1 Introduction

Recent work on labels, inspired by Chomsky’s (2013; 2015) Labeling Algorithm, has led to new insights on the nature of successive cyclic movement, criterial positions and locality (Blümel 2013; Rizzi 2014; Cecchetto & Donati 2015; Bošković 2016, among others). In this paper, we examine the behavior of non-nominative, non-agreeing XPs from a labeling perspective. Our empirical focus is on Polish, Russian and Lithuanian, languages that allow a variety of non-nominative elements in preverbal positions. We focus on the following five types: (i) PPs in Polish locative inversion (1a) (see Babyonyshev 1996; Harves 2002; Bailyn 2004, among others, for Russian), (ii) instrumentals in Polish predicate inversion structures (1b) (Moro 1997; 2000 on Italian and English; Bondaruk 2013a on Polish, among others), (iii) dative subjects in Russian and Polish (1c) (Dziwirek 1994; Franks 1995; Moore & Perlmutter 2000; Sigurđsson 2002; Bailyn 2004, among others), (iv) genitive subjects in Lithuanian evidential constructions (1d) (Lavine 2000; 2010), and (v) accusatives in Russian and Polish Adversity Impersonals (1e) (Babby 1994; Harves 2002; Lavine & Freidin 2002; Bailyn 2004).1

    1. (1)
    1. a.
    1. Polish
    1. Do
    2. to
    1. pokoju
    2. room
    1. wszedł
    2. entered
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘Into the room walked John.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Polish
    1. Moim
    2. my.INSTR
    1. najlepszym
    2. best.INSTR
    1. przyjacielem
    2. friend.INSTR
    1. był
    2. was
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘My best friend was Jan.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Polish
    1. Janowi
    2. Jan.DAT
    1. podoba
    2. pleases
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. ta
    2. this.NOM
    1. książka.
    2. book.NOM
    1. ‘Jan likes this book.’
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. Lithuanian (Aušra Valančiauskienė, p.c.)
    1. Mokytojo
    2. teacher.GEN
    1. ištaisyta
    2. corrected
    1. klaidos.
    2. mistakes.NOM
    1. ‘The teacher apparently corrected the mistakes.’
    1.  
    1. e.
    1. Polish
    1. Łódkę
    2. boat.ACC
    1. wyrzuciło
    2. threw.out
    1. na
    2. onto
    1. brzeg.
    2. shore
    1. ‘The boat got thrown onto the shore.’

A popular analysis for such constructions is the so-called Generalized Inversion analysis (in Bailyn’s 2004 terms), in which the non-nominative element moves to [Spec, TP] for EPP related reasons (see Babyonyshev 1996; Lavine 2000; Harves 2002; Lavine & Freidin 2002; Bailyn 2004; among many others):2

(2) [TPXPi [T’ T [vPti … ] ] ] ]

We show that such an analysis is incompatible with the Labeling Algorithm and argue for an alternative in which these XPs do occupy a higher position instead, as shown in (3).3

(3) [FPXPi [TP [T’ [vPti … ]]]]

We proceed as follows. In the next section (Section 2), we review Chomsky’s (2013; 2015) Labeling Algorithm and the predictions it makes for non-nominative subjects. In Section 3, we turn to empirical considerations; in Section 3.1, we review subjecthood diagnostics; in Section 3.2, we apply them to locative and predicate inversion, and in Section 3.3 to dative subjects, genitive subjects and accusative arguments of Adversity Impersonals. We motivate two distinct derivations for these constructions, neither of which relies on the non-nominative element occupying the [Spec, TP] position. In Section 4, we turn to other non-nominative elements that have been argued to occupy the [Spec, TP] position and argue that under certain very restricted circumstances, this is possible. In Section 4.1, we discuss Icelandic quirky subjects and argue that what allows them to remain in [Spec, TP] and behave like subjects with respect to the subjecthood diagnostics is the fact that T undergoes partial agreement with them. In Section 4.2, we turn to so-called Accusative Numeral Subjects (ANS) in Polish, a possible counterexample to our general proposal, and argue that in this case Agree with T is attempted but partially fails. Importantly, however, these ANS have their structural case licensed by T, unlike other non-nominative subjects.

2 Labeling Algorithm(s)

Chomsky (2013: 45) reduces the problem of labeling to minimal search; the Labeling Algorithm (LA) simply selects the closest head as the label.4 If the syntactic object (SO) to be labeled consists of a head and a phrase (as in (4a)), the LA selects the head as the label, resulting in (4b). If, however, it consists of two phrases (as in (5a)), the LA locates two potential heads (i.e. the head of XP and the head of YP) and is unable to assign an unambiguous label.

(4) a. b.
(5) a. b.

There are two ways to label the structure in (5b): either one of the phrases moves (‘labeling by evacuation’), leaving only one head as a potential label, or some feature (e.g. the interrogative feature or phi-features) has to be shared (“labeling by feature sharing”).5 Moro’s (1997; 2000) analysis of small clauses provides a good illustration of the first option. The result of merging a subject and a predicate DP cannot be labeled (since two phrases are merged), as shown in (6b). Only after one DP moves, the other one can provide the label, as shown in (6c).

(6) a. John is my best friend.
  b. is [?? [DP1 John] [DP2 my best friend] ]
  c. [TP [DP1 John] is [DP2t1 [DP2 my best friend] ] ]

Labeling is also an issue for subjects in [Spec, TP]; since the subject DP has merged with TP, the result cannot be labeled. Chomsky (2013: 45) suggests that “perhaps that [labeling] can be achieved by the device suggested for embedded interrogatives”. DP and TP share prominent features, namely phi-features.67 This makes a clear prediction for constructions with non-agreeing XPs in [Spec, TP]; since there is no agreement, labeling through phi-feature sharing is not an option. We thus argue that non-nominative subjects typically do not occupy [Spec, TP] (see Section 4 though for two principled exceptions to this generalization). To make this argument, we rely on the following assumptions. First, we assume a version of the Split CP Hypothesis of Rizzi (1997), in which different types of uninterpretable features originate on different heads. Phi-features start on the Finiteness head and are inherited by T, and wh-features start on the Force head and are inherited by the Focus head, as shown in (7a–b).89

(7) a. Forceuwh, EPP > Foc > (Top) > Finuφ, EPP > T
  b. Force > Focuwh, EPP > (Top) > Fin > Tuφ, EPP

More generally, we assume that Force head is also the locus of discourse-related uninterpretable features ([uTop] and [uFoc] features, each associated with its ‘own’ EPP property). These are the δ-features of Miyagawa (2010; 2017). In cases considered in this paper, the Topic head inherits the [uTop] feature from the Force head, and since we are not dealing with interrogative or focused constructions, FocP is inactive or absent altogether:

(8) Force > TopuTop, EPP > Fin > Tuφ, EPP

We further assume that feature inheritance is optional, following Legate (2011), Ouali (2008), among others. This opens up the possibility that phi-features can remain on the Finiteness head, as shown in (9a). The novel option, due to Germain (2015), is the option illustrated in (9b), where phi-features are inherited by T but EPP features remain on Fin. Following Germain (2015), we refer to this option as Split Feature Inheritance.

(9) a. Force > TopuTop, EPP > Finuφ, EPP > T
  b. Force > TopuTop, EPP > FinEPP > T

With these assumptions in place, we can motivate two distinct derivations for non-nominative subjects, schematized in (10a–b). In (10a), the non-nominative XP moves to [Spec, TopP] and the [Spec, TP] position remains unprojected. This is what happens, we argue, in locative and predicate inversion structures, which are the focus of Section 3.2. The second option is given in (10b); the non-nominative “subject” does not move to [Spec, TP] either, but, instead, it moves to a different position (i.e. [Spec, FinP]), the option afforded to it by Split Feature Inheritance and the ability of EPP to stay on the Finiteness head. This is what happens in dative experiencer constructions, genitive evidentials, and accusative Adversity Impersonals, which we discuss in Section 3.3.10

(10) a.
  b.

In both (10a) and (10b), the moved XP shares a feature with the head whose specifier it moves to. In (10a), it is the topic feature, and we show in Section 3.2 that the moved element is interpreted as a topic. The answer to what feature is shared in (10b) is less obvious. In this respect, we follow Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006) and assume that the Finiteness head can have a nominal ([+N]) feature, which is what allows it to satisfy the Subject Criterion.11 Because all three of the XPs that we argue to move to [Spec, FinP] are DPs, the resulting syntactic object can be labeled via the sharing of this [+N] feature.

3 Case studies

3.1 Subjecthood diagnostics

In this section, we apply standard subjecthood diagnostics to the five constructions introduced above. These diagnostics have been developed primarily based on the properties of nominative subjects (henceforth canonical subjects) (see Zaenen, Maling & Thráinsson 1985; Sigurđsson 1989; 2002 and the references therein). First, canonical subjects trigger (verbal) agreement (Mary runs) and can bind anaphors (Mary saw herself in the mirror). Second, they can undergo raising to subject and to object/ECM (Mary seems to run, I consider Mary to be a runner). And third, canonical subjects license silent DPs in coordinate structures (Mary can run and will win) and can act as controllers (Mary wants PRO to run).1213 All of these properties have been linked to [Spec, TP] position, which is the view we take as well. We will also look at scope, as the ability to exhibit inverse scope is something that can potentially distinguish nominative subjects from non-nominative ones. Other diagnostics are more language specific; in pro-drop languages, the ability to be dropped is a useful diagnostic, and in languages that allow resumptive pronouns, subject resumptive pronouns are quite restricted (a restriction known as the Highest Subject Restriction). In Russian, a language that allows so-called Main Clause Infinitives, nominative subjects are replaced by dative subjects in this construction (see Fleisher 2006 and the references therein).

In the next two sections, we show that the five constructions that are our focus in this paper form two classes. While the two classes pattern together with respect to many diagnostics (and differ from nominative subjects), they differ from each other in ways that lead us to suggest that they land in different positions. We identify the two positions as the [Spec, TopP] (an A-bar position) and [Spec, FinP], a lower A-position.

3.2 Locative and predicate inversion

The properties of both locative inversion and predicate inversion cross-linguistically have received a lot of attention in the literature (see Stowell 1981; Branigan 1992; 2004; Den Dikken & Naess 1993; Bresnan 1994; Babyonyshev 1996; Collins 1997; Culicover & Levine 2001; Harves 2002; Bailyn 2004; Postal 2004; Rizzi & Shlonsky 2006; Bruening 2010, among others, on locative inversion; and Partee 1999; Matushansky 2000; Harves 2002; Citko 2006; 2008a; Pereltsvaig 2007a; Bondaruk 2013a, among others, on predicate inversion), and many of the properties we discuss below have been noted before for other languages.14 We focus here on Polish due to its transparent case and agreement morphology. The properties of inverted locatives and predicates that distinguish them from nominative subjects, together with the labeling considerations, lead us to pursue a topicalization account of the kind developed by Stowell (1981) for English.15 In our account, both the locative PP and the instrumental predicate move directly to [Spec, TopP], where they share a topic feature with TopP, as shown in (11b) and (12b).16

    1. (11)
    1. Polish – locative inversion
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Do
    2. to
    1. pokoju
    2. room
    1. wszedł
    2. entered
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘Into the room walked John.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. (12)
    1. Polish – predicate inversion
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Moim
    2. my.INSTR
    1. najlepszym
    2. best.INSTR
    1. przyjacielem
    2. friend.INSTR
    1. był
    2. was
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘My best friend was Jan.’
    1.  
    1. b.

In the rest of this section, we examine the predictions stemming from these derivations. First, since the PP and the instrumental DP are never in a canonical subject position, they are predicted to be insensitive to the properties associated with canonical subjects. Second, as they end up in a topic position, movement is predicted to have consequences for information structure and scope. And third, the fact that the entire structure is a TopP (not a TP) will also have consequences for embeddability; constructions where only TPs can be embedded are predicted to be ungrammatical.17 First, neither inverted PPs nor inverted predicate DPs can agree with the verb:

    1. (13)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Do
    2. to
    1. Jana
    2. Jan.3SG.MASC
    1. przyszła/*przyszedł
    2. arrived.3SG.FEM/*3SG.MASC
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1. ‘Maria arrived at Jan’s.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Przyczyną
    2. cause.INSTR
    1. protestów
    2. protests.GEN
    1. były/*była
    2. were/*was
    1. te
    2. these.NOM
    1. rysunki.
    2. drawings.NOM
    1. ‘The cause of the protests were these drawings.’

In both cases, T enters into an Agree relationship with the postverbal nominative DP; this is expected in a system where spec-head configurations play no role in determining agreement:

(14) a. [TopP [PP to Jan]i Top [FinP Fin [TP Tuφ:3SG.FEM
    [vP arrived Maria.3SG.FEMti] ] ] ]
  b. [TopP [DP cause of the protests]i Top [FinP Fin [TPTuφ:3Pl.NONVIR
    [vP were these paintings.3PL.FEMti] ] ] ]18

Second, the inverted PPs and DPs cannot bind anaphors, as shown in (15a–b). This is also expected given the derivations in (15a’–b’), since the inverted elements do not occupy the subject position (see, however, the discussion of the relationship between binding and subjecthood in the next section).19

    1. (15)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.     Tajsner (2008: 413)
    1. *U
    2.   at
    1. Kowalskichi
    2. Kowalskich
    1. był
    2. was
    1. swóji
    2. self’s
    1. krewny.
    2. relative.NOM
    1.     ‘Their relative was at the Kowalskich’s.’
    1.  
    1. a.’
    1.     [TopP [PP at Kowalskich’s]i Top [FinP Fin
    2.     [TP T [vP was self’s relative ti] ] ] ]
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Nowym
    2.   new.INSTR
    1. szefemi
    2. boss.INSTR
    1. jest
    2. is
    1. swóji
    2. self’s
    1. zastępca.
    2. deputy.NOM
    1.     ‘The new boss is his/the boss’s deputy.’
    1.  
    1. b.’
    1.     [TopP [DP new boss]i Top [FinP Fin [TP T [vP was self’s deputy ti] ] ] ]

Next, we consider raising and ECM. The research on English locative inversion, which we build on here, has established that while PPs can undergo subject-to-subject raising, they do not undergo raising-to-object/ECM (see Postal 1977; Den Dikken & Nass 1993; Bresnan 1994, for example):20

(16) a.   Bresnan (1994: 96)
      On that hill appears to be located a cathedral.
  b.   Den Dikken & Naess (1993: 309)
    *I have never seen down the hill rolling a baby carriage.

Predicate inversion in English is also impossible in ECM contexts:

(17) Den Dikken, Meinunger & Wilder (2000: 86; citing Williams 1983)
  a.   I consider John my best friend.
  b. *I consider my best friend John.

Returning to Polish, the grammaticality of (18a–b) indicates that inverted locatives and instrumentals can also undergo raising to subject:21

    1. (18)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Na
    2. at
    1. wykładzie
    2. lecture
    1. wydawała
    2. seemed
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. jedynie
    2. only
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. ‘Maria seemed to attend the lecture.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Przyczyną
    2. cause.INSTR
    1. protestów
    2. protests.GEN
    1. wydawały
    2. seemed
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. te
    2. these.NOM
    1. rysunki.
    2. drawings.NOM
    1. ‘The cause of the protests seemed to be these drawings.’

On the labeling analysis, this is not a problem since the inverted XP can move through the embedded [Spec, TP] position, as shown in (19a–b). Crucially though, it cannot stop there:

(19) a. [TopP [PPat the lecture]i Top [FinP Fin [TP T seemed [TPti be Maria ti] ] ] ]
  b. [TopP [DPcause of the protests]i Top [FinP Fin [TP T seemed [TPti be these paintings ti] ] ] ]

This also correctly predicts that inversion inside the embedded clause should not be possible:22

    1. (20)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. ??Wydawała
    2.     seemed
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. na
    2. at
    1. wykładzie
    2. lecture
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria.NOM
    1.      ‘Maria seemed to attend the lecture.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ?*Wydawały
    2.     seemed
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. przyczyną
    2. cause.INSTR
    1. protestów
    2. protests.GEN
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. te
    2. these.NOM
    1. rysunki.
    2. drawings.NOM
    1.      ‘The cause of the protests seemed to be these drawings.’

Raising to object/ECM is restricted in Polish to begin with (see Brecht 1974; Lasnik 1998; Dziwirek 2000; Stepanov 2007). However, the contrast between the grammatical example in (21a), involving a non-inverted ECM construction, and the ungrammatical one in (21b), involving an inverted one, shows that raising to object (marked by accusative case on the raised element) is only possible with the non-inverted variant.23

    1. (21)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.   Uważam
    2.   consider
    1. te
    2. these.ACC
    1. rysunki
    2. drawings.ACC
    1. za
    2. as/for
    1. przyczynę
    2. cause.ACC
    1. protestów.
    2. protests.GEN
    1.     ‘I consider these drawings as the cause of the protests.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Uważam
    2.   consider
    1. przyczynę
    2. cause.ACC
    1. protestów
    2. protests.GEN
    1. za
    2. as/for
    1. te
    2. these.ACC
    1. rysunki.
    2. drawings.ACC
    1.     ‘I consider these drawings as the cause of the protests.’

The ungrammaticality of ECM/raising to object follows from the fact that TopP is simply too big to be embedded under an ECM verb. We follow Bailyn and Citko (1999) and Bondaruk (2013b), among others, and take za to be the head of Predication Phrase (PrP)/small clause. This PrP is the complement of uważać ‘consider’, as shown in (22).24

(22) I consider [PrP [DP these drawings] [Pr’ Pr/as [DP cause of the protests] ] ]

Next, the examples in (23) show that neither the inverted locative PP nor the inverted predicate DP can control PRO; only the nominative argument can:25

    1. (23)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Do
    2. to
    1. Janai
    2. John
    1. chciała
    2. wanted
    1. PRO*i/j
    2.  
    1. przyjńć
    2. arrive.INF
    1. Mariaj.
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. Lit. ‘To John wanted to arrive Maria.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Moim
    2. my.INSTR
    1. najlepszym
    2. best.INSTR
    1. przyjacielemi
    2. friend.INSTR
    1. chce
    2. wants
    1. PRO*i/j
    2.  
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. Janj.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘Jan wants to be my best friend.’

The next property we consider involves scope. While the ability to have wide or narrow scope is not a property of subjects per se, scopal possibilities do distinguish constructions with inverted XPs from their non-inverted counterparts. Kuno (1971) notes that locative inversion in English disallows inverse scope, and Moro (1991) makes a similar observation for predicate inversion:

(24) Kuno (1971: 365–366)
  a. Many girls are in every class.   (∃ > ∀, ∀ > ∃)
  b. In every class are many girls. (*∃ > ∀, ∀ > ∃)
(25) Moro (1991: 122)
  a. Every book is some student’s purchase.   (∀ > ∃, ∃ > ∀)
  b. Some student’s purchase is every book. (∃ > ∀, *∀ > ∃)

Polish patterns similarly in this respect, with an added complication that inverse scope is harder to get to begin with.

    1. (26)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Jakiń
    2. some.NOM
    1. klucz
    2. key.NOM
    1. pasuje
    2. fits
    1. do
    2. to
    1. każdego
    2. every
    1. zamka.
    2. lock
    1. ‘Some key fits every lock.’                                                                 (∃ > ∀, ?∀ > ∃)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Do
    2. to
    1. każdego
    2. every
    1. zamka
    2. lock
    1. pasuje
    2. fits
    1. jakiń
    2. some.NOM
    1. klucz.
    2. key.NOM
    1. ‘To every lock fits some key.’                                                            (∀ > ∃, *∃ > ∀)
    1. (27)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Każdy
    2. every.NOM
    1. profesor
    2. professor.NOM
    1. jest
    2. is
    1. promotorem
    2. advisor.INSTR
    1. dwóch
    2. two.GEN
    1. studentów.
    2. students.GEN
    1. ‘Every professor is an advisor of two students.’                                          (∀ > ∃, ??∃ > ∀)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Promotorem
    2. advisor.INSTR
    1. dwóch
    2. two.GEN
    1. studentów
    2. students.GEN
    1. jest
    2. is
    1. każdy
    2. every.NOM
    1. profesor.
    2. professor.NOM
    1. ‘Two students’ advisor is every professor.’                                                   (∃ > ∀, *∀ > ∃)

On the topicalization account, the lack of inverse scope can be attributed to the inability of the nominative argument to undergo Quantifier Raising above the topicalized XP.26

The fronted XPs in locative and predicate inversion also exhibit a number of other properties that are unexpected of subjects, and are indicative of movement to a higher A-bar position, [Spec, TopP] in our analysis. As noted by Bondaruk (2013a) for Polish and Babyonyshev (1996) for Russian, they undergo reconstruction. This is shown in (28a–b) for anaphor binding, in (29a–b) for variable binding, and in (30a–b) for Principle C reconstruction.

    1. (28)
    1. Polish (m.interia.pl/interia-tv/video,vId,1473629; retrieved on June 6, 2016)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Do
    2. to
    1. swoichi
    2. self
    1. krewnych
    2. relatives
    1. pojechał
    2. went
    1. Jani.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘Jan went to his relatives.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Swoimi
    2. self.INSTR
    1. najgorszym
    2. worst.INSTR
    1. wrogiem
    2. enemy.INSTR
    1. jestem
    2. am
    1. jai.
    2. I.NOM
    1. ‘I am my worst enemy.’
    1. (29)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Do
    2. to
    1. swojeji
    2. self
    1. ojczyzny
    2. motherland
    1. wrócił
    2. returned
    1. każdy
    2. every.NOM
    1. żołnierzi.
    2. soldier.NOM
    1. ‘Every soldier returned to his motherland.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Wrogiem
    2. enemy.INSTR
    1. swojegoi
    2. self.GEN
    1. sąsiada
    2. neighbor.GEN
    1. było
    2. was
    1. [każde
    2. every.NOM
    1. państwo
    2. country.NOM
    1. w
    2. in
    1. Europe
    2. Europie
    1. Zachodniej]i.
    2. Western
    1. Lit. ‘The enemy of its neighbor was every country in Western Europe.’
    1. (30)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *Do
    2.   to
    1. pokoju
    2. room
    1. Janai
    2. Jan.GEN
    1. wszedł
    2. entered
    1. oni
    2. he.NOM
    1.     ‘Jan walked into his room.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Najlepszym
    2.   best.INSTR
    1. przyjacielem
    2. friend.INSTR
    1. Janai
    2. Jan.GEN
    1. był
    2. was
    1. oni.
    2. he.NOM
    1.     Lit. ‘Jan’s best friend was he.’

The reconstruction effects are accounted for by movement to an A-bar position [Spec, TopP], as proposed by Bondaruk (2013a) for Polish predicate inversion.

Polish is a pro-drop language; however, neither the inverted PP nor the inverted predicate can be dropped, as shown in (31a–b). Irrespective of the context, the missing pro cannot be interpreted as the locative PP or the predicate DP.

    1. (31)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *pro
    2.  
    1. wszedł
    2. entered
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *pro
    2.  
    1. był
    2. was
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan

The last property we consider is discourse status of inverted variants. Neither locative nor predicate inversion structures are discourse-neutral; neither is a felicitous answer to the open question What happened?27

    1. (32)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. #Do
    2.   to
    1. domu
    2. house
    1. weszła
    2. entered
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria.NOM
    1.     ‘Into the house entered Maria.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #Przyczyną
    2.   cause.INSTR
    1. protestów
    2. protests.GEN
    1. były
    2. were
    1. te
    2. these
    1. rysunki.
    2. drawings.NOM
    1.     ‘The cause of the protests were these drawings.’

In our account, the postverbal nominative argument in both locative and predicate inversion remains low (inside vP). It agrees with the verb (as shown in (13) above), controls PRO (as shown in (23)), binds anaphors (as shown in (28–29)), which raises the question of whether it could not be in [Spec, TP] instead, with the inverted locative (or the inverted predicate DP) occupying an even higher position, as shown in (33).

(33) [TopP [PP my best friend.INSTR]j Top [TP Jan.NOMi [T’ T [vPti is tj] ] ] ]

This representation, however, yields incorrect word order (note the position of the verb); the verb would have to raise to the Top head. This in turn is incompatible with negation and manner adverb placement facts:28

    1. (34)
    1. Polish – locative inversion
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Do
    2. into
    1. pokoju
    2. room
    1. nie
    2. NEG
    1. wszedł
    2. entered
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘Into the room didn’t enter Jan.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Do
    2. into
    1. pokoju
    2. room
    1. szybko
    2. quickly
    1. wszedł
    2. entered
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘Into the room quickly entered Jan.’
    1. (35)
    1. Polish – predicate inversion
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Naszym
    2. our.INSTR
    1. nowym
    2. new.INSTR
    1. szefem
    2. boss.INSTR
    1. nie
    2. NEG
    1. został
    2. became
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. ‘Our new boss didn’t become Jan.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Naszym
    2. our.INSTR
    1. nowym
    2. new.INSTR
    1. szefem
    2. boss.INSTR
    1. szybko
    2. quickly
    1. został
    2. became
    1. Jan.
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. Lit. ‘Our new boss quickly became Jan.’

However, the properties of nominative subjects are not incompatible with them remaining low (inside VP for unaccusatives and in [Spec, vP] for transitives and unergatives) if agreement is a consequence of Agree, T is involved in subject-oriented binding under Agree, and T can act as a proxy controller for PRO under Agree (as in Landau 2000; 2008). This can also handle the lack of inverse scope illustrated in (26–27) above; if TP is the target position for QR (May 1977; 1985), the quantified subject moves there and cannot outscope the (non-reconstructed) locative PP or inverted predicate phrase.29 The low position of the subject can also capture the low scope of the subject with respect to negation; the raised subject in (36a) is scopally ambiguous, whereas the non-raised one in (36b) is not.

    1. (36)
    1. a.
    1. Wielu
    2. many
    1. studentów
    2. students
    1. nie
    2. not
    1. przyszło
    2. came
    1. na
    2. to
    1. wykład.
    2. lecture
    1. ‘Many students didn’t come to the lecture.’                                                            (many > not; ?not > many)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Na
    2. to
    1. wykład
    2. lecture
    1. nie
    2. not
    1. przyszło
    2. came
    1. wielu
    2. many
    1. studentów.
    2. students
    1. ‘Many students didn’t come to the lecture.’                                                            (*?many >not; not > many)

An important question that our derivations for predicate and locative inversion raise, brought to our attention by the reviewers, concerns the EPP feature of T; since nothing occupies the [Spec, TP] position and the inverted predicate and the locative PP do not move through the [Spec, TP] position, the question is how the EPP feature is checked. While we acknowledge this is a potential issue, there are a number of ways it could be resolved. Polish is a canonical pro-drop language, which we take to mean that the strong verbal morphology can “check” the EPP feature (note that the verb does agree with the postverbal subject).30 Alternatively, we could assume that the inverted XP moves through the [Spec, TP] position (however, this would predict that it should reconstruct to this position) or that the EPP is not universal and that Polish does not have the EPP feature (as proposed by Babby 1989 for Russian).31 Yet another logical possibility would be to resort to the presence of a null expletive in [Spec, TP], as proposed by Postal (1977; 2004) and Bruening (2010), among others, for English locative inversion. However, we take the status of null expletives as elements that are both phonologically and semantically empty to be suspect (see also footnote 3).

3.3 Dative, genitive, and accusative DPs

In this section, we show that non-agreeing, non-nominative subject DPs in Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish are not in [Spec TP], following the implications of the Labeling Algorithm. We argue that these DPs move to [Spec, FinP] directly, without stopping in [Spec, TP].32 We focus on dative subjects of the kind illustrated in (37–38) below, in which the subject bears the thematic role of Experiencer and can occur with a Theme or Source DP.33

    1. (37)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Janowi
    2. Jan.DAT
    1. jest
    2. is
    1. żal
    2. sorry
    1. Marii.
    2. Maria.GEN
    1. ‘Jan feels sorry for Maria.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Janowi
    2. Jan.DAT
    1. jest
    2. is
    1. smutno.
    2. sad
    1. ‘Jan is sad.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Janowi
    2. Jan.DAT
    1. podoba
    2. please.3SG.FEM
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. ta
    2. this.NOM
    1. book.NOM
    2. książka.
    1. ‘Jan likes this book.’
    1. (38)
    1. Russian
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Greenberg and Franks (1991: 71)
    1. Emu
    2. he.DAT
    1. žal’
    2. sorry
    1. ètu
    2. that.ACC
    1. devušku.
    2. girl.ACC
    1. ‘He feels sorry for that girl.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ivanu
    2. Ivan.DAT
    1. grustno.
    2. sad
    1. ‘Ivan is sad.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Ivanu
    2. Ivan.DAT
    1. nravitsja
    2. please.3SG.FEM.REFL
    1. èta
    2. this.NOM
    1. kniga.
    2. book.NOM
    1. ‘Ivan likes this book.’

The genitive subjects we discuss here come from the Lithuanian Inferential Evidential (term due to Lavine 2000; see also Gronemeyer 1997; Wiemer 2006; Lavine 2010). This construction conveys a reportative or inferential reading, the verb bears the non-agreeing neuter perfective participial suffix -ma/-ta (glossed as NONAGR in the Lithuanian examples that follow), and the object is nominative, as shown in (39a). Its agreeing counterpart has a nominative subject and an accusative object, as shown in (39b).

    1. (39)
    1. Lithuanian (Aušra Valančiauskienė, p.c.)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Jono
    2. Jonas.GEN
    1. perskaityta
    2. read.PART.NONAGR
    1. visos
    2. all
    1. knygos.
    2. books.NOM
    1. ‘Jonas (apparently) read all the books.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jonas
    2. Jonas.NOM
    1. perskaitė
    2. read.3SG.PAST
    1. visas
    2. all
    1. knygas.
    2. books.ACC
    1. ‘Jonas read all the books.’

Directly contradicting Burzio’s (1986) Generalization, the construction referred to by Babby (1994) as the Adversity Impersonal (AI) is characterized by the presence of an accusative Theme with a non-agreeing verb in the absence of a nominative DP (Babby 1994; Harves 2002; Lavine & Freidin 2002; Markman 2004; Kibort 2008, among others). As the examples in (40) illustrate, these constructions are characterized by adverse events with an implied external causing event.

    1. (40)
    1. a.
    1. Russian (Babby 1994: 25)
    1. Lodku
    2. boat.FEM.ACC
    1. vybrosilo
    2. threw.3SG.NEUT
    1. na
    2. on
    1. skaly
    2. rocks
    1. (volnoj).
    2. wave.INSTR
    1. ‘The boat was thrown on the rocks (by a wave).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Polish (Kibort 2008: 254)
    1. Wyrzuciło
    2. threw.out.3SG.NEUT
    1. łódkę
    2. boat.FEM.ACC
    1. na
    2. onto
    1. brzeg.
    2. shore
    1. ‘The boat got thrown onto the shore.’

While Babby (1994: 58, fn. 22) argues that “bad health” verbs like tošnit’ ‘nauseate’ are different from Adversity Impersonals in that they are “lexically impersonal” (i.e. external arguments of AIs are suppressed), we include these predicates because their accusative subjects behave similarly, following in this respect Markman 2004; Lavine & Franks 2008, among others.34

    1. (41)
    1. a.
    1. Russian
    1. Menja
    2. I.ACC
    1. tošnit.
    2. nauseate.3SG.NEUT
    1. ‘I feel nauseous.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Polish (Kibort 2008: 254)
    1. Mdli/Dusi/Skręca
    2. nauseates/chokes/convulses.3SG.NEUT
    1. mnie
    2. I.ACC
    1. od
    2. from
    1. tego
    2. this
    1. zapachu.
    2. smell
    1. ‘This smell makes me nauseous/choke/convulse.’

We propose that while these three subjects are assigned case in different locations, they all raise to [Spec, FinP] to satisfy the EPP feature on the Finiteness head, as shown in (42). Dative subjects of the kind illustrated in (37) and (38) raise from [Spec, vP], where they are assigned inherent case (Woolford 2006), leaving T free to Probe past the dative subject. The phi-features on T either remain unvalued (as in (37a–b) and (38a–b)), resulting in default non-agreeing morphology (see Preminger 2011 for a more general discussion of the so-called failed agreement), or get valued by the nominative Theme, as in (37c) and (38c).35 The idea that non-nominative “subjects” considered in this section do not move to [Spec, TP] is not unique to our proposal; Livitz (2006) takes them to move to what she dubs “Major Subject” Projection, located between CP and TP (later identified by Wood and Livitz 2012 as AboutnessP).36

    1. (42)

We assume, following Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006), that Fin bears a [+N] feature. Since all three of the XPs that we argue to move to [Spec, FinP] are DPs, the resulting syntactic object is able to be labeled as FinP via the sharing of the [+N] feature. Since these DPs do not occupy [Spec, TP] position, we do not expect them to have the canonical subject properties associated with this position, either because the DP does not stop in [Spec, TP], the locus of these properties, or because the phrase involved in the process is not a TP, but a FinP. In addition, the [Spec, FinP] position is not associated with any Information Structure effects, accounting for their discourse neutral status.37

First, similarly to the PPs and Instrumentals discussed above, these non-nominative DPs do not agree with the verb, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the (b) examples (43–47) below.

    1. (43)
    1. Polish – DAT
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.   Podoba
    2.   please.3SG
    1. mi
    2. I.DAT
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. ta
    2. this
    1. książka.
    2. book.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1.     ‘I like this book.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Podobam
    2.   please.1SG
    1. mi
    2. I.DAT
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. ta
    2. this
    1. książka.
    2. book.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1.     ‘I like this book.’
    1. (44)
    1. Russian – DAT
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.   Emu
    2.   he.DAT
    1. ponravilas’
    2. pleased.3SG.FEM.REFL
    1. èta
    2. this
    1. kniga.
    2. book.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1.     ‘He liked this book.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Emu
    2.   he.DAT
    1. ponravilsja
    2. pleased.3SG.MASC.REFL
    1. èta
    2. this
    1. kniga.
    2. book.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1.     ‘He liked this book.’
    1. (45)
    1. Lithuanian – GEN
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.     Wiemer (2006: 43)
    1.   Mindaugo
    2.   Mindaugas.MASC.GEN
    1. būta
    2. be.PART.NONAGR
    1. žiauraus.
    2. cruel.3SG.MASC.GEN
    1.     ‘Mindaugas is said to have been cruel.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.     Aušra Valančiauskienė (p.c.)
    1. *Mindaugo
    2.   mindaugas.MASC.GEN
    1. buvo
    2. be.3SG.PAST
    1. žiauraus.
    2. cruel.3SG.MASC.GEN
    1.     ‘Mindaugas was cruel.’
    1. (46)
    1. Russian – ACC
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.     Babby (1994: 25)
    1.   Lodku
    2.   boat.3SG.FEM.ACC
    1. vybrosilo
    2. threw.3SG.NEUT
    1. na
    2. on
    1. skaly
    2. rocks
    1. (volnoj).
    2. wave.INSTR
    1.     ‘The boat was thrown on the rocks (by a wave).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.     Olga Zamaraeva (p.c.)
    1. *Lodku
    2.   boat.3SG.FEM.ACC
    1. vybrosila
    2. threw.3SG.FEM
    1. na
    2. on
    1. skaly
    2. rocks
    1. (volnoj).
    2. wave.INSTR
    1.     ‘The boat was thrown on the rocks (by a wave).’
    1. (47)
    1. Polish – ACC38
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.     Kibort (2008: 254)
    1.   Wyrzuciło
    2.   threw-out.3SG.NEUT
    1. łódkę
    2. boat.3SG.FEM.ACC
    1. na
    2. onto
    1. brzeg.
    2. shore
    1.     ‘The boat got thrown onto the shore.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Łódkę
    2.   boat.3SG.FEM.ACC
    1. wyrzuciła
    2. threw.3SG.FEM
    1. na
    2. on
    1. brzeg.
    2. rocks.
    1.     ‘The boat was thrown on the rocks.’

With certain predicates, these subjects can raise retaining their non-nominative case, as in the (b) versions of (48–52) below, showing that they do not move for case related reasons.

    1. (48)
    1. Polish – DAT
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *Maria
    2.   Maria.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1. przestała
    2. stopped.3SG.FEM
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. smutno/wesoło/żal
    2. sad/merry/sorry
    1. Piotra.
    2. Piotr.GEN
    1.     Intended: ‘Maria stopped being sad/happy/sorry for Peter.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Marii
    2.   Maria.3SG.FEM.DAT
    1. przestało
    2. stopped.3SG.NEUT
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. smutno/wesoło/żal
    2. sad/merry/sorry
    1. Piotra.
    2. Piotr.GEN
    1.     ‘Maria stopped being sad/happy/sorry for Peter.’
    1. (49)
    1. Russian – DAT
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *Marija
    2.   Maria.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1. perestala
    2. stopped.SG.FEM
    1. byt’
    2. be.INF
    1. grustno/veselo/žal
    2. sad/merry/sorry.for
    1. Ivana.
    2. Ivan
    1.     Intended: ‘Maria stopped being sad/happy/sorry for Ivan.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Marii
    2.   Maria.3SG.FEM.DAT
    1. perestalo
    2. stopped.3SG.NEUT
    1. byt’
    2. be.INF
    1. grustno/veselo/žal
    2. sad/merry/sorry.for
    1. Ivana.
    2. Ivan
    1.     ‘Maria stopped being sad/happy/sorry for Ivan.’
    1. (50)
    1. Lithuanian – GEN
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.     Aušra Valančiauskienė (p.c.)
    1. *Jis
    2.   he.NOM
    1. pasirodo
    2. seemed.3SG
    1. ištaisyta
    2. correct.PAST.PASS.NONAGR
    1. klaidos.
    2. mistakes.NOM
    1.     ‘He seemed to correct the mistakes.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.     Lavine (2000: 213; citing Schmalstieg 1988: 185)
    1.   Jo
    2.   he.GEN
    1. pasirodyta
    2. seemed.NONAGR
    1. didvyrio.
    2. hero.GEN
    1.     ‘He seemed (to be) a hero.’
    1. (51)
    1. Russian – ACC
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.     Olga Zamaraeva (p.c.)
    1. *Marija
    2.   Maria.3SG.FEM.NOM
    1. perestala
    2. stopped.3SG.FEM
    1. tošnit’.
    2. nauseate.INF
    1.     ‘Maria stopped feeling nauseous.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.     Williams 2006: 420; citing Babby 2004)
    1.   Menja
    2.   I.ACC
    1. perestalo
    2. stopped.3SG.NEUT
    1. tošnit’.
    2. nauseate.INF
    1.     ‘I stopped feeling nauseous.’
    1. (52)
    1. Polish – ACC
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *Ja
    2.   I.NOM
    1. przestałem
    2. stopped.1SG.MASC
    1. mdlić.
    2. nauseate.INF
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Mnie
    2.   I.ACC
    1. przestało
    2. stopped.3SG.NEUT
    1. mdlić.
    2. nauseate.INF
    1.     ‘I stopped feeling nauseous.’

In the case of the raising predicate ‘seem’ in Polish (wydawać się) and Russian (kazat’sja), a dative DP cannot be raised with the interpretation that it is the subject of the embedded clause. As one of the reviewers points out, the only reading possible in (53) is the one in which Jan perceives something else (i.e. null ‘it’) to be sad.

    1. (53)
    1.   Janowii
    2.   Jan.DAT
    1. wydawało
    2. seemed.3SG.NEUT
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. [ ti
    2.  
    1. być
    2. be.INF
    1. smutno/wesoło].
    2. sad/merry
    1.   *Intended: ‘Jan seemed to feel sad/happy.’
    2.     ‘It seemed to Jan that it was sad.’

Bondaruk and Szymanek (2007) show that an additional dative Experiencer in the matrix clause is unacceptable, taking it to indicate that the matrix dative DP receives its Experiencer thematic role from the predicate wydawać się ‘seem’.

    1. (54)
    1. Polish (Bondaruk and Szymanek 2007: 21)
    1. Markowi
    2. Mark.DAT
    1. wydawało
    2. seemed.3SG.NEUT
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. (*nam)
    2. (*we.DAT)
    1. [być
    2. be.INF
    1. smutno/żal,
    2. sad/sorry
    1. że
    2. that
    1. przegrał].
    2. lost.3SG.MASC
    1. ‘Mark seemed to us to feel sad/sorry that he had lost.’

In the case of Russian, our consultants report that the sentence in (55) is grammatical only with a parenthetical intonation on kazat’sja ‘seem’.

    1. (55)
    1. Russian – DAT (Olga Zamaraeva & Marina Oganyan, p.c.)
    1. Emui/*oni
    2. he.DAT/*NOM
    1. kažetsja
    2. seems.3SG.REFL
    1. [ ti
    2.  
    1. grustno].
    2. sad
    1. ‘He seems sad.’

We take the facts in (48–55) to indicate that non-nominative DPs do not undergo raising. This follows from our analysis because these subjects are in [Spec, FinP], and as argued above for TopP, FinP is too large to be embedded under raising predicates that select a non-finite TP.

Next, the ungrammaticality of (56a) and (57a) shows that dative subjects cannot undergo ECM even when dative or accusative case is retained.

    1. (56)
    1. Polish – DAT
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *Zobaczyłam
    2.   saw.1SG
    1. [Jana/Janowi
    2. Jan.ACC/Jan.DAT
    1. smutno].
    2. sad
    1.     ‘I saw Jan sad.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Zobaczyłam
    2.   saw.1SG
    1. [Jana
    2. Jan.ACC
    1. w
    2. in
    1. sklepie].
    2. store
    1.     ‘I saw Jan in the store.’
    1. (57)
    1. Russian – DAT (Olga Zamaraeva, p.c.)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *Ja
    2.   I.NOM
    1. sčitaju
    2. consider.1SG
    1. [Ivana/Ivanu
    2. Ivan.ACC/Ivan.DAT
    1. grustno].
    2. sad
    1.     ‘I consider Ivan sad.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Ja
    2.   I.NOM
    1. sčitaju
    2. consider.1SG
    1. [Ivana
    2. Ivan.ACC
    1. grustnym].
    2. sad.SG.MASC.INSTR
    1.     ‘I consider Ivan a sad person.’

It is impossible to test whether Adversity Impersonals behave analogously with respect to ECM, as object raising with ECM verbs like sčitat’/uważać ‘consider’ is only possible with subjects of small clauses.

Furthermore, these non-nominative subjects cannot be omitted in coordinate structures when the antecedent is a nominative subject, even if they share the same thematic role (e.g. Experiencer).

    1. (58)
    1. Polish – DAT (Dziwirek 1994: 140)
    1. Janek
    2. John.NOM
    1. lubił
    2. liked
    1. wszystkie
    2. all
    1. koleżanki,
    2. friends
    1. ale
    2. but
    1. Ewa
    2. Ewa.NOM
    1. szczególnie
    2. especially
    1. *(mu)
    2. he.DAT
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. podobała.
    2. pleased.3SG.FEM
    1. ‘John liked all of his friends, but he especially liked Eva.’
    1. (59)
    1. Russian – DAT (Olga Zamaraeva, p.c.)
    1. Ivan
    2. Ivan.NOM
    1. nenavidil
    2. hated
    1. vsex
    2. all
    1. svoix
    2. self’s
    1. druzej,
    2. friends
    1. no
    2. but
    1. Eva
    2. Eva.NOM
    1. ???(emu)
    2. he.DAT
    1. nravilas’.
    2. pleased.3SG.FEM
    1. ‘Ivan hated all of his friends, but he liked Eva.’
    1. (60)
    1. Lithuanian – GEN (Aušra Valančiauskienė, p.c.)
    1. Jonas
    2. Jonas.NOM
    1. nusipirko
    2. bought
    1. šimtą
    2. hundred
    1. knygų
    2. books
    1. ir
    2. and
    1. *(jo)
    2. he.GEN
    1. perskaityta
    2. read.PART.-NONAGR
    1. visos.
    2. all.NOM
    1. ‘Jonas bought himself one hundred books, and apparently read them all.
    1. (61)
    1. Polish – ACC
    1. Jan
    2. Jan.NOM
    1. powąchał
    2. smelled.3SG.MASC
    1. danie
    2. dish
    1. i
    2. and
    1. zemdliło
    2. nauseated.3SG.NEUT
    1. *(go)
    2. he.ACC
    1. od
    2. from
    1. zapachu.
    2. smell
    1. ‘Jan smelled the dish and got nauseated from the smell.’
    1. (62)
    1. Russian – ACC
    1. Ivan
    2. Ivan.NOM
    1. deržil
    2. held.3SG.MASC
    1. rybu
    2. fish
    1. i
    2. and
    1. *(ego)
    2. he.ACC
    1. stošnilo
    2. nauseated.3SG.NEUT
    1. ot
    2. from
    1. zapaxa.
    2. smell
    1. ‘Ivan held the fish and got nauseated from the smell.’

Interestingly, the dative can remain unpronounced when the antecedent is also a dative subject, as shown in (63–64).

    1. (63)
    1. Russian – DAT (Olga Zamaraeva, p.c.)
    1. Ivanu
    2. Ivan.DAT
    1. nravilis’
    2. pleased.3PL
    1. vse
    2. all
    1. ego
    2. his
    1. druz’ja,
    2. friends.NOM
    1. no
    2. but
    1. Eva
    2. Eva.NOM
    1. osobenno
    2. especially
    1. (emu)
    2. he.DAT
    1. nravilas’.
    2. pleased.3SG.FEM
    1. ‘Ivan liked all of his friends, but he liked Eva.’
    1. (64)
    1. Polish – DAT
    1. Janowi
    2. John.DAT
    1. podobały
    2. pleased.3PL.NONVIR
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. wszystkie
    2. all
    1. koleżanki,
    2. friends.NOM
    1. ale
    2. but
    1. Ewa
    2. Ewa.NOM
    1. szczególnie
    2. especially
    1. (mu)
    2. he.DAT
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. podobała.
    2. pleased.3SG.FEM
    1. ‘John liked all of his friends, but he especially liked Eva.’

This indicates that for coordination reduction to be licensed there must be case identity between the omitted subject and the antecedent (see also McShane 2005 for the role of case matching in ellipsis, and Bondaruk & Szymanek 2007: 22 for a discussion of Polish non-verbal psych predicates).

As discussed by Dziwirek (1994) for Polish dative subjects and Williams (2006) for Russian Adversity Impersonals and illustrated in (65–69), these non-nominative DPs cannot be controlled. These examples show that PRO cannot surface in the position occupied by non-nominative subjects.39

    1. (65)
    1.     Polish – DAT (Dziwirek 1994: 140)
    1. *Janek
    2.   Janek.NOM
    1. chce
    2. want.3SG
    1. [TP PRO.DAT
    2.  
    1. podobać
    2. please.INF
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. amerykańskie
    2. American
    1. filmy].
    2. films.NOM
    1.     ‘Janek wants to like American movies.’
    1. (66)
    1.     Russian – DAT (Williams 2006: 419)
    1. *Saša
    2.   Sasha.NOM
    1. xočet
    2. want.3SG
    1. [TP PRO.DAT
    2.  
    1. nravit’sja
    2. please.INF
    1. deti].
    2. children.NOM
    1.     ‘Sasha wants to like the children.’
    1. (67)
    1.     Lithuanian – GEN (Aušra Valančiauskienė, p.c.)
    1. *Mokytojas
    2.   teacher.NOM
    1. norėjo
    2. wanted.3SG
    1. [TP PRO.GEN
    2.  
    1. ištaisyta
    2. correct.PAST.-NONAGR
    1. klaidos].
    2. mistakes.NOM
    1.     ‘The teacher wanted to apparently correct the mistakes.’
    1. (68)
    1.     Russian – ACC (Williams 2006: 419)
    1. *Ja
    2.   I.NOM
    1. ne
    2. not
    1. xoču
    2. want.1SG
    1. [TP PRO.ACC
    2.  
    1. ubit’
    2. kill.INF
    1. oskolkom
    2. shard.INSTR
    1. plity].
    2. concrete.GEN
    1.     ‘I don’t want to be killed with a shard of concrete.’
    1. (69)
    1.     Polish – ACC
    1. *Ja
    2.   I.NOM
    1. nie
    2. not
    1. chcę
    2. want.1SG
    1. [TP PRO.ACC
    2.  
    1. mdlić].
    2. nauseate.INF
    1.     ‘I don’t want to nauseate.’

Next, we highlight other canonical subject properties that non-nominative subjects lack. First, in contrast with nominative subjects, neither dative subjects in Polish nor genitive subjects in Lithuanian can be dropped, even though Polish and Lithuanian are pro-drop languages, as shown by Dziwirek (1994) for Polish. This is exemplified in (70) for Polish and (71) for Lithuanian.

    1. (70)
    1. Polish – DAT (Dziwirek 1994: 139)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. (Ona)
    2. she.NOM
    1. chciała
    2. wanted
    1. cukierków.
    2. candy.GEN.PL
    1. ‘She wanted candy.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Zachciało
    2. wanted
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. *(jej)
    2. she.DAT
    1. cukierków.
    2. candy.GEN.PL
    1. ‘She felt like having candy.’
    1. (71)
    1. Lithuanian – GEN (Aušra Valančiauskienė, p.c.)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.   (Jis)
    2.   he.NOM
    1. ištaikė
    2. corrected
    1. klaidas.
    2. mistakes.ACC
    1.     ‘He corrected the mistakes.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *(Jo)
    2.   he.GEN
    1. ištaisyta
    2. correct.PART.NONAGR
    1. klaidos.
    2. mistakes.NOM
    1.     ‘He apparently corrected the mistakes.’

The accusative of the Polish Adversity Impersonal also cannot be dropped:40

    1. (72)
    1.     Polish – ACC
    1. #Mdli/Dusi
    2.   nauseate/chokes
    1. (od
    2. (from
    1. tego
    2. this
    1. zapachu).
    2. smell)
    1.     ‘It nauseates me from this smell.’

Dziwirek (1994) also observes that dative subjects require resumptive pronouns in subject relative clauses, as shown in (73a). By contrast, resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in relative clauses with nominative subjects, as shown in (73b).

    1. (73)
    1. Polish – DAT (Dziwirek 1994: 140)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Ta
    2. the
    1. kobieta,
    2. woman
    1. co
    2. COMP
    1. *(jej)
    2. she.DAT
    1. jest
    2. is
    1. zimno.
    2. cold
    1. ‘The woman who is cold.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ta
    2. this
    1. kobieta
    2. woman
    1. co
    2. COMP
    1. (*ona)
    2. she.NOM
    1. przyszła.
    2. arrived.3SG.FEM
    1. ‘The woman that arrived.’

Like the dative subject, the accusative argument in an Adversity Impersonal Construction requires a resumptive pronoun in Polish when it is relativized:

    1. (74)
    1. Polish – ACC
    1. Pacjentka
    2. patient
    1. co
    2. COMP
    1. *(ją)
    2.   she.ACC
    1. mdli/dusi.
    2. nauseates/chokes
    1. ‘The patient that is nauseated/choking.’

Since Rappaport (1986), anaphor binding has been a traditional subjecthood diagnostic in Slavic.4142 If this is right, the pattern of anaphor binding by these non-nominative DPs would seem to indicate that (at least some of them) would have to occupy [Spec, TP]. However, recent work by Nikolaeva (2014) calls into question the conclusion that the ability to bind anaphors correlates with [Spec, TP] position.

Starting with dative subjects, experiencers of psychological verbs, given in (75), are generally unable to bind anaphoric pronouns like the determiner swój/svoj ‘self’s’.43

    1. (75)
    1. a.
    1. Polish
    1. Dziewczyncei
    2. girl.DAT
    1. nie
    2. NEG
    1. podobał
    2. pleased
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. jeji/*?swóji
    2. her/self’s
    1. sweter.
    2. sweater.NOM
    1. ‘The girl didn’t like her sweater.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Russian
    1. Devuškei
    2. girl.DAT
    1. ne
    2. NEG
    1. nravitsja
    2. please.3SG.REFL
    1. i/*?svoji
    2. her/self’s
    1. sviter.
    2. sweater.NOM
    1. ‘The girl doesn’t like her sweater.’

Dative subjects of Russian infinitival constructions, on the other hand, are able to bind reflexives (Franks 1995; Moore & Perlmutter 2000, among others).

    1. (76)
    1. Russian
    1. Emui
    2. he.DAT
    1. ne
    2. NEG
    1. opublikovat’
    2. publish.INF
    1. svoeji
    2. self’s
    1. stat’ji.
    2. paper.ACC
    1. ‘It’s not in the cards for him to publish his paper.’

Furthermore, dative subjects of non-verbal psych predicates like žal’ ‘sorry’ can bind either the reflexive or pronominal determiner:

    1. (77)
    1. a.
    1. Russian
    1. Emui
    2. he.DAT
    1. žal’
    2. sorry
    1. svojui/egoi
    2. self’s/his
    1. sem’ju.
    2. family.ACC
    1. ‘He feels sorry for his family.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Polish (Dziwirek 1994: 135)
    1. Było
    2. was.3SG.NEUT
    1. mui
    2. he.DAT
    1. wstyd
    2. shame
    1. za
    2. for
    1. swojąi/jegoi
    2. self’s/his
    1. siostrę.
    2. sister.ACC
    1. ‘He was ashamed for his sister.’

Anaphor binding by the preverbal accusative DP of the Adversity Impersonal is ungrammatical (Slioussar 2011; Nikolaeva 2014):44

    1. (78)
    1. a.
    1. Russian
    1. Matrosai
    2. sailor.ACC
    1. ubilo
    2. killed.3SG.NEUT
    1. posle
    2. after
    1. egoi/*svoeji
    2. his/self’s
    1. vaxty.
    2. watch
    1. ‘A/the sailor was killed after his watch.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Polish
    1. Marynarzai
    2. sailor.ACC
    1. zabiło
    2. killed.3SG.NEUT
    1. po
    2. after
    1. jegoi/*swojeji
    2. his/self’s
    1. wachcie.
    2. watch
    1. ‘A/the sailor was killed after his watch.’

And finally, Lavine (2000; 2010) notes that the genitive subject in Lithuanian can bind anaphors:

    1. (79)
    1. Lithuanian (Lavine 2010: 126)
    1. Motinosi
    2. mother.GEN
    1. sudeginta
    2. burned-down.PART.NONAGR
    1. savoi
    2. self’s
    1. namas.
    2. house.NOM
    1. ‘Mother apparently burned down her own house.’

The fact that these subjects can bind pronouns is what distinguishes them from nominative subjects. In Slavic and Baltic, Principle B effect is triggered when a nominative subject is co-indexed with a pronominal possessive determiner. Crucially, dative subjects do not show this “anti-subject” effect, as shown by the contrast between the a and b examples in (80–81).4546

    1. (80)
    1. Russian
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *?Ivani
    2.     Ivan.NOM
    1. ljubit
    2. love.3SG
    1. egoi
    2. his
    1. knigu.
    2. book.ACC
    1.      ‘Ivan loves his book.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.     Ivanui
    2.     Ivan.DAT
    1. nravitsja
    2. please.3SG.REFL
    1. egoi
    2. his
    1. kniga.
    2. book.NOM
    1.      ‘Ivan likes his book.’
    1. (81)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *Jani
    2.   Jan.NOM
    1. lubi
    2. like.3SG
    1. jegoi
    2. his
    1. książkę.
    2. book.ACC
    1.     ‘Jan likes his book.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Janowii
    2.   Jan.DAT
    1. podobała
    2. pleased.3SG.FEM
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. jegoi
    2. his
    1. książka.
    2. book.NOM
    1.     ‘Jan liked his book.’

Nikolaeva (2014) proposes that the ability to bind anaphors depends on the configuration of the DP antecedent and the pronoun/anaphor, wherein pronouns and anaphors are indexes that covertly raise to certain positions. As the tree below shows, in her system, an index can first tuck in as an inner specifier of VP, and then optionally undergo head movement first to v and then to T.

(82) Nikolaeva (2014: 57)
 

In (83) below, the pronoun covertly raises to T past the dative experiencer in [Spec, vP], avoiding a Principle B violation.47

    1. (83)
    1. Russian (Nikolaeva 2014: 63)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Vanei
    2. Vanja.DAT
    1. nravjatsja
    2. please.3PL
    1. egoi
    2. his
    1. kollegi.
    2. colleagues.NOM
    1. ‘Vanja likes his colleagues.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [TP [T + ego] [vP Vanei nravjatsja {indexi} kollegi]]

Nikolaeva’s Principle II states that indexes adjoined to a projection headed by D, v, or T are realized as reflexives when they are c-commanded by a co-indexed specifier (Nikolaeva 2014: 68). If an index’s position at Spell-out does not meet the conditions that trigger reflexivization, it is pronounced as a pronoun (see also footnote 49). The example in (84a) is ungrammatical because, as (84b) shows, the index will only be realized as svoj ‘self’s’, and never as ego ‘his’, by Principle II.

    1. (84)
    1. Russian (Nikolaeva 2014: 63)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. ?*Vanjai
    2.     Vanja.NOM
    1. ljubit
    2. loves.3SG
    1. egoi
    2. his
    1. kollegi.
    2. colleagues.ACC
    1.      ‘Vanja loves his colleagues.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.      [TP Vanjai [T + svoix] [vP ljubit {indexi} kollegi]]

The optionality with the dative experiencers in (77) is accounted for in her system by assuming that the raising index (i.e. the un-spelled out pronoun or reflexive) can head-move from its position in VP to v and then to T or remain adjoined to v.48 If the index is adjoined to T as in (83) above, the index will be spelled out as ego ‘his’; if it stays adjoined to v, it will be spelled out as the reflexive svoj.49 Under this proposal, the accusative in the Adversity Impersonal in (78) above is unable to bind an anaphor simply because, by the time Principle A/B is evaluated, the index will have moved beyond the accusative in the VP.50 Nikolaeva (2014) follows Moore and Perlmutter (2000) in asserting that the dative subject of the infinitival construction is assigned dative case by a non-finite T. She relies on this to account for the grammaticality of anaphor binding by these subjects, under the assumption that DPs that receive case from T are eligible binders for reflexives. We modify this assumption and propose that the dative subject in infinitival constructions of the kind given in (85) actually receives case from the Fin head.51

    1. (85)
    1. Russian
    1. Emui
    2. he.DAT
    1. ne
    2. NEG
    1. opublikovat’
    2. publish.INF
    1. svoeji
    2. self’s
    1. stat’ji.
    2. paper.GEN
    1. ‘It’s not in the cards for him to publish his paper.’

Thus, any subject assigned structural case sufficiently high in the clause (of which the dative in the infinitive construction is one example) is eligible to bind anaphors. We extend this explanation to genitive subjects of the Lithuanian Inferential Evidential, assimilating them to gerunds and treating the genitive as structural case assigned by D. This analysis of –ta/-ma as the phonological form of a “little” n follows from its historical role as a deverbalizing morpheme and is an update of Nuñes’s (1994) proposal that the genitive case in these constructions assigned by a [+N] head. The DP denoting the event under consideration is selected by a null, non-agreeing T.52

    1. (86)
    1. Lithuanian
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Aušra Valančiauskienė (p.c.)
    1. Jono
    2. Jonas.GEN
    1. perskaityta
    2. read.PART.NONAGR
    1. visos
    2. all
    1. knygos.
    2. books.NOM
    1. ‘Jonas apparently read all the books.’
    1.  
    1. b.

Lavine (2000) argues that these constructions are not passive but assumes that the source of the genitive case on the subject is not structural, but ergative due to the similarity between this construction and the perfective constructions found in split-ergative languages like Hindi.53 There are, however, three reasons to think that these subjects are assigned genitive case structurally by D. For one, first and second person pronouns in the Inferential Evidential construction have the same form as possessive pronominal pronouns, as shown in (87) and (88).54

    1. (87)
    1. Lithuanian – Inferential Evidential
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Gronemeyer (1997: 107)
    1. Mano
    2. I.GEN
    1. sergma!?
    2. sick.PART.NONAGR
    1. ‘Evidently I am sick!?’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Eglė Žurauskaitė (p.c.)
    1. Tavo
    2. you.GEN
    1. būta
    2. be.PART.NONAGR
    1. čia!
    2. here
    1. ‘(Evidently) you are here!’
    1. (88)
    1. Lithuanian – Possessive GEN (Tananevičius 1912: 60)
    1. Tavo
    2. your
    1. tėvas
    2. father.NOM
    1. yra
    2. is.3SG
    1. mano
    2. my
    1. dėdė.
    2. uncle.NOM
    1. ‘Your father is my uncle.’

Second, unlike inherent cases, the genitive assigned in this construction can be overridden by the Genitive of Negation (GoN), the case assigned to objects and unaccusative subjects in the scope of negation in Baltic and Slavic languages (see Pesetsky 1982; Bailyn 1997; Borschev & Partee 2002; Harves 2002; Irwin 2012; Kagan 2012; Anderson 2013, among others).55 First and second person genitive object pronouns have the form manęs/tavęs ‘me/you’, as shown in (89a) for the intensional genitive (see Kagan 2012 and the references therein for discussion of intensional genitives). This is also the form that first and second person subject pronouns take when they are assigned the Genitive of Negation, as shown in (89b, c).

    1. (89)
    1. Lithuanian
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Intensional GEN (http://jezus.lt/kuryba/giedam-tau/)
    1. Laukia
    2. waits.3SG
    1. tavęs
    2. you.GEN
    1. ir
    2. and
    1. manęs.
    2. me.GEN
    1. ‘(He) waits for you and me.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. GEN of Negation (old.menoparkas.lt/lt/straipsniai-lt/444-eglė-ulčickaitė-laikinos-vietos-kol-manęs-čia-nebuvo.html)
    1. Kol
    2. while
    1. manęs
    2. I.GEN
    1. čia
    2. here
    1. nebuvo.
    2. not.be.3.PAST
    1. ‘While I wasn’t here.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. GEN of Negation (https://www.svajoniuknygos.lt/judithmcnaught-kol-nebuvo-taves)
    1. Kol
    2. while
    1. nebuvo
    2. not.be3.PAST
    1. tavęs.
    2. you.GEN
    1. ‘While you weren’t (here).’

The Inferential Evidential construction can participate in the Genitive of Negation alternation, as shown in (90), which is not expected if the genitive were inherent.

    1. (90)
    1. Lithuanian (http://www.satenai.lt/2011/04/22/tetele-janyte-teta-janina/)
    1. Tai
    2. that
    1. pasaulis,
    2. world
    1. kuriame
    2. which.LOC
    1. dar
    2. yet
    1. tavęs
    2. you.GEN
    1. nebūta…
    2. not.be.PART.NONAGR
    1. ‘That world, in which you (apparently) weren’t yet…’

And finally, Inferential Evidentials are possible with unaccusatives, with the subjects also marked genitive, which shows that this genitive is not correlated with a specific thematic role (see Germain 2017 for more discussion in favor of this analysis):56

    1. (91)
    1. Lithuanian (Lavine 2010: 124)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Čia
    2. here
    1. turbūt
    2. evidently
    1. ir
    2. even
    1. gribų
    2. mushrooms.GEN
    1. esama.
    2. be.PART.NONAGR
    1. ‘There must be mushrooms here.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ledo
    2. ice.GEN
    1. staiga
    2. suddenly
    1. ištirpta.
    2. melted.PART.NONAGR
    1. ‘The ice must have suddenly melted.’

To account for the fact that the genitive subject has the same form as possessors, can be assigned Genitive of Negation, and shows a full spectrum of thematic roles, we argue that the subject of an Inferential Evidential is assigned structural genitive in [Spec, DP]. This also explains why it can bind reflexives (see example (79) above), as in this position the genitive can c-command an index which has tucked in below it; by Nikolaeva’s (2014) Principle II, this position is a reflexivization site and the index is spelled out as a reflexive. Dative subjects of infinitives are similar in this respect (see example (85)); they are assigned structural case in a high position in the clausal structure (i.e. [Spec, FinP]). This is what allows them to bind reflexives in contrast to other DPs (e.g. dative experiencers and accusatives of Adversity Impersonals) that just move to such a position for other non-case related reasons. In other words, these non-nominative DPs vary in their status as eligible binders of anaphors, but this is not a reflection of their position in [Spec, TP]. Rather, it is a reflection of their case position with respect to the position of the raised pronoun/reflexive.57

This concludes our survey of the properties of the three types of non-nominative “subjects” (dative, accusative, and genitive ones) that distinguish them from canonical nominative subjects. We have shown that, with respect to verbal agreement, anaphor binding, subject-to-subject raising, ECM, conjunction reduction and control, these preverbal DPs do not pattern with nominative subjects. We have also shown that despite the fact that some of them can bind reflexives, a fine-grained theory of reflexive and anaphoric binding in Nikolaeva (2014) accounts for these data without placing the non-nominative “subjects” in [Spec, TP]. We have also discussed the differences between the two types of subjects in their ability to be dropped and occur without a resumptive pronoun. We have linked all these differences to a derivation in which the non-nominative subject skips the [Spec, TP] position and moves directly to [Spec, FinP].

Our discussion may lead one to believe that there should be no cases of non-nominative non-agreeing DPs in [Spec, TP] exhibiting subject properties. In the next section, we examine two types of non-nominative non-agreeing subjects that have been argued to occupy [Spec, TP] position and show how that can be derived in our system.

4 Extensions

4.1 Icelandic

Our system leaves open the possibility that non-nominative subjects which become involved in Agree with some probe on T can move to its specifier position. In languages in which T is “strong” enough to label (perhaps via partial agreement the quirky subject), the quirky subject may remain [Spec, TP]. This seems plausible for languages like Icelandic, whose non-nominative subjects have been documented to be quite different from the Slavic subjects (see Andrews 1976; Thráinsson 1979; Zaenen, Maling & Thráinsson 1985; Sigurðsson 1989; 2002, among others). First, these Icelandic quirky subjects can be controlled:

    1. (92)
    1. Icelandic (Sigurðsson 2002: 694)
    1. Ég
    2. I.DAT
    1. vonaðist
    2. hoped
    1. til
    2. for
    1. to
    1.  
    2. PRO.DAT
    1. verdða
    2. be
    1. hjálpað.
    2. helped
    1. ‘I hoped to be helped.’

Second, they can be deleted in coordinate constructions:

    1. (93)
    1. Icelandic (Sigurðsson 2002: 694)
    1. Ég
    2. I.NOM
    1. hafði
    2. had
    1. mikið
    2. much
    1. to
    1. gera
    2. do
    1. og
    2. and
    1. (mér)
    2. I.DAT
    1. var
    2. was
    1. samt
    2. nonetheless
    1. ekki
    2. NEG
    1. hjálpað.
    2. helped
    1. ‘I had much to do, and was nonetheless not helped.’

Third, they can bind anaphors:

    1. (94)
    1. Icelandic (Zaenen, Maling & Thráinsson 1985: 450)
    1. Hennii
    2. she.DAT
    1. þykir
    2. thinks
    1. [bróðir
    2. brother.NOM
    1. sinni]
    2. self’s
    1. leiðinlegur.
    2. boring
    1. ‘Shei thinks heri brother boring.’

And fourth, they are fine in ECM constructions:

    1. (95)
    1. Icelandic (Williams 2002: 82; citing Andrews 1982)
    1. Hann
    2. He
    1. telur
    2. believes
    1. barninu
    2. the-child.DAT
    1. (i
    2. (in
    1. barnaskap
    2. his
    1. sinum)
    2. foolishness)
    1. hafa
    2. have.INF
    1. batnað
    2. recovered‑from
    1. veikin.
    2. the‑disease.NOM
    1. ‘He believes the child (in his foolishness) to have recovered from the disease.’

This has led many researchers to conclude that dative subjects in Icelandic occupy [Spec, TP] (Zaenen, Maling & Thráinsson 1985; Poole 2015; Wood 2015, for example). We maintain this view, and take Icelandic subjects to occupy a lower position than the Slavic ones, following in this respect Williams (2002) and Baker (2008).5859 The questions for our analysis is thus what allows Icelandic quirky subjects (unlike their Polish, Russian, and Lithuanian counterparts) to remain in [Spec, TP], and how the resulting syntactic object is labeled. To address these questions, we would like to point to another property of Icelandic that distinguishes it from the languages we consider, discussed by Baker (2008): the Person Case Constraint (PCC), illustrated in (96a–b).6061

    1. (96)
    1. a.
    1.     Icelandic (Baker 2008: 88; citing Taraldsen 1995: 309)
    1. *Henni
    2.   she.DAT
    1. leiddumst
    2. was.bored.by.1PL.PAST
    1. við.
    2. we.NOM
    1.     ‘She was bored with us.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.     Polish
    1.   Jej
    2.   she.DAT
    1. my-ńmy
    2. we.NOM-1PL
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. już
    2. already
    1. znudzili.
    2. bored.PL.VIR
    1.     ‘She was already bored with us/We already bored her.’

PCC effects have commonly been analyzed to involve special patterns of agreement between T and the DPs in its probing domain (see Anagnostopoulou 2003; Rezac 2003; Richards 2008a).62 In these accounts, T agrees in person with the quirky subject, and probes again for number. Since T has already agreed with the quirky subject for person, it cannot agree again with the object for the same feature (i.e. person feature). We take the first instance of Agree (Agree between the quirky subject and T) to be the crucial difference between Icelandic and Slavic-type quirky subjects, and hypothesize that this Agree makes Icelandic T strong enough to label the TP.

4.2 (Accusative) numeral subjects in Polish

The second case study involves Polish numeral subject constructions in which the numeral is 5 and/or higher (see Rutkowski 2007; Miechowicz-Mathiasen 2012; Willim 2015; Witkoś & Dziubała-Szrejbrowska 2016; among many others). What is interesting about them (and relevant for us) is that the numeral is accusative and triggers default agreement on the verb:63

    1. (97)
    1. Polish
    1. Osiem
    2. eight.ACC
    1. studentek
    2. students.GEN
    1. wyszło
    2. left.3SG.NEUT
    1. z
    2. from
    1. sali.
    2. hall
    1. ‘Eight students left the hall.’

The evidence that the numeral is accusative, discussed by Franks (1994; 1995) and Przepiórkowski (1999; 2004), comes from morphological considerations; the case form on the agreeing demonstrative is accusative not nominative, as shown in (98):

    1. (98)
    1. Polish
    1. Tych/*ci
    2. these.ACC/*NOM
    1. pięciu
    2. five.ACC
    1. mężczyzn
    2. men.GEN
    1. stało.
    2. stood.3SG.NEUT
    1. ‘These five men were standing.’

An additional argument for the subject being accusative comes from the fact that it can be coordinated with the accusative argument of adversity predicates (Lavine & Franks 2008):

    1. (99)
    1. Polish
    1. Tych/ci*
    2. these.ACC/*NOM
    1. pięciu
    2. five.ACC
    1. harcerzy
    2. boy-scouts.GEN
    1. i
    2. and
    1. tamtą
    2. that.ACC
    1. harcerkę
    2. girl-scout.ACC
    1. zemdliło
    2. nauseated.3SG.NEUT
    1. po
    2. after
    1. ńniadaniu.
    2. breakfast.
    1. ‘These five scouts and that girl scout felt nausea after breakfast.’

What is relevant (and somewhat unexpected from our perspective) is that these high numeral subjects meet all the subjecthood diagnostics, other than being marked nominative and agreeing with the verb. First, they can bind anaphors:

    1. (100)
    1. Polish
    1. Ońmiu
    2. eight.ACC
    1. robotnikówi
    2. workers.GEN
    1. oddało
    2. returned.3SG.NEUT
    1. swojei/ich*i,j
    2. self’s/their
    1. klucze.
    2. keys
    1. ‘Eight workers returned their keys.’

Second, they can be successfully coordinated with nominative subjects:

    1. (101)
    1. Polish
    1. Zosia
    2. Zosia.NOM
    1. i
    2. and
    1. pięć
    2. five.ACC
    1. harcerek
    2. girl-scouts.GEN
    1. poszły
    2. went.3PL.NONVIR
    1. na
    2. for
    1. spacer.
    2. walk.
    1. ‘Zosia and five girl-scouts went for a walk.’

In this respect, they differ from dative subjects, which cannot be coordinated with nominatives:

    1. (102)
    1.   Polish
    1. *Zosia
    2.   Zosia.NOM
    1. i
    2. and
    1. Tomkowi
    2. Tomek.DAT
    1. było
    2. was.3SG.NEUT
    1. zimno.
    2. cold
    1. ‘Zosia and Tomek were cold.’

Third, they can undergo subject-to-subject raising:64

    1. (103)
    1. Polish
    1. Osiem
    2. eight.ACC
    1. robotnic
    2. workers.GEN
    1. zdawało
    2. seemed.3SG.NEUT
    1. się
    2. REFL
    1. mylić
    2. confuse.INF
    1. dwa
    2. two
    1. rodzaje
    2. types
    1. blachy.
    2. steel.sheets
    1. ‘Eight workers seemed to confuse two types of steel sheets.’

Fourth, they can act as controllers, just like nominative subjects:

    1. (104)
    1. Polish
    1. Ońmiu
    2. eight.ACC
    1. chłopcówi
    2. boys.GEN
    1. chciało
    2. wanted.3SG.NEUT
    1. PROi
    2.  
    1. grać
    2. play.INF
    1. w
    2. in
    1. siatkówkę.
    2. volleyball
    1. ‘Eight boys wanted to play volleyball.’

Next, just like nominative subjects, they do not allow resumptive pronouns in relative clauses introduced by the complementizer co:

    1. (105)
    1. Polish
    1. Te
    2. these.ACC
    1. siedem
    2. seven.ACC
    1. studenteki
    2. students.GEN
    1. co
    2. COMP
    1. (*onei)
    2. they.NOM/ACC
    1. poszło
    2. went.3SG.NEUT
    1. do
    2. to
    1. dziekana
    2. dean
    1. miało
    2. had.3SG.NEUT
    1. dobre
    2. good
    1. oceny.
    2. marks
    1. ‘The seven students that went to the dean had good marks.’

Furthermore, both are marked with structural cases, as they both can be assigned genitive under negation in the existential construction, as shown in (106a–b) for nominative subjects and in (107a–b) for accusative ones (Franks 1994; 1995; Witkoś 1998; 2004; Przepiórkowski 1999; Błaszczak 2001):

    1. (106)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Pracownice
    2. employees.NOM
    1. były
    2. were.3PL.NONVIR
    1. przy
    2. at
    1. biurkach.
    2. desks
    1. ‘(Female) employees were at their desks.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Pracownic
    2. employees.GEN
    1. nie
    2. NEG
    1. było
    2. was.3SG.NEUT
    1. przy
    2. at
    1. biurkach.
    2. desks
    1. ‘(Female) employees were not at their desks.’
    1. (107)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Osiem
    2. eight.ACC
    1. pracownic
    2. employees.GEN
    1. było
    2. was.3SG.NEUT
    1. przy
    2. at
    1. biurkach.
    2. desks
    1. ‘Eight (female) employees were at their desks.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ońmiu
    2. eight.GEN
    1. pracownic
    2. employees.GEN
    1. nie
    2. NEG
    1. było
    2. was.3SG.NEUT
    1. przy
    2. at
    1. biurkach.
    2. desks
    1. ‘Eight (female) employees were not at their desks.’

Again, in this respect, they contrast with dative subjects, which remain dative under negation:

    1. (108)
    1. Polish
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Studentom
    2. students.DAT
    1. było
    2. was.3SG.NEUT
    1. zimno
    2. cold
    1. w
    2. in
    1. akademikach.
    2. dormitories
    1. ‘The students were cold in their dormitories.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Studentom/*studentów
    2. students.DAT/*GEN
    1. nie
    2. NEG
    1. było
    2. was.3SG.NEUT
    1. zimno
    2. cold
    1. w
    2. in
    1. akademikach.
    2. dormitories
    1. ‘The students were/were not cold in their dormitories.’

We are convinced that the properties of the ANS reviewed above warrant the following conclusion: although the ANS is not a nominative subject, it functions like one.65 In principle, there are two theoretical options open to us to account for this fact, both compatible with the idea that the ANS is involved in an Agree relation with T, unlike the other subject-like elements. The first option is to follow Klockmann (2015) or Willim (2015), where T and the ANS are involved in an attempted but failed Agree. For Klockmann the ANS bears either default nominative (for non-masculine referents) or genitive case (for masculine human referents) and, crucially, it participates in an imperfect Agree with T.66 Willim (2015: 243–246) submits that in the context of structural cases T (and v) cannot Agree for case with the ANS in narrow syntax, whose internal structure is [FP QP [FP F NP]] due to the fact that F (a nominal functional head) and QP bear conflicting features: F has no case feature and QP bears an unvalued case feature. As the features are not identical, with F and QP being both equidistant and accessible to T(v), the probe cannot deal with this ambiguity and Agree does not obtain. Both authors follow Preminger (2011) and Bošković (2009) and assume that the attempted but failed Agree should not terminate the derivation. Willim places the burden of spelling out the unvalued case and phi-features on the PF component; in Polish, this component can interpret QP and F as the ANS, with genitive case on the NP-complement of the numeral.67

The second option open to us is to assume that the ANS and T are involved in Agree which does not fail completely, although it does malfunction to some degree. Małecki (1863), Łoś (1927), Szober (1928), Franks (1994; 1995), and Przepiórkowski (1999; 2004) credit the behavior of the ANS in the context of structural case to the gap in its morphological paradigm: the higher numeral has no nominative form, which is why the accusative (crucially, also a structural case) “steps in” to fulfil the role of the subject.6869

To explain why the accusative does not agree with the verb and triggers default agreement instead, we take T to be able to copy phi-features from its Goal (as part of Agree) only when it can access the DP/NP through the minimum number of Case Projections, presumably only the projection of the nominative.70 Projections of other cases are too opaque for phi-features to be copied onto T; so when phi-feature copying is attempted in the course of Agree, it fails and T defaults to third, singular, neuter. In sum, T and the ANS become involved in an Agree relation and they share the feature [T] ([uT] on the ANS), taken to stand for structural case.71 It is the sharing of this feature that allows TP to project its label when the accusative subject moves to [Spec, TP]. This accounts for their subject-like properties documented in this section. Crucially, such feature sharing does not hold of T and any other non-nominative element fronted to the clause-initial position and examined in this paper.72

5 Conclusion

We began this paper by noting that the Labeling Algorithm as put forth in Chomsky (2013; 2015) creates a puzzle for XPs that appear to move to [Spec, TP] but do not agree with T; the Labeling Algorithm prevents such non-agreeing XPs from occupying the [Spec, TP] position. This is prohibited because during the derivation, two phrases are being merged: a TP and an XP (i.e. DP or PP in locative inversion cases). Since this XP does not share any features with TP, the Labeling Algorithm “finds” two heads (X and T) and is unable to label the syntactic object, rendering it uninterpretable. We have identified two possible solutions to this problem. In both, the XP moves directly to a higher position never stopping in [Spec, TP]. In locative and predicate inversion cases, the position in question is [Spec, TopP], where the moved element shares a Topic feature with TopP. In Polish and Russian dative subject constructions, Lithuanian Inferential Evidentials, and Russian and Polish Adversity Impersonals, the position in question is [Spec, FinP]. The [Spec, TP] position remains un-projected, due to Split Feature Inheritance allowing phi-features to be inherited by T without the EPP feature being inherited as well.

(109) a.
  b.

We also showed that under some circumstances (i.e. when partial Agree happens or when Agree takes places but phi-feature sharing fails leaving only a [T] feature to be shared), the non-nominative XP can move to (and remain in) [Spec, TP]. This is what happens with Icelandic dative subjects and Polish Accusative Numeral Subjects.