modern grammars of case anderson phần 10 pot

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 403... But, as we havenoted, lexical structure in general has a capacity not permitted to the syntax: itcan change syntactic cate

experiencer On the basis of Chapter 9, we can formulate the further alization that the relations borne by circumstantials are limited strictly to thelocative subdomain.

gener-Figure 13.1 also indicates, by the arrows, the dependence of the order feature {goal} on the presence of a source And the figure representsabsolutive as lying in a domain that includes the two subdomains, but also asstanding outside them: thus it may participate autonomously from eitherdomain in processes or states The two major zones occupied by the othersemantic relations in each of which absolutive may be included are thedomain of action and that of location: absolutive may be acted upon orlocated The prototypical other participants in these subdomains are, respect-ively, the (prototypically second-person) volitional agentive which presentsthe most palpable causal source in the representation of a scene, on the onehand, and, on the other, the concrete spatial location that forms the percep-tually most accessible ground in a representation These prototypes define theendpoints of (respectively) ‘animacy hierarchies’ (for example Silverstein1976; DeLancey 1981) and a dimension of relative concreteness and dimen-sional differentiation The experiencer, {{source,locative}}, unites the twosubdomains, and such a participant is prototypically first-person

second-On the different prototypicalities of first and second person, Wierzbicka(1981: 46) comments:

The speaker is more interested in what other people are doing to him than in what he

is doing to other people; he is more sensitive to the ways in which other people’sactions affect him than to the ways in which his actions affect other people.The speaker regards himself as the quintessential ‘victim’ or the quintessential experi-encer

Whatever the status of this, the distribution emerges from various typologicalobservations concerning ‘animacy hierarchies’

Once more, however, as concerns the criteria we have been looking at, theyhave a reduced significance in the context of a restricted set of semanticrelations More important for lexical structure as a whole is the fact that theconstraints on it are ‘local’ requirements associated with the semantic-relational categories and their arguments: they are imposed by valenciesand modifications, signalled by ‘/’ and ‘\’, respectively This is indeed aproperty shared with the syntax; but syntax differs in that it builds structuresrelating different lexical items and it imposes linearity on them, at leastpartially

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 403

13.2.4 Lexical structure and morphology

Given these differences, syntactic structure, as well as being built on the basis ofvalency and modification, also involves interaction among secondary features

of different items, in particular (in traditional terms) agreement and rection;and these are expressed morphologically Rection involves determination offeatures by a particular primary category The classic traditional example inEnglish is the determination of pronouns as accusative when governed by apreposition or verb—though, as we have seen, the situation is more complexthan that This represents an extreme routinization of the interaction betweenpredicator, complex functor, and morphological case that we find in Latin, orFinnish (as described in Chapter 8) Simple agreement involves a matching ofthe features belonging to particular secondary categories—in proceduralterms, copying of features from one category to another With verb agreement,for instance, this may rather reflect incorporation of an argument

More complex in terms of morphosyntax are the Basque systems of ment, where, for instance, in the predominant ‘analytic’ (rather than ‘syn-thetic’) verbal construction, the categories associated with the incorporatedarguments of a verb are expressed on the governing operative:

father:SG.DEF.ERG bread:SG.DEF.ABS eating 3SG.ABS:3SG.ERG

(‘(My) father is eating the bread’)

mother:SG.DEF.ERG father:SG.DEF.ABS loving 3SG.ABS:3SG.ERG

(‘(My) mother loves (my) father’)

I suggest that, as with the apparent ‘complements’ of complex (deverbal) nouns,the (optional) nominals here are in apposition with incorporated arguments

In (21a) there are three agreeing incorporated arguments, but all expressed onthe operative rather than on the lexical verb to which they bear semantic relations:(21) a Eman diozkat

given 3PL.ABS:3SG.DAT:1SGERG

(‘gave her/him them’)

We can indicate the incorporated arguments in (21), schematically, as in (21b),where the co-dependent incorporated functors are not linearized Thesedependents are replicated on the operative, roughly indicated by thedouble-headed arrow; and they are expressed there So we also have againnon-expression of incorporated arguments in the case of the verb—thoughthey are expressed elsewhere, on the operative.

Morphology thus expresses secondary features ‘inherited’ by agreement, aswell as inherent features such as gender on nouns Expression may involve in-ternal modifications (including the drastic form of this known as suppletion) oraffixation In the latter case, of course, linearity is imposed by the morphology.Determination of linearity is a property shared with syntax But, as we havenoted, lexical structure in general has a capacity not permitted to the syntax: itcan change syntactic categories, or, rather, subjoin the category of a base to adistinct derived category This involves both primary and secondary features.Anderson (2003) offers the notation in (22) to represent instances of thiscapacity and the role played by affixes:

beauty ful man hood

Ful is an affix that seeks to modify a noun (‘\’) which is converted (‘\\’) to anadjective; hood is associated with change of subclass (to what might be glossed

as ‘abs(tract)’) But with conversions, such as those in (23), involving thederived noun walk, the derived verb table and the derived count noun (a)beauty, no such affixation is deployed:

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 405

One proposed restriction on lexical structure that can’t be supported is thatmade concerning conversions by Beard (1998: 62), who claims:

For every conversion to dry, to wet, to empty, we find an equal number of affixedderivates with the same relation: to shorten, to normalize, to domesticate Moreover,precisely those stems which affix are precluded from conversion (to *short, *normal,

*domestic), and precisely those which convert are precluded from affixation: to *endry,

Conversions typically involve ‘changes’ in category, and absorption, whichare directly responsible for other changes (in valency, for instance) A number

of affixations add a particular component of meaning that doesn’t entirelyfollow from the category or valency change, as with the -able formationsmentioned in §4.2.2, and illustrated by the (b) examples in (4.26) and (4.27):(4.26) a The meeting day can be changed/varied

b The meeting day is changeable/variable

(4.27) a The weather can change/vary

b The weather is changeable/variable

Here the suffix adds a very particular component of interpretation, onespecifically associated with the presence of the suffix We might representthis, crudely, as in (24), where ‘pot(ential)’ abbreviates whatever (modal/aspectual) specification(s) might be appropriate:

Any ergative argument of the base verb is incorporated Conversions typicallyinvolve simple change in (primary or secondary) category and its conse-quences There is thus also a difference in the character of the typicalderivations involving conversions and affixation.

Notice too that, despite being associated with a difference in syntacticcategory, the affixes in (22) are not syntactic heads; indeed, they are notheads of anything (pace Williams 1981) They are not independent syntacticelements, and as morphological (syntactic-category-free) elements, i.e itemsthat express (among other things) the presence of certain syntactic categories,but are not such categories themselves, they are optional—a word need notcontain them They occupy, like most dependents in the syntax of English, thepost-head position as the unmarked possibility—they are preponderantlysuffixal

Also, as we have observed, syntactic categories may be ‘changed’ in theabsence of an affix (as in conversions) Obviously, the suffix in an -able wordhas to be present to signal the additional component of meaning beyond thecategory change (and possible incorporation) But it does not itself embodythe overall category of the derived word Such affixes are like such syntacticspecifiers as the dab in the German non-finite (38a), where non-finiteness ismarked by final position of the verb (compare the verb-second finite mainclause in (b)):

(25) a Er sagte, daß er ihn gesehen ha¨tte

he said that he him seen had

(‘He said that he had seen him’)

b Ich hatte den Hut vergessen/Den Hut hatte ich vergessen

I had the hat forgotten

(‘I had forgotten the hat’)

c Er sagte, er ha¨tte ihn gesehen

he said he had him seen

(‘He said he had seen him’)

The specifier is associated with (morphologically finite) syntactically finite verb-final subordinates; it is absent in the verb-second (and so finite)subordinate in (25c) -Able is associated with a change in category, but doesnot itself realize that ‘new’ category

non-13.2.5 Absorption, incorporation, and ‘constructions’

All of the forms in (22–24) involve what I’ve been referring to as ‘absorptions’(elaborated on in §9.2.5) A category is related to a more complex categorial

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 407

structure which is traditionally said to be ‘derived’ from it; there is ‘addition’

of a superordinate category; compared with the base forms, there is a

‘change’ in category, even if only secondary—as with the concrete count

‘derivative’ of beauty in (23c) In the case of absorptions it is the formexpressing the base that is the head of the morphological structure expressingthe complex (‘derived’) structure This reflects overtly the derivation, even(in a sense) in the absence of affixation But in other instances the absorptionstructure is associated with a different form from any putative base, as in kill,the causative ‘corresponding to’ die, but not overtly based on it This isperhaps even plainer with pilgrim, on the assumption that it is verb-based(see §10.1.2) This involves the recognition that lexical structure may besyntactic-categorially complex without this necessarily being signalledovertly, and that this categorial complexity (covert or overt) may havesyntactic consequences

Thus, to take a simple example, the {P} that is associated with finitenessformation, whose presence need not be signalled morphologically, provides

a free absolutive that hosts subject formation, as in, say, (3a) (3a) alsoprovides a more complex example of the syntactic relevance of (possiblycovert) internal categorization, in the form of the structures associatedwith causatives, lexical or morphological, and their interaction with raisingand control, as discussed in Chapters 11 and 12 and above in the presentsection

I have distinguished these structures and relationships from ations’, which may also involve relationships between a simpler and a morecomplex (‘derived’) categorial structure In this case the category of the basehas subjoined to it a substructure in the ‘derived’ structure, and it doesn’t

‘incorpor-‘change’ its category The discussion of incorporated arguments in the ceding chapters has illustrated these properties With them what is expressed

pre-as the morphological head is also the same pre-as with the bpre-ase Thus the ppre-assiveparticiple in (3b), for instance is still a verb Often, incorporations are notovertly signalled morphologically, however, as with contactive formation(9.44) (updated), associated with (9.26b) and (13.28):

(9.44)´ Contactive formation

{P;N/{abs}{loc}} ⇔ {P;N/{loc,abs}}}

| {{abs}}

|{Ni}

408 Modern Grammars of Case

(9.26) a John supplied the treasure to Bill

b John supplied Bill (with the treasure)

The two verb forms are identical Both incorporations and absorptions are

‘extensions’ of lexical structure, unmediated by the syntax

Absorptions such as we have been looking at provide us with a forward way of accommodating the kind of example that has been used toargue for ‘constructionist’ approaches to relations between lexicon and syntax(as in Goldberg 1995; Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004) Examples such as those

straight-in (26) and (27) can be straight-interpreted as absorptions straight-involvstraight-ing a ‘derived’causative directional verb based on an argument that is in an instrumentalrelation to it, either a verbal (a) or nominal (b) argument:

(26) a The professor talked us into a stupor

b Bill elbowed his way through the crowd

This is indicated schematically in the lexical, so unordered, representation

Thus, in the syntactic structure representing (26a) in (28) the professorsatisfies the agentive requirement of the causative, and is hosted by the freeabsolutives above:

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 409

(28) {P}

|{{abs}} {P;N}

the professor talked us into a stupor

And the {{abs}} of the directional (whose spatial source argument is notexpressed) is hosted by the (locative) free absolutive of the patient sub-predicator within the causative complex and the free absolutive of the causa-tive ‘action’ predicator itself

The configuration in (28) corresponding to (27) remains unserializable And thewhole complex in (27) is based on (or ‘derived from’) the ‘instrumental’ argument(not specified here, as its categories varies, but talk or elbow in the presentinstances); that is, (27) appears on the right-hand side of an absorption relation

on the left of which is the lexical representation for talk or elbow, in the case of (26).And the whole complex is expressed by the base form, as in other absorptions

We have a complex conversion There is no need to appeal to ‘constructions’ withtheir own meaning This is a relationship between atomic lexical items

Likewise, there is no need to associate the alleged ‘unaccusativity’, or the

‘telicity’, of (29b) versus the ‘unergativity’ (‘atelicity’) of (29a) (cf German(4.22)) with the distinct contribution of the ‘construction’ in (29b) as such:(29) a John danced/ran/walked

b John danced/ran/walked to the other side of the room

(29b) involves a directional verb ‘derived’ from a simple (‘activity’) agentiveintransitive which is, again, in an ‘instrumental’ relation to it The ‘unaccu-sativity’/‘telicity’ is associated with the directional verb (recall Keller andSorace 2003) And again, and as is normal, the base of the absorption, i.e inthis instance the root of the non-directional ‘activity’ verb, is what is ex-pressed overtly It is unnecessary to attribute to ‘constructions’ properties thatbelong to the category that projects the ‘construction’ I do not here try toshow this on a wider basis Bo¨hm (2001) offers a much fuller discussion ofsuch phenomena, and a rather different interpretation of them, which does

410 Modern Grammars of Case

not appeal to an ‘instrumental’ relation (and its apparent problems, related tothose discussed by Wunderlich (1997)), but which nevertheless also avoids the

‘constructionist’ conclusion

It is unsurprising if particular kinds of derivational relationship are absentfrom particular languages, particularly those which are more complex, moremarked Once more, we do not have to associate this with languages havingdifferent ‘constructions’, which seems to be an unnecessary complication ofthe conceptual apparatus of grammar Languages may have different lexicalrelationships; there is no need to impose on linguistic variation the compli-cation of ‘constructional’ variation ‘Constructional’ differences follow fromthe lexical characterizations of individual lexical items

This is not, of course, to deny that there are multi-word lexical items; manyidioms are such Consider as an example the fell out with verbal sequence in(33), which may be given either an agentive or experiencer interpretation:(30) Colonel Sentence fell out with General Principle

The lexical item involved might be represented as in (31), assuming, forillustration, an agentive interpretation:

fall out with

From this the syntactic structure in (32) is projected:

| {{abs}} {P;N/{erg}}

Col Sentence fell out with Gen Principle

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 411

Fall out with is an agentive verb formed on the basis of a directional verb andits goal argument together with a comitative; the agentive argument of thederived verb is linked lexically with the absolutive of the directional In (34b)the {{erg}} is hosted by the free absolutive of the agentive, and the directional{{abs}} by the free absolutive of the circumstantial predicator; the circum-stantial comitative is hosted by the free absolutive of the agentive predicator.

It is only such totally idiosyncratic ‘constructional’ properties, as in (31), thatneed be entered as part of a lexical item

13.3 Creativity and notionalism

The types of lexical relationship we have been looking at, including thelinking mechanism of (10) etc., contribute to linguistic creativity, in enablingmetonymic and metaphoric formations And they thus take us back to atheme of the Prologue, the unacceptability of the pervasive notion of ‘cre-ativity’ voiced by Foley and van Valin as ‘the ability of native speakers toproduce and understand an (in principle) infinite number of sentences’ (1984:319) and the inappropriateness of how Chomsky’s (1976) distinction between

‘rule-breaking’ and ‘rule-governed creativity’ is drawn There are distinctions

to be drawn here, to be sure: to do with relative routinization or lexicalization,different dimensions of figurativeness (which is not just a feature of ‘litera-ture’), or what we might distinguish (again following Anderson (1984c;1987a)), though scarcely sharply, as ‘suppletive’ versus ‘supplementary’ for-mations The latter provides alternative means of representing some scene;they are thus usually obviously ‘figurative’ (in a sense, ‘rule-breaking’ or ‘rule-supplanting’), and can lead to ‘idioms’ But the alternative, figurative means

of expression can reveal something distinctive about the scene represented; it

is to an extent ‘suppletive’, and its content cannot necessarily be identifiedwith any ‘literal equivalent’, even when the metaphor is apparently ‘dead’ Thefully suppletive formation provides us with a means of representing a scenefor which there is no prior representation (it is ‘rule-creating’, or ‘rule-extending’)—as with the deployment of the localist relations in the represen-tation of abstract as well as concrete ‘spaces’ etc These localist relationsprovide ‘literal metaphors’, in another terminology (Lakoff and Johnson

1980, and much subsequent work)

As implied, the literal/suppletive/supplementary distinctions are fragile.Many ‘literal’ expressions are ‘dead’ metaphors (Finally, they understood) Andsomething that might be identified as an idiomatized ‘supplementary’ metaphor

is merely more recent, and perhaps more transparent, at least vis-a`-vis itsnon-literal status, if not in the interpretation of the metaphor (Finally, the

412 Modern Grammars of Case

penny dropped) There are often alternative suppletive (or ‘literal’) metaphorsthat ‘supplement’ each other, as in the spatial expression of temporal relation-ships (cf the tradition of work that includes Traugott (1975)).

It was suggested in §9.2.3 that renewal of such metaphors is crucial to thedevelopment and use of language On the other hand, we should not over-estimate the role of recursive routinized formulas in any of this It is imagina-tive flexibility that characterizes creativity, not mere infiniteness of product.And these considerations lead us back again to groundedness, which theydepend on: ‘creativity’ is meaningless without meaning

What emerges most strongly from this history, as far as I’m concerned, isthe fundamental, inescapable status of grounding in grammar ‘Case gram-mar’ and its developments within a more general notional grammar involve arejection of the ‘autonomy of syntax’ principle This is, of course, not unique

to this tradition; but the history we’ve looked at illustrates particularlyforcefully the illusory character of any assumption of ‘autonomy of syntax’.What emerges in particular from the work looked at is that descriptivelyadequate and explanatory categories are not arrived at on the basis of anarbitrary selection of observations concerning distribution; and arbitrariness

is not disguised by the attribution of the selection to some abstract ‘universalgrammar’, or ‘language faculty’

There is no autonomous formal or substantive property that has beenshown to be unique to language In these circumstances, the importantquestion concerning ‘universality’ is this: which of those linguistic propertiesthat recur universally reflect the result of continuing interaction, duringacquisition, of cognitive capacities with the partly routinized structures ofthe individual languages being learned? And which of them are geneticallytransmitted linguistic routinizations—that is, properties that have lostgrounding, are autonomous to the extent of being unlearnable as such?The set consisting of the latter properties constitutes ‘universal grammar’, orperhaps ‘the faculty of language in the narrow sense’ (Hauser et al 2002) It isnot clear that this set is non-empty, apart from its including an impulsion ‘topay attention to speech’ That even the most plausible candidate for (further)membership of the set, recursion, is unique to language is very doubtful Andthere are certainly no grounds for attributing the linguistic categories dis-cussed here (or elsewhere, for that matter) to ‘universal grammar’

Nor are categories and their syntax to be established or recognized bygiving equal weight to any and all distributional properties or to allpotential members Only the properties of the prototypical use of seman-tically prototypical members of the category are relevant to identifying thebasic distribution of the category Other aspects of distribution correlate

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 413

with various sorts of non-prototypicalities of membership or use What wehave looked at suggests that what I called in §11.1 ‘categorial autonomy’ must becomplemented by grounding: internal distribution and groundedness areindividually insufficient fully to account for the behaviour of linguistic cat-egories—specifically syntactic categories in the present instance.

Ultimately, one’s position on ‘autonomy’ and ‘universal grammar’ depends

on how one interprets the undeniable mismatches between semantics andsyntax Some mismatches are lexically based, so that (for instance) themembership of syntactic classes may include non-prototypical examples;but others are structural Syntax shows what I have called ‘routinizations’,syntactic generalizations that are not obviously grounded

One reaction to these latter is to assume, despite the evident groundedness

of much of morphosyntax, that syntax must be studied as autonomous Giventhis, analyses of the syntax of individual languages and of its acquisition willhave to appeal to formal devices of such abstractness that the positing of

‘universal grammar’, as the source of such unlearnable ‘abstract principles’,becomes plausible (Anderson 2004a; 2004f)

But there is a suspicious circularity here, or at least a question-beggingmutual dependence, involving ‘autonomy’ and ‘universal grammar’, as well asthere being so far no systematic account in such terms of the prevalence ofgroundedness, or of the distribution between and within languages ofmatches and mismatches between syntax and semantics And maintenance

of ‘autonomy’ involves both contraction of the traditional bounds of syntax—where it most obviously involves reference to semantics (recall the introduc-tion to Chapter 10), or to phonology—and expansion (via ‘Logical Form’) toinclude aspects of semantics that apparently frustrate the contraction strategyand so must be redesignated ‘syntax’

Suppose, on the other hand, that one regards the mismatches with tics that occur in syntax as parasitic upon a syntactic system that is grounded

seman-in semantics These mismatches are then evidence of language-particularroutinizations imposed on a syntax based on groundedness The questionthen arises: why are some of these routinizations, such as subject formation,

so prevalent, if not universal? Do they not, after all, reflect an ‘autonomous’

‘universal grammar’? But this prevalence may simply reflect the recurrence inlanguages of the same (grounded) circumstances that favour the development

of the routinizations Thus, subject formation is favoured by the frequentcoincidence of ‘agents’ and ‘topics’, as well as by the functional utility of therebeing a designated argument that can be identified as ‘victim’ of, for example,

‘raising’ and ‘control’ The favouring circumstances are grounded and tional, not ‘autonomous’ And subjecthood itself is not universal—though

func-414 Modern Grammars of Case

most sentence types in most languages display a principal relation of somesort These relations are all functionally motivated routinizations of topics,however.

Apart from principal formation (formation of subjects, primes, etc.), theroutinizations that have been appealed to in the preceding are the role of freeabsolutives and the determination of some linearizations The presence of thelatter is dictated by, among other things, the phonetics interface, which mustaccommodate expression through time; sequencing is not in any way ‘au-tonomous’ And the clustering of the linearizations in many languages, or atleast subsystems, around sequences which consistently reflect the head-dependent relation—‘head before dependent’ or ‘dependent before head’—facilitates parsing (for example in lessening the likelihood of ‘garden paths’);

so it too has a functional basis

But what about the (apparently syntactic, not lexical) requirement thatevery predicator (with only marked exceptions) has a dependent absolutive(whatever else)? In default of a subcategorized-for absolutive, a free absolutive

is introduced in the syntax This was expressed in §11.2.1 as:

Universality of absolutive

Every predication contains an absolutive

As implied by the brief discussion of the role of absolutive in raising in §4.2.3,this requirement corresponds in a sense to part (b) of Chomsky’s (for example1981) projection principle:

Projection principle

(a) Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF, and D-and S-structureare projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategoriza-tion properties of lexical items

(b) Every clause must have a subject

But here it is the absolutive relation that is being claimed to be universal toclauses, not subjecthood Every language may have a principal relation (sub-ject being one variety thereof), though particular subsystems may lack them

In existential sentences in Tagalog, for instance, there is no prime present(Schachter 1976: 502):

(33) May liham (para sa iyo)

exist letter (for you)

(‘There’s a letter for you’)

Recall (7.5), with a prime:

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 415

(7.5) a Lumapit ang ulap sa araw

approach:AT T cloudD sun

(‘The cloud approached the sun’)

b Linapitan ng ulap ang araw

approach:DT AcloudT sun

(‘The cloud approached the sun’)

In (7.5) the prime argument is marked (in Schachter’s (1976) terminology)with ‘T’, and the role of the prime is marked on the verb: ‘AT’ in (7.5a) and

‘DT’ in (7.5b) Both of these markings are missing in (33) This is unsurprising

in an existential sentence, given the source of primes in topics, somethingreflected in their ‘definiteness’ in Tagalog In English, the sentences in (7.8),corresponding to (33), have only an expletive positional subject (§11.2.3):(7.8) a There is a fly in my soup

b There are flies in my soup

Nevertheless, principals fulfil a functional role in most subsystems in language.However, the existence of principals depends on the universality of abso-lutive, which must participate in any form of principal formation

We might formulate the syntactic requirement that ensures universality ofabsolutive as in (34), where ‘/*{abs}’ denotes absence of an absolutive valencyfor a head:

Bill was reading Waverley on Tuesday

416 Modern Grammars of Case

Predicators introduced syntactically are ‘defective’ in this respect; there is nomotivation for presence of a free absolutive in their case.

Such a requirement as (34) is a putatively universal routinization of therelationality of the P feature associated with predicators, ultimately based ontheir cognitive character The development of the routinization is alsofavoured by functional considerations, basically the provision of a mechanismthat permits argument sharing and the consequent ‘compacting’ of thesyntax But, given this, is (34) nevertheless still to be conceived of as part of

an autonomous ‘universal grammar’, whatever its phylogenetic source ingrounding (semantic relationality) and its functional utility?

However, it is possible that, as with subjects, this requirement emerges inthe acquiring of individual languages, as a result of interaction (in this case)between the expectations engendered by the relationality of predicators andconfrontation with linguistic phenomena, particularly phenomena that invitethe positing of shared arguments Thus, the interpretation of (11.1b) requiresattribution to the two predicators of an argument that fulfils the valency ofboth and which is patently shared:

(11.1) a John seemed to like Rasselas

b John tried to read Rasselas

In (11.1a) the putative shared argument is not required by the valency of theupper predicator; it is nevertheless the subject of this predicator—canonicallymore so than it is the subject of the lower predicator, from which it isseparated by the other predicator If subjects are neutralized semantic rela-tions, and if arguments appear in predicators by virtue of bearing a semanticrelation (as is semantically appropriate), then the question of the identity ofthe relation borne by the subject of seem arises, as does that of the subjects in(11.3a)—and the objects in (11.3b)—rather naturally:

(11.3) a It rained, it grew late

b They lived it up, Fred blew it

The obvious choice is absolutive, the default ‘case’

The role of absolutive in the scene depicted by the predication it appears in

is determined by the predicator rather than being inherent: it is located,moved, described, assigned attributes, acted on, experienced, etc Absolutivehas only this content In the absence, in the case of seem and these others, of asubcategorization requirement for an apparent argument, the predicatoracquires the ‘neutral’ absolutive relation The predicator imposes no content

on the relation (and, indirectly, argument) introduced by (34); the absolutiveremains contentless, as it transmits to its argument none of the selectional

Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 417

requirements associated with being subcategorized-for It is required only bythe relational character of predication that is articulated by the semanticrelations and their mediation between predicator and argument(s) All ofthis is cognitively salient.

The rough scenario just outlined remains highly speculative, of course But

in this and other putative instances of ‘autonomous universals’, such tive stories deserve detailed attention before contemplating a plunge intoabstractions which ensure their own unlearnability and bring with them as

alterna-a consequence—or perhalterna-aps ralterna-ather alterna-as alterna-a reciprocalterna-ation—alterna-a doctrinalterna-aire tive on language and mind

perspec-In the course of the present survey, we have come quite a long way, in onerespect, from concerns that started off with attempts to understand how totalk about the role in the classical languages of those variations in the nominalparadigm that seemed to signal something other than gender, number, orperson (or declension class)—what came to be labelled, none too transpar-ently, ‘case’ But we have kept coming upon further support for the traditionalconvictions, now based on a wider range of evidence, from a range oflanguages, concerning the syntactic importance of these relations expressed

by morphological case and alternatives to it, as well as their groundedcharacter, their notional basis Of course, following this evidence has taken

us in a number of different directions, some of the more important of whichthis final chapter has touched on

The present book has endeavoured to present something of a history, onebased on the consequences of the ‘case grammar hypothesis’, embodying what

I called a case grammar of level 3 I find it a piquant history On the one hand,

at an early stage in the development of transformational grammar there wasformulated, and embedded within such a grammar, a sub-theory whoseconsequences would render transformations superfluous and autonomoussyntax untenable On the other hand, a view of syntax as ‘autonomous’ andtransformational would have been rendered superfluous and undesirable ifthere had been acknowledged more generally at the inception of transform-ational grammar the legacy of the tradition of grammars of case

This last chapter, however, as well as casting an eye back on this history, hasalso sought to introduce further consequences of the ‘case grammar’ view,most of them largely still to be developed This is as it should be Everyepilogue is also a prologue

418 Modern Grammars of Case

—— and WEBELHUTH, G (1998) A Theory of Predicates Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.

AISSEN, J (1979) The Syntax of Causative Constructions New York: Garland

ALARCOSLLORACH, E (1999) Grama´tica de la lengua espan˜ola Madrid: Espasa

ALEXIADOU, A., ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, E., and EVERAERT, M (eds.) (2004) The tivity Puzzle: Studies on the Syntax–Lexicon Interface Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress

Unaccusa-AMRITAVALLI, R (1980) ‘Expressing Cross-Categorial Correspondences: An Alternative

to the X0Syntax Approach’, Linguistic Analysis 4: 1–32

ANDERN, P.S (1948) First Readings in Old English Wellington: Wellington UniversityPress

ANDERSON, J.M (1968a) ‘Ergative and Nominative in English’, Journal of Linguistics 4:1–32

—— (1968b) ‘On the Status of ‘‘Lexical Formatives’’ ’, Foundations of Language 4:308–18

—— (1969) ‘Adjectives, Datives and Ergativisation’, Foundations of Language 5: 301–22

—— (1970) ‘The Case for Cause: A Preliminary Enquiry’, Journal of Linguistics 6:99–104

—— (1971a) ‘Dependency and Grammatical Functions’, Foundations of Language 7:30–7

—— (1971b) The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory Cambridge: bridge University Press

Cam-—— (1971c) ‘A Proposal concerning the Lexicalisation of Complex Structures’,Studia Linguistica 25: 1–8

—— (1972) ‘On the Hierarchy of Quasi-Predications’, Revue roumaine de linguistique17: 23–44, 121–40, 193–202, 319–35

—— (1973a) An Essay concerning Aspect: Some Considerations of a General CharacterArising from the abbe´ Darrigol’s Analysis of the Basque Verb The Hague: Mouton

—— (1973b) ‘Some Speculations concerning Meetings, Matrimony, Family blances and Related Matters’, York Papers in Linguistics 3: 7–29

Resem-—— (1974a) ‘Existential QuantiWers’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 15: 1–27

—— (1974b) ‘Concerning QuantiWers and Coordination’ Linguistics Agency,University of Trier

—— (1975) ‘A Non-Argument for Deep Structure’, York Papers in Linguistics 5: 87–96

ANDERSON, J M (1976) On Serialization in English Syntax Ludwigsburg: LudwigsburgStudies in Language and Linguistics.

—— (1977) On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations.London: Croom Helm

—— (1978) ‘On the Derivative Status of Grammatical Relations’, in Abraham (ed.)(1978: 661–94)

—— (1979) ‘On Being Without a Subject’ Bloomington: Indiana University tics Club

Linguis-—— (1984a) ‘Case Grammar and the Lexicon’, University of Ulster: OccasionalPapers in Linguistics and Language Learning, 10

—— (1984b) ‘Objecthood’, in F Plank (ed.) Objects: Towards a Theory of ical Relations, 29–84 New York: Academic Press

Grammat-—— (1984c) ‘En tout cas’, Lalies 3: 7–24

—— (1986a) ‘Case Grammar and Structural Analogy’, Lingua 70: 79–129

—— (1986b) ‘A Note on Old English Impersonals’, Journal of Linguistics 22: 167–77

—— (1987a) ‘Case Grammar and the Localist Hypothesis’, in Dirven and Radden(1987: 103–21)

—— (1987b) ‘Invariance and Linguistic Variation: A Case Grammar tion’, in H Melenk, J Firges, G Nold, R Strauch and D Zeh (eds.),11 Fremd-sprachendidaktiker-Kongreb, 603–10 Tu¨bingen: Narr

Characterisa-—— (1987c) ‘The Tradition of Structural Analogy’, in R Steele and T Threadgold(eds.), Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, 33–43 Amsterdam:Benjamins

—— (1989a) ‘ReXexions on Notional Grammar, with some Remarks on its Relevance

to Issues in the Analysis of English and its History’, in D.G Arnold, M Atkinson,

J Durand, C Glover, and L Sadler (eds.), Essays on Grammatical Theory andUniversal Grammar, 13–36 Oxford: Oxford University Press

—— (1989b) ‘The Localist Basis for Syntactic Categories’, Second Symposium onEnglish and Greek: Description and/or Comparison of the Two Languages, 7–32.Thessaloniki: School of English, Aristotle University

—— (1990) ‘Case Grammar Contrasts’, in J Fisiak (ed.), Further Insights intoContrastive Linguistics, 23–8 Amsterdam: Benjamins

—— (1991) ‘Notional Grammar and the Redundancy of Syntax’, Studies in Language15: 301–33

—— (1992) Linguistic Representation: Structural Analogy and StratiWcation Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter

—— (1993) ‘Parameters of Syntactic Change: A Notional View’, in C Jones (ed.),Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives, 1–42 London: Longman

—— (1997) A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories Cambridge: Cambridge versity Press

Uni-—— (1998) ‘The Domain of Semantic Roles’, in J Andor, B Hollo´sy, T Laczko´, and

P Pelyva´s (eds.), The Diversity of Linguistic Description: Studies in Linguistics inHonour of Be´la Korponay, 1–38 Debrecen: Lajos Kossuth University

420 References

—— (2000a) ‘Markedness and the Ontogenesis of Syntax’, Folia Linguistica 34:147–83.

—— (2000b) ‘ ‘‘What Became of Waring?’’ Questioning the Predicator in English’,Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 35: 53–80

—— (2001a) ‘Raising Control’, Studia Linguistica 55: 77–111

—— (2001b) ‘Finiteness, in Greek, and Elsewhere’, Poznan´ Studies in ContemporaryLinguistics 37: 5–33

—— (2003) ‘On the Structure of Names’, Folia Linguistica 37: 347–98

—— (2004a) ‘Structural Analogy and Universal Grammar’, to appear in Otero and Honeybone (in press)

Bermudez-—— (2004b) ‘On the Grammatical Status of Names’, Language 80: 435–74

—— (2004c) ‘Syntactic Categories and Syntactic Change: The Development ofSubjunctive Periphrases in English’, in I Moskowich-Spiegel Fandin˜o and B.Crespo Garcı´a (eds.), New Trends in English Historical Linguistics: An AtlanticView, 31–73 Corun˜a: University of Corun˜a

—— (2004d) ‘No Less than Four Notes on Less’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 40: 55–74

—— (2004e) ‘Contrast in Phonology, Structural Analogy, and the Interfaces’, StudiaLinguistica 58: 269–87

—— (2004f) ‘Grammar and Meaning: Two Cheers for Structuralism’ Report

no ILCI-03-LIC-13, Institute For Logic, Cognition, Language and Information.Donostia: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

—— (2005a) ‘The Argument Structure of Morphological Causatives’, Poznan´ Studies

in Contemporary Linguistics 40: 27–89

—— (2005b) ‘The Groundedness of Grammar’, in A Stuhlmann and P Studer(eds.), Language—Text—Bildung: Essays in Honour of Beate Dreike, 13–21 Frank-furt: Lang

—— (2005c) ‘Structuralism and Autonomy: From Saussure to Chomsky’, graphia Linguistica 32: 117–48

Historio-—— (2005d) Let Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 41: 29–52

—— and DURANDJ (eds.), (1987) Explorations in Dependency Phonology Dordrecht:Foris

ANDERSON, S.R (1971) ‘On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation’,Foundations of Language 7: 387–96

—— (1976) ‘On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages’, in cn Li (1976: 1–23)

—— (1977) Comments on Wasow (1977), in Culicover et al (1977: 361–71)

—— (1988) ‘Objects (Direct and Not so Direct) in English and Elsewhere’, in

C Duncan-Rose and T Vennemann (eds.), On Language: Rhetorica, Phonologica,Syntactica A Festschrift for Robert P Stockwell from his Friends and Colleagues, 287–

314 London: Routledge

—— (1992) A-Morphous Morphology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

ANDREWS, A (1985) ‘The major functions of the noun clause’, in T Shopen (ed.),Language Typology and Syntactic Description, I: Clause Structure, 62–154 Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press

References 421

ANTTILA, A., and FONG, V (2000) ‘The Partitive Constraint in Optimality Theory’,Journal of Semantics 17: 281–314.

ARONOFF, M (1980) ‘The Relevance of Productivity to a Synchronic Description ofWord Formation’, in J Fisiak (ed.), Historical Morphology, 71–82 The Hague:Mouton

ASHTON, E.O (1944) Swahili Grammar London: Longman, Green

AST, F (1808) Grundlinien der Grammatik, Hermeneutik und Kritik Berlin

AURNAGUE, M (1998) ‘Basque Genitives and Part–Whole Relations: Typical Wgurations and Dependencies’ Carnets de Grammaire 1 Toulouse: CNRS andUniversity of Toulouse-Le Mirail

Con-—— (2000) ‘Entrer par la petite porte, passer par des chemins de traverse: A` propos de

la pre´position par et de la notion de ‘‘trajet’’ ’, Carnets de grammaire 7 Toulouse:CNRS and University of Toulouse-Le Mirail

—— (2004) Les Structures de l’espace linguistique: Regards croise´s sur quelques structions spatiale du basque et du franc¸ais Louvain: Peeters

con-—— and VIEU, L (1993) ‘A Three-Level Approach to the Semantics of Space’, in

C Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing toNatural Language Processing, 395–439 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

BACH, E (1968) ‘Nouns and Noun Phrases’, in Bach and Harms (1968: 90–122)

—— (1976) ‘Order in Base Structures’, in Li (1975: 307–43)

—— (1977) Comments on Chomsky (1977b), in Culicover et al (1977: 133–55)

—— and HARMS, R.T (eds.) (1968) Universals in Linguistic Theory New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston

BAKER, M.C (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.Chicago: University of Chicago Press

—— (2003) Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press

BARRON, J (2000) ‘The Morphosyntactic Correlates of Finiteness’, in M Butt and

T Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG00 Conference, 1–19 Stanford, Calif.:CSLI Available at: //csli.publications.stanford.edu/

BEARD, R (1998) ‘Derivation’, in A Spencer and A.M Zwicky (eds.) The Handbook ofMorphology, 44–65 Oxford: Blackwell

BECHERT, J (1977) ‘Zur funktionalen Erkla¨rung des Ergativsystems’, Papiere zurLinguistik 12: 57–86

BELLETTI, A., and RIZZI, L (1981) ‘The Syntax of Ne: Some Theoretical Implications’,The Linguistic Review 1: 117–54

BENTON, R (1971) Pangasinan Reference Grammar Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress

BENVENISTE, E´ (1962) ‘Pour l’analyse des functions casuelles: Le ge´nitif latin’, Lingua11: 10–18

BERMUDEZ-OTERO, R., and HONEYBONE, P (eds.) (in press) Linguistic Knowledge: spectives from Phonology and Syntax Special issue of Lingua

Per-B , A.-F (1805) Anfangsgru¨nde der Sprachwissenschaft Berlin

422 References

BIESE, Y.M (1950) Some Notes on the Origin of the Indo-European Nominative Singular.Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, ser B, 63, 5.

BLOOM, P., PETERSON, M.A., NADEL, L., and GARRETT, M.F (eds.) (1996) Language andSpace Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

BLOOMFIELD, L (1933) Language New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston

BOAS, F (ed.) (1911) Handbook of American Indian Languages, I Washington, DC:Bureau of American Ethnology

BO ¨ HM, R (1981) ‘On Causing Without a Subject’, Lingua 53: 3–31

—— (1982) ‘Topics in Localist Case Grammar (with special reference to English andGerman)’ D.Phil thesis, New University of Ulster

—— (1986) ‘Indirect Object Advancement: From Relational Grammar to CaseGrammar (via Kalkatungu)’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 6: 73–105

—— (1993) ‘Predicate–Argument Structure, Relational Typology and (Anti)Passives:Towards an Integrated Localist Case Grammar Account’ Duisburg: LAUD, ser A,

no 336

—— (1998a) ‘De-activated Participants: Notional Grammar, Dependency and(Anti)Passives’, in W Boeder et al (eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriamJohannes Bechert, vol 2, 19–49 Tu¨bingen: Narr

—— (1998b) Notional Grammar, Wortklassen und Dependenz Bremen: University ofBremen, IAAS

—— (1999) ‘Kategorien, KonWgurationen und ‘‘Kasus’’ in einer notionalen matik’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52: 207–31

Gram-—— (2000) ‘Ergativita¨t—Akkusativita¨t und Notionalgrammatisches’, in S.Hackmack and K H Wagner (eds.), Ergativ, 53–64 Bremer Linguististik Workshop

1 Bremen: University of Bremen, IASS Available at: men.de/iaas/workshop/ergativ/

http://www.fb10.uni-bre-—— (2001) ‘Pra¨dikation—primar (und sekunda¨r) notionalgrammatisch’, in S.Hackmack and K H Wagner (eds.), Pra¨dikation, 91–158 Bremer LinguististikWorkshop 2 Bremen: University of Bremen, IAAS Available at: http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/iaas/workshop/praedi/

BOLINGER, D.L (1972) Degree Words The Hague: Mouton

BOSSONG, G (1984) ‘Ergativity in Basque’, Linguistics 22: 341–92

BOWERS, J (1993) ‘The Syntax of Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656

BREKLE, H.E (1970) Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax in derenglischen Nominalkomposition Munich

BRESNAN, J., and KANERVA, J.M (1989) ‘Locative Inversion in Chichewˆ a: A Case Study

of Factorization in Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1–50

BRETTSCHNEIDER, G (1979) ‘Typological Characteristics of Basque’, in F Plank (ed.),Ergativity, 371–84 New York: Academic Press

BROADWELL, G.A (1988) ‘Multiple u-role Assignment in Choctaw’, in Wilkins (1988c:113–27)

BROSCHART, J (1997) ‘Why Tongan Does it DiVerently: Categorical Distinctions in aLanguage without Nouns and Verbs’, Linguistic Typology 1: 123–65

References 423

VANBUREN, P (1979) ‘Comparatives and Linguistic Theory (with special reference tothe Localist Hypothesis of Language)’ Ph.D thesis, University of Edinburgh.

BURZIO, L (1986) Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach Dordrecht: Reidel

BUTT, M (2005) Theories of Case Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

CALDWELL, R (1875) A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South IndianLanguages London: Tru¨bner

CARDEN, G (1973) English QuantiWers: Logical Structure and Linguistic Variation.Tokyo: Taishukan

CARLSON, G (1984) ‘On the Role of Thematic Roles in Linguistic Theory’, Linguistics22: 259–79

CHAFE, W.L (1970) Meaning and the Structure of Language Chicago: University ofChicago Press

CHAPIN, P.G (1972) Review of R.P.S Stockwell, P Schachter, and B.H Partee (1968)The Major Syntactic Structures of English (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1968), Language 48: 645–67

CHOMSKY, N (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— (1966) Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought.New York: Harper & Row

—— (1969) ‘The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present Directions’, in Reibel andSchane (1969: 3–12)

—— (1970) ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in Jacobs and Rosenbaum (1970: 184–221)

—— (1971) ‘Conditions on Transformations’, in S.R Anderson and P Kiparsky(eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–86 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Repr as Chomsky (1977a: 81–260

—— (1972) ‘Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of Transformational Grammar’, in

S Peters (ed.), Goals of Linguistic Theory, 63–130 New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston Repr in N Chomsky, Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar(The Hague: Mouton, 1972)

—— (1976) ReXections on Language London: Fontana

—— (1977a) Essays on Form and Interpretation Amsterdam: North-Holland

—— (1977b) ‘On Wh-Movement’, in Culicover et al (1977: 71–132)

—— (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures Dordrecht: Foris

—— (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government andBinding Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use New York: Praeger

—— (1988) Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press

—— (1993) ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in Hale and Keyser (1993:1–52)

—— (1995) The Minimalist Program Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— and HALLE, M (1968) The Sound Pattern of English New York: Harper & Row

COCHRAN, E.E (1963) A Practical German Review Grammar, 2nd edn EnglewoodCliVs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

424 References

COLE, P.W (1983) ‘The Grammatical Role of the Causee in Universal Grammar’,International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 115–33.

—— HARBERT, W., HERMON, G., and SRIDHAR, S.N (1978) ‘On the Acquisition ofSubjecthood’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8: 42–71

COLMAN, F., and ANDERSON, J.M (2004) ‘On Metonymy as Word Formation: Withspecial reference to Old English’, English Studies 85: 547–65

COMPANY, C (2001) ‘Multiple Dative-Marking Grammaticalization: Spanish as aSpecial Kind of Primary Object Language’, Studies in Language 25: 1–47

COMRIE, B (1973) ‘The Ergative: Variations on a Theme’, Lingua 32: 239–53

—— (1976a) Aspect Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

—— (1976b) ‘The System of Causative Constructions: Cross-Language Similarityand Divergences’, in Shibatani (1976: 261–312)

—— (1985a) ‘Causative Verb Formation and Other Verb-Deriving Morphology’, in

T Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3: GrammaticalCategories and the Lexicon, 309–48 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

—— (1985b) ‘ReXexions on Subject and Object Control’, Journal of Semantics 4: 47–65

COOK, W.A (1978) ‘A Case Grammar Matrix Model’, in Abraham (1978: 296–309)

—— (1979) Case Grammar: Development of the Matrix Model (1970–1978) ton, DC: Georgetown University Press

Washing-COOPER, R (1976) ‘Lexical and Non-Lexical Causatives in Bantu’, in Shibatani (1976:313–24)

—— and PARSONS, T (1976) ‘Montague Grammar, Generative Semantics, and pretative Semantics’, in Partee (1976: 311–62)

Inter-CORBETT, G.G., FRASER, N.M., and MCGLASHAN, S (eds.) (1993) Heads in GrammaticalTheory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

CULICOVER, P.W., WASOW, T., and AKMAJIAN, A (eds.) (1977) Formal Syntax New York:Academic Press

—— and WILKINS, W (1986) ‘Control, PRO, and the Projection Principle’, Language62: 120–53

CURRY, H.B (1961) ‘Some Logical Aspects of Grammatical Structure’, in R Jakobson(ed.), Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, 56–68 Providence, RI:American Mathematical Society

DAHL, O¨ (1980) ‘Some Arguments for Higher Nodes in Syntax: A Reply to Hudson’s

‘‘Constituency and Dependency’’ ’, Linguistics 18: 485–8

—— (1987) ‘Case Grammar and Prototypes’, in Dirven and Radden (1987: 147–61)

DANESˇ, F (1968) ‘Some Thoughts on the Semantic Structure of the Sentence’, Lingua21: 55–69

DARRIGOL, J.-P (1829) Dissertation critique et apologe´tique sur la langue basque.Bayonne

DAVIDSON, D., and HARMAN, G (eds.) (1972) Semantics of Natural Language.Dordrecht: Reidel

DELANCEY, S (1981) ‘An Explanation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns’,Language 57: 626–57

References 425

DELANCEY, S (1991) ‘Event Construal and Case Role Assignment’, Berkeley LinguisticSociety 17: 338–53.

DEMIRDACHE, H., and MATHEWSON, L (1995) ‘On the Universality of Syntactic ies’, NELS 25: 79–94

Categor-DENISON, D (1993) English Historical Syntax London: Longman

DENISON, N (1957) The Partitive in Finnish Helsinki: Suomalaisen TiedeakatemienToimituksia, ser B, vol 108

DIK, S.C (1968) Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics.Amsterdam: North-Holland

—— (1978) Functional Grammar Amsterdam: North-Holland

DIRVEN, R., and RADDEN, G (eds.) (1987) Concepts of Case Tu¨bingen: Narr

DIXON, R.M.W (1972) The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland Cambridge: bridge University Press

Cam-—— (1977) ‘Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?’, Studies in Language 1: 19–80 Rev

as Dixon (1982: 1–62)

—— (1979) ‘Ergativity’, Language 55: 59–138

—— (1982) Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: de Gruyter

DO ¨ LEKE, W.-H (1814) Versuche philosophisch-grammatischer Bemerkungen, II: U¨ ber dieCasus, die Tempora, das Pronomen und das Verbum Substantivum Halberstadt andLeipzig

DOUGHERTY, R.C (1970) ‘Recent Studies on Language Universals’, Foundations ofLanguage 6: 505–61

DOWTY, D (1976) ‘Montague Grammar and the Lexical Decomposition of CausativeVerbs’, in Partee (1976: 201–46)

—— (1982) ‘Grammatical Relations and Montague Grammar’, in P Jacobson andG.K Pullum (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, 79–130 Dordrecht:Reidel

—— (1989) ‘On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘‘Thematic Role’’ ’, in G.Chierchia, B.H Partee, and R Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings, 2:Semantic Issues, 69–129 Dordrecht: Kluwer

—— (1991) ‘Thematic Roles and Argument Selection’, Language 67: 547–619

DRYER, M (1986) ‘Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and AntiDative’, Language 62:808–45

DUNN, J (1998) ‘Disjunct and Nondisjunct Possession in a Coast Tsimshian Text’,paper presented to the Linguistic Society of America, Society for the Study of theIndigenous Languages of America, New York

VANEIJK, J., and HESS, T (1986) ‘Noun and Verb in Salish’, Lingua 69: 319–31

FALK, Y.M (2000) ‘Philippine Subjects in a Monostratal Framework’, paper presented

at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association,16–18 Apr 1999, University of Toronto Available at: http://www.pluto.huji.ac.il/~msyfalk/PhilippineSubjects.pdf

FILLMORE, C.J (1965) ‘Toward a Modern Theory of Case’, Project on Linguistic Analysis,Ohio State University 13: 1–24 Repr in Reibel and Schane (1969: 361–75)

426 References

—— (1966) ‘A Proposal concerning English Prepositions’, Georgetown UniversityMonograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 19: 19–33.

—— (1968a) ‘The Case for Case’, in Bach and Harms (1968: 1–88)

—— (1968b) ‘Lexical Entries for Verbs’, Foundations of Language 4: 373–93

—— (1969) ‘Types of Lexical Information’, in F Kiefer (ed.), Studies in Syntax andSemantics, 109–37 Dordrecht: Reidel Repr in Steinberg and Jacobovits (1971:370–92)

—— (1970) ‘The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking’, in Jacobs and Rosenbaum(1970: 120–33)

—— (1971) ‘Some Problems for Case Grammar’, Georgetown University MonographSeries on Languages and Linguistics 23: 35–56

—— (1972) ‘Subjects, Speakers, and Roles’, in Davidson and Harman (1972: 1–24)

—— (1977) ‘The Case for Case Reopened’, in P.W Cole and J.M Sadock (eds.),Syntax and Semantics8: Grammatical Relations, 59–82 New York: Academic Press

FISCHER, O.C.M., andVAN DERLEEK, F (1987) ‘A ‘‘Case’’ for the Old English sonal’, in W Koopman, F van der Leek, O.C.M Fischer, and R Eaton (eds.),Explanation and Linguistic Change, 79–120 Amsterdam: Benjamins

Imper-FLETCHER, P (1971) ‘Case Grammar: Its Viability as an Alternative GrammaticalModel’, Lingua 28: 237–50

FODOR, J.A (1970) ‘Three Reasons for Not Deriving ‘‘Kill’’ from ‘‘Cause to Die’’ ’,Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429–38

FOLEY, W.A., andVANVALIN, R.D (1984) Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

FOWLER, H.W (1926) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage Oxford: Oxford sity Press

Univer-FRANKLIN, K (1971) A Grammar of Kewa, New Guinea PaciWc Linguistics, Series C 16.Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University

FRASER, BRUCE(1971) ‘A Note on the Spray Paint Cases’, Linguistic Inquiry 2: 604–7

FREI, H (1939) ‘Sylvie est jolie des yeux’, in Me´langes de linguistique oVerts a` CharlesBally, 83–92 Geneva: Georg

FREY, W., and PITTNER, K (1998) ‘Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschenMittelfeld’, Linguistische Berichte 176: 489–534

—— —— (1999) ‘Adverbialpositionen im deutsch-englischen Vergleich’, in M erty (ed.), SprachspeziWsche Aspekte der Informationsverteilung, 14–40 Berlin: Aka-demie

Doh-FRIES, C.C (1952) The Structure of English: An Introduction to the Construction ofEnglish Sentences New York: Harcourt, Brace

FUDGE, E.C (1967) ‘The Nature of Phonological Primes’, Journal of Linguistics 3: 1–36

FUJIMURA, O (ed.) (1973) Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory Tokyo: TEC

GILDERSLEEVE, B.L., and LODGE, G (1968) Latin grammar, 3rd edn London: Macmillan

GIVO ´ N, T (1976) ‘Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement’, in Li (1976: 149–88)

GLEASON, H.A Jr (1965) Linguistics and English Grammar New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston

References 427

GOATLY, A (1997) The Language of Metaphors London: Routledge.

GOLDBERG, A (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to ArgumentStructure Chicago: University of Chicago Press

—— and JACKENDOFF, R.S (2004) ‘The English Resultative as a Family of tions’, Language 80: 532–68

Construc-GREEN, A (1914) ‘The Analytic Agent in Germanic’, Journal of English and GermanicPhilology 13: 514–52

GREEN, G.M (1974) Semantics and Syntactic Regularity Bloomington: Indiana versity Press

Uni-GRIMSHAW, J (1990) Argument Structure Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— and MESTER, A (1988) ‘Light Verbs and u-marking’, Linguistic Inquiry 19:205–32

DEGROOT, A.W (1939) ‘Les oppositions dans les syste`mes de la syntaxe et des cas’, inMe´langes de linguistique oVerts a` Charles Bally, 107–27 Geneva: Georg

GRUBER, J.S (1965) ‘Studies in Lexical Relations’, Ph.D dissertation, MIT Published

as Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976)

HAIDER, H (1984) ‘Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat: Bemerkungen zum InWnitiv’,Papiere zur Linguistik 30: 23–36

HALE, K (1983) ‘Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-ConWgurational Languages’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–49

—— and KEYSER, S.J (eds.) (1993) The View from Building20: Essays in Linguistics inHonor of Sylvain Bromberger Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— —— (2002) Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press

HALE, M., and REISS, C (2000) ‘Phonology as Cognition’, in N Burton-Roberts,

P Carr, and G Docherty (eds.), Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and EmpiricalIssues, 161–84 Oxford: Oxford University Press

HALLE, M., and MARANTZ, A.P (1993) ‘Distributed Morphology and the Pieces ofInXection’, in Hale and Keyser (1993: 111–76)

HALLIDAY, M.A.K (1967) ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 1’, Journal

of Linguistics 3: 37–81

—— (1968) ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 3’, Journal of tics 4: 179–215

Linguis-—— (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn London: Arnold

HARLEY, H (2002) ‘A Minimal(ish) Linking Theory’, handout for a talk presented atthe Maryland Mayfest, 16 May 2002 Available at: http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/HarleyMayfestHandout2002.pdf

HARRIS, J (1751) Hermes, or a Philosophical Inquiry concerning Language and UniversalGrammar Repr Menston: Scolar Press 1968

HARTUNG, J.-A (1831) Ueber die Casus, ihre Bildung und Bedeutung in der griechischenund lateinischen Sprache Erlangen

HAUDRY, J (1970) ‘L’instrumental et la structure de la phrase simple en ope´en’, Bulletin de la Socie´te´ de Linguistique de Paris 65: 44–84

indo-eur-428 References

HAUSER, M.D., CHOMSKY, N., and FITCH, W.T (2002) ‘The Faculty of Language: What Is

It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?’, Science 298: 1569–79

HAYS, D.G (1964) ‘Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations’,Language 40: 511–25

HERSKOWITS, A (1987) Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study ofthe Prepositions in English Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

HILL, A.A (1958) Introduction to Linguistic Structures: From Sound to Sentence inEnglish New York: Harcourt, Brace

HJELMSLEV, L (1935/7) ‘La cate´gorie des cas’, Acta Jutlandica 7: i–xii, 1–184; 9: i–vii, 1–

78 Repr Munich: Fink, 1972

—— (1948a) Editorial, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 4: v–xi Repr as ‘Linguistiquestructurale’ in Hjelmslev (1959: 21–6)

—— (1948b) ‘Le verbe et la phrase nominale’, in Me´langes de philologie, de litte´rature

et d’histoire anciennes oVerts a` J Marouzeau, 253–81 Repr in Hjelmslev (1959:165–91)

—— (1959) Essais linguistiques [¼ Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague,XII.] Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag

HOLMBERG, A., and NIKANNE, U (eds.) (1993) Case and Other Functional Categories inFinnish Syntax Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

HOLZWEISSIG, F (1877) Wahrheit und Irrthum der localistischen Casustheorie Leipzig

HOPPER, P.J., and TRAUGOTT, E.C (1993) Grammaticalization Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press

HORN, G.M (1985) ‘Raising and Complementation’, Linguistics 23: 813–50

HORN, L.R (1980) ‘AYxation and the Unaccusative Hypothesis’, Chicago LinguisticSociety 16: 134–46

HORNSTEIN, N (1999) ‘Movement and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96

HOUSEHOLDER, F.W (1972a) Introduction, in Householder (1972b: 7–19)

—— (ed.) (1972b) Syntactic Theory: Structuralist Harmondsworth: Penguin

HUDDLESTON, R.D (1970) ‘Some Remarks on Case Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 1:501–11

—— (1984) Introduction to the Grammar of English Cambridge: Cambridge sity Press

Univer-HUDSON, R.A (1980a) ‘Constituency and Dependency’, Linguistics 18: 179–98

—— (1980b) ‘A Second Attack on Constituency: A Reply to Dahl’, Linguistics 18:489–504

—— (1984) Word Grammar Oxford: Blackwell

—— (1987) ‘Zwicky on Heads’, Journal of Linguistics 24: 109–32

—— (1990) A Word Grammar of English Oxford: Blackwell

HYMAN, L.M., and ZIMMER, K.E (1976) ‘Embedded Topic in French’, in Li (1976:189–211)

JACKENDOFF, R.S (1968) ‘QuantiWers in English’, Foundations of Language 4: 422–42

—— (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar Cambridge, Mass.: MITPress

References 429

JACKENDOFF, R.S (1976) ‘Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation’, LinguisticInquiry 7: 89–150.

—— (1977a) XX syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— (1977b) ‘Constraints on Phrase Structure Rules’, in Culicover et al (1977:249–83)

—— (1983) Semantics and Cognition Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— (1990a) Semantic Structures Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

—— (1990b) ‘On Larson’s Analysis of the Double Object Construction’, LinguisticInquiry 21: 427–56

—— and Culicover, P.W (2003) ‘The Semantic Basis of Control in English’, guage 79: 517–56

Lan-JACOBS, R.A., and ROSENBAUM, P.S (eds.) (1970) Readings in English TransformationalGrammar Waltham, Mass.: Ginn

JACOBSEN, W (1979) ‘Verb and Noun in Nootkan’, in B Efrat (ed.), The VictoriaConference on Northwestern Languages, 1976, 83–155 British Columbia ProvincialMuseum, Heritage Record, no 4

JAKOBSON, R (1936) ‘Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre’, Travaux du Cercle tique de Prague 6: 240–88

Linguis-JELINEK, E., and DEMERS, R (1994) ‘Predicates and Pronominal Arguments in StraitsSalish’, Language 70: 697–736

JESPERSEN, O (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar London: Allen & Unwin

JESSEN, M.E (1973) ‘Preliminaries to a Theory of Temporal Journeys’, EdinburghWorking Papers in Linguistics 2: 109–26

—— (1975) ‘A Semantic Study of Spatial and Temporal Expressions in English’ Ph.D.thesis, University of Edinburgh

JOOS, M (1958) Preface to M Joos (ed.), Readings in Linguistics: The Development ofDescriptive Linguistics in America since1925, pp v–vii New York: American Council

of Learned Societies

KANDIAH, T (1968) ‘Transformational Grammar and the Layering of Structure inTamil’, Journal of Linguistics 4: 217–45

KASTOVSKY, D (1973) ‘Causatives’, Foundations of Language 10: 255–315

KATZ, J.J (1972) Semantic Theory New York: Harper & Row

KEENAN, E.L (1976a) ‘Remarkable Subjects in Malagasy’, in Li (1976: 247–301)

—— (1976b) ‘Towards a Universal DeWnition of Subject’, in Li (1976: 303–33)

KELLER, F., and SORACE, A (2003) ‘Gradient Auxiliary Selection and ImpersonalPassivisation in German: An Experimental Investigation’, Journal of Linguistics 39:57–108

KIBRIK, A.E (1985) ‘Towards a Typology of Ergativity’, in Nichols and Woodbury(1985: 268–323)

KIMENYI, A (1980) A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press

KINKADE, M.D (1976) ‘The Copula and Negatives in Inland Olympic Salish’, national Journal of American Linguistics 42: 17–23

Inter-430 References

—— (1983) ‘Salish Evidence Against the Universality of ‘‘Noun’’ and ‘‘Verb’’ ’, Lingua60: 25–39.

KIPARSKY, P (1998) ‘The Partitive Case and Aspect’, in M Butt and W Geuder (eds.),The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 265–307 Stanford,Calif.: CSLI

—— and KIPARSKY, C (1970) ‘Fact’, in M Bierwisch and K.E Heidolph (eds.),Progress in Linguistics, 143–73 The Hague: Mouton Repr in Steinberg and Jacobo-vits (1971: 345–69)

KIRKWOOD, H.W (1973) ‘Theme and Rheme in English and German’ Ph.D thesis,University of Edinburgh

KITAGAWA, Y (1986) ‘Subjects in English and Japanese’ Ph.D dissertation, University

of Massachusetts

KOOPMAN, H., and SPORTICHE, D (1991) ‘The Position of Subjects’, Lingua 85: 211–59

KOPTJEVSKAYA-TAMM, M (1993) ‘Finiteness’, in R.E Asher (ed.), The Encyclopaedia ofLanguage and Linguistics, 1245–8 Oxford/Aberdeen: Pergamon Aberdeen Univer-sity Press

KORNAI, A., and PULLUM, G.K (1990) ‘The X-bar Theory of Phrase Structure’, guage 66: 24–50

Lan-KOUTSOUDAS, A., and SANDERS, G.A (1974) ‘On the Universality of Rules and Ordering Constraints’ Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club

Rule-KROEGER, P (1993) Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog Stanford,Calif.: CSLI

KURYŁOWICZ, J (1949) ‘Le proble`me du classement des cas’, Biuletyn Polskiego zystwa Je˛zykoznawczego 9: 20–43 Repr in Esquisses linguistiques, 131–50 (Wrocław &Krako´w)

Towar-—— (1964) The InXectional Categories of Indo-European Heidelberg: Winter

LADUSAW, W.A (1982) ‘Semantic Constraints on the English Partitive Construction’,Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1: 231–42

LAKOFF, G (1965) On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity (Mathematical Linguisticsand Automatic Translation, report NSF-16.) Cambridge, Mass.: ComputationLaboratory, Harvard University Published as Irregularity in Syntax (New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970)

—— (1968) ‘Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure’, Foundations

of Language 4: 4–29

—— (1971) ‘On Generative Semantics’, in Steinberg and Jacobovits (1971: 232–96)

—— (1972) ‘Linguistics and Natural Logic’, in Davidson and Harman (1972:545–665)

—— and JOHNSON, M (1980) Metaphors We Live By Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress

LAKOFF, R (1968) Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston

LANCELOT, C (1644) Nouvelle Me´thode pour apprendre facilement et en peu de temps lalangue latine Paris

References 431