Modern Grammars of Case anderson phần 5 pot

In order for the ‘agent’ to be shared, a derived intransitive verb must beformed, whose absolutive participant is derived from an ‘agentive’ which hasacquired an absolutive as part of th

The ‘ergative’ morphology of Dyirbal is seen in the various forms in (25):(25) a bayi ya˛ra baniJu

CL man came-here

(‘The man came here’)

b bayi ya˛ra ba˛gun ugumbi˛ru) balgan

CL man CL.ERG/INS woman:ERG/INS hit

(‘The woman hit the man’)

The initial class-marker þ noun sequence in each of (25) is said to be

‘nominative’, or ‘absolutive’, whereas the ‘agent’ in (25b), the second marker þ noun, is in the ‘ergative/instrumental’ case The scare quotesaround ‘agent’ remind us that this element may be an experiencer: it is anergative The absolutive represents a grammatical relation, not simply aneutralized form: it is the absolutive that is controlled in subordinateclauses—i.e that is shared with a full semantic participant in the upper clause(as discussed in §7.3) In unmarked constructions, the ‘agent’ of a basic verb

class-in a subordclass-inate predication is not shared under control

In order for the ‘agent’ to be shared, a derived intransitive verb must beformed, whose absolutive participant is derived from an ‘agentive’ which hasacquired an absolutive as part of the derivation and is marked accordingly Weneed Wrst, however, to look more closely at (25a) (25a) contains a non-derivedagentive intransitive, on the most obvious reading Agentive and non-agentive intransitives are neutralized in expression; they are both absolutive.This is because the agent of an agentive intransitive is also absolutive, as theentity that undergoes the process, in the case of (25a) movement, as well as beingthe source of the action And both agentive and non-agentive participants ofintransitives are controllable The argument of the intransitive verb derivedfrom a basic transitive such as that in (25b) will thus be eligible for control.This derived form is exempliWed in (26):

(26) a bayi ya˛ra (ba˛gul bargandu) urga-naJu

CL man CL:ERG/INS wallaby:ERG/INS spear-ANTIP.NONFUTURE

b bayi ya˛ra (baJgul bargangu) urga-naJu

CL man CL.DAT wallaby:DAT spear-ANTIP.NONFUTURE(‘The man is spearing the wallaby’)

I have marked the derivational aYx in (26) ‘antip(assive)’, as is traditional Inthe anti-passive construction the element corresponding to the (active) tran-sitive absolutive is optional, as indicated in (26), and marked either by the

‘ergative-instrumental’ (26a) or by the ‘dative’ (26b): it is a circumstantial, likethe passive by-phrase in English

We might, anticipating a little, formulate anti-passive as in (27):

(27) Anti-passive

V/{erg},{abs}, V/{erg,abs}

j{abs}

The derived verb is a ‘complex category’ which satisWes its absolutive valencyinternally; and the ergative argument is accordingly marked as an intransitive

‘agent’ We can attribute this marking to the universality of absolutive quirement, so that the absolutive on the right of (27) compensates for the loss,

re-by ‘incorporation’, of the absolutive which is part of the subcategorization ofthe basic verb (as represented on the left) The initial ‘agent’ þ (derived)absolutive element is nominative/absolutive I assume that, as with the passiveby-phrase in English, the ‘displaced’ absolutive in (26) is in apposition withthe ‘incorporated’ absolutive of (27) (see further §§9.2.2, 12.2.3) But seeBo¨hm’s (1998a) more reWned treatment of the typology of such ‘deactivatedparticipants’

The ‘agent’þ absolutive of a derived anti-passive verb is eligible for beingcontrolled (Dixon 1972: §5.4.4), as illustrated, recursively, in the complexsentence in (28):

(28) naa bayi ya˛ra gigan bagun ugumbilgu wawul- ˛ay- gu ˛inungu

I CL man told CL.DAT woman:DAT fetch- ANTIP- nonfuture youmundal-˛ay- gu bagu miagu wambal- ˛ay- gu

bring-ANTIP- nonfut CL.DAT house:DAT build- ANTIP- nonfuture(‘I told the man to fetch the woman to bring you to build the house’)

To this extent, the absolutive is routinized There are devices (such as passive) which feed the syntactic role of the absolutive, though this syntacticrole has a functional motivation in providing a determinate shared argumentfor the lower clause But in non-derived forms the absolutive does not, unlikethe subject, involve assimilatory neutralization; this occurs only in the derivedanti-passive construction The Dyirbal absolutive is, then, a minimally neu-tralizing principal which is not selected hierarchically but directly on the basis

anti-of marking a particular semantic relation, while ignoring whether it is alsomarked for ergative or not

There are other languages in which the diVerence in semantic relations ofthe (non-locational) participants in agentive and non-agentive intransitivesare not neutralized morphologically; these are said to have ‘agent-patient’systems Such is Lakhota, illustrated in (29) (from van Valin (1985: 365-6),drawn on by Palmer (1994: 66), in the course of a survey of diVerent types of

The Variety of Grammatical Relations 169

systems expressing semantic and neutralized relations—though, of course, it

is not conducted in the present terms):

(29) a ma- ya´- kte´

1.PAT- 2.AGT- kill

(‘You killed me’)

3.PAT -1AGT- kill

(‘I killed him’)

2.PAT-3.AGT- -kill

(‘He killed you’)

(‘You are tall’)

The various person aYxes in (29), which in these examples are all singular (soI’ve left that unspeciWed), also signal ‘agent’ versus ‘patient’, i.e absolutive inpresent terms: ‘1’¼ ‘First person’, ‘2’ ¼ ‘Second person’, ‘3’ ¼ ‘Third person’;

‘AGT’ ¼ ‘Agent’, ‘PAT’ ¼ ‘Patient’ Both ‘agent’ and absolutive markers arepresent in (29a–c), though third person is marked by absence of an aYx.The agentive intransitives in (29d) and (29f) take the agent marker; with thenon-agentives in (29e) and (29g) we Wnd a marker of absolutive What isneutralized here is the distinction between {erg} and {abs,erg}, ‘transitive andintransitive’ ergatives The morphology doesn’t express the sharing of the{abs} relation between the diVerent types of intransitive: ‘agentive’ ¼{abs,erg}; ‘non-agentive’¼ {abs}

Further examples of languages that have such an ‘agent-patient’ system arediscussed by Mithun (1999: §4.3.3); they too distinguish ‘agents’, whether or

not they are also absolutive, i.e are transitive or intransitive She illustratesthis from Haida, with examples drawn from Levine (1977)—(30a, b) here—and Lawrence (1977)—(30c) (who, the reader should be warned, use diVerentsystems of transcription from each other):

woods DISTR toward-FOREGROUND 1SG.AGT went

(‘I went up into the woods’)

b di la squdag^n

1SG 3AGT hit

(‘He hit me’)

c K’yuw-a´a-st dı´i dlawı´igan

trail-the-from 1PAT fell

(‘I fell oV the trail’)

(‘DISTR’¼ ‘distributive’) The ‘agent’ pronouns are unmarked In this systemtoo the distinction between transitive and intransitive ‘agent’ is neutralized.But it also introduces some further considerations

In some other languages, Mithun notes (1999: 213-14), ‘patient’ marking

is associated, as well as with ‘non-stative’ verbs, with all the arguments

of ‘statives’ that do not involve spatial location But in Haida ‘statives’may or may not be marked as ‘patients’, depending on the presence of anagentive interpretation An ‘agentive stative’ (from Levine 1977) is shown

in (31a):

island-the on FOREGROUND 1SG.AGT exist-past-old

(‘I was out on the islands’)

b da´ng dı´i gula´agang

2SG.PAT 1SG.PAT like

(‘I like you’)

(Mithun 1999: 215) And {loc,erg} (experiencer) arguments are generallymarked as ‘patients’, as in (31b) (Mithun 1999: 216, again from Lawrence1977) This involves yet another notion of ‘patient’ from those discussed in

§6.2 Here the morphologically marked ‘patient’ can be any participant that

is not a simple ergative Palmer (1994: §3.6.2) attributes to Tabas(s)aran(ian)

an agent-patient system; but this is limited to a part of the agreement system;otherwise the language is ‘ergative’

The Variety of Grammatical Relations 171

In other (sub)systems still there is no such overall neutralization as we Wnd

in Haida or in ‘ergative’ languages proper Often the range of semanticrelations involved is revealed by diVerent morphological devices which indi-vidually are neutralizing This can be illustrated by the sentences in (33), fromEastern Pomo (from McLendon (1978), cited in Anderson (1987a), for ex-ample) First, however, consider the forms in (32):

(32) a sˇak’ ‘kill (one)’ ~ dule´y ‘kill (several)’

b phadı´l ‘one leaf drifting’ ~ phya´w ‘many leaves drifting’

(33) a mı´’p be´kal dule´ya

3SG.AGT 3PL.PAT killed:PL

(‘He killed them’)

b be´kh mı´pal sˇaiya

3PL.AGT 3SG.PAT killed:SG

(‘They killed him’)

c mı´’p ka´lahuya

3SG.AGT went.home:SG

(‘He went home’)

d be´kh ka´lphilı´ya

Many systems display more neutralization, however As we have seen, manysuch systems show the neutralization of agentive versus non-agentive amongabsolutives (as in Dyirbal) or failure to express the absolutive component of

agentive absolutives in intransitive ‘agents’ (as in Lakhota) And often in allthe types system we have been looking at in this section, expression of theexperiencer in clauses lacking a true ‘agent’ is identical with that of the true

‘agent’, as in Basque (and unlike as in Haida—recall (31b)):

father:SG.DEF.ERG bread:SG.DEF.ABS eating 3SG.AGT: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’)

Recall that this is why in this section I have been enclosing ‘agent’ within scarequotes Both the initial agentive in (32a) and the initial experiencer in (32b)are inXected for ‘ergative’; it marks any non-spatial source And the Wnal

‘auxiliary’ varies with the person/number of both the ‘ergative’ and the

‘absolutive’, second in that clause Both participants in the sentences arethird person and singular and deWnite, and the former two are reXected inthe shape of the ‘auxiliary’

This very common neutralization (of agentive/experiencer) in ‘ergative’systems is (transitive-)subject-like, and perhaps reXects the shared pragmaticprominence (in terms of topicality and empathy) of ‘agents’ and ‘experien-cers’, as sources of the action or experience (see §13.2.3, however) It iscertainly once again lexical rather than part of an assimilatory device, likesubject formation, that neutralizes semantic distinctions by addition ratherthan simply suppression of a diVerence between roles that retain a relation incommon This last observation is also true of ‘agent-patient’ such as we Wnd inHaida: there is no assimilatory neutralization

In other cases, the pragmatic pressure favouring a special status for tives and experiencers can be more drastic, and can lead to subject formationbeing adopted (or retained) in particular clause types in an otherwise ‘erga-tive’ system (typically distinguished by tense-aspect or in terms of main/subordinate) or in a particular argument type, such as third persons versusothers That is, it can lead in general to ‘split ergativity’ (illustrated in detail inDixon (1979)), which is marginally present even in Dyirbal Bechert (1977)associates the common split between ‘present/ergative’ and ‘past/accusative’with the idea that in ongoing actions the ‘agent’ is in focus, whereas inaccomplished actions it is what I’ve been calling the absolutive that is focused

agen-on In a number of such languages, subject formation is more intrusive still,

The Variety of Grammatical Relations 173

but the extent of this is uncertain in many instances, as is illustrated by theearlier discussion of Basque.

Of course, with any of the types of morphological system that we havelooked at in this section (and previously), any lexically implemented distinc-tion is liable to loss of grounding, the development of item-speciWc oridiosyncratic choice of marker Thus, while verbs that take, say, a genitivecomplement in the various more traditional Indo-European languages canmostly be grouped into coherent semantic sets (as brieXy illustrated for OldEnglish in §6.4), there are exceptional members of such classes

Also, the notion of ‘agent’ can vary from language to language amonglanguages of the types considered in this subsection (as well as in otherlanguages); perceptions vary Moreover, the signalling of the ‘agent’/absolu-tive distinction can be ‘contaminated’ by the use of the markers to signal othersemantic distinctions, particularly properties that identify a particular sub-type of ‘agent’ or absolutive, especially prototypical ones Such are ‘volition’,whose perceived importance in the language can lead to non-volitionalagentives failing to be distinguished as ‘agents’, and, on the other hand,

‘aVectedness’, in terms of which ‘non-aVected’ absolutives may not be marked

as absolutive (see for example Palmer (1994: §3.5.2), which draws on Mithun(1991a)) Recall too the example from Bats oVered in §4.2.1, where ‘responsi-bility’ is signalled by use of ‘ergative’ marking

La Polla (1992) describes the ‘split ergativity’ system in Tibeto-Burman.This is ‘person-based’ rather than ‘aspectually based’: here ‘ergative’ vs

‘accusative’ marking is used to indicate unexpected ‘agents’ versus unexpected

‘patients’ These are said to be ‘unexpected’ on the basis of expectations aboutwhich persons constitute respective unmarked instances of these Watters(2002: §4.5) describes in some detail the system of Kham, where, he suggests,

‘the marking has become fully grammaticalized’ (2002: 69)

The case-marking variants are associated with position on the ‘personhierarchy’ diagrammed by Watters (2002: 69), replicated here as Figure 7.2 In

it is indicated, within the double-headed arrows, the domains of respectively

‘ergative’ and ‘accusative’ case-marking, such that the ‘ergative’ signals ‘markedagents’ and ‘accusative’ signals ‘marked patients’

Both the ‘agent’ and the ‘patient’ in a predication lack overt case ology if the former is Wrst or second person, and the ‘patient’ is indeWnitethird person, as in (35a) (Watters 2002: 68, 66):

morph-(35) a ge: em-t@ mi:- r@ ge- ma- ra- d@i-ye

we road-on person- PL 1PL- NEG- 3PL- Wnd-IPFV(‘We met no people on the way’)

b tip@lkya-e la: s@ih-ke- o

Tipalkya-ERG leopard kill-PFV- 3SG

(‘Tipalkya killed a leopard’)

c ˛a-lai cyu:-na- ke- o

I-ACC look-1SG- PFV- 3SG

(‘He looked at me’)

d ge˜:h-ye ˛a- lai duhp- na- ke- o

OX-ERG 1 ACC butt- 1SG- PFV- 3SG

(‘The ox butted me’)

(Here ‘(I)PFV’¼ ‘(Im)perfective’.) ‘Ergative’ marking is illustrated in (35b): ‘thesubject of a transitive clause receives ‘‘ergative’’ marking if it is 3RDperson, butnot if it is 1STor 2ND’ (Watters 2002: 67) A Wrst or second or third persondeWnite ‘patient’ is marked with the ‘accusative’, as in (35c) (Watters 2002: 68)

In (35d) we have both a third-person ‘agent’, so it is marked with the ‘ergative’inXection, and a Wrst-person ‘patient’, marked with ‘accusative’ (ibid.)

It seems to me that (pace Watters) this situation involves at most only weak

‘grammaticalization’, given that the hierarchy determining case-marking isbased ultimately on semantic relations and other, inherent semantic proper-ties But it does illustrate rather well the role of ergativity in marking otherthings than simply semantic or neutralized relations Again, however, thisreXects grounding in other semantic distinctions

1ST

unmarked patients (<ACC>)

Figure 7.2 Case-marking in Kham

The Variety of Grammatical Relations 175

7.6 Conclusion

This chapter has been concerned to illustrate some of the ways in whichgrounding of semantic relations can be lessened, including the ‘diversion’ ofmarkers to other semantic functions It has also tried to display some of themotivations for the presence in languages of ‘loosening’ of the semantic andpragmatic grounding of the use of positional syntax and morphology to signalparticipant relations In the development of prime-forming and subject-forming systems, the role of functions grounded in pragmatics, like topicalityand (particularly with subject formation) empathy, and their loss of ground-ing, seem to be important; and topicality seems too to have a role in thedevelopment of ‘ergative’ systems (Mallinson and Blake 1981: 109) And the

‘loosening’ of these functions in favour of a (varying, but often considerable)syntactic role can be attributed to functional grounding

In particular, the bearing of a (principal) grammatical relation such assubject provides a determinate identity for an element whose identiWcation isobscured by ectopicity, by absence from an expected position: it is identiWed

in the case of a subject system by knowledge of the argument structure of thepredicator and the hierarchy of subject selection This contributes to economyand parsability And the absolutive has a similar role in ‘ergative’ systems,which, however, do not involve full routinization, given the lack of assimila-tory (relation-adding) neutralization This is why the choice (by Andersonand Bo¨hm) of ‘absolutive’ for the relevant semantic relation, though itintroduces an ambiguity (‘case relation’ or ‘case form’), is a naturalchoice—though ‘neutral’ would have avoided the ambiguity (as it would inthe case of ‘theme’)

In this way, the grounding in semantics and pragmatics, together withsatisfaction of communicative demands, plays an active part in the variation

in positional syntax and morphology associated with various neutralizedrelations Understanding why syntax is the way it is demands the paying ofattention to language use and language users

Relevant here is Mithun’s (1991b) discussion of the situation in the jectless languages Selayarese (Austronesian, an ‘ergative’ language) andCayugo (Iroquoian, ‘agent-patient’) She argues that the development ofsubjecthood did not take place in their case because the kind of functionalmotivations we have been looking at were not present, given the structure ofthe languages, where the syntax involves widespread use of pronouns, towhich determiner/noun phrases are apposed

sub-Further, as revealed by a comparison of ‘topic-prominent’ versus prominent’ languages, loss of grounding underlies changes in language type.And variation in grounding strategy is associated with other typologicaldiVerences The partly diVerent word-order changes in the various Germaniclanguages, for instance, are associated with the partly diVerent paths ofroutinization followed in the languages Pursuit of this, however, wouldtake our path away from the scheduled itinerary.

‘subject-However, we should also register Wnally here that the discussion in thischapter has given in addition further illustration that, as well as the assimi-latory neutralization associated with subject formation, it is necessary torecognize diversiWcations, as with goal absolutives (accusative) versus non-goal absolutives

The Variety of Grammatical Relations 177

The Category of Case

The conclusions, suggestions and questions we have arrived at in pursuing theissues raised in Chapters 6 and 7 are the result of the examination of one largelyunfulWlled consequence of the early ‘case grammar’ enterprise, namely theneed for characterization of the content and thus of limitations on the content

of ‘cases’, as well as the extent to which an understanding of this content throwslight on the relationship of the ‘cases’ to expression, to ‘case forms’ But thereare other consequences that have also much occupied recent work in thistradition, some of which I have alluded to earlier

Some of the most important of these consequences constitute the remainingquestions in terms of which I framed in Chapter 5 what I called (thoughwithout intending the enumeration to be exclusive or impartial) ‘conse-quences of case grammar’:

(5.49) Consequences of case grammar

a) the question of content

b) the question of category

g) the question of consistency

d) the question of derivationality

And the second of these is perhaps that which would seem now to mostdemand our attention, on the basis of what we have been able to establish sofar concerning the Wrst What kind of category is case’? How is it like or unlike

a category such as verb or noun? And how is this to be represented? ing these questions will occupy us in Chapters 8 and 9

Address-8.1 ‘Case’ as a functional category

Verbs are complemented by ‘cases’ And the particular semantic relations, thesecondary categories of ‘case’ are what distinguish diVerent participant argu-ments of the verb from each other The need for more-than-unary comple-mentation by participants reXects the requirements of the interface with

semantic content: speciWcally, provision of the capacity to represent complexscenes with multiple participants as well as (potentially) multiple circumstan-tials But this also involves the articulation of means of diVerentiating be-tween diVerent participant types, as well as circumstance types The majormeans is the category of ‘case’, and it is of a particular category type, onewhich reXects this role.

This is a type that may be realized in various ways, as has already begun toemerge from our informal discussions of the preposition/morphological caseequivalence, and as was formulated more explicitly in terms of dependencygraphs in §§3.2.2–3 Thus, to recall and begin to extend that discussion, ‘case’,whether neutralized or not, may be represented in a ‘pure’ form (or ‘peri-phrastically’, in a general sense of this term), or, perhaps less prejudicially,

‘analytically’, as in (1a); or it may be realized along with, cumulated with,other categories, as in (1b); or as a result of being ‘absorbed’ into anothercategory, it may be expressed morphologically, as in (1c); or its ‘absorption’may be reXected only positionally, as in (1d):

(1) a Fritz lives at home/Fritz went to Rome

b Fritz lives there

c La¯ertes Ro¯mam iı¯t

Laertes to-Rome went

d Fritz read reviews

I associate the relevant parts of (1) with the conWgurations in (2), where (1a)corresponds to (2a) and (b):

I leave aside subjects for the moment, so that one of the valencies of the verbs

in (2) is not satisWed in these representations (2) includes the representation

of the lexical subcategorizations of the primary categories (to the right of theslashes) I have labelled the ‘case’ category ‘F’, for ‘functor’, which I havepreferred to ‘case’ as more neutral among realizations of the category {loc}

is a secondary category of the functor, and occurs within inner braces Thefunctor links the predicator to its arguments, and its secondary categorieslabel the relations that hold between it and them

The verb in (2a) is subcategorized for a locative complement; and this is satisWed

by the locative functor Functors in general are subcategorized for a nominalcomplement, and, since this is redundant, speciWcation of this has been left out ofthe representations The goal relation of to Rome in (2b) is a variant of {loc}associated with directional verbs (verbs subcategorized, as there, for {{src}})

In (2c) we have a complex category involving a functor that has subjoined

to it a simple deictic element; this is one type of ‘adverb’, i.e a member of a

group which is typically categorially complex in this way In this instance wehave cumulative realization of the complex category that is formed by thelexically given subjunction path.

In (2d) the functor again heads a complex categorization, but in this case it

is itself given morphological expression in the form of the inXection: Ro¯mam

is the singular accusative whose citation (nominative) form is Ro¯ma Thefunctor in (2e) is not given any lexical expression: the absolutive required bythe subcategorization of the verb is identiWed by its unmarked locationimmediately to the right of the verb

In their diVerent ways, these representations embody crucially the pattern ofpredicator subcategorization, what we might refer to as the ‘functional argu-ment structure’ of this part of the clause I note again that the articulation ofthis is necessitated by the demands of the interface for an adequate represen-tation of conceptual scenes Fundamental to these functional argument struc-tures and their variety is the presence of a category of a distinctive type, one that

is adapted to the expression of these in diVerent typological classes of system.One aspect of this distinctiveness is that the category may be manifested invarious ways rather than always as a single distinct ‘part of speech’, as I havejust been illustrating Another related one is that the role of the category is

‘functional’, in a rather traditional sense opposed to ‘lexical’, as embodied inthe labelling ‘functional argument structure’ Functional categories also tend

to have a restricted membership: they approximate to being a ‘closed class’.They are often cliticized On the basis of what has been presented here,Anderson (1997) suggests that the functor is the paradigm example of a

‘functional category’

8.2 Functional categories

The presence of a functional/lexical distinction involves a specialization of aset of primary categories which articulate the functional structure of variousaspects of the scene being represented in the syntax The functors, in particu-lar, enable expression of argument structure Anderson (1997) envisages,together with functors, the other possible functional categories in (3a):(3) a Functional categories

functor Wniteness determination comparator

b Lexical categories

The Category of Case 181

For completeness, (3b) lists the lexical categories, which are not our primaryconcern here—though we shall return to them in Chapter 10, where I intro-duce the featural representation of the categories in general The otherfunctional categories resemble the functor in the appropriate respects, asthese were outlined at the end of the preceding section.

The comparator is the functional category associated with adjectives Likeadjectives (Anderson 1997: §2.4), the comparator seems to be less prevalent inlanguages than the other primary categories But it exhibits the propertiesassociated with functional categories In English, for instance, it may beexpressed independently (periphrastically) or morphologically, or possibly

in cumulation, as respectively in (4):

(4) a Bob is more energetic than John

b Bob is stronger than John

c Bob is diVerent than John

Comparators can be said to articulate the functional structure of qualitativecomparison The comparator category is least relevant to our present con-cerns, and indeed the area remains relatively unexplored (as far as categorialstatus is concerned); for some illustration see Anderson (2004d) I shallconcentrate my attention on the other functional categories The followingtwo subsections are respectively devoted to Wniteness and determination.8.2.1 Finiteness

Let us Wrst look brieXy at the Wniteness category It too may be realized as aseparate word (‘periphrastically’), as in (5a), or also by the morphology, even

in the same language (such as English), as in (b):

(5a) illustrates independent (‘analytic’) expression of the Wniteness element;

in (5b) it is ‘absorbed’ lexically in the verb To the extent that in English themorphological expression of the secondary category of tense, and of person/number outside nominals, is associated with prototypical manifestations ofWniteness, it may be said to be expressed morphologically in (5b) Finitenesstakes a predicator as complement The particular Wniteness element in (5a) issubcategorized for the feature {prog(ressive)}; so it comes to govern a pro-gressive form of verbal (where progressive is a secondary feature of verbals).Other Wniteness elements—the modals, the perfect, the passive—are subcat-egorized otherwise, and, particularly in the case of the modals, distinguished

in still other ways

The form carrying Wniteness in (5a) is often called an ‘auxiliary’ However,such a term applies more appropriately to the other function of the form,which in this instance coincides with the bearing of Wniteness, viz its role inallowing {prog} to be expressed in (particularly) a (Wnite) simple clause.Otherwise, {prog} would be limited to non-Wnite constructions that involve

a verb dependent on a verb, such as that in (6a):

(6) a I saw him leaving

b I saw him leave

c He may be leaving

Compare the non-progressive of (6b) The {T} element in (5a) is in this role a

‘helping verb’: it enables expression of progressiveness in verbs in full clausalconstructions But all helping verbs are not necessarily Wnite, as illustrated bythe progressive construction in (6c)

Here, then, I adopt the label ‘operative’ (based on the ‘operator’ of dleston (1984) and others) for forms of a class devoted to carrying Wnitenessindependently of the verb This class may or may not coincide with the class of

Hud-‘auxiliaries’ (‘helping verbs’), in the traditional sense Consider the examples

in (7):

(7) a She daren’t leave him

b She doesn’t dare (to) leave him

(7a) involves an operative dare: it is not a lexical verb, and it allows pendent expression to {T}—unlike the dare of (7b), which, as a verb, cannotgive independent expression Hence the presence in (7b) of the operativedoes(n’t) But neither dare seems to have a ‘periphrastic’ role in present-dayEnglish

inde-It can be argued that Wniteness may also be expressed purely syntactically,

as with functors Thus, Anderson (1997: §3.6.4; 2001b: §2) suggests that the

The Category of Case 183

Wnal position of the verb in (8a) marks it as non-Wnite, the position of theWnite being in second position in the clause, as in the main clause in (6a), and

as in (8b):

(8) a Er fragte mich, ob ich ihn verstanden ha¨tte

he asked me if I him understood had

b Ich habe ihn verstanden

I have him understood

This is, of course, counter to the usual assignments of ‘Wniteness’ in sentenceslike (8a); note, though, that the uncontroversial non-Wnite in (7b) is also inWnal position

Anderson (2001b) makes a distinction between syntactic and logical Wniteness: syntactic Wniteness is the ability to license an unmarkedindependent predication; morphological Wniteness is associated with the non-reduction in (8a) in the kind of morphology associated with unmarked(declarative) Wnites However, such morphological marking may or may not

morpho-be associated with syntactic Wniteness (for example Barron 2000), though ittends to be (thus justifying the same labelling, as involving ‘Wniteness’) There

is, however, great cross-linguistic variation in this (for example Tamm 1993; Anderson 2001b)

Koptjevskaya-The forms fragte in (8a) and habe in (b) are both syntactically and phologically Wnite, and in particular they occupy the appropriate position for

mor-a syntmor-acticmor-ally Wnite form The form hmor-a¨tte in (8mor-a) is, in Anderson’s (1997)terms, morphologically Wnite (though it does diverge from the prototypical inbeing subjunctive), but it is not syntactically Wnite: such a form cannot license

an independent predication while occupying Wnal position

The functional role of (syntactic) Wniteness is thus to license independentpredication: the presence of the Wniteness element guarantees the independ-ent predicational status of the construction (other things being equal) TheWnite provides ‘the functional locutionary structure’, as the functor providesthe argument structure This labelling reXects the role of Wniteness in relation

to sentence types and their characterization: declaratives are the prototypicalsentence type; other sentence types may diverge from them in how Wniteness

is expressed

8.2.2 Determination

The role of determination is to provide a potential referent for the arguments

in the functional argument structure Just as verbs, which label predicationtypes, combine with Wniteness to provide independent predications, so

nouns, which label entity types, combine with determination to constitute areferentiable argument of a participant or circumstantial relation This isexempliWed by the post-verbal nominals in (9):

(9) a Fritz read some reviews

b Fritz read a review

c Fritz read reviews

d Fritz read trash

Some and a are determinatives: they belong to a word class which allowsindependent expression to determination They take as a complement apartitive noun, i.e a noun in a dependent partitive (functor) relation to them.Following Anderson (1997), I represent this as in (10):

(I ignore here the diVerences between these various expressions which are due

to the presence versus absence of plurality/singularity.) In (9c, d) ation is not expressed by a separate item (‘periphrastically’), but the (corre-sponding) whole conWguration in (11) is expressed by a single item Thepresence in (11) of ‘absorbed’ determination with a secondary feature associ-ated with ‘indeWniteness’, corresponding to the ‘indeWnite’ determinative in(10), diVerentiates this use of the forms in (11) from the generic use

determin-As we’ve seen, the ‘p(a)rt(itive)’ functor can be interpreted as the variant ofsimple source associated with complementation of D and N rather than of V;

The Category of Case 185

source with V is the ‘ergative’ At the moment the constitution of the set ofsecondary functor categories is not in focus; §6.4 articulated the compatibility

of the partitive relation with the localist hypothesis I merely recall that, aswe’d expect of a member of a functional category, the {prt} functor in Englishhas overt independent expression elsewhere:

(12) a Fritz read one/some of the reviews

b Fritz read a selection of the reviews

Here the functor complementing the D or N is a separate word

This generalization of the partitive to where it is non-overt can be seen as asemantic-relational variant of a tradition that we can trace back at least toJackendoV (1968), a tradition that has surfaced under various guises—forexample in the form of the ‘partitive constraint’ (see for example JackendoV1977a; Ladusaw 1982; Anttila and Fong 2000) For an earlier ‘case grammar’treatment see Anderson (1976: 107–12)

If we desire to distinguish the class of items that constitute overt pendent) determinatives of the (10) construction, then the traditional term

(inde-‘quantiWer’ might be appropriate, but only in a broad sense, in that the classalso includes the indeWnite article These quantiWers are ‘transitive’ determi-natives: they take a partitive complement There is also, however, a sub-class of

‘intransitive’ determinatives, including (proper) names and pronouns Theyconstitute complete referentiable arguments by themselves: pronouns either

