The structure of null subject DPs and agreement in Polish impersonal constructions 159
b. Pracowało się dużo.
work.past 3 sg.n się a-lot
‘[One] worked a lot.’
c. Pracowano dużo.
worked a-lot
‘[People] worked a lot.’
The sentences in (39) demonstrate that both impersonal pronouns occur freely in envi-
ronments where nominative case is assigned. Consider, however, the examples in (40):
(40) a. Nam jest / było / bywało dobrze.
we.dat is / was.3sg.n / was.iter.3sg.n well
‘We are/were/used to be well.’
b. Jest /Było /Bywało się dobrze.
is / was.3sg.n /was.iter.3sg.n się well
(Intended)‘[One] is/was /used to be well.’
c. Byto /*Bywano dobrze.
was / was.iter.3sg.n well
(Intended)‘[People] were /used to be well.’
In (40a), the nominal element nam ‘we.dat’ is assigned dative case. The 3sg.n default
marking on the verb is caused by the fact that only nominative arguments can trig-
ger overt subject agreement marking. The examples in (40b) and (40c) demonstrate
that none of the impersonal pronouns in question is possible here. Let’s consider now
examples such as those in (40) where psych-verbs have been used. With this type of
verbs, the experiencer argument is assigned accusative case while the theme argu-
ment is nominative, and therefore it is the latter that triggers overt subject agreement
marking on T. This is illustrated by the example in (41a). The sentences (41b) and
(41c) show that none of the impersonal pronouns in question behaves like overt ele-
ments; that is, they cannot function as experiencers to which accusative case has been
assigned.
(41) a. Pawła zadziwia/zadziwiła Marysia/
Paweł.acc surprises/surprised.F Marysia.nom/
ta sytuacja.
this.nom.f situation.nom.f
‘Paweł is/was surprised by Marysia/this situation.’
b. *Zadziwia/Zadziwiło się Marysia/
surprises/surprised.3sg.n się Marysia.nom/
ta sytuacja.
this.nom.f situation.nom.f
(Intended) ‘[One] was surprised by Marysia/this situation.’