Small Clauses and Default Case

Small Clauses and Default Case Youngjun Jang Dept of English Language and Literature Chung-Ang University 221 Hukseok-dong, Dongjak-ku, 156-756 Seoul, KOREA yjang@cau.ac.kr Abstract This paper compares secondary predication constructions such as small clause complements, resultatives, and depictives in English and Korean. It argues that these two typologically different languages employ different modes of satisfying the Case Filter with regard to the Case of the subjects of small clauses. More specifically, it is argued that the subject of a small clause in English is Accusative Case-marked by the higher governing verb, while that in Korean is Nominative Case-marked by default. 1 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to compare secondary predication constructions such as small clause complements, resultatives, and depictives in English and Korean and argue that these two typologically different languages employ different modes of satisfying the Case Filter (Chomsky 1981) in case of the subjects of small clauses. More specifically, we argue that the subject of a small clause in English is .Accusative Case-marked by the higher governing verb, while that in Korean is Nominative Case-marked by default. 2 Case Filter and English Small Clauses It is generally assumed that the subject of the secondary predication has its Case assigned/checked by the matrix verb in English. Consider the following examples: (1) a. I consider [him honest]� (complement small clause) b. The gardener watered [the tulips flat]� (transitive resultative) c. The joggers ran [their Nikes threadbare] (intransitive resultative) d. The lion gnawed (*on) [the bone raw]� (object depictive) 123 (la) contains a complement small clause, (lb-c) contain resultative small clauses, and (1d) contains a depictive small clause. Here we assume a verbless complement to be a small clause (see Williams 1980, Rothstein 1992, among others). Note in examples given in (1) that the subjects of these small clauses are all Case-marked by the governing verb of the matrix clause. That is, in (la), him is Accusative Case-marked by the matrix verb consider. In (lb-c), the subjects the tulips and their Nikes are each assumed to be Case-marked by the matrix verbs watered and ran, respectively. In (1d), the bone is assumed to be Case-marked by the transitive-like gnawed (see Kim and Maling 1997, among many others). Various mechanisms are proposed to account for the Case properties of these subjects of secondary predicates. For example, Stowell (1981) argues that the matrix verb "governs" into the subject of small clauses. Thus in (la), consider "governs" into the bracketed category so that him is assigned/checked off its accusative Case. Bowers (1993, 1997, 2001) assumes that the subjects of small clauses are posited in a Case position. In particular, he assumes that transitive resultatives are control constructions in which the subjects of the resultative predicates are in [Spec, VP] and that intransitive resultatives are raising constructions in which the subjects of the resultative predicates are raised from [Spec, PrP] to [Spec, VP]. In case of intransitive resultatives, the subject of the secondary predicate, namely their Nikes, is raised from [Spec, PRP] to [Spec, …

Content truncated to 500 words