Case and Expletives: Notes Toward a Parametric Account

  • Howard Lasnik
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 35)


It will be the purpose of this paper to explore a number of phenomena and problems revolving around the general issue of Case assignment, especially as concerns expletive NPs. The question of why expletives require Case, which has become a difficult one under several recent theories, will come under particular scrutiny. Recent proposals of Chomsky (1986) concerning expletives and of Belletti (1988) will (eventually) be considered in some detail. Evidence will be offered for Belletti’s proposal that Case transmission does not exist, and, consequently, that even arguments associated with expletives must be directly Case-marked. Certain problems that this raises for the analysis of expletives of Chomsky (1986) will be examined and a refinement of Chomsky’s expletive replacement will be offered.


Linguistic Inquiry Small Clause Case Assignment Case Transmission Adjacency Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoun, J. (1979) “On Government, Case-marking, and Clitic Placement,” ms. MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Babby, L. (1980) Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian Karoma, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Shalom, E. (1986) “The Non-Theta Subject Position in Russian,” ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  4. Barss, A. and H. Lasnik (in preparation) “Quantifier Lowering”.Google Scholar
  5. Belletti, A. (1988) “The Case of Unaccusatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1–34.Google Scholar
  6. Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chenausky, K. (1990) “Case in English Existential Sentences,” ms. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1955) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory [Published, in part, by Plenum, New York (1975)].Google Scholar
  9. — (1980) “On Binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1–46.Google Scholar
  10. — (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. — (1986) Knowledge of Language Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  12. — (1986a) Barriers MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. — (1991) “Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation,” in R. Freidin, ed., (1991) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik (1977) “Filters and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1–46. [Reprinted in Lasnik (1990).]Google Scholar
  15. Chvany, C. (1975) On the Syntax of BE-Sentences in Russian Slavica, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Emonds, J. (1970) Root and Structure Preserving Transformations, MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  17. — (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. — (1978) “The Verbal Complex V′-V″ in French,” Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151–175.Google Scholar
  19. Enc,, M. (1991) “The Semantics of Specificity,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
  20. Epstein, S. D. (1987) Empty Categories and their Antecedents, University of Connecticut Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  21. Freidin, R. and L. Babby (1984) “On the Interaction of Lexical and Structural Properties: Case Structure in Russian,” Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 6.Google Scholar
  22. Glinert, L. (1989) The Grammar of Modem Hebrew, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  24. Lasnik, H. (1981) “Restricting the Theory of Transformations,” in N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds.) Explanation in Linguistics, Longmans, London. [Reprinted in Lasnik (1990).]Google Scholar
  25. — (1990) Essays on Restrictiveness and Learnability, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. — (1992) “Two Notes on Control and Binding,” ms. University of Connecticut. in R. Larson et. al., (eds.), Control and Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Lasnik, H. and R. Freidin (1981) “Core Grammar, Case Theory, and Markedness,” in A. Belletti et al, (eds.), Theory of Markedness ion Generative Grammar Pisa. [ Reprinted in Lasnik (1990).]Google Scholar
  28. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1992) Move α, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  29. May, R. (1977) The Grammar of Quantification, MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  30. — (1985) Logical Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  31. Neidle, C. (1988) The Role of Case in Russian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pesetsky, D. (1982) Paths and Categories, MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  33. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  34. Rapoport, T. (1987) Copular, Nominal, and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew, MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  35. Safir, K. (1982) Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect, MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  36. — (1987) “So There! A Reply to Williams’ Analysis of There-Sentences,” in M. A. Browning, E. Czaykowski-Higgins, and E. Ritter, eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 9, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Shlonsky, U. (1987) Null and Displaced Subjects, MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  38. Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
  39. Travis, L. (1989) “Notes on Case and Expletives,” Presented at the Second Princeton Workshop on Comparative Grammar.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, E. (1984) “There-Insertion,” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 131–153.Google Scholar
  41. Willim, E. (1988) “On Case-marking in Polish,” ms., Jagellonian University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Lasnik

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations