A Lexicalist Account of Icelandic Case Marking

Recent theoretical descriptions of the Icelandic case system distinguish between lexicai and structural case. Lexical case is assigned in ttle lexiCOIl, whereas structural case is assigned in syntax, under tim provision that it does not override lexicai case assignment. This analysis is problematic for grammatical theories such as Categorial Unification Grammar (CUG) and Headdriven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) as the introducion of a syntactic case cmnponent is incompatible with the lexicalist ideology underlying these frameworks. Furthermore, the default character of syntactic case introduces a procedural aspect into the grammar which goes against the derlarative spirit of unificationbased frameworks in general. In this paper, I propose an alternative anMysis, formulated in terms of CUC,, in which all case constraints are expressed lexically and in which default reasoning is restricted to nonmonotonic inheritance of lexicai information only. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n : C a s e M a r k i n g a n d D e f a u l t s The Icelandic case marking system I has often been taken as evidence for a distinction between structural (or regular or default) and lexicai (irregular, quirky) case marking. This distinction is introduced to explain the following two facts. First, most verbs select nominative case marked subjects (1), but a number of verbs select accusative, genitive or dative subjects (2)(4). Similarly, most transitive or ditransitive verbs select an accusative direct object (1), but some select a nominative, dative, or genitive (4)(6) object. (1) Stfilkan(N) kyssti drengina(A) the-girls kissed the-boys 1See Andrews (1982) for an extensive overview. (2) Drengina(A) vantar mat(A) the-boys lacks food (3) Verkjanna(G) g~etir ekki the-pain is-noticeable not (4) Barninu(D) batnac~i veikin(N) the-child ~,eeovered-from the-disease (5) 13g hj£1paSi honum(D) I helped him (6) Eg mun sakna hans(G) I will miss him The fact that the vast majority of subjects and objects is nominative and accusative, respectively, is accounted for by assigning default status to these cases ( that is, if nothing is said about the case of a subject or object, assume it must be nominative or accusative, respectively). Second, passive sentences (7)-(8) and so-called 'raising' constructions (9)-(12) exhibit a distinction between regular and irregular case marked NPs. In transformational terms, the case of regular case marked NPs corresponds with their surface position ((7), (9), and (11)), whereas the case of irregular case marked NPs corresponds to their underlying position ((8), (10), and (12)). (In these examples, tc represents a lexicaily case marked NP-trace and t a trace which has not been assigned case (assunfing that structural case is only assigned to surface NP positions)). (7) Drengirnir(N) voru kysstir t the-boys were kissed (8) IIonum(D) var hj£1pa5 tD him was helped (9) lIann(N) virSist I t elska hana] he seems to-love her (10) l iana(A) virSist IrA vanta peninga] her seems to-lack money AcrEs DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AOt~'r 1992 9 4 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 (11) ]~g taldi Guarfinu(A) [ t sakna 1 believed Gvdrun to-miss llaraldar]