Unifying structural and lexical case assignment in Dependent Case Theory - Chapter 16 - A derivational approach via Agree

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Theodore

Dependent Case Theory rejects case assignment via a functional head and derives case from structural relations between DPs. The chapter addresses a core limitation: lexical dative cannot be fully eliminated, since structural and lexical datives are morphologically identical and behave similarly. The proposal unifies lexical and structural dative assignment under DCT using a derivational Agree operation. Structural datives are assigned as a high dependent case in the VP when a lower (later acc) DP is present, and lexical datives receive the same treatment when a co-argument DP is present. The discussion also situates the approach within ongoing debates about the timing of case assignment.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages24

Reading Time1 h 0 min

AccessFree to download

1 Introduction: Dependent Case Theory

2 Disjunctive case hierarchy and dependent case assignment

3 Typology of case alignments and morphosyntactic behavior

4 Lexical vs. structural dative under DCT

5 Timing of case assignment and derivational implementation

Chapter 16 Unifying structural and lexical case assignment in Dependent Case Theory Zorica Puškar Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin Gereon Müller University of Leipzig Dependent Case Theory argues against case assignment via a functional head (cf. Chomsky 2000; 2001) and proposes instead that case is a result of a structural relation between two DPs (Marantz 1991; McFadden 2004; Baker & Vinokurova 2010; Baker 2015) . However, Dependent Case Theory cannot completely abandon case assignment via a syntactic head, as this mechanism accounts for lexical case (e.g. lexical dative) . Furthermore, structural and lexical datives are morphologically identical and often behave similarly, and ‘just where the line should be drawn between the two is a theoretical matter’(Baker 2015: 13) . We argue for a unified approach to lexical and structural dative case assignment under Dependent Case Theory, implemented in a derivational fashion, via the operation Agree. While structural datis assigned as a high dependent case in the VP in the presence of a lower (later acc) DP, lexical dat is assigned in the same configuration, in the VP, in the presence of another silent or overt co-argument DP. Keywords: dependent case, Agree, dative 1 Introduction: Dependent Case Theory The Dependent Case Theory (henceforth DCT) is a result of the work of (Marantz 1991; McFadden 2004; Baker & Vinokurova 2010; Baker 2012; 2015), among others, adopting similar ideas by Yip et al. (1987); Bittner & Hale (1996); Kiparsky (1992; 2001); Wunderlich (1997); Stiebels (2002) . Case assignment in DCT relies Zorica Puškar & Gereon Müller. 2018. Unifying structural and lexical case assignment in Dependent Case Theory. In Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer, Radek Šimík & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2016, 357–379. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI:10. 5281/zenodo.2545537 Zorica Puškar & Gereon Müller primarily on Marantz’s (1991: 24) disjunctive case hierarchy, which distinguishes between the following types of case: (1) Lexically governed case ≻ Dependent case (accusative and ergative) ≻ Unmarked case (nominative and absolutive) ≻ Default case There are several steps in the case assigning process. In Step 1 all DPs selected by lexical items (verbs, prepositions, etc.) which idiosyncratically assign a particular case, receive the lexically governed case value from the designated head upon c-selection. In Step 2, pairs of remaining caseless DPs are inspected in their local domains. Dependent case is assigned to them according to (a variation of) the following case assignment rules: (2) Rules for dependent case assignment (Baker 2015: 48-49) a. If there are two distinct DPs in the same spell out domain such that DP1 c-commands DP2 , then value the case feature ofDP2 as accusative unless DP1 has already been marked for case (3) . b. If there are two distinct DPs in the same spell out domain such that DP1 c-commands DP2 , then value the case feature ofDP1 as ergative unless DP2 has already been marked for case (4) . These rules lead to a four-way typology of case alignments (Levin & Preminger 2015): The application of only the rule (2a) will lead to nominative-accusative alignment (3), while (2b) will yield ergative-absolutive alignment (4) . If both parameters are simultaneously present in the same language, this would yield tripartite case systems (e.g. Nez Perce, where accusative and ergative can co-occur, see Baker 2015) and if both parameters are switched off, the language has neither ergative nor accusative case marking. (3) Nominative-accusative XP DP1 … … YP ::: DP2 acc (4) Ergative-absolutive XP DP1 … … YP ::: DP2 erg 16 Unifying structural and lexical case assignment in Dependent Case Theory In Step 3, the remaining DPs that have not received case by means of competition with another DP, receive the unmarked case, which depends on the local domain in which the

FAQs

What is the central claim of Dependent Case Theory about case assignment?

Dependent Case Theory argues that case results from structural relations between DPs rather than being assigned via a functional head.

Why does the chapter treat lexical dative as a problem for DCT?

Lexical dative cannot be fully abandoned because datives assigned lexically or dependently can be morphologically identical and often show similar behavior.

How does the chapter unify lexical and structural dative case assignment?

It proposes a unified derivational approach where lexical dative is treated as dependent case assigned to a higher DP in the VP, implemented via the operation Agree, using a covert pseudo co-argument DP.

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Theodore