaces in the accusative due to a Peeling movement. This movement targets a position which needs an AccP in its Spec, a position which I call S-Acc, S for k-selector. The movement from the base generated θ-position to the structural object position is represented in the tree below, see (11). In the tree, I also indicate the fact that I take the verb ‘load’ is the spell out of the vP, but this is not crucial here.7
6The only difference between English and Czech for the examples to be discussed is that in Czech, NP* moves higher than in English.
7To highlight the basic mechanics of the Peeling theory, I temporarily abstract away from the fate of shells stranded by Peeling. The general idea is that they are spelled out as part of other items (like the verb, the auxiliaries, the passive morpheme, etc.) by the mechanism of phrasal spell out. I tackle the issue in more detail in§4.6 once the basics are established. In this particular case, I assume that the shells are spelled out as part of the verb, which spells out the vP.
(11) Nom
A DP
the grass S-Nom
...
Acc
B Nom
A DP
the grass S-Acc
... vP⇒ load ... v′
v0 VP
V XP
... Acc
B
A DP
the grass The accusative “stage” or “position” of the internal argument is visible on the
surface in (10a). The sentence thus corresponds to a derivation in which the KP* ‘the grass’ stops in the Spec of S-Acc, and moves no further. In (10b), however, the Spec,S-Nom is free (due to the “demotion” of the external argu-ment), and thus, the nominative case sub-extracts from within the accusative and moves to the higher position.
As highlighted in§1.8, this two-case analysis of passives derives a general-ization originating in Burzio’s work, specifically that the accusative emerges on the internal argument only in case the peeling movement to Spec,S-Nom is blocked. This happens either in the total absence of S-Nom (when the func-tional structure of the VP is impoverished due to embedding or other reasons), or in case its Spec comes to be occupied by a more prominent argument in the course of the derivation.
Consider now an additional example (12a), which shows that the KP* ‘the grass’ can also surface in the instrumental:8
8Despite the similarity of marking, the instrumental KP* is not an instrument.
This can be shown by the fact that unlike instruments, it can appear in stative passives such as (i):
(i) The truck is still loaded {with grass / *with the pitchfork}.
The purely stative (i) shows that the instrumental KP*with the grass is embedded low down in the VP, since its presence (unlike that of an instrument) does not depend on any dynamic head merged higher than the stative VP itself. This is one of the facts
(12) ins ⇒ acc⇒ nom Peter loaded the truck with (the) grass.
b. Karel
‘Karel has loadedthe grass on the truck.’
c. Tr´av-a
‘The grasshas been loaded on the truck.’
Under a Peeling approach, this fact indicates that the KP* ‘the grass’ is base-generated at least as big as the instrumental case, and when it shows up as an accusative object (as in (12b)), it must have peeled its oblique shells off. I show one possible derivation in (13), where the shift from the instrumental to the accusative happens in one step. I will revise this slightly later, and argue that two movements take place, but I omit this here for simplicity:
(13)
which lead me (in the main text) to analyze the ‘grass’ as a base-generated Figure, i.e., a located argument.
Thus, in (13), there are in total three distinct positions the NP* can surface in: the low base-generated position (ins), the direct object position (acc), and the subject position (nom). These positions correspond, respectively, to the three examples in (12a-c).
To make the tree richer on details, I have filled in the information that I understand the NP* ‘the grass’ to start out as the Figure of a spatial relation with ‘the truck’ as the Ground (i.e. [ grass [ P truck ] ]). The PP is in turn a small clause complement to the V (‘load’), although such details are not of immediate concern here.9
The derivation (13) is traditional in the sense that the KP* is first merged in theθ-position, and then moves higher up to case positions, the structural object position in particular. What is different is that the KP* is merged with case features on top, and thus, bears case from the very beginning of the derivation. From this, it also follows that unlike in most current theories (see, e.g., Chomsky 1998), the KP* can pass through multiple case positions in a single derivation.
Another difference is that the KP* is not “licensed” by the movements it undergoes beyond its base-position. This puts the Peeling theory of Case in one camp with proposals which argue against the existence of a syntactic Case Filter, e.g., Marantz (1991) or McFadden (2004). Like in the theories mentioned, the Peeling theory has no special case-licensing requirement on DPs analogous to the case filter (3). (The movements are triggered by the attracting positions.) However, unlike in the theories mentioned, case marking is determined strictly within the syntactic computation, and by reference to principles which are not specific to case.
To see this last point in more detail, let me point out the similarity of the Peeling theory of case to Rizzi’s theory of Criterial Freezing (see Rizzi 2004, Rizzi 2007 and references therein). According to Rizzi, when a KP* is attracted to a position where it undergoes checking (the Criterial position), it is frozen for further movements. Rizzi calls this the Criterial Freezing.
However, a sub-extraction out of a frozen KP* is allowed. This is essentially the same proposal as Peeling, minor differences aside.10
9What is of a potential concern is the derivation of (12a), where ‘the truck’ moves from the complement of P to an accusative position, but I do not go into this here. See Romanova (2007) and Caha (2007b) for a more detailed analyses of the PP internal structure in the ‘spray-load’ alternation. The gist of the proposal is that in (12a), the PP first undergoes a process similar to passivization, as a result of which the Ground escapes from the c-command domain of the Figure. After the PP passivization, the Ground raises to the accusative position instead of the Figure.
10The differences between Peeling and Criterial Freezing show up only in cases which involve pied-piping. In these cases, as far as I understand, Criterial Freezing allows the pied-piped phrase to move as a chunk through several Criterial positions without any stranding, because Freezing applies only to the actual attracted projection inside
Consider an empirical example discussed by Rizzi.
In (14a), the phrasequale libro di Gianni undergoes wh-movement in the embedded clause. The wh-phrase contains a focussed phrase DI GIANNI, which can sub-extract from the wh-phrase and move to a focus position in the matrix clause, see (14b). However, it cannot pied-pipe the wh-phrase, as shown in (14c). Importantly, such a type of pied-piping is normally allowed, as shown in (14d).
(14) Rizzi’s Criterial Freezing (Italian, from Rizzi 2007:p.148)
a. Non sapevo [[ quale libro DI GIANNI] Q avessi scelto t], (non di Piero)
‘I didn’t know which book BY GIANNI you had selected, not by Piero’
b. DI GIANNI Foc non sapevo [[quale libro t] Q avessi scelto t]], (non di Piero)
‘BY GIANNI I didn’t know which book you had selected, not by Piero’
c. *[Quale libro DI GIANNI] Foc non sapevo [ t Q [avessi scelto t]], (non di Piero)
‘Which book BY GIANNI I didn’t know you had selected, not by Piero’
d. [Tre libri DI GIANNI] Foc pensavo [che avessi scelto t], non di Piero
‘Three books BY GIANNI I thought you had selected, not by Piero’
The ill-formedness of (14c) must then be explained by Criterial Freezing, ac-cording to Rizzi. The wh-phrasequale libro di Gianni has been attracted to the Criterial position in (14b), and it is thus frozen for further movements.
However, sub-extraction from within the wh-phrase is allowed, as in the case of Peeling. Given the similarity, and also the fact that Rizzi motivates his theory mainly for A-bar movement processes, it follows that Peeling-like movements are not specific to case theory. Rather, Peeling is a general theory of movement, subsuming both traditional A and A-bar movement processes (as pointed out also in Rizzi’s work).11
Importantly for our purpose, this general theory of KP* movement inter-acts with the case decomposition proposed here to yield various interesting predictions; among them those that motivated our desire to improve on the the pied-piped phrase. Starke’s Peeling would only allow a sub-extraction of a lower constituent here, which is similar to the theory put forth in Abels (2007), where even more projections freeze than in the case of Peeling.
11See also Barbiers et al. 2008 for interesting examples of Peeling movements in constructions with wh-doubling.
version of the checking theory that we have started from.