Structural Case Assignment In

Case, it is not licensed due to the Case Filter under the GB framework. Thus BG intends to capture the relation between the accusative Case assignment and the -role assignment. In terms of the conceptual perspective, BG has been criticized for damaging the modular organization of the grammar (see McFadden 2004, Reuland (2000) for more discussions). For example, Haider (2000:33) points out that a sub-rule of one module (i.e. θ-marking of subject) cannot directly interfere with a sub-rule of another system (i.e. case assignment by V 0 ). Assigning structural Case to the object and assigning a θ-role to the subject are different modules of grammar and connecting the two different grammatical modules without a reasonable explanation is a problem. In addition to the conceptual problem, let us consider empirical application of BG to various Korean constructions. First, let us consider the passive constructions (2) and (3), repeated below as (8) and (9). (8) a. Nay-ka John-ul chayk-ul cwu-ess-ta. I-Nom John-Acc book-Acc give-Pst-Dec ‘I gave John a book.’ b. John-i chayk-i cwue-ci-ess-ta. John-Nom book-Nom give-CI-Pst-Dec ‘John was given a book.’ 2 It should be noted that it is not obligatory for the verbs that can assign -role to the subject assign accusative Case to an object. BG states that the verbs that can assign -role to the subject CAN assign accusative Case to an object. Thus unergative verbs do have an external argument, but they are allowed not to assign accusative Case under BG.