Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:57:08.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Case Assignment

from Part Two - Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

By
Wataru Nakamura
Edited by
Delia Bentley ,
Ricardo Mairal Usón ,
Wataru Nakamura  and
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr
Delia Bentley
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Ricardo Mairal Usón
Affiliation:
Universidad National de Educación a Distancia, Madrid
Wataru Nakamura
Affiliation:
Tohoku University, Japan
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Get access

Summary

This chapter explicates the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) theory of case assignment and outlines its OT implementation and its extension to instrumental case assignment and case syncretism. The ’non-OT’ theory of case assignment in RRG is a version of dependent case theory that assigns nominative, accusative, absolutive and ergative case in terms of the ranking of actor and undergoer, while its OT-based counterpart defines accusative, ergative, dative and instrumental case with reference to (non-)macrorole status, conflates nominative and absolutive as an any-argument case, and derives the variation of case syncretism from the case hierarchy of Silverstein (1980/1993).

Keywords

caseOptimality Theorycase syncretismcase hierarchyRussian
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 318 - 367
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agnihotri, Rama Kant. 2007. Hindi: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aikio, Ante. 2009. The Structure of North Saami. Course handout, Department of Linguistics, University of Utah.Google Scholar
Aldai, Gontzal. 2008. From ergative case marking to semantic case marking: The case of historical Basque. In Donohue, Mark and Wichmann, Søren (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment, 197–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aldai, Gontzal. 2009. Is Basque morphologically ergative? Western Basque vs. Eastern Basque. Studies in Language 33: 783–831.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 427–503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Case structure and control in Modern Icelandic. In Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 24: Modern Icelandic Syntax, 187–234. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benvenuto, Maria Carmela and Pompeo, Flavia. 2015. The Old Persian genitive: A study of a syncretic case. In Krasnowolska, Anna and Rusek-Kowalska, Renata (eds.), Studies on the Iranian World I: Before Islam, 13–29. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent and Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. Jr. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A. and Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 173–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2011. Case assignment, case concord, and the quantificational case construction. Lingua 121: 1042–1066.Google Scholar
Bricker, Victoria. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 83–127.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2013. Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of Nanosyntax: The Classical Armenian nominal declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 1015–1066.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andreas. 1995. A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 373–463.Google Scholar
Colarusso, John. 1992. A Grammar of the Kabardian Language. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2009. Comments on Austronesian nominalism: A Mayan perspective. Theoretical Linguistics 35: 73–93.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of Split Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 91–106.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1987. Grammatical relations in Acehnese. Studies in Language 11: 365–399.Google Scholar
Ehala, Martin. 1994. Russian influence and the change in progress in the Estonian adpositional system. Linguistica Uralica 3: 177–193.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2009. The preposition with in Role and Reference Grammar. In Guerrero, Lilián, Ibáñez, Sergio and Belloro, Valeria A.( eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 179–202. Mexico City: UNAM Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, George. 1996. Oblique passivization in Russian. The Slavic and East European Journal 40: 519–545.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and A’ Binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gönczöl-Davies, Ramona. 2008. Romanian: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2013. The direct object marker in Romanian: A historical perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33: 140–151.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen and Malchukov, Andrej L.. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 565–587.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 1996. Domain shifts and the grammaticalization of case: A case study of the Finnish adessive. Folia Linguistica Historica 30: 73–96.Google Scholar
Inaba, Nobufumi and Blokland, Rogier. 2001. Allative, genitive, and partitive: On the dative in Old Finnish. Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 7, Pars IV: 421–431.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936/1984. Beitrage zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240–288. Reprinted in Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle (eds.), 1984. Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981, 59–103. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 1993. The Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 57–87.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julia A. 1991. Prepositional Analysis within the Framework of Role and Reference Grammar. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julia A. 1993. Preposition assignment in English. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 275–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Josephs, Lewis S. 1975. Palauan Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35: 1–49.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul and Maffi, Luisa. 1999. Color appearance and the emergence and evolution of basic color lexicons. American Anthropologist 101: 743–760.Google Scholar
Kilby, David A. 1977. Deep and Superficial Cases in Russian. Munich: Kubon and Sagner.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–376.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Mauner, Gail, Bienvenue, Breton and Conklin, Kathy. 2008. What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-role. Journal of Semantics 25: 175–220.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Vesa. 2017. The essive in Karelian. In de Groot, Casper (ed.), Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State, 161–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1991[1996]. Remarks on the structure and history of the Uralic case system. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 83: 163–180. Reprinted in Tapani Salminen (ed.), 1996. Typological and Historical Studies in Language by Mikko Korhonen, 219–242. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Voice and Case in Tagalog: The Coding of Prominence and Orientation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina and Vihman, Virve-Anneli. 2017. Who needs it? Variation in experiencer marking in Estonian ‘need’-constructions. Journal of Linguistics 53: 1–34.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Holmberg, Anders and Nikanne, Urpo (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 49–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 8: 234–253.Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru. 2008. Microvariation within differential object marking: Data from Romance. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 53: 449–467.Google Scholar
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1994. Is the Estonian adessive really a local case? Journal of Asian and African Studies 46/47: 223–235.Google Scholar
