II. Polish applicatives: two case studies 65
4.2. Analysis - Exps as high applicatives
4.2.3. A few words on accusative Exps
As we already briefly illustrated in (7), alongside ExpDAT OEs, Polish also has accusative experiencers (ExpACC). Consider some more examples of OE verbs with ExpACCs in (57).
(57) a. Kasię Kasia.acc
boli hurts
głowa.
head.nom
‘Kasis has a headache.’
b. Kasię Kasia.acc
mdli.
nauseates
‘Kasia feels sick.’
Such stative ExpACCs, as we propose, are not of the applicative type. We take it that stative ExpACCs have the general structure represented in (58).
(58) Kasię Kasia.acc
boli hurts
głowa.
head.nom
‘Kasis has a headache.’
vPBE
ExpACC
Kasię vBE √ ThN OM
głowa
Similarly to ExpDATs, we take ExpACCs to be merged in the [Spec;vPBE] posi-tion. However, in contrast to ExpDATs, we take it that ExpACCs do not move to [Spec;ApplP]. Thus, ExpACCs are not made into high applicatives. Note that in contrast to ExpDATs, ExpACCs typically denote a physical state rather than a mental one. Thus, even though ExpACCs are [+animate], they are not marked with [+mental]-feature. This, in turn, means that ExpACCs do not denote a state of mental affectedness.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that we do find examples of ExpACCs which denote a mental, rather than physical, state, as in (59).
(59) Kasię Kasia.acc
martwi worries
zła bad
pogoda.
weather.nom
‘Kasia worries about bad weather.’
However, these examples are exceptional in the sense that they are ergative predicates that alternate between an agentive transitive variant and a stative unaccusative one, as illustrated in (60). We discuss the presence of accusative case in unaccusative structures later in this section.
(60) a. Tomek Tomek.nom
celowo intentionally
zmartwił worried
Kasię.
Kasia.acc
‘Tomek intentionally worried Kasia.’
b. Kasię Kasia.acc
martwi worries
zła bad
pogoda.
weather.nom
‘Kasia worries about bad weather.’
We take a predicate’s ability to alternate in a way illustrated in (60) to indicate that the experiencer, even though denoting a mental state is not an applicative argument. This is because a similar alternation is not possible with applicative experiencers.
We take stative OE verbs that license ExpDATs and those that license ExpACCs to be unaccusative. This, however, is in contrast to Bondaruk et al. (2017a,b) who argue against the unaccusative structure of ExpACC-ThN OM. Instead, fol-lowing Bennis (2004), the authors propose a complex ergative structure for ExpACCs licensing OE predicates, illustrated in (61). The structure akin to (61), was earlier proposed in Klimek and Rozwadowska (2004), who also fol-lows Bennis.
(61) vP
Spec
ø v VP
DP
Exp V DP
T/SM
The ExpACC argument is taken to be merged in [Spec;VP]. ExpACCc-commands the theme/subject matter (T/SM) argument in the complement ofV position.
The little v is projected above VP, however its external, [Spec;vP] position re-mains empty. Crucially, even though the structure lacks an external argument, following Bennis (2004), Bondaruk et al. (2017a,b) assume that the littlevis as-sociated with the accusative feature. As proposed by the authors, this presence of [+ACC] differentiates such complex ergative structures from unaccusative structures, which lack both the external argument and [+ACC].
That the syntactic licensing of the external argument is linked to (struc-tural) accusative-case licensing is taken in Bondaruk et al. (2017a,b) to follow from Burzio’s Generalisation. Because unaccusatives lack an external agent role, Burzio linked the ability of the predicate to assign accusative to its ability to assign external, agent theta role, as in (62).
(62) Burzio’s Generalisation
All and only the verbs that can assign aθ-role to the subject can assign
accusative Case to an object. [where subject is the agent external argu-ment]
(Burzio, 1986, 178) As Bondaruk et al. (2017a,b) argue, the structure of OE verbs licensing ExpACC cannot be unaccusative, since it assigns a structural accusative case.
It has been proposed for ExpACC OE verbs that the Exp’s accusative case is not structural but inherent (Belletti and Rizzi, 1988; Landau, 2010, a.o.).
