modern grammars of case anderson phần 10 pot

experiencer. On the basis of Chapter 9, we can formulate the further gener-
alization that the relations borne by circumstantials are limited strictly to the
locative subdomain.
Figure 13.1 also indicates, by the arrows, the dependence of the second-
order feature {goal} on the presence of a source. And the figure represents
absolutive as lying in a domain that includes the two subdomains, but also as
standing outside them: thus it may participate autonomously from either
domain in processes or states. The two major zones occupied by the other
semantic relations in each of which absolutive may be included are the
domain of action and that of location: absolutive may be acted upon or
located. The prototypical other participants in these subdomains are, respect-
ively, the (prototypically second-person) volitional agentive which presents
the most palpable causal source in the representation of a scene, on the one
hand, and, on the other, the concrete spatial location that forms the percep-
tually most accessible ground in a representation. These prototypes define the
endpoints of (respectively) ‘animacy hierarchies’ (for example Silverstein
1976; DeLancey 1981) and a dimension of relative concreteness and dimen-
sional differentiation. The experiencer, {{source,locative}}, unites the two
subdomains, and such a participant is prototypically first-person.
On the different prototypicalities of first and second person, Wierzbicka
(1981: 46) comments:
The speaker is more interested in what other people are doing to him than in what he
is doing to other people; he is more sensitive to the ways in which other people’s
actions affect him than to the ways in which his actions affect other people.
The speaker regards himself as the quintessential ‘victim’ or the quintessential experi-
encer.
Whatever the status of this, the distribution emerges from various typological
observations concerning ‘animacy hierarchies’.
Once more, however, as concerns the criteria we have been looking at, they
have a reduced significance in the context of a restricted set of semantic
relations. More important for lexical structure as a whole is the fact that the

constraints on it are ‘local’ requirements associated with the semantic-
relational categories and their arguments: they are imposed by valencies
and modifications, signalled by ‘/’ and ‘\’, respectively. This is indeed a
property shared with the syntax; but syntax differs in that it builds structures
relating different lexical items and it imposes linearity on them, at least
partially.
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 403
13.2.4 Lexical structure and morphology
Given these differences, syntactic structure, as well as being built on the basis of
valency and modification, also involves interaction among secondary features
of different items, in particular (in traditional terms) agreement and rection;
and these are expressed morphologically. Rection involves determination of
features by a particular primary category. The classic traditional example in
English is the determination of pronouns as accusative when governed by a
preposition or verb—though, as we have seen, the situation is more complex
than that. This represents an extreme routinization of the interaction between
predicator, complex functor, and morphological case that we find in Latin, or
Finnish (as described in Chapter 8). Simple agreement involves a matching of
the features belonging to particular secondary categories—in procedural
terms, copying of features from one category to another. With verb agreement,
for instance, this may rather reflect incorporation of an argument.
More complex in terms of morphosyntax are the Basque systems of agree-
ment, where, for instance, in the predominant ‘analytic’ (rather than ‘syn-
thetic’) verbal construction, the categories associated with the incorporated
arguments of a verb are expressed on the governing operative:
(7.34) a. Aitak ogia jaten du
father:
SG.DEF.ERG bread:SG.DEF.ABS eating 3SG.ABS:3SG.ERG
(‘(My) father is eating the bread’)
b. Amak aita maitatzen du

mother:
SG.DEF.ERG father: SG.DEF.ABS loving 3SG.ABS:3SG.ERG
(‘(My) mother loves (my) father’)
I suggestthat,aswith the apparent ‘complements’ofcomplex (deverbal) nouns,
the (optional) nominals here are in apposition with incorporated arguments.
In (21a) there are three agreeing incorporated arguments, but all expressed on
theoperative rather thanon the lexicalverb towhich theybearsemantic relations:
(21) a. Eman diozkat
given 3
PL.ABS:3SG.DAT:1SGERG
(‘gave her/him them’)
b. {P} ……….
{P;N}
{erg} {{erg,loc}} {abs}
| | |
{N{1
SG}} {N{3
PL}}{N{3SG}}
404 Modern Grammars of Case
We can indicate the incorporated arguments in (21), schematically, as in (21b),
where the co-dependent incorporated functors are not linearized. These
dependents are replicated on the operative, roughly indicated by the
double-headed arrow; and they are expressed there. So we also have again
non-expression of incorporated arguments in the case of the verb—though
they are expressed elsewhere, on the operative.
Morphology thus expresses secondary features ‘inherited’ by agreement, as
well as inherent features such as gender on nouns. Expression may involve in-
ternal modifications (including the drastic form of this known as suppletion) or
affixation. In the latter case, of course, linearity is imposed by the morphology.
Determination of linearity is a property shared with syntax. But, as we have

noted, lexical structure in general has a capacity not permitted to the syntax: it
can change syntactic categories, or, rather, subjoin the category of a base to a
distinct derived category. This involves both primary and secondary features.
Anderson (2003) offers the notation in (22 ) to represent instances of this
capacity and the role played by affixes:
(22) a. {P:N} b. {N;P}
|
|
{N;P} {\{N;P }\\{ P:N}} {N;P} {\{N;P}\\ {N;P{abs}}
:
: : :
:
: : :
beauty ful man hood
Ful is an affix that seeks to modify a noun (‘\’) which is converted (‘\\’) to an
adjective; hood is associated with change of subclass (to what might be glossed
as ‘abs(tract)’). But with conversions, such as those in (23), involving the
derived noun walk, the derived verb table and the derived count noun (a)
beauty, no such affixation is deployed:
(23) a. {N;P} b. {P;N} c. {N;P{count}}
| | |
{P;N} {{loc{goal}}} {N;P{abs}}
: | :
: {N;P} :
walk : beauty
:
table
The lexical entries in (23) are nevertheless categorially complex (though the
representations are obviously incomplete as they stand), and show a relation-
ship to the relevant base. This is no more than to say that we have both overt

derivation and conversion.
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 405
One proposed restriction on lexical structure that can’t be supported is that
made concerning conversions by Beard (1998: 62), who claims:
For every conversion to dry, to wet, to empty, we find an equal number of affixed
derivates with the same relation: to shorten, to normalize, to domesticate. Moreover,
precisely those stems which affix are precluded from conversion (to
*
short,
*
normal,
*
domestic), and precisely those which convert are precluded from affixation: to
*
endry,
*
wetten,
*
emptify.
However, Sanders (1988 ) has shown that the existence of equivalent overt
marking—what he calls the ‘overt analogue criterion’—cannot be maintained
in general, given the relative paucity of overt derivational morphology in
various languages (see too Colman and Anderson 2004). And such an as-
sumption underestimates the productivity of conversion in English, for
instance. We still have a long way to go in the study of such expression-
based constraints as Beard aims at.
Conversions typically involve ‘changes’ in category, and absorption, which
are directly responsible for other changes (in valency, for instance). A number
of affixations add a particular component of meaning that doesn’t entirely
follow from the category or valency change, as with the -able formations

mentioned in §4.2.2, and illustrated by the (b) examples in (4.26) and (4.27):
(4.26) a. The meeting day can be changed/varied
b. The meeting day is changeable/variable
(4.27) a. The weather can change/vary
b. The weather is changeable/variable
Here the suffix adds a very particular component of interpretation, one
specifically associated with the presence of the suffix. We might represent
this, crudely, as in (24), where ‘pot(ential)’ abbreviates whatever (modal/
aspectual) specification(s) might be appropriate:
(24) {P:N}
|
{P;N} {{pot}\{P;N}\\{P:N}}
| :
<{{erg}}> :
| :
<{N}> :
: :
: :
vary able
406 Modern Grammars of Case
Any ergative argument of the base verb is incorporated. Conversions typically
involve simple change in (primary or secondary) category and its conse-
quences. There is thus also a difference in the character of the typical
derivations involving conversions and affixation.
Notice too that, despite being associated with a difference in syntactic
category, the affixes in (22) are not syntactic heads; indeed, they are not
heads of anything (pace Williams 1981). They are not independent syntactic
elements, and as morphological (syntactic-category-free) elements, i.e. items
that express (among other things) the presence of certain syntactic categories,
but are not such categories themselves, they are optional—a word need not

contain them. They occupy, like most dependents in the syntax of English, the
post-head position as the unmarked possibility—they are preponderantly
suffixal.
Also, as we have observed, syntactic categories may be ‘changed’ in the
absence of an affix (as in conversions). Obviously, the suffix in an -able word
has to be present to signal the additional component of meaning beyond the
category change (and possible incorporation). But it does not itself embody
the overall category of the derived word. Such affixes are like such syntactic
specifiers as the dab in the German non-finite (38a), where non-finiteness is
marked by final position of the verb (compare the verb-second finite main
clause in (b)):
(25) a. Er sagte, daß er ihn gesehen ha
¨
tte
he said that he him seen had
(‘He said that he had seen him’)
b. Ich hatte den Hut vergessen/Den Hut hatte ich vergessen
I had the hat forgotten
(‘I had forgotten the hat’)
c. Er sagte, er ha
¨
tte ihn gesehen
he said he had him seen
(‘He said he had seen him’)
The specifier is associated with (morphologically finite) syntactically non-
finite verb-final subordinates; it is absent in the verb-second (and so finite)
subordinate in (25c). -Able is associated with a change in category, but does
not itself realize that ‘new’ category.
13.2.5 Absorption, incorporation, and ‘constructions’
All of the forms in (22–24) involve what I’ve been referring to as ‘absorptions’

(elaborated on in §9.2.5). A category is related to a more complex categorial
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 407
structure which is traditionally said to be ‘derived’ from it; there is ‘addition’
of a superordinate category; compared with the base forms, there is a
‘change’ in category, even if only secondary—as with the concrete count
‘derivative’ of beauty in (23c). In the case of absorptions it is the form
expressing the base that is the head of the morphological structure expressing
the complex (‘derived’) structure. This reflects overtly the derivation, even
(in a sense) in the absence of affixation. But in other instances the absorption
structure is associated with a different form from any putative base, as in kill,
the causative ‘corresponding to’ die, but not overtly based on it. This is
perhaps even plainer with pilgrim, on the assumption that it is verb-based
(see §10.1.2). This involves the recognition that lexical structure may be
syntactic-categorially complex without this necessarily being signalled
overtly, and that this categorial complexity (covert or overt) may have
syntactic consequences.
Thus, to take a simple example, the {P} that is associated with finiteness
formation, whose presence need not be signalled morphologically, provides
a free absolutive that hosts subject formation, as in, say, (3a). (3a) also
provides a more complex example of the syntactic relevance of (possibly
covert) internal categorization, in the form of the structures associated
with causatives, lexical or morphological, and their interaction with raising
and control, as discussed in Chapters 11 and 12 and above in the present
section.
I have distinguished these structures and relationships from ‘incorpor-
ations’, which may also involve relationships between a simpler and a more
complex (‘derived’) categorial structure. In this case the category of the base
has subjoined to it a substructure in the ‘derived’ structure, and it doesn’t
‘change’ its category. The discussion of incorporated arguments in the pre-
ceding chapters has illustrated these properties. With them what is expressed

