Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T10:55:30.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pronominal case assignment in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2013

BOZHIL P. HRISTOV
BOZHIL P. HRISTOV*
Affiliation:
University of Sofia
*
Author's address: Department of English and American Studies, St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, 15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., Sofia 1504, Bulgariabozhil.hristov@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following a long tradition of research on English case, this paper first outlines the phenomenon of canonical and non-canonical case assignment to pronouns functioning as heads or dependents, and then discusses some previous treatments in order to illustrate the data, as well as to demonstrate that a unified account capable of capturing all the generalisations has up until now remained elusive. A purely phrase-structural explanation will be sketched out and rejected, to be superseded by a model relying on the formalism of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), which I argue successfully accounts for all the relevant syntactic patterns. The paper ends with a comparison between the present proposal and some earlier ideas in the literature. Finally, I briefly defend the claim that English pronouns still exhibit case distinctions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 567 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This paper evolved after I attended the Historical Linguistics module at the 2009 LSA Linguistic Institute at Berkeley taught by Andrew Garrett and Paul Kiparsky. The trip was made possible by the generous financial support of Mary Dalrymple, Oxford's Faculty of Linguistics and Jesus College. The article has benefited enormously from stimulating discussions at the University of Oxford, the Second South of England LFG meeting in SOAS and the LFG 2011 conference in Hong Kong. Special thanks are due to Doug Arnold, Ash Asudeh, Emmon Bach, James Blevins, Maris Camilleri, Yehuda Falk, Jonathan Lipps, Joan Maling, Irina Nikolaeva, Rachel Nordlinger, Louisa Sadler, Melanie Seiss, Peter Sells and Andrew Spencer. I am particularly grateful to Alexandra Bagasheva, Mary Dalrymple, Catherine Mary MacRobert and Louise Mycock, as well as two anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, for reading monstrously long drafts of this and giving invaluable feedback.

References

REFERENCES

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and the form–function fit. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp & Singler, John. 2003. The case for politeness: Pronoun variation in co-ordinate NPs in object position in English. Language Variation and Change 15, 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Carl L. 1995. English syntax, 2nd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blevins, James P. 2006. English inflection and derivation. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 507–536. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24.4, 591–656.Google Scholar
Boyland, Joyce T. 2001. Hypercorrect pronoun case in English? Cognitive processes that account for pronoun usage. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45), 383–404. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70, 72–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam, King, Tracy Holloway, Niño, María-Eugenia & Segond, Frédérique. 1999. A grammar writer's cookbook. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Camacho, José. 2003. The structure of coordination. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1994. On the internal structure of pronominal DPs. The Linguistic Review 11, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czepluch, Hartmut. 1996. Kasus im Deutschen und Englischen: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des abstrakten Kasus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical functional grammar (Syntax and Semantics 34). San Diego, CA & London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Hristov, Bozhil [P.]. 2010. Agreement patterns and coordination in Lexical Functional Grammar. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG10 Conference, 186–206. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1986. Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In Brame, Michael, Contreras, Heles & Newmeyer, Frederick J. (eds.), A Festschrift for Sol Saporta, 93–129. Seattle, WA: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1979. It's I, it's me: A case for syntax. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 10, 67–80.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1982. Case marking, phonological size, and linear order. In Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Studies in transitivity (Syntax and Semantics 15), 117–141. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2006. ‘Me and her’ meets ‘he and I’: Case, person, and linear ordering in English coordinated pronouns. B.A. Honors thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Gerald R. 1984. Left dislocation, topicalization, and interjections. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2.3, 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L. & Michaelis, Laura A.. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1665–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1981. It's I, it's me: Further reflections. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 13, 17–20.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23, 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1987. Some facts about me and I. Language Research 23, 163–184.Google Scholar
Howe, Stephen. 1996. The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages: A study of personal pronoun morphology and change in the Germanic languages from the first records to the present day. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil P. 2012. Agreement, case assignment and nominal coordination. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2005. A student's introduction to English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. . 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. 2002. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al. , 1031–1096.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1995. Does English really have case? Journal of Linguistics 31, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X′ syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto & Haislund, Niels. 1949. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, Part VII: Syntax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne B. 1996. Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 661–676.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne B. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kershaw, Paul. 1992. Conjunction and case-assignment: A parameter. Presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Sells, Peter. 2008. English syntax: An introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway & Dalrymple, Mary. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40.1, 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, Goran. 1986. ‘Us Anglos are a cut above the field’: On accusative pronouns in nominative contexts. English Studies 67, 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Relatedness between grammatical systems. Language 40, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 55). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Sobin, Nicholas. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1986. Inflection and conjunction in Modern Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4, 245–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce & Robinson, Fred C.. 2007. A guide to Old English, 7th edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2002. Pronominal nouns. In Simon, Horst J. & Wiese, Heike (eds.), Pronouns – grammar and representation, 183–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Frank, Riley, Kathryn & Meyer, Charles. 1988. Case assignment and the ordering of constituents in coordinate constructions. American Speech 63, 214–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrott, Jeffrey K. 2007. Distributed morphological mechanisms of Labovian variation in morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al. , 323–524.Google Scholar
Peterson, Peter G. 2004. Coordination: Consequences of a lexical functional account. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22.3, 643–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Reibel, David A. & Schane, Sanford A. (eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1997. On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse. In Kamio, Akio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 117–143. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quattlebaum, Judith A. 1994. A study of case assignment in coordinate noun phrases. Language Quarterly 32, 131–147.Google Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2005. The distribution of pronoun case forms in English (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney. 1973. A university grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Wrenn, Charles L.. 1955. An Old English grammar, 2nd edn.London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Rini, Joel. 2003. The origin of Spanish entre tú y yo ‘between you and me’: A typological parallel to English between you and I? Diachronica 20, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodman, Robert. 1974. On left dislocation. Papers in Linguistics 7, 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Nordlinger, Rachel. 2006. Apposition as coordination: Evidence from Australian languages. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG06 Conference, 437–454. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 2005. Optimal morphology. In Orgun, Orhan & Sells, Peter (eds.), Morphology and the web of grammar, 83–94. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D. 1985. Case and conjunction. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10, 161–186.Google Scholar
Siegel, Muffy E. A. 1987. Compositionality, case and the scope of auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 318–343.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 2006. English in the present day. In Brown, Keith & Ogilvie, Sarah (eds.), Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world, 327–334. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1994. Standard and non-standard pronominal usage in English, with special reference to the eighteenth century. In Stein, Dieter & Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (eds.), Towards a standard English, 1600–1800, 217–242. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, Part 1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zoerner, Ed. 1995. Conjunction as a case feature-checker. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 21, 351–362.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2004. Here comes the accusative. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001762.html (accessed 30 June 2011).Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2005a. Case nuances. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002204.html (accessed 30 June 2011).Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2005b. Just between Dr. Language and I. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002386.html (accessed 30 June 2011).Google Scholar