Because the accusative case is inherent, its licensing does not require the pres-ence of a thematic external argument. However, as has often been pointed out, the Exp’s accusative case of Polish OE verbs cannot be taken to be inherent (Biały, 2005; Bondaruk et al., 2017a,b; Żychliński, 2016, a.o.). The structural nature of the case of ExpACC can be demonstrated with the Genitive of Nega-tion. In Polish, structural accusative case obligatorily turns into genitive under sentential negation (Błaszczak, 2001; Willim, 1990; Witkoś, 1998, a.o.). This is illustrated in (63).
(63) a. Tomek Tomek.nom
kupił bought
książkę.
book.acc
‘Tomek bought a book.’
b. Tomek Tomek.nom
nie not
kupił bought
książki.
book.gen
‘Tomek did not buy a book.’
Crucially, we observe the same accusative-genitive case alternation in OE verbs with ExpACC, as in (64).
(64) a. Problemy problems.nom
rodzinne of.family.gen
martwiły worried
Martę.
Marta.acc
‘Family problems worried Marta.’
b. Problemy problems.nom
rodzinne of.family.gen
nie not
martwiły worried
Marty.
Marta.gen
‘Family problems did not worry Marta.’
(Bondaruk et al., 2017a, 69, ex.37) Thus, because the accusative case of ExpACC changes into genitive under sen-tential negation, it cannot be taken to be inherent. Under Burzio’s Generali-sation, in (62), the ability of an OE predicate to assign accusative must mean that the structure is not unaccusative. As pointed out by Bondaruk et al.: “[t]he structural nature of accusative case associated with Experiencers of stative OE verbs in Polish strongly argues against the treatment of Polish stative OE verbs as unaccusative” (Bondaruk et al., 2017a, 70).
Were the structure of ExpACCs non-unaccusative, we would expect that ExpACCs of OE verbs can act as passive subjects. However, as illustrated in (65) for a mental and physical state respecively, this is not the case.
(65) *Kasia Kasia.nom
jest is
martwiona worried
przez by
problemy problems
rodzinne.
family Intended: ‘Kasia is being worried by family problems.’
a. *Kasia Kasia.nom
jest is
mdlona.
nauseated
Intended: ‘Kasia is being nauseated.’
Moreover, although for a long time Burzio’s Generalisation has been really influential in syntax, there is now substantial literature on its empirical as well as theoretical rationale which suggests that it might not be correct (Woolford, 2003, for useful references). As Woolford (2003, 301) notes:
Perhaps the most surprising result that emerges from this subse-quent literature [following Burzio’s proposal] is a radical change in the view of the nature of the generalization. There is consider-able consensus now that the problem has nothing to do with theta roles, nor with the ability of verbs to license accusative Case. In-stead (and despite many obvious counterexamples), the generaliza-tion that much current work is attempting to explain is that the object gets nominative Case when there is no (nominative) subject.
It has been noted in the literature that the presence of an agent is neither necessary nor sufficient for accusative case assignment. For example, Mahajan (2000) shows that in Hindi, agentive ergative subjects can occur with nominative objects, as in (66).
(66) Ram-ne Ram.erg
rotii
bread.f.NOM
khaayii eat.f.perf
thii.
was.f
(Hindi)
‘Ram had eaten bread.’
(Mahajan, 1990, in Woolford, 2003, 301, ex. 5) The example in (66) shows that the presence of an external/agentive subject is no guarantee for an accusative object, against Burzio’s Generalisation. Similarly, Polish ExpACC OE predicates, if unaccusative, show that the lack of an external argument must not block the licensing of accusative case.
Based on the recent discussion on the topic, a new descriptive generalisation has been proposed, as defined in Woolford (2003), in (67).
(67) New Descriptive Generalization (replacing Burzio’s 1986) The object gets nominative Case when there is no (nominative) subject
(Woolford, 2003, 301)
Crucially for the discussion on Polish ExpACC OE verbs as well as ExpDAT
OE verbs, the New Descriptive Generalisation accounts for both structures (when taken to be unaccusatives). In both types of OE verbs in Polish, the lack of a nominative subject necessitates the realisation of the nominative case feature on the Th object.17Following (67), the lack of a subject in [Spec;VoiceP] does not block the licensing of structural accusative. Instead, it necessitates the realisation of the nominative case, typically associated with the subject, on the object. Thus, (67) accounts for both ExpDAT and ExpACC OE verbs in Polish.
However, the question arises as to how the structural case is valued, if it is not associated with Voice/v head, as assumed in, e.g. Chomsky (1995); Holmberg and Platzack (1995) and following the traditional Burzio’s Generalisation. We discuss our proposal in the section to follow.