Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology


minimalist syntax
Latin syntax
Multiple Agree

How to Cite

Jakielaszek, J. (2023). Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology. Lingua Posnaniensis, 64(2), 7–33.


Latin nonfinite structures with nonovert subjects exhibit puzzling properties with regard to the case- and ϕ-features of their subjects and their relationship to overt NPs in matrix clauses. While the transmission of case- and ϕ-feature related properties is obligatory when there is a nominative or accusative controller NP, it is only ϕ-feature transmission that remains obligatory when there is a dative controller, case transmission being apparently optional. To avoid an assumption of syntactic optionality, accounts of the phenomenon which rely on syntactic mechanisms propose that the apparent optionality reflects a syntactic difference between two types of nonfinite structures. It is instead proposed that mechanisms of linking of objects via Agree and ϕ-feature and case transmission should be assigned to different components of the grammar, syntax and morphology. The hypothesis allows a unified treatment of the syntactic phenomenon of control in Latin.


Anagnostopoulou, E. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Heggie, L. & Ordóñez, F. (eds.), Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, 199-235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI:

Anagnostopoulou, E. 2017. Gender and defaults. In LaCara, N. & Moulton, K. & Tessier, A.-M. (eds.), A Schrift to fest Kyle Johnson, 19-36. Amherst: University of Massachusets Amherst / Linguistics Open Access Publications.

Anagnostopoulou, E. & Sevdali, Ch. 2015. Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of case. Language 91(2). 442-481. DOI:

Anagnostopoulou, E. & Sevdali, Ch. 2020. Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38. 987-1051. DOI:

Andrews, A. 1990. Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In Maling, J.n & Zaenen, A. (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 187-234. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI:

Arregi, K. & Nevins, A. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Berlin–New York: Springer. DOI:

Atlamaz, Ü. 2019. Agreement, case, and nominal licensing. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Atlamaz, Ü. & Baker, M. 2018. On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax 21. 195-237. DOI:

Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of grammar, 73-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI:

Bardhdal, J. & Cattafi, E. & Bruno, L. 2020. Non-nominative subjects in Latin and Ancient Greek: Applying the subject tests on early Indo-European material. MS. University of Ghent.

Bayer, J. & Bader, M. & Meng, M. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111(4). 465-514. DOI:

Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. 2011. The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In Di Sciullo, A.M. & Boeckx, C. (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, 19-41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. 2016. Why only us: Language and evolution, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI:

Bhatt, R. & Walkow, M. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 951-1013. DOI:

Bittner, M. & Hale, K. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 1-68.

Blümel, A. & Goto, N. 2019. Head hiding. (Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society / NELS 50.)

Bobaljik, J. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, D. & Adger, D. & Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, 295-328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bolkestein, A.M. 1976a. A.c.i. and ut-clauses with verba dicendi in Latin. Glotta 54. 263-291.

Bolkestein, A.M. 1976b. The relation between form and meaning of Latin subordinate clauses governed by verba dicendi. Mnemosyne 29(2). 155-175. DOI:

Bolkestein, A.M. 1976c. The relation between form and meaning of Latin subordinate clauses governed by verba dicendi. Mnemosyne 29(3), 268-300. DOI:

Bolkestein, A.M. 1979. Subject-to-object raising in Latin? Lingua 48. 15-34. DOI:

Bošković, Ž. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 589-644. DOI:

Bošković, Ž. & Lasnik, H. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34(4). 527-546. DOI:

Burzio, L. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI:

Burzio, L. 1991. The morphological basis of anaphora. Linguistics 27. 81-105. DOI:

Cecchetto, C. & Oniga, R. 2002. Consequences of the analysis of Latin infinitival clauses for the theory of case and control. Lingue e Linguaggio 1. 151-189.

Cecchetto, C. & Oniga, R. 2004. A challenge to null case theory. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1). 141-149. DOI:

Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R. & Michaels, D. & Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-156. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N.. 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1-52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N.. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?, 1-29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI:

Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R. & Otero, C. & Zubizarreta, M.L. (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-167. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. DOI:

Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33-49. DOI:

Chomsky, N. 2015a. A discussion with Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Sophia Linguistica 64. 70-97.

Chomsky, N. 2015b. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Di Domenico, E. & Hamann, C. & Matteini, S. (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 1-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:

Chomsky, N. 2020. Puzzles about phases. In Franco, L. & Lorusso, P. (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 163-168. Berlin–New York: Walter De Gruyter. DOI:

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1993. Principles and parameters theory. In von Stechow, A. & Sternefeld, W. & Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 506-569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [Reprinted in Chomsky (1995: 13-127).] DOI:

Chomsky, N. & Ott, D. & Gallego, Á. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue, 229-261. DOI:

Chung, S. 2012. On reaching agreement late. In Beltrama, A. & Chatzikonstantinou, T. & Lee, J.L. & Pham, M. & Rak, D. (eds.), Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 48, 169-190. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Danckaert, L. 2016. Changing patterns of clausal complementation in Latin: A parametric approach to ‘constructional’ changes. MS. University of Ghent.

Devine, A.M. & Stephens, L.D. 2006. Latin word order: Structured meaning and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:

Devine, A.M. & Stephens, L.D. 2019. Pragmatics for Latin: From syntax to information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:

Dikken, M. den. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Embick, D. & Noyer, R. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Ramchand, G. & Reiss, Ch. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289-324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:

Emonds, J.E. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI:

Epstein, S.D. & Kitahara, H. & Seely, D. 2016. Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33. 87-102. DOI:

Epstein, S.D. & Obata, M. & Seely, T.D. 2017. Is linguistic variation entirely linguistic? Linguistic Analysis 41(3-4). 481-516.

Ernout, A. & Thomas, F. 1964. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.

Gallego, Á. 2009. Defective C-T in Romance. Probus 21. 163-216. DOI:

Gallego, Á. 2010. Binding through Agree. Linguistic Analysis 34. 163-192.

Gallego, Á.. 2011. Control through Multiple Agree. Revue roumaine de linguistique 56. 313-346.

Goggin, J. 1983. Linking chains: Control and case-marking in Latin infinitives. Texas Linguistic Forum 22. 61-8.

Grano, T. & Lasnik, H. 2018. How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 465-499. DOI:

Halle, M. & Vaux, B. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Jasanoff, J. & Melchert, H.C. & Olivier, L. (eds.), Mír curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, 223-239. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

Hiraiwa, K. 2001. Multiple Agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In Matushansky, O. & Costa, A. & Martin-Gonzalez, J. & Nathan, L. & Szczegielniak, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language Research (HUMIT 2000) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40), 67-80. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.

Hiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Hofmann, J.B. & Szantyr, A. 1972. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.

Hornstein, N. 1990. Verb raising in Icelandic infinitives. In Carter, J. & Déchaine, R.-M. & Philip, B. & Sherer, T. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 20, vol. 1, 215-229. Amherst: GLSA.

Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1). 69-96. DOI:

Jøhndal, M. 2012. Non-finiteness in Latin. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Kalin, Laura. 2020. Opacity in agreement. In Smith, P.W. & Mursell, J. & Hartmann, K. (eds.), Agree to agree: Agreement in the minimalist programme, 149-177. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Kayne, R.S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI:

Kratzer, A. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 187-237. DOI:

Kühner, R. & Stegmann, C. 1966. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Vol. 1. Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.

Lakoff, R.T. 1968. Abstract syntax and Latin complementation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Lamontagne, G. & Travis, L. 1986. The case filter and the ECP. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 51-75.

Lamontagne, G. & Travis, L. 1987. The syntax of adjacency. In Crowhurst, Megan (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 173-186. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Landau, I. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(4). 877-924. DOI:

Landau, I. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI:

Landau, I. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:

Landau, I. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI:

Lasnik, H.. 2019. Exceptional case-marking: Perspectives old and new. (Paper presented at 25th Annual Graduate Linguistics, Applied Linguistics and TESOL Symposium.)

Lasnik, H. & Uriagereka, J. 2005. A course in minimalist syntax: Foundations and prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lebreton, J. 1901. Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Cicéron. Paris: Librairie Hachette.

Marantz, A. 1992. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G.F. & Ao, B. & Chae, H.-R. (eds.), ESCOL ’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234-253. Baltimore: University of Maryland.

Marušić, F. & Nevins, A.I. & Badecker, W. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18(1). 39-77. DOI:

Mateu, J. & Oniga, R. 2017. Latin syntax in fifty years of generative grammar. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16. 5-17. DOI:

McFadden, T. 2014. Deducing the structural/inherent/quirky case distinction from competing theories of case. (Paper presented at the 29th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, University of York.)

McFadden, T. 2018. A synthesis for the structural/inherent case distinction and its comparative and diachronic consequences. (Paper presented at the workshop On the Place of Case in Grammar, Rethymno.)

Melo, W.D.C. de. 2007. The early Latin verb system: Archaic forms in Plautus, Terence, and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Menge, H 2012. Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik. Rev. by Burkard, T. & Schauer, M. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Nevins, A. 2005. Derivations without the activity condition. In McGinnis, M. & Richard, N. (eds.), Perspectives on phases (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49), 287-310. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.

Nevins, A. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 273-313. DOI:

Nevins, A. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 939-971. DOI:

Oniga, R. 2014. Latin: A linguistic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pepicello, W.J. 1977. Raising in Latin. Lingua 42. 209-218. DOI:

Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Pesetsky, D. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI:

Pinkster, H. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics. London: Routledge.

Pinkster, H. 2021. The Oxford Latin syntax. Vol. II. The complex sentence and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:

Preminger, O. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI:

Raposo, E. & Uriagereka, J. 1996. Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(4). 749-810. DOI:

Sevdali, Ch. 2013. Case transmission beyond control and the role of Person. Journal of Historical Syntax 2(4). 1-52.

Sigurdsson, H.Á. 2009. The No Case generalization. In Alexiadou, A. & Hankamer, J. & McFadden, T. & Nuger, J. & Schäfer, F. (eds.), Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, 249-279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Travis, L. & Lamontagne, G. 1992. The case filter and licensing of empty K. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37. 157-174. DOI:

Ussery, Ch. 2008. What it means to agree: The behavior of case and phi features in Icelandic control. In Chang, Ch.B. & Haynie, H.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 480-488. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.

Willer Gold, J. & Arsenijević, B. & Batinić, M. & Becker, M. & Čordalija, N. & Kresić, M. & Leko, N. & Marušič, F.L. & Milićev, T. & Milićević, N. & Mitić, I. & Peti-Stantić, A. & Stanković, B. & Šuligoj, T. & Tušek, J. & Nevins, A. 2018. When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(3). 495-500. DOI:

Wurmbrand, S. 2017. Formal and semantic agreement in syntax: A dual feature approach. In Emonds, J. & Janebová, M. (eds.), Language use and linguistic structure: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2016, 19-36. Olomouc: Palacy University.