19th and 20th century theories of case: A comparison of localist and cognitive approaches

Alan Cienki
Emory University
Summary

This article considers the similarities and differences between two types of semantically-based approaches to the study of grammatical case. One approach, which views the basic meanings of cases as spatial, stems from the localist hypothesis, which claims that spatial expressions serve as structural templates for other expressions. This view was most strongly espoused by certain German linguists in the 19th century, but has found support in the 20th century as well. The range of localist theories of case and the extent of the claims made by different localists are considered. These are compared and contrasted with contemporary approaches subsumed under the banner of ‘cognitive linguistics’. Research in this vein has focussed on the role of spatial notions in the semantics of case, but within a broader framework of human conceptualization. According to this view, space is only one of several domains which are basic to cognitive representation.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

Referencias bibliográficas

Agud, Ana
1980 Historia y Teoría de los Casos. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M.
1971 The Grammar of Case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1977 On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a theory of grammatical relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1987 “Case Grammar and the Localist Hypothesis”. Dirven & Radden 1987.103–121.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Winifred Boagey
1977 Review of Anderson (1971). Linguistics and Philosophy 1.119–152.Google Scholar
Becker, Karl Ferdinand
1827 Organism der Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Ludwig Reinherz. (2nd ed. 1841.)Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent & Paul Kay
1969 Basic Color Terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Blank, David L.
1987 “Apollonius and Maximus on the Order and Meaning of the Oblique Cases”. The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period ed. by Daniel J. Taylor, 67–83. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, Arthur L.
1987 “The Emergence of Psycholinguistics”. Synthese 72.313–323.Google Scholar
Bopp, Franz
1833 Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Littauischen, Gothischen und Deutschen. Vol. I. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler.Google Scholar
Brecht, Richard D. & Catherine V. Chvany
eds. 1974 Slavic Transformational Syntax. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia M.
1981 The Story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. M.A. thesis, Univ. of California at Berkeley. (Repr., New York: Garland 1988.)Google Scholar
1990 “What Is the Invariance Hypothesis?”. Cognitive Linguistics 1:2.257–266.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934 Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. (Repr., Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer 1965.) [Transl. by Donald Fraser Goodwin, Theory of Language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1990.]Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1977 Review of Brecht & Chvany (1974). Language 53.228–232.Google Scholar
1979 “Case Grammar and Prototypes”. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 32.3–23. (Repr. in Dirven & Radden 1987.147–161.)Google Scholar
Deane, Paul D.
1991 “Syntax and the Brain: Neurological evidence for the spatialization of form hypothesis”. Cognitive Linguistics 2:4.361–367.Google Scholar
1992 Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in cognitive syntax. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, René & Günter Radden
eds. 1987 Concepts of Case. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Döleke, Wilhelm Heinrich
1814 Ueber die Casus, die Tempora, das Pronomen und Verbum substantivum. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
1826 Deutsch-lateinische Schul-Grammatik. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, Gordon H.
1977 “Case Inflections in Indo-European”. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 5:2.102–131.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1968 “The Case for Case”. Universals in Linguistic Theory ed. by Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Freidhof, Gerd
1978 Kasusgrammatik und localer Ausdruck im Russischen. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1988 “Cognitive Grammar and the History of Lexical Semantics”. Rudzka-Ostyn 1988.647–677.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
1990 “Psycholinguistic Studies on the Conceptual Basis of Idiomaticity”. Cognitive Linguistics 1:4.417–451.Google Scholar
Hartung, Johann Adam
1831 Ueber die Casus, ihre Bildung und Bedeutung, in der griechischen und lateinischen Sprache. Erlangen: J. J. Palm & Ernst Enke.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1935–37 “La Catégorie des cas”. Acta Jutlandica 7:1 (i–xii, 1–184); 9:2 (i–vii, 1–78). Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Holzweissig, Fr[iedrich]
1877 Wahrheit und Irrthum der localistischen Casustheorie. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Hübschmann, H[einrich]
1875 Zur Casuslehre. München: Theodor Ackermann.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A.
1984 A Semantic Analysis of the Russian Verbal Prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot-. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California at Los Angeles. (Published as volume 192 of Slavistische Beiträge , Munich: Otto Sagner 1986.)Google Scholar
1990 “The Radial Network of a Grammatical Category – Its genesis and dynamic structure”. Cognitive Linguistics 1:3.269–288.Google Scholar
1993 A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The bodily basis of meaning of imagination, and reason. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
1990 Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kurlyowicz, Jerzy
1964 The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1990 “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on imageschemas?”. Cognitive Linguistics 1:1.39–74.Google Scholar
1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”. Metaphor and Thought ed. by Andrew Ortony, 2nd ed., 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. & Mark Turner
1987 More Than Cool Reason: Afield guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1973 Review of Anderson (1971). Journal of Linguistics 9.319–331.Google Scholar
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1988 “Case and Grammatical Relations in Cognitive Grammar (with special reference to Newari)”. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 14.57–94.Google Scholar
1991a “Transitivity, Case, and Grammatical Relations”. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, 209–260. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991b Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lunn, Patricia V.
1987 The Semantics of Por and Para . Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
1977 “Starting Points”. Language 53.152–168.Google Scholar
Madvig, Johan Nikolai
1875 Kleine philologische Schriften. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. (Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms 1966.)Google Scholar
Marty, Anton
1910 Zur Sprachphilosophie. Die “logische”, “lokalistische” und andere Kasustheorien. Halle/S.: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Michelsen, Conrad
1843 Kasuslehre der lateinischen Sprache, vom kausallokalen Standpunkte aus. Berlin: T. Trautwein.Google Scholar
Miller, James
1974 “A Localist Account of the Dative in Russian”. Brecht & Chvany 1974.244–261.Google Scholar
1985 Semantics and Syntax: Parallels and Connections. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1986 “A Third Look at the Second Dative”. Case in Slavic ed. by Richard D. Brecht & James S. Levine, 296–311. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki
1991 “The Meanings of the Genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change”. Cognitive Linguistics 2:2.149–205.Google Scholar
Parret, Herman
1989 “Cognition, the Localist Hypothesis, and back to Kant”. Worlds Behind Words ed. by F. J. Heyvaert & F. Steurs, 37–49. Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert H.
1974 “The Case Theory of Maximus Planudes”. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists ed. by Luigi Heilmann, Vol I, 107–111. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973 “On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories”. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language ed. Timothy E. Moore, 111–144. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1978 “Principles of Categorization”. Cognition and Categorization ed. by Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida
ed. 1988 Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rumpel, Theodor
1845 Casuslehre in besonderer Beziehung auf die griechische Sprache. Halle/Saale: E. Anton.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B.
1987 The Semantics of Dative and Accusative in German: An investigation in cognitive grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California at San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic sructure. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1976 “Semantic Causative Types”. The Grammar of Causative Constructions ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 43–116. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1988a “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition”. Cognitive Science 12.49–100.Google Scholar
1988b “The Relation of Grammar to Cognition”. Rudzka-Ostyn 1988.165–205.Google Scholar
Turner, Mark
1987 Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude
1986 L’espace en français: Sémantique des prépositions spatiales. Paris: Seuil. (Transl. by Anna R. K. Bosch, Spatial Prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press 1991.)Google Scholar
Wüllner, Fr[anz]
1827 Die Bedeutung der sprachlichen Casus und Modi. Münster: Coppenrathsche Buch- und Kunsthandlung.Google Scholar
1831 Ueber Ursprung und Urbedeutung der sprachlichen Formen. Münster: Theissingsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm
1900 Völkerpsychologie. Vol. I. Die Sprache. Part 2. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar