Article published in:
Non-Nuclear Cases
Edited by Nicole Delbecque, Karen Lahousse and Willy Van Langendonck
[Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 6] 2014
► pp. 1–20

Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Cases

A Continuum

We first briefly present the terminology and criteria which are commonly used in the linguistic literature in relation with the distinction between nuclear cases and non-nuclear cases. We emphasize the specific position obliques occupy with respect to these criteria and give a short overview on how this is accounted for in different theoretical frameworks. We pay some attention to the definition of “event schemas” and provide a series of concrete examples of specific form-meaning correlates. In the last section we introduce the different papers of this volume on prepositional and adverbial phrases expressing semantic roles typically associated with oblique case, such as instrumental, causal, spatial, temporal, etc. roles.
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.6.01del
References

References

Abraham, Werner
2001 “Gibt es im Deutschen eine Klasse von Präpositionen mit Doppelrektion?” Deutsche Sprache . Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 29 (2001): 63-75.Google Scholar
2003 “The myth of doubly governing prepositions in German.” In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier, ed. by Erin Shay, and Uwe Seibert, 19-38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John Travis
2006 Argument/Oblique Alternations and the Structure of Lexical Meaning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stanford.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1998 “Event Structure in Argument Linking.” In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by Miriam Butt, and Wilhelm Geuder, 97- 134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon
1989 The Theory of Functional Grammar, part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Duden
2005 Duden. Die Grammatik 7. Völlig neu erarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1977 “The Case for Case Reopened.” In Syntax and Semantics VIII: Grammatical Relations, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerrold M. Sadock, 59-81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Paul Kay
1993 Construction Grammar Coursebook. University of California at Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard
1992 Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laffut, An
2006 Three-Participant Constructions in English: A Functional-Cognitive Approach to Caused Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991a Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991b Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “A dynamic usage-based model.” In Usage-based models of language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2009 “Constructions and constructional meaning.” In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, and Stéphanie Pourcel, 225–267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995 Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leys, Odo
1989 “Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen.” Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 17 (1989): 97-113.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B.
1997 Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2002a “Ergative and accusative patterning in Warrwa.” In The nominative & accusative and their counterparts, ed. by Kristin Davidse, and Béatrice Lamiroy, 285-317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1920 Deutsche Grammatik. Band IV, Teil IV: Syntax (zweite Hälfte). Halle an der Saale: Verlag von Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L.
1982 Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1989 Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin
2010 “Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity.” In Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, ed. by Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel, 21-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, Bert Cornillie, Dagmar Divjak, and Karel Van den Eynde
2005 “Degrees of clause integration. From endotactic to exotactic subordination in Dutch.” Linguistics 43/3: 471-529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I: concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Belle, William, and Willy Van Langendonck
1996 The Dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van den Eynde, Karel, Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen, Piet Mertens, and Lene Schoesler
2002 “Distributional syntactic analysis and valency. Basic notions, procedures and applications of the Pronominal Approach.” In The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st century Volume 2. Computability of language and computer applications, ed. by Bruce E. Nevin, 163-202. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy, and William Van Belle
1998 The Dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert, and Randy J. LaPolla
1997 Syntax. Sructure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffman, and Bruno Strecker
1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar