ABSTRACT
In the previous two papers, the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis explains case splits in NP type by referring to two hierarchically distinct types of nominals. NP/DP adjuncts are attached high in the clause in pronominal argument languages and get lexical cases, whereas pronominal arguments get structural cases in lower argument positions. This paper takes on a different kind of case split, that found within pronominal types. It expresses for the first time the hypothesis that relational hierarchies—like those found in the person hierarchies that dominate ergative case splits in Salish—are a direct consequence of the architecture of the clause, paired with Diesing’s (1992b) Mapping Hypothesis. First- and second-person arguments (along with third-person arguments linked to DP adjuncts) are construed as definite and presupposed. They thus can’t serve as variables and must move to case positions (nominative/accusative/absolute) outside the VP. Thirdperson pronouns marked with lexical ergative case, by contrast, are allowed to be bound by existential closure and thus remain VP internal. Evidence for the proposal comes from morphology, the (un)availability of determiner quantification, and the way in which sentences with one DP are interpreted.