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1996. The dative use of the adessive case in Estonian: A corpus-based study. In Matsumura, Kazuto and Hayashi, Tooru (eds.), The Dative and Related Phenomena, 31–79. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica. 2017. Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. Folia Linguistica 51: 1–60.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2014. Partitive noun phrases in the Estonian core argument system. In Luraghi, Silvia and Huumo, Tuomas (eds.), Partitive Cases and Related Categories, 177–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle and Erelt, Matti. 2006. Estonian clause patterns: From Finno-Ugric to Standard Average European. Linguistica Uralica 42: 254–266.Google Scholar
Miljan, Merilin. 2008. Grammatical Case in Estonian. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Miljan, Merilin and Cann, Ronnie. 2013. Rethinking case marking and case alternation in Estonian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36: 333–379.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 1999a. Functional Optimality Theory: Evidence from split case systems. In Darnell, Michael et al. (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, Vol. 2: Case Studies, 253–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 1999b. An Optimality-Theoretic account of the Japanese case system. Studies in Language 23: 607–660.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2002. Deriving morphological cases: Markedness considerations. In Rapp, Reinhard (ed.), Sprachwissenschaft auf dem Weg in das dritte Jahrtausend. Akten des 34. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Germersheim 1999, Teil 1, 151–158. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2008. Fluid transitivity and generalized semantic roles. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 101–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2011. Case syncretism in typological perspective: An RRG-OT account. In Nakamura, Wataru (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 35–63. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2015. A neo-Jakobsonian account of default oblique cases: Instrumental vs. dative. Paper read at the 2015 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2016. A two-tiered theory of case features: The case of the Hindi case(-marking) system. Paper presented in the 49th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, University of Naples Federico II.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2021. A neo-Jakobsonian account of default oblique cases: Instrumental vs. dative. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Challenges in the Analysis of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 1998. A lexical-semantic explanation for ‘quirky’ case marking in Hindi. Studia Linguistica 52: 48–76.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Ito, Shinya. 2007. Re-constructing semantic maps: The comitative-instrumental area. Sprachtypologie and Universalienforschung 60: 273–292.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane. 1998. Grammatical Case Assignment in Finnish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane. 2003. Case and adverbials in Inari Saami and Finnish. Nordlyd 31: 708–722.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313.Google Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2018. Unmarked case in Estonian nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 523–562.Google Scholar
Oniga, Renato. 2014. Latin: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oranen, Nicklas. 2019. On the use of the adessive case in Tver Karelian. Lähivõrdlusi 29: 204–227.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2012. The absence of an implicit object in unergatives: New and old evidence from Basque. Lingua 122: 278–288.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan, Albizu, Pablo and Etxepare, Ricardo. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of case. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1273–1330.Google Scholar
Rissman, Lilia. 2010. Instrumental with, locatum with, and the argument/adjunct distinction. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 2010.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2016 Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog. Journal of Linguistics 52: 639–688.Google Scholar
Sadakane, Kumi and Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. On the nature of the ‘dative’ particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33: 5–33.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva and Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.. 2004. Depictive secondary predicates in cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8: 59–131.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2015. Dative experiencer constructions as a Circum-Baltic isogloss. In Arkadiev, Peter, Holvoet, Axel and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, 325–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1980/1993. Of nominatives and datives: Universal Grammar from the bottom up. Unpublished manuscript. Reprinted in Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 465–498. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry. 1996. Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component of UG. Presented at University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew K. and Reid, Lawrence A.. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Halim, Amram, Carrington, Lois and Wurm, S. A. (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers, 145–170.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia and Urdze, Aina. 2006. On Comitatives and Related Categories: A Typological Study with Special Focus on Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sulkala, Helena and Karalainen, Merja. 1992. Finnish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tamm, Anne. 2007. Perfectivity, telicity, and Estonian verbs. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30: 229–255.Google Scholar
Tomić, Olga Mišeska. 2004. The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction. In Tomić, Olga Mišeska (ed.), Balkan Syntax and Semantics, 1–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1979. On the origins of ergativity. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Ergativity: Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relations, 385–404. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. The Djaru Language of Kimberley, Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Valijärvi, Riita-Liisa and Kahn, Lily. 2017. North Sámi: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1991. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145–194.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Case in role and Reference Grammar. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 102–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2012. Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking syntax and semantics. In Pustejovsky, James, Bouillon, Pierrette, Isahara, Hitoshi, Kanzaki, Kyoko and Lee, Chungmin (eds.), Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory, 67–107. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2013. Head-marking languages and linguistic theory. In Bickel, Balthasar, Grenoble, Lenore A., Peterson, David A. and Timberlake, Alan (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency, 91–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2018. Some issues regarding (active) accomplishments. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Künkel, Lisann and Staudinger, Eva (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 71–93. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. On ‘ergativity’ in Halkomelem Salish. In Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane and Ndayiragije, Juvenal (eds.), Ergativity, 197–227. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan and Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217–250.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 2001. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×