Cover not available
Part of
Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 27–82

Multiple case binding – The principled underspecification of case exponency

| LMU Munich
| LMU Munich
This paper attempts to demonstrate that all current definitions of case are based on a case-phenomenology that is not prototypical of the grammatical category of case. We argue that a good, i.e. a functioning, grammatical category is – per definitionem – organized in paradigms. We claim that the systematic research of paradigmatic case (still undertaken under different labels such as differential object marking/DOM) paves the way to a definition of the grammatical category of case that might be able to replace the existing definitions of case that all are far from being consensual (see the Introduction of Malchukov & Spencer 2009). In addition, we claim that the force driving the alternation between an unmarked source case and a more marked goal alternant from inside one single case paradigm is the compensation for underspecification of the source exponency under the pressure of such grammatical meaning changes as (in)definiteness, grammatical person, and aspectual specification.
Article outline
  • 1.How morphological case receives its category status
    • 1.1The tradition – and where it falls short
    • 1.2Syntagmatic case vs. paradigmatic case
    • 1.3Syntagmatic case vs. paradigmatic case decided
    • 1.4Case in wider context
  • 2.Case determining dependency (among which: governing) status
    • 2.1General
    • 2.2Paradigmatic case in synchrony and diachrony
      • 2.2.1Towards the encoding of argument differentiality: Triggering conditions
      • 2.2.2The accusative-prepositional case drift
      • 2.2.3The subject nominative-genitive differential
      • 2.2.4The object accusative-genitive differential
      • 2.2.5The diachronic introduction of the article function
    • 2.3Paradigmatic case assignment today
      • 2.3.1The case-aspect differential
      • 2.3.2The case-definiteness differential
      • 2.3.4The negation-object case differential
      • 2.3.5The adjectival-information structural differential
    • 2.5Case with and without category status: The bare case-prepositional case differential
      • 2.5.1Theta function and case sharing one single syntactic slot
      • 2.5.2Theta function and case not sharing one single syntactic slot
      • 2.5.3Apparent homo-functionalism
  • 3.Subject differential marking as a sub-phenomenon of paradigmatic case assignment.
    • 3.1DSM in Turkish
    • 3.2DSM in Pontic Greek
  • 4.Differential argument marking as a more general phenomenon of paradigmatic case assignment
  • 5.Back to the notions of paradigmaticity as opposed to syntagmaticity – and the corresponding types of case assignment
  • 6.Outlook – and a partial caveat
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.02abr
References (89)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1972. Tiefenstrukturkasus und ihre Oberflächenrealisation bei zweiwertigen Sätzen des Deutschen. Leuvense Bijdragen 72: 1–12.Google Scholar
. 1988. Ergative Subjekte, die Partitivlösung und die DP/np-Frage. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 29: 161–189.Google Scholar
. 1997. The interdependence of case, aspect, and referentiality in the history of German: The case of the genitive. In van Kemenade & Vincent (eds), 29–61.Google Scholar
. 2000. The structural and lexical space between reflexive binding and logophorics: Sundry paradigms of reflexives and anaphora. In Reflexives. Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zymunt Frajzyngier & Tracy Walker (eds) 75–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Bare and prepositional differential case marking: The exotic case of German (and Icelandic) among all of Germanic. In Case, Valency, and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Aandrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 115–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Misleading homonymies, economical pps in microvariation, and P as a probe. In Mapping Spatial pps. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax 6], Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 261–293. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. (Inter)subjectification or foreign consciousness /other’s mind alignment as synchronic and diachronic concepts of change? Conceptualizations and data fidelity. In Covert Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 24–78. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2013. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Grundlegung einer typologi-schen Syntax des Deutschen, 3rd edn [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 41]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2014. The South German‒(High) Alemannic grammar differential. In Bavarian Syntax. Contributions to the Theory of Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 220], Günther Grewendorf & Helmut Weiß (eds), 305–336. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth. 2012. The case differential: Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic case – Its status in synchrony and diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Nishiwaki, Maiko. 2016. Modal verbs in German and definiteness effects in verbal complements – Focusing on Modern Standard German sollen and Middle High German suln ‘shall’. In Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological, and Diachronic Variation, Susann Fischer, Tanja Kupisch & Esther Rinke (eds)., 244–277. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John. 2001. Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Müller, Gereon. 2008. Case features as probes. In Inflectional Identity, John F. Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds), 101–155. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. Comp in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1923. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Band I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. Heildelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto & Mitzka, Walther (eds). 1958. Heliand und Genesis, 7th edn [Altdeutsche Textbibliothek 4]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Benz, Anton 2013. Ergativity and the object-oriented representation of verb meaning. In Events, Arguments, and Aspects. Topics in the Semantics of Verbs [Studies in Language Companion Series 152], Klaus Robering (ed.), 65–88, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Case marking and alignment. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 304–322.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1995. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In Functional Projections [University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17], Elena Benedicto & Jeff Runner (eds). Amherst MA: GSLA.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985a. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1985b. Markierung von Aktantenfunktionen im Guaraní. Zur Frage der differen-tiellen Objektmarkierung in nicht-akkusativischen Sprachen. In Relational Typology, Frans Plank (ed.), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 69], Dieter Wanner & Douglas Kibbee (eds), 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm & Ebbinghaus, Ernst A. (eds). 1962. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch, 14th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Chesterman, andrew. 1991. On Definiteness. A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965 Aspects of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1972. Syntactic Structures [Janua Linguarum. Series Minor]. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2001. Again on tense, aspect, mood morpheme order and the ‘Mirror Principle”. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 137–155. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Denison, Norman. 1957. The partitive in Finnish [Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B 108]. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Shay, Erin. 2003. Explaining Language Structures Through Systems In-teraction [Typological Studies in Language 55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2005. A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3): 475–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Froschauer, Regine 2003. Genus im Althochdeutschen. Eine funktionale Analyse des Mehrfachgenus althochdeutscher Substantive. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gewehr, Markus 2009. Japanische Grammatik. Unter Mitarbeit von Sönke Grützmacher & Ku-niko Owada. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heindl, Olga 2009. Negation, Modalität und Aspekt im Mittelhochdeutschen im Vergleich zum Slawischen. In Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik/SDG 77], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 123–170. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 2005. Differential case-marking in Hindi. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 321–345. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter (eds). 2008. Differential Subject Marking [Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jakobson, roman. 1957[1971]. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In Roman Jakobson: Selected Writings 2, 130–147. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kamper, Gergely. 2006. Differential object marking. The Even Yearbook 7: 2–19. Budapest: Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1982. Finnische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Müller, Gereon. 2008. Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Scales [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86], Marc D. Richards & Andrej Malchukov (eds), 83–136. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans & Vincent, Nigel. 1997. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Köpke, Klaus-Michael. 1982. Untersuchungen zum Genus der deutschen Gegenwartssprache [Linguistische Arbeiten 122]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korchmáros, Valeria M. 1983. Definiteness as Semantic Content and its Realisation in Grammatical Form [Studia Uralo-Altaica]. Szeged.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2008. DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In de Hoop & de Swart (eds), 79–111.Google Scholar
Kotin, Michail L. 2012. Gotisch im (diachronischen und typologischen) Vergleich [Sprache – Literatur und Geschichte 41]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical Matters, Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds), 29–54. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid & Lavidas, Nikolaos. 2014. Typology of Labile Verbs: Focus on Diachrony. Special issue of Linguistics 52(4).Google Scholar
Kwon, Song-Nim & Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean. Language 84(2): 258–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1983. Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen [Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 15]. Uppsala: A&W.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfried P. 1958. On earlier stages of Indo-European nominal inflection. Language 34: 179–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1991. Grammatische Kategorien und sprachlicher Wandel. Erklärung des Genitiv-schwunds im Deutschen. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Linguistics (Berlin, 10.-14 August 1987), Part II, Werner Bahner, Jochen Schildt & Dieter Viehweger (eds), 1406–1409. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
. 1994. Die Entstehung des Artikels im Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 19: 307–319.Google Scholar
. 1999. Gender in Old High German. In Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Vol. 1: Approaches to Gender [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 124], Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissanen (eds), 237–257. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit [Studia Linguistica Germanica 55]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. Partitives and differential marking of core arguments: A cross-linguistic survey. Ms, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. In the Derivation Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation. A Study on the Syntax-morphology Interface. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & de Swart, Peter. 2009. Constraints on case frames: Converging approaches. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 344–345.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121: 1265–1283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, Yoshiki 2012. Funktionale adnominale Teilsätze (FANCs). Lecture University Munich, August 19.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf 1992. Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrel (eds), 264–285. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Philippi, Julia. 1997. The rise of the article in the Germanic languages. In van Kemenade & Vincent (eds), 62–93.Google Scholar
Piskorz, Kinga. 2011. Entsteht ein bestimmter Artikel im Polnischen? In Geschichte und Typologie der Sprachsysteme/History and Typology of Language Systems, Michael L. Kotin & Elizaveta G. Kotorova (eds), 159–168. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 1997. Aspect and Predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas 2001. The interpretive value of object splits. Language Sciences 23: 425–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouveret, Alain & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Specifying reference to the Subject. French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1): 97–202.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1917. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Richard. 1992. Die Opposition von Objektsgenitiv und Objektsakkusativ in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Syntax oder Semantik oder beides? Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 114(3): 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Ist der Genitivverfall im Deutschen überhaupt erklärbar? Paper University of Vienna, read in Stuttgart, 16 December.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard (ed.). 1960. Tatian. Lateinisch und altdeutsch mit ausführlichem Glossar, 21st edn. Paderborn: F. Schöningh.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios. 2013. Differential subject marking in Pontic Greek: Case features and morphological realizations. Talk and handout at SLE/Societas Linguistica Europaea 2013 at Split, Croatia, on 21 September.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Kakarikos, Konstantinos. 2013. A feature-based analysis of Cappadocian Greek nominal inflection. Ms, University of Athens.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. 2007. Attribute im Deutschen: Zu ihren Eigenschaften und ihrer Position im grammatischen System. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Attributive constructions, scrambling in the AP, and referential types. Lingua 120: 673–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker & Kremers, Joost. 2013. On the properties of attributive phrases in German. In Van de Velde et al. (eds), 161–186.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959[1965]. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 2015. Elements of Structural Syntax, translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1985. Dépendences et niveaux de représentation en syntaxe [Lingvistiæ Investigationes Supplemanta 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, Martina. 2012. Genus, Derivation und Quantifikation. Zur Funktion der Suffigierung und verwandter Phänomene im Deutschen [Studia linguistica Germanica 114]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Paul. 1976. On the non-lexical expression of determinedness (with special reference to Russian and Finnish). Studia Linguistica 30: 34–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2008. Case patterns. In Optimality-theory Syntax, Géraldine Legendre & Sten Vikner (eds), 509–543. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Abraham, Werner
2019. What are the guiding principles in the evolution of language: Paradigmatics or syntagmatics?. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 1:2 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.