as the morphological head is also the same as with the base. Thus the passive
participle in (3b), for instance is still a verb. Often, incorporations are not
overtly signalled morphologically, however, as with contactive formation
(9.44) (updated), associated with (9.26b) and (13.28):
(9.44)´ Contactive formation
{P;N/{abs}{loc}} ⇔ {P;N/{loc,abs}}}
|
{{abs}}
|
{N
i
}
408 Modern Grammars of Case
(9.26) a. John supplied the treasure to Bill
b. John supplied Bill (with the treasure)
The two verb forms are identical. Both incorporations and absorptions are
‘extensions’ of lexical structure, unmediated by the syntax.
Absorptions such as we have been looking at provide us with a straight-
forward way of accommodating the kind of example that has been used to
argue for ‘constructionist’ approaches to relations between lexicon and syntax
(as in Goldberg 1995; Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004). Examples such as those
in (26) and (27) can be interpreted as absorptions involving a ‘derived’
causative directional verb based on an argument that is in an instrumental
relation to it, either a verbal (a) or nominal (b) argument:
(26) a. The professor talked us into a stupor
b. Bill elbowed his way through the crowd
This is indicated schematically in the lexical, so unordered, representation
in (27):
(27) {P;N}
{P;N/{erg}} {N{com},{loc}\{P;N/{erg<abs>}}}

| :
{P;N/{loc}} :
| :
{P;N/{abs}{loc}{{erg}}} :
:
talk/elbow
The ‘instrumental’ (‘hybrid’ functor) configuration on the right and the lower
{P:N}s joined to the left are subordinate to the highest {P;N}, which is there
because of the requirements of a circumstantial, the ‘instrumental’; and the
{P;N}s and the ‘instrumental’ are not ordered linearly with respect to each
other. The ‘instrumental’ is a comitative ({com}) locative that requires an
agentive verb (recall §9.2.3, and particularly (9 .39), updated here as part of
(27)). The upper {P;N}s on the left are a causative configuration and the
lowest a directional.
Thus, in the syntactic structure representing (26a) in (28) the professor
satisfies the agentive requirement of the causative, and is hosted by the free
absolutives above:
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 409
(28) {P}
|
{{abs}} {P;N}
:
{{abs}}
:
: {P;N/{erg}} {N{com},{loc}\{P;N/{erg<abs>}}}
: | :
{{erg}} {P;N/{loc}} : {{abs}}
: | : :
: {P;N/{abs}{loc{goal}}} : {{(loc),abs}}
: : :

: : :
: :
{{abs}} {{loc{{goal}}
: : : :
: : : :
the professor talked us into a stupor
And the {{abs}} of the directional (whose spatial source argument is not
expressed) is hosted by the (locative) free absolutive of the patient sub-
predicator within the causative complex and the free absolutive of the causa-
tive ‘action’ predicator itself.
The configurationin (28) corresponding to (27) remains unserializable. And the
whole complex in (27) i s b ased on (or ‘ deriv ed from ’) the ‘instrumental’ argument
(not specified here, as its categories varies, but talk or elbow in the pr esent
instances); that is, (27) a ppears on the right-hand side of an absorption relation
on the left of which is the lexical representation for talk or elbow,inthecaseof(26).
And the whole complex is expressed b y the base form, as in other absorptions.
We ha v e a complex c on v ersion. There is no need to appeal to ‘constructions’ with
their o wn meaning. This is a relationship between atomic lexical items.
Likewise, there is no need to associate the alleged ‘unaccusativity’, or the
‘telicity’, of (29b) versus the ‘unergativity’ (‘atelicity’) of (29a) (cf. German
(4.22)) with the distinct contribution of the ‘construction’ in (29b) as such:
(29) a. John danced/ran/walked
b. John danced/ran/walked to the other side of the room
(29b) involves a directional verb ‘derived’ from a simple (‘activity’) agentive
intransitive which is, again, in an ‘instrumental’ relation to it. The ‘unaccu-
sativity’/‘telicit y’ is associated with the directional verb (recall Keller and
Sorace 2003). And again, and as is normal, the base of the absorption, i.e. in
this instance the root of the non-directional ‘activity’ verb, is what is ex-
pressed overtly. It is unnecessary to attribute to ‘constructions’ properties that
belong to the category that projects the ‘construction’. I do not here try to

show this on a wider basis. Bo
¨
hm (2001) offers a much fuller discussion of
such phenomena, and a rather different interpretation of them, which does
410 Modern Grammars of Case
not appeal to an ‘instrumental’ relation (and its apparent problems, related to
those discussed by Wunderlich (1997)), but which nevertheless also avoids the
‘constructionist’ conclusion.
It is unsurprising if particular kinds of derivational relationship are absent
from particular languages, particularly those which are more complex, more
marked. Once more, we do not have to associate this with languages having
different ‘constructions’, which seems to be an unnecessary complication of
the conceptual apparatus of grammar. Languages may have different lexical
relationships; there is no need to impose on linguistic variation the compli-
cation of ‘constructional’ variation. ‘Constructional’ differences follow from
the lexical characterizations of individual lexical items.
This is not, of course, to deny that there are multi-word lexical items; many
idioms are such. Consider as an example the fell out with verbal sequence in
(33), which may be given either an agentive or experiencer interpretation:
(30) Colonel Sentence fell out with General Principle
The lexical item involved might be represented as in (31), assuming, for
illustration, an agentive interpretation:
(31) {P;N/{erg}}
| :
{P;N} :
| :
{P;N/{abs},{loc{goal}}} {N {com},{loc}\{P:N}}
: :
: {{loc{goal}} :
: : :

: : :
fall out with
From this the syntactic structure in (32) is projected:
(32) {P}
|
{{abs}}
{P;N/{erg}}
: | :
{{erg}}
{P;N} : {{abs}}
: | : |
{{abs}} {P;N/{abs},{loc{goal}}} {N{com},{loc}\{P;N}}
: : :
{{abs}}
: {{loc{goal}} :
: : : :
: : : :
Col. Sentence fell out with Gen. Principle
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 411
Fall out with is an agentive verb formed on the basis of a directional verb and
its goal argument together with a comitative; the agentive argument of the
derived verb is linked lexically with the absolutive of the directional. In (34b)
the {{erg}} is hosted by the free absolutive of the agentive, and the directional
{{abs}} by the free absolutive of the circumstantial predicator; the circum-
stantial comitative is hosted by the free absolutive of the agentive predicator.
It is only such totally idiosyncratic ‘constructional’ properties, as in (31), that
need be entered as part of a lexical item.
13.3 Creativity and notionalism
The types of lexical relationship we have been looking at, including the
linking mechanism of (10) etc., contribute to linguistic creativity, in enabling

metonymic and metaphoric formations. And they thus take us back to a
theme of the Prologue, the unacceptability of the per vasive notion of ‘cre-
ativity’ voiced by Foley and van Valin as ‘the abilit y of native speakers to
produce and understand an (in principle) infinite number of sentences’ (1984:
319) and the inappropriateness of how Chomsky’s (1976) distinction between
‘rule-breaking’ and ‘rule-governed creativity’ is drawn. There are distinctions
to be drawn here, to be sure: to do with relative routinization or lexicalization,
different dimensions of figurativeness (which is not just a feature of ‘litera-
ture’), or what we might distinguish (again following Anderson (1984 c;
1987a)), though scarcely sharply, as ‘suppletive’ versus ‘supplementary’ for-
mations. The latter provides alternative means of representing some scene;
they are thus usually obviously ‘figurative’ (in a sense, ‘rule-breaking’ or ‘rule-
supplanting’), and can lead to ‘idioms’. But the alternative, figurative means
of expression can reveal something distinctive about the scene represented; it
is to an extent ‘suppletive’, and its content cannot necessarily be identified
with any ‘literal equivalent’, even when the metaphor is apparently ‘dead’. The
fully suppletive formation provides us with a means of representing a scene
for which there is no prior representation (it is ‘rule-creating’, or ‘rule-
extending’)—as with the deployment of the localist relations in the represen-
tation of abstract as well as concrete ‘spaces’ etc. These localist relations
provide ‘literal metaphors’, in another terminology (Lakoff and Johnson
1980, and much subsequent work).
As implied, the literal/suppletive/supplementary distinctions are fragile.
Man y ‘literal’ expressions are ‘dead’ metaphors (Finally, they understood). And
something that might be identified as anidiomatized ‘supplementary’metaphor
is merely more recent, and perhaps more transparent, at least vis-a
`
-vis its
non-literal status, if not in the interpretation of the metaphor (Finally, the
412 Modern Grammars of Case

penny dropped). There are often alternative suppletive (or ‘literal’) metaphors
that ‘supplement’ each other, as in the spatial expression of temporal relation-
ships (cf. the tradition of work that includes Traugott (1975)).
It was suggested in §9.2.3 that renewal of such metaphors is crucial to the
development and use of language. On the other hand, we should not over-
estimate the role of recursive routinized formulas in any of this. It is imagina-
tive flexibility that characterizes creativity, not mere infiniteness of product.
And these considerations lead us back again to groundedness, which they
depend on: ‘creativit y’ is meaningless without meaning.
What emerges most strongly from this history, as far as I’m concerned, is
the fundamental, inescapable status of grounding in grammar. ‘Case gram-
mar’ and its developments within a more general notional grammar involve a
rejection of the ‘autonomy of syntax’ principle. This is, of course, not unique
to this tradition; but the history we’ve looked at illustrates particularly
forcefully the illusory character of any assumption of ‘autonomy of syntax’.
What emerges in particular from the work looked at is that descriptively
adequate and explanatory categories are not arrived at on the basis of an
arbitrary selection of observations concerning distribution; and arbitrariness
is not disguised by the attribution of the selection to some abstract ‘universal
grammar’, or ‘language faculty’.
There is no autonomous formal or substantive property that has been
shown to be unique to language. In these circumstances, the important
question concerning ‘universality’ is this: which of those linguistic properties
that recur universally reflect the result of continuing interaction, during
acquisition, of cognitive capacities with the partly routinized structures of
the individual languages being learned? And which of them are genetically
transmitted linguistic routinizations—that is, properties that have lost
grounding, are autonomous to the extent of being unlearnable as such?
The set consisting of the latter properties constitutes ‘universal grammar’, or
perhaps ‘the faculty of language in the narrow sense’ (Hauser et al. 2002). It is

not clear that this set is non-empt y, apart from its including an impulsion ‘to
pay attention to speech’. That even the most plausible candidate for (further)
membership of the set, recursion, is unique to language is very doubtful. And
there are certainly no grounds for attributing the linguistic categories dis-
cussed here (or elsewhere, for that matter) to ‘universal grammar’.
Nor are categories and their syntax to be established or recognized by
giving equal weight to any and all distributional properties or to all
potential members. Only the properties of the prototypical use of seman-
tically prototypical members of the category are relevant to identifying the
basic distribution of the category. Other aspects of distribution correlate
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 413
with various sorts of non-prototypicalities of membership or use. What we
have looked at suggests that what I called in §11.1 ‘categorial autonomy’ must be
complemented by grounding: internal distribution and groundedness are
individually insufficient fully to account for the behaviour of linguistic cat-
egories—specifically syntactic categories in the present instance.
Ultimately, one’s position on ‘autonomy’ and ‘universal grammar’ depends
on how one interprets the undeniable mismatches between semantics and
syntax. Some mismatches are lexically based, so that (for instance) the
membership of syntactic classes may include non-prototypical examples;
but others are structural. Syntax shows what I have called ‘routinizations’,
syntactic generalizations that are not obviously grounded.
One reaction to these latter is to assume, despite the evident groundedness
of much of morphosyntax, that syntax must be studied as autonomous. Given
this, analyses of the syntax of individual languages and of its acquisition will
have to appeal to formal devices of such abstractness that the positing of
‘universal grammar’, as the source of such unlearnable ‘abstract principles’,
becomes plausible (Anderson 2004a; 2004f).
But there is a suspicious circularity here, or at least a question-begging
mutual dependence, involving ‘autonomy’ and ‘universal grammar’, as well as

there being so far no systematic account in such terms of the prevalence of
groundedness, or of the distribution between and within languages of
matches and mismatches between syntax and semantics. And maintenance
of ‘autonomy’ involves both contraction of the traditional bounds of syntax—
where it most obviously involves reference to semantics (recall the introduc-
tion to Chapter 10), or to phonology—and expansion (via ‘Logical Form’) to
include aspects of semantics that apparently frustrate the contraction strategy
and so must be redesignated ‘syntax’.
Suppose, on the other hand, that one regards the mismatches with seman-
tics that occur in syntax as parasitic upon a syntactic system that is grounded
in semantics. These mismatches are then evidence of language-particular
routinizations imposed on a syntax based on groundedness. The question
then arises: why are some of these routinizations, such as subject formation,
so prevalent, if not universal? Do they not, after all, reflect an ‘autonomous’
‘universal grammar’? But this prevalence may simply reflect the recurrence in
languages of the same (grounded) circumstances that favour the development
of the routinizations. Thus, subject formation is favoured by the frequent
coincidence of ‘agents’ and ‘topics’, as well as by the functional utility of there
being a designated argument that can be identified as ‘victim’ of, for example,
‘raising’ and ‘control’. The favouring circumstances are grounded and func-
tional, not ‘autonomous’. And subjecthood itself is not universal—though
414 Modern Grammars of Case
most sentence types in most languages display a principal relation of some
sort. These relations are all functionally motivated routinizations of topics,
however.
Apart from principal formation (formation of subjects, primes, etc.), the
routinizations that have been appealed to in the preceding are the role of free
absolutives and the determination of some linearizations. The presence of the
latter is dictated by, among other things, the phonetics interface, which must
accommodate expression through time; sequencing is not in any way ‘au-

tonomous’. And the clustering of the linearizations in many languages, or at
least subsystems, around sequences which consistently reflect the head-
dependent relation—‘head before dependent’ or ‘dependent before head’—
facilitates parsing (for example in lessening the likelihood of ‘garden paths’);
so it too has a functional basis.
But what about the (apparently syntactic, not lexical) requirement that
every predicator (with only marked exceptions) has a dependent absolutive
(whatever else)? In default of a subcategorized-for absolutive, a free absolutive
is introduced in the syntax. This was expressed in §11.2.1 as:
Universality of absolutive
Every predication contains an absolutive.
As implied by the brief discussion of the role of absolutive in raising in §4.2.3,
this requirement corresponds in a sense to part (b) of Chomsky’s (for example
1981) projection principle:
Projection principle
(a) Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF, and D-and S-structure
are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategoriza-
tion properties of lexical items.
(b) Every clause must have a subject.
But here it is the absolutive relation that is being claimed to be universal to
clauses, not subjecthood. Every language may have a principal relation (sub-
ject being one variet y thereof), though particular subsystems may lack them.
In existential sentences in Tagalog, for instance, there is no prime present
(Schachter 1976: 502):
(33) May liham (para sa iyo)
exist letter (for you)
(‘There’s a letter for you’)
Recall (7.5), with a prime:
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 415
(7.5) a. Lumapit ang ulap sa araw

approach:
AT T cloud D sun
(‘The cloud approached the sun’)
b. Linapitan ng ulap ang araw
approach:
DT A cloud T sun
(‘The cloud approached the sun’)
In (7.5) the prime argument is marked (in Schachter’s (1976) terminology)
with ‘T’, and the role of the prime is marked on the verb: ‘AT’ in (7.5a) and
‘DT’ in (7.5b). Both of these markings are missing in (33). This is unsurprising
in an existential sentence, given the source of primes in topics, something
reflected in their ‘definiteness’ in Tagalog. In English, the sentences in (7.8),
corresponding to (33), have only an expletive positional subject (§11.2.3):
(7.8) a. There is a fly in my soup
b. There are flies in my soup
Nevertheless, principals fulfil a functional role in most subsystems in language.
However, the existence of principals depends on the universality of abso-
lutive, which must participate in any form of principal formation.
We might formulate the syntactic requirement that ensures universality of
absolutive as in (34), where ‘/*{abs}’ denotes absence of an absolutive valency
for a head:
(34) Predication default
P/*{abs} ) P/{abs}
Notice in the first place that (34) seems to be a condition on predicators rather
than predication, and specifically lexical predicators. It does not apply to the
‘superjoined’ predicators introduced by circumstantials, as was assumed in
(9.26), (10.39) and (13.28):
(10.39) {P}
:
{{abs} : {P;N}

: : |
: : {P;N/{{abs}{erg}}} {{loc}\{P;N}}
: : : :
{{erg}} : : {{abs}} : {N}
| : : | : :
{N} : : {N} : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
Bill was reading Waverley on Tuesday
416 Modern Grammars of Case
Predicators introduced syntactically are ‘defective’ in this respect; there is no
motivation for presence of a free absolutive in their case.
Such a requirement as (34) is a putatively universal routinization of the
relationality of the P feature associated with predicators, ultimately based on
their cognitive character. The development of the routinization is also
favoured by functional considerations, basically the provision of a mechanism
that permits argument sharing and the consequent ‘compacting’ of the
syntax. But, given this, is (34) nevertheless still to be conceived of as part of
an autonomous ‘universal grammar’, whatever its phylogenetic source in
grounding (semantic relationality) and its functional utility?
However, it is possible that, as with subjects, this requirement emerges in
the acquiring of individual languages, as a result of interaction (in this case)
between the expectations engendered by the relationality of predicators and
confrontation with linguistic phenomena, particularly phenomena that invite
the positing of shared arguments. Thus, the interpretation of (11.1b) requires
attribution to the two predicators of an argument that fulfils the valency of
both and which is patently shared:
(11.1) a. John seemed to like Rasselas
b. John tried to read Rasselas
In (11.1a) the putative shared argument is not required by the valency of the

upper predicator; it is never theless the subject of this predicator—canonically
more so than it is the subject of the lower predicator, from which it is
separated by the other predicator. If subjects are neutralized semantic rela-
tions, and if arguments appear in predicators by virtue of bearing a semantic
relation (as is semantically appropriate), then the question of the identity of
the relation borne by the subject of seem arises, as does that of the subjects in
(11.3a)—and the objects in (11.3b)—rather naturally:
(11.3) a. It rained, it grew late
b. They lived it up, Fred blew it
The obvious choice is absolutive, the default ‘case’.
The role of absolutive in the scene depicted by the predication it appears in
is determined by the predicator rather than being inherent: it is located,
moved, described, assigned attributes, acted on, experienced, etc. Absolutive
has only this content. In the absence, in the case of seem and these others, of a
subcategorization requirement for an apparent argument, the predicator
acquires the ‘neutral’ absolutive relation. The predicator imposes no content
on the relation (and, indirectly, argument) introduced by (34); the absolutive
remains contentless, as it transmits to its argument none of the selectional
Epilogue: Case, Notionalism, Creativity, and the Lexicon 417
requirements associated with being subcategorized-for. It is required only by
the relational character of predication that is articulated by the semantic
relations and their mediation between predicator and argument(s). All of
this is cognitively salient.
The rough scenario just outlined remains highly speculative, of course. But
in this and other putative instances of ‘autonomous universals’, such alterna-
tive stories deserve detailed attention before contemplating a plunge into
abstractions which ensure their own unlearnability and bring with them as
a consequence—or perhaps rather as a reciprocation—a doctrinaire perspec-
tive on language and mind.
In the course of the present survey, we have come quite a long way, in one

respect, from concerns that started off with attempts to understand how to
talk about the role in the classical languages of those variations in the nominal
paradigm that seemed to signal something other than gender, number, or
person (or declension class)—what came to be labelled, none too transpar-
ently, ‘case’. But we have kept coming upon further support for the traditional
convictions, now based on a wider range of evidence, from a range of
languages, concerning the syntactic importance of these relations expressed
by morphological case and alternatives to it, as well as their grounded
character, their notional basis. Of course, following this evidence has taken
us in a number of different directions, some of the more important of which
this final chapter has touched on.
The present book has endeavoured to present something of a history, one
based on the consequences of the ‘case grammar hypothesis’, embodying what
I called a case grammar of level 3. I find it a piquant history. On the one hand,
at an early stage in the development of transformational grammar there was
formulated, and embedded within such a grammar, a sub-theory whose
consequences would render transformations superfluous and autonomous
syntax untenable. On the other hand, a view of syntax as ‘autonomous’ and
transformational would have been rendered superfluous and undesirable if
there had been acknowledged more generally at the inception of transform-
ational grammar the legacy of the tradition of grammars of case.
This last chapter, however, as well as casting an eye back on this history, has
also sought to introduce further consequences of the ‘case grammar’ view,
most of them largely still to be developed. This is as it should be. Every
epilogue is also a prologue.
418 Modern Grammars of Case
References
ABRAHAM, W. (ed.) (1978). Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
A

CKERMAN, F., and MOORE,J.(2001). Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding: A
Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
—— and W
EBELHUTH,G.(1998). A Theory of Predicates. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
A
ISSEN,J.(1979). The Syntax of Causative Constructions. New York: Garland.
A
LARCOS LLORACH,E.(1999). Grama
´
tica de la lengua espan
˜
ola. Madrid: Espasa.
A
LEXIADOU, A., ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, E., and EVERAERT, M. (eds.) (2004). The Unaccusa-
tivity Puzzle: Studies on the Syntax–Lex icon Interface. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
A
MRITAVALLI,R.(1980). ‘Expressing Cross-Categorial Correspondences: An Alternative
to the X
0
Syntax Approach’, Linguistic Analysis 4: 1–32.
A
NDERN, P.S. (1948). First Readings in Old English. Wellington: Wellington University
Press.
A
NDERSON, J.M. (1968a). ‘Ergative and Nominative in English’, Journal of Linguistics 4:
1–32.
—— (1968b). ‘On the Status of ‘‘Lexical Formatives’’ ’, Foundations of Language 4:
308–18.
—— (1969). ‘Adjectives, Datives and Ergativisation’, Foundations of Language 5: 301–22.

—— (1970). ‘The Case for Cause: A Preliminary Enquiry’, Journal of Linguistics 6:
99–104.
—— (1971a). ‘Dependency and Grammatical Functions’, Foundations of Language 7:
30–7.
—— (1971b). The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
—— (1971c). ‘A Proposal concerning the Lexicalisation of Complex Structures’,
Studia Linguistica 25: 1–8.
—— (1972). ‘On the Hierarchy of Quasi-Predications’, Revue roumaine de linguistique
17: 23–44, 121–40, 193–202, 319–35.
—— (1973a). An Essay concerning Aspect: Some Considerations of a General Character
Arising from the abbe
´
Darrigol’s Analysis of the Basque Verb. The Hague: Mouton.
—— (1973b). ‘Some Speculations concerning Meetings, Matrimony, Family Resem-
blances and Related Matters’, York Papers in Linguistics
3: 7–29.
—— (1974a). ‘Existential QuantiWers’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 15: 1–27.
—— (1974b). ‘Concerning QuantiWers and Coordination’. Linguistics Agency,
University of Trier.
—— (1975). ‘A Non-Argument for Deep Structure’, York Papers in Linguistics 5: 87–96.
ANDERSON,J.M.(1976). On Serialization in English Syntax. Ludwigsburg: Ludwigsburg
Studies in Language and Linguistics.
—— (1977). On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations.
London: Croom Helm.
—— (1978). ‘On the Derivative Status of Grammatical Relations’, in Abraham (ed.)
(1978: 661–94).
—— (1979). ‘On Being Without a Subject’. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguis-
tics Club.
—— (1984a). ‘Case Grammar and the Lexicon’, University of Ulster: Occasional

Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning, 10.
—— (1984b). ‘Objecthood’, in F. Plank (ed.) Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammat-
ical Relations, 29–84. New York: Academic Press.
—— (1984c). ‘En tout cas’, Lalies 3: 7–24.
—— (1986a). ‘Case Grammar and Structural Analogy’, Lingua 70: 79–129.
—— (1986b). ‘A Note on Old English Impersonals’, Journal of Linguistics 22: 167–77.
—— (1987a). ‘Case Grammar and the Localist Hypothesis’, in Dirven and Radden
(1987: 103–21).
—— (1987b). ‘Invariance and Linguistic Variation: A Case Grammar Characterisa-
tion’, in H. Melenk, J. Firges, G. Nold, R. Strauch and D. Zeh (eds.), 11. Fremd-
sprachendidaktiker-Kongreb, 603–10.Tu
¨
bingen: Narr.
—— (1987c). ‘The Tradition of Structural Analogy’, in R. Steele and T. Threadgold
(eds.),
Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, 33–43. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
—— (1989a). ‘ReXexions on Notional Grammar, with some Remarks on its Relevance
to Issues in the Analysis of English and its History’, in D.G. Arnold, M. Atkinson,
J. Durand, C. Glover, and L. Sadler (eds.), Essays on Grammatical Theory and
Universal Grammar, 13–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
—— (1989b). ‘The Localist Basis for Syntactic Categories’, Second Symposium on
English and Greek: Description and/or Comparison of the Two Languages, 7–32.
Thessaloniki: School of English, Aristotle University.
—— (1990). ‘Case Grammar Contrasts’, in J. Fisiak (ed.), Further Insights into
Contrastive Linguistics, 23–8. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
—— (1991). ‘Notional Grammar and the Redundancy of Syntax’, Studies in Language
15: 301–33.
—— (1992). Linguistic Representation: Structural Analogy and StratiWcation. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

—— (1993). ‘Parameters of Syntactic Change: A Notional View’, in C. Jones (ed.),
Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives, 1–42. London: Longman.
—— (1997). A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
—— (1998). ‘The Domain of Semantic Roles’, in J. Andor, B. Hollo
´
sy, T. Laczko
´
, and
P. Pelyva
´
s (eds.), The Diversity of Linguistic Description: Studies in Linguistics in
Honour of Be
´
la Korponay, 1–38. Debrecen: Lajos Kossuth University.
420 References
—— (2000a). ‘Markedness and the Ontogenesis of Syntax’, Folia Linguistica 34:
147–83.
—— (2000b). ‘ ‘‘What Became of Waring?’’ Questioning the Predicator in English’,
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 35: 53–80.
—— (2001a). ‘Raising Control’, Studia Linguistica 55: 77–111.
—— (2001b). ‘Finiteness, in Greek, and Elsewhere’, Poznan
´
Studies in Contemporary
Linguistics 37: 5–33.
—— (2003). ‘On the Structure of Names’, Folia Linguistica 37: 347–98.
—— (2004a). ‘Structural Analogy and Universal Grammar’, to appear in Bermudez-
Otero and Honeybone (in press).
—— (2004b). ‘On the Grammatical Status of Names’, Language 80: 435–74.
—— (2004c). ‘Syntactic Categories and Syntactic Change: The Development of

Subjunctive Periphrases in English’, in I. Moskowich-Spiegel Fandin
˜
o and B.
Crespo Garcı
´
a (eds.), New Trends in English Historical Linguistics: An Atlantic
View, 31–73. Corun
˜
a: University of Corun
˜
a.
—— (2004d). ‘No Less than Four Notes on Less’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 40: 55–74.
—— (2004
e). ‘Contrast in Phonology, Structural Analogy, and the Interfaces’, Studia
Linguistica 58: 269–87.
—— (2004f). ‘Grammar and Meaning: Two Cheers for Structuralism’. Report
no. ILCI-03-LIC-13, Institute For Logic, Cognition, Language and Information.
Donostia: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
—— (2005a). ‘The Argument Structure of Morphological Causatives’, Poznan
´
Studies
in Contemporary Linguistics 40: 27–89.
—— (2005b). ‘The Groundedness of Grammar’, in A. Stuhlmann and P. Studer
(eds.), Language—Text—Bildung: Essays in Honour of Beate Dreike, 13–21. Frank-
furt: Lang.
—— (2005c). ‘Structuralism and Autonomy: From Saussure to Chomsky’, Historio-
graphia Linguistica 32: 117–48.
—— (2005d). Let. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 41: 29–52.
—— and D
URAND J. (eds.), (1987). Explorations in Dependency Phonology. Dordrecht:

Foris.
A
NDERSON, S.R. (1971). ‘On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation’,
Foundations of Language 7: 387–96.
—— (1976). ‘On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages’, in cn Li (1976: 1–23).
—— (1977). Comments on Wasow (1977), in Culicover et al. (1977: 361–71).
—— (1988). ‘Objects (Direct and Not so Direct) in English and Elsewhere’, in
C. Duncan-Rose and T. Vennemann (eds.), On Language: Rhetorica, Phonologica,
Syntactica. A Festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his Friends and Colleagues, 287–
314. London: Routledge.
—— (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
A
NDREWS,A.(1985). ‘The major functions of the noun clause’, in T. Shopen (ed.),
Language Typology and Syntactic Description, I: Clause Structure, 62–154. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
References 421
ANTTILA, A., and FONG,V.(2000). ‘The Partitive Constraint in Optimality Theory’,
Journal of Semantics 17: 281–314.
A
RONOFF,M.(1980). ‘The Relevance of Productivity to a Synchronic Description of
Word Formation’, in J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical Morphology, 71–82. The Hague:
Mouton.
A
SHTON, E.O. (1944). Swahili Grammar. London: Longman, Green.
A
ST,F.(1808). Grundlinien der Grammatik, Hermeneutik und Kritik. Berlin.
A
URNAGUE,M.(1998). ‘Basque Genitives and Part–Whole Relations: Typical Con-
Wgurations and Dependencies’. Carnets de Grammaire 1. Toulouse: CNRS and
University of Toulouse-Le Mirail.

—— (2000). ‘Entrer par la petite porte, passer par des chemins de traverse:A
`
propos de
la pre
´
position par et de la notion de ‘‘trajet’’ ’, Carnets de grammaire 7 . Toulouse:
CNRS and University of Toulouse-Le Mirail.
—— (2004). Les Structures de l’espace linguistique: Regards croise
´
s sur quelques con-
structions spatiale du basque et du franc¸ais. Louvain: Peeters.
—— and V
IEU,L.(1993). ‘A Three-Level Approach to the Semantics of Space’, in
C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to
Natural Language Processing, 395–439. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
B
ACH,E.(1968). ‘Nouns and Noun Phrases’, in Bach and Harms (1968: 90–122).
—— (1976). ‘Order in Base Structures’, in Li (1975: 307–43).
—— (1977). Comments on Chomsky (1977b), in Culicover et al. (1977: 133–55).
—— and H
ARMS, R.T. (eds.) (1968). Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
B
AKER, M.C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
—— (2003). Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
B
ARRON,J.(2000). ‘The Morphosyntactic Correlates of Finiteness’, in M. Butt and
T. Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG00 Conference, 1–19. Stanford, Calif.:

CSLI. Available at: //csli.publications.stanford.edu/
B
EARD,R.(1998). ‘Derivation’, in A. Spencer and A.M. Zwicky (eds.) The Handbook of
Morpholog y, 44–65. Oxford: Blackwell.
B
ECHERT,J.(1977). ‘Zur funktionalen Erkla
¨
rung des Ergativsystems’, Papiere zur
Linguistik 12: 57–86.
B
ELLETTI, A., and RIZZI,L.(1981). ‘The Syntax of Ne: Some Theoretical Implications’,
The Linguistic Review 1: 117–54.
B
ENTON,R.(1971). Pangasinan Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
B
ENVENISTE,E
´
.(1962). ‘Pour l’analyse des functions casuelles: Le ge
´
nitif latin’, Lingua
11: 10–18.
B
ERMUDEZ-OTERO, R., and HONEYBONE, P. (eds.) (in press). Linguistic Knowledge: Per-
spectives from Phonology and Syntax. Special issue of Lingua.
B
ERNHARDI, A F. (1805). Anfangsgru
¨
nde der Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin.
422 References

BIESE, Y.M. (1950). Some Notes on the Origin of the Indo-European Nominative Singular.
Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, ser. B, 63, 5.
B
LOOM, P., PETERSON, M.A., NADEL, L., and GARRETT, M.F. (eds.) (1996). Language and
Space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
B
LOOMFIELD,L.(1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
B
OAS, F. (ed.) (1911). Handbook of American Indian Languages, I. Washington, DC:
Bureau of American Ethnology.
B
O
¨
HM,R.(1981). ‘On Causing Without a Subject’, Lingua 53: 3–31.
—— (1982). ‘Topics in Localist Case Grammar (with special reference to English and
German)’. D.Phil. thesis, New University of Ulster.
—— (1986). ‘Indirect Object Advancement: From Relational Grammar to Case
Grammar (via Kalkatungu)’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 6: 73–105.
—— (1993). ‘Predicate–Argument Structure, Relational Typology and (Anti)Passives:
Towards an Integrated Localist Case Grammar Account’. Duisburg: LAUD, ser. A,
no. 336.
—— (1998a). ‘De-activated Participants: Notional Grammar, Dependency and
(Anti)Passives’, in W. Boeder et al. (eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam
Johannes Bechert, vol. 2, 19–49.Tu
¨
bingen: Narr.
—— (1998b). Notional Grammar, Wortklassen und Dependenz. Bremen: University of
Bremen, IAAS.
—— (1999). ‘Kategorien, KonWgurationen und ‘‘Kasus’’ in einer notionalen Gram-
matik’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52: 207–31.

—— (2000). ‘Ergativita
¨
t—Akkusativita
¨
t . . . und Notionalgrammatisches’, in S.
Hackmack and K. H. Wagner (eds.), Ergativ, 53–64. Bremer Linguististik Workshