Marantz (1991) argues that case is assigned to an NP due to the c-command relationship with another NP in a given domain and not by a dedicated head. The author contends, furthermore, that case assignment and nominal licensing are dissociated. One empirical argument in favor of this claim is provided by NOM objects in Icelandic ECM constructions, where there is no dedicated finite T head assigning NOM, but the object is nonetheless licensed. Following Branan:to appear, I argue instead that dependent case and nominal licensing are not necessarily contradictory with each other: dependent case can, in fact, be a licensing strategy for a nominal. The empirical basis is provided by pseudo noun incorporation (PNI) in Wolof, specially with regards to the conditions under which a PNI-ed nominal in this language is not adjacent to the verb, a property which is otherwise usually found in PNI.
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.