Questions: Case Theory and Abstract Case Assignment

Question 1

English nouns do not show morphological case (the word 'dog' is identical whether subject or object). Yet linguists argue English has abstract case. The clearest evidence for this claim is:

• A. English verbs agree with their subjects in person and number, showing a relationship between T and the subject NP
• B. English pronouns must appear in accusative form after certain verbs (e.g., 'I expect *him* to leave,' not *'I expect *he* to leave')
• C. English has prepositions that mark semantic roles where other languages use case endings
• D. English word order is strictly SVO, which eliminates the need for case marking

Answer: (B)

The key evidence for abstract case in English is pronoun alternation in ECM (Exceptional Case Marking) constructions: 'I expect him to leave' is grammatical; 'I expect he to leave' is not. The only reason to use accusative *him* rather than nominative *he* is case assignment from the matrix verb to the subject of the infinitival complement. Since no morphological case appears on ordinary nouns here, this alternation reveals that the underlying syntactic system is tracking case even when it is not overtly realized. Option A (verb agreement) is about phi-features, not case. Options C and D describe surface properties without speaking to abstract case licensing.

Question 2

In the passive sentence 'John was kicked (by Mary),' John appears in subject position. Abstract case theory explains this as:

• A. A stylistic fronting rule that places patients before agents for emphasis
• B. Obligatory: the passive morphology absorbs the verb's accusative case-assigning capacity, so John must move to the specifier of T to receive nominative case
• C. Optional: 'Was kicked John by Mary' is an equally grammatical alternative with the same case assignment
• D. An agreement effect: John moves to subject position so the verb can agree with it in number

Answer: (B)

In an active sentence, the verb assigns accusative case to its object. Passive morphology absorbs this case-assigning capacity — the verb can no longer value the accusative case feature of its internal argument. John, generated as the internal argument (direct object), now has an unvalued case feature that cannot be satisfied in its base position. The derivation forces movement to the specifier of T, where finite T can assign nominative case. This movement is not stylistic but case-driven: John must move or the derivation crashes. This is the abstract case theory account of subject raising in passives.

Question 3

Abstract case theory only applies to languages that have visible, morphological case endings on nouns — languages like English, which lack overt case morphology on common nouns, are outside the theory's scope.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

Abstract case is precisely the claim that case is a syntactic requirement that holds independent of whether it surfaces morphologically. English lacks visible case on most nouns, but the pronoun alternation data (he/him, she/her, they/them) and the grammaticality contrasts in ECM constructions show that case is still being assigned and checked at the syntactic level. The theory's central insight is that languages like English 'hide' the system but still obey its logic — case governs syntactic well-formedness even when it is phonologically silent.

Question 4

In the Minimalist Program, case is valued through Agree: a functional head (like T or v) probes downward, finds an NP with an unvalued case feature, and values it — licensing the NP to remain in the derivation.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Agree is the core mechanism of feature valuation in Minimalism. A probe (a functional head with an uninterpretable feature) searches its c-command domain for a goal (an element with a matching but unvalued feature) and values it. For case: T probes for the closest NP with unvalued case and assigns nominative; v/V probes for its internal argument and assigns accusative. An NP that cannot find a probe to value its case feature causes the derivation to crash (the Case Filter). This is why every overt NP must appear in a position where a case-assigning head is accessible.

Question 5

Why does abstract case theory predict that noun phrases sometimes must move from their base-generated positions to different syntactic positions?

Model answer: Every overt NP must receive case or the derivation crashes. Some base-generated positions cannot provide case — most importantly, the subject of a non-finite (infinitival) clause cannot receive nominative from infinitival T, which lacks tense and therefore lacks case-assigning capacity. An NP stranded in such a position has an unvalued case feature that will crash the derivation. Movement is case-driven: the NP moves to the nearest position where a case-assigning functional head (typically finite T, assigning nominative) can value its case feature. Movement is thus not free but motivated by the need for case licensing.

This is what unifies apparently disparate phenomena — passivization, raising, ECM — under a single principle. In each case, an NP is base-generated in a position that cannot case-license it, and movement (or case assignment across a clause boundary) solves the problem. The cross-linguistic variation in how case is morphologically realized obscures the underlying unity, but abstract case theory reveals that the same syntactic requirement is operating across all languages.