II. Polish applicatives: two case studies 65
4.2. Analysis - Exps as high applicatives
4.2.1. Polish Exp-Ths - the structure
Based on the discussion in this chapter thus far, we can list the following prop-erties of ExpDATs in Polish:
(46) The properties of Polish ExpDATs:
a. ExpDAT does not move to [Spec;TP]. ExpDAT does not es-tablish Agree with T, nor does it show the subject-like properties associated with nominative-marked subjects.
b. ExpDAT is not projected in [Spec;VoiceP/vP]; it is projected as part of an unaccusative predicate. Although ExpDAT can antecede anaphors, a feature typically associated with [Spec;VoiceP /vP] (or [Spec;TP]) positions (Bondaruk and Rozwadowska, 2018;
13Note, however, that Landau himself does not comment on applicatives of the experiencer type, only on low applicatives that license (implicit) indirect objects.
Gogłoza et al., to appear b; Nikolaeva, 2014; Witkoś et al., 2018a, a.o.), Exp-Th predicates do not form eventive passives, indicating that they lack a prototypical external argument. Moreover, Exp-Th predicates do not show the -no/-to form, suggesting their unac-cusative nature. Also, Exp-Ths allow distributive po-phrases in the derived subject position, as is typical of unaccusatives.
c. ExpDAT is a high applicative; it is projected above the cate-gorising v - this high projection is responsible for the subject-like properties of Expdat, e.g. anaphor binding or licensing of participial adjunct clauses. The [Spec;ApplP] position, however, differentiates high applicatives from prototypical external arguments, merged in [Spec;VoiceP/vP].
d. ExpDAT is subcategorised for- when not phonologically realised, it is implied/entailed.
In order to account for these observations, we propose the following structural representation of Exp-Ths in Polish:14
(47) Ewie Ewa.dat
spodobała appealed
się REFL
nowa new
nauczycielka teacher.nom
od from
polskiego.
Polish.gen
‘The new teacher of Polish appealed to Ewa.’
Appl
Ewie [φ:3SG.F]
[θ:Exp]
[Case:Dat]
Appl [θ:Exp]
[Case:Dat]
[+mental]
vPBE
Ewie [φ:3SG.F]
[θ: ] [Case: ]
vBE
-a
√P
√podob− się DP
nowa nauczycielka od polskiego
[Case:Nom]
As a true internal argument, the Th is projected in the complement of the root position. The Exp is first-merged in [Spec;vPBE], explaining the fact that it is
14Note that, in contrast to the tree representations in Chapter 3, in (47) as well as in the tree structures to follow, we abstract away from commenting on the realisation of the inner and outer aspect, i.e. the realisation of verbal prefixes.
subcategorised for by the verb. This merge position also accounts for the fact that the Exp is interpreted as a state holder - in the case of (47), the state of lik-ing the teacher. On movement to [Spec;ApplP], the Exp argument ismade into a high applicative. Once in [Spec;ApplP], ExpDATs has its case and θ-features valued under Agree with Appl. This is also where the Exp becomes associated with the [+mental] feature. When not overtly realised, the [Spec;ApplP] position is occupied bypro, accounting for the possibility to license secondary depictive predicates even under ExpDAT drop.
The verb is decomposed into the root, combined with the reflexive marker się, and the verbalising head vBE, which, in the case of (47), is morphologi-cally realised as the thematic vowel -a-. The ExpDAT argument licensing Appl head is merged abovevPBE. This high merge position of ExpDAT explains why ExpDAT shows some subject-like properties, particularly anaphor binding (in Exp-ThnonN OM). The predicate being unaccusative, it does not project aVoice head. This explains why neither of the arguments passivises, or why it does not show the-no/-to verb form. The Th argument receives its nominative case under downwardAgree withT (not represented in the tree in (47) above). We discuss such downwardAgree and circumstances under which it occurs in more detail in Section 4.2.2 below.
For non-verbal predicates of Exp-Ths, we propose a very similar structure.
The difference between verbal and non-verbal Exp-Ths lies in the case marking of the Th and the lexical element realising the root projection as well as the vBE head. The structure is illustrated in (48).
(48) Ewie Ewa.dat
(jest) is
żal sorrow
nowej new.gen
nauczycielki teacher.gen
od from
polskiego.
Polish.gen
‘Ewa feels pity for the new teacher of Polish.’
...
T jest
Appl
Ewie [φ:3SG.F]
[θ:Exp]
[Case:Dat]
Appl [θ:Exp]
[Case:Dat]
[+mental]
vPBE
Ewie [φ:3SG.F]
[θ: ] [Case: ]
vBE
być
√P
√żal [Case:Gen]
DP
nowej nauczycielki od polskiego
[Case:Gen]
In contrast to verbal Exp-Ths, the verbalising vBE in (48) is lexicalised as the copula verbbyć ‘to be’. On movement toT(or, alternatively, downward probing of T), the copula is valued with the default 3rd person singular form, and it is lexicalised in the present tense as jest. Also, in contrast to the verbal Exp-Th predicate, the Exp-Theme argument in (48) does not have its [Case: ] feature valued throughAgree withT. Because the genitive case on the Th is lexical, it is valued under Agree with the root, which is marked with [Case:Gen].
Summing up, we proposed that both verbal and non-verbal Exp-Ths in Polish show an unaccusative structure, which lacksVoice. In both cases, the ExpDAT
argument is taken to be base-generated in [√P], and made into the high ap-plicative by movement to [Spec;ApplP]. By taking ExpDATs to be high applica-tives, rather than external arguments base-generated in [Spec;vP/VoiceP], we accounedt for the subject-like properties of ExpDATs without rejecting an un-accusative analysis of Exp-Ths. In what follows, we focus on the two possible argument orders in Exp-Ths. Based on binding by the preverbal ExpDAT as opposed to the preverbal ThN OM, we take it that ExpDATs move to [Spec;CP]
while ThN OMs move to [Spec;TP] when projected verb-internally. ExpDATs in [Spec;CP] reconstruct with regard to binding to [Spec;ApplP], from where they can bind anaphors as long as the anaphor binding is not blocked by the Anaphor Agreement Effect. Preverbal ThN OMs extend their binding domain;
once in [Spec;TP], ThN OMs become licit anaphor binders.