Advances in the Syntax of DPs - Structure, agreement, and case

160 Małgorzata Krzek

c. *Zadziwiono Marysia / ta sytuacja.

surprised Marysia.nom /this.F situation.nom.f

(Intended) ‘[People] were surprised by Marysia/this situation.’^34

Surprisingly, however, the null impersonal pronouns can be used in the structural

position of the overt theme arguments to which nominative case is assigned. This is

illustrated by the examples in (42):

(42) a. Zadziwia/Zadzwiło się Pawła.

surprises/surprised.3sg.n się Paweł.acc

‘[One] surprised Paweł.’

b. Zadziwiono Pawła.

surprised Paweł.acc

‘[People] surprised Paweł.’

I therefore conclude that null impersonal pronouns in the SIĘ and the –NO/–TO

constructions can only function as those structural subjects that are nominative; that

is, those that can potentially trigger overt agreement marking on T. The two sub-

ject pronouns cannot occur in those environments where structural subjects are not

nominative, as illustrated by the examples in (40) and (41) above.

7. Conclusion

This paper provides a general overview of morphosyntactic properties of two Polish

impersonal constructions: the –NO/–TO construction and the SIĘ construction. I

have argued that:

1. Various interpretations that impersonal constructions can receive are due to the
   fact that null impersonal pronouns are complex variables whose subfeatures are
   bound by various elements (e.g. operators, logophoric features, and topic) in the
   Narrow Syntax.


2. The SIĘ particle is the head of SIĘP.


3. One of the anonymous reviewers notes that the problem with these sentences is simply
   that the nominative argument Marysia (in (40b,c)) is not licensed properly (as it does not enter
   an Agree relation with T and, in consequence, the nominative case is not assigned, as stan-
   dardly assumed in the Minimalist framework). This observation is, of course, correct. These
   sentences, however, have been included to show that when a null impersonal DP appears in
   the derivation, it has to be the highest DP in a given phase, and as a result it triggers a default
   agreement marking on T. In accordance with the case assignment theory assumed here the
   case assigned to the highest element in a phase is that of a nominative. These sentences show
   that the null impersonal DP cannot have a case other than nominative.