‘absorb’ an indeWnite partitive (someone) or are heavily context-dependent(via deixis or anaphora—I, you, (s)he); but the name is the prototypicaldeterminative, as argued in Anderson (2003; 2004b): it has minimal lexicalcontent apart from referentiability As arguments, both the latter pronounsand names are deWnite: they are used to signal the speaker’s assumption thatthe hearer(s) can identify their referents There is a further class of determi-natives in English that are ‘transitive’, but are deWnite: demonstratives and thedeWnite article

Determination in general allows for the articulation of ‘functional tial structure’

referen-8.2.3 Conclusion

Let me try to sum up We have seen that functors articulate the functionalargument structure, allowing predicators to be linked to arguments whichhave referentiability, which latter is conferred by a determinative governingthe argument Finiteness enhances the predicational character of verbs inparticular, allowing them to occur in independent predications The com-parator enhances the gradient character of core (i.e intensity of quality, or

‘gradient’) adjectives, enabling them, via the functional structure it bringsalong, to relate the relative properties of entities Compare here, for example,Bolinger’s view of ‘the adjective as the basic intensiWable’ (1972: 168–72).Finally, as noted, determinative enhances the referential capacity of nouns,enabling them to be associated with referents and constitute arguments.

I have gone into a little detail concerning these functional categoriesbecause they introduce into the syntax a distinctively functional dimension,and the need for a functional/lexical distinction They perform complexsemantic functions, of which it has behoved me to give at least an outlineaccount And, crucially, functors are functional

Anderson (1997: 128) concludes concerning the functional categories: ‘each

of the simple, functional classes [{D}], [{T}], and [{C}] is, then, a closed classspecialization of the corresponding open class, with members that are deno-tatively desemanticized, more ‘‘abstract’’, less speciWc concerning entity/event/quality type’, where the corresponding lexical categories are respectively N, Vand A This specialization is dictated by the needs of the semantic interface,speciWcally the need to be able to represent those aspects of a scene that I havedistinguished as functional structures; and the character of the distinctionthus preWgures the discussion in the chapter that follows, which looks atarguments that syntactic categories in general are notionally based There too

we shall consider work that aims to express in the notation developed therethe relationship between these functional categories and the correspondinglexical ones, as well as the absence of a lexical category corresponding tofunctor, or ‘case’

8.3 Kuryl˜owicz’s problem

An independent functor appears to be compatible with the co-presence of an

‘absorbed’ one, as in (2.3), for instance:

(2.3) In Graeciam perve¯nit

in Greece-ACCs/he.arrived

(‘S/he arrived in Greece’)

We apparently have two instances of the functor associated with the sameargument The articulation of the relation between the instances of the functor

is what I have been referring to as ‘Kury l˜owicz’s problem’ (recall §2.1.1) And,despite his eVorts, it seems to me a problem that has remained unresolved.The ‘problem’, then, is how to characterize constructions in which wehave both a prepositional and a morphological manifestation of functorintroducing the argument involved Kury l˜owicz himself (1949: 21) suggests

The Category of Case 187

concerning the construction of Latin extra urbem, in opposition to the viewsthat he is criticizing (recall again §2.1.1):

Une premie`re dichotomie du tour extra urbem de´gage d’une part la racine nue (ou lethe`me nu), de l’autre, la pre´position extra avec la de´sinence de l’accusatif qui ende´pend C’est seulement une bipartitition subse´quente qui nous permet de de´com-poser le dernier morphe`me en un sous-morphe`me principal, porteur de sens (lapre´position) et un sous-morphe`me comple´mentaire (la de´sinence d’acc.)

Thus (Kury l˜owicz 1949: 24) concludes:

La bipartition correcte est

8.3.1 A solution: the Latin accusative

Another possible way of addressing the problem would be to allow semanticrelations to attach either to a functor or to {D} or to both, which avoids theapparent category reduplication Just as {past} in English can be associatedwith {V} as well as with operatives, for instance, as in (13), so for instance,{goal} might be said to occur on {D} as well as {F}:

(13) a Fred may/seems to have left

b Fred had left

Have in (13a) does not bear Wniteness Unlike the had of (13b), it is not anoperative (though it may be an ‘auxiliary’) but a verb But in both instances itsignals a ‘relative past’

We have already allowed, in (2c), for ‘absorption’ of the functor, as afunctional category, into a {D} phrase rather than an independent expression.The present suggestion, that both the {F} and the {D} in (2.3) bear semanticrelations, would merely provide an alternative way of associating expression ofsemantic relations with an item realizing nominal elements However, second-ary features like {erg} and {abs} do not sit very comfortably beside the number/person/gender-based content of {D}s Moreover, positively, the need to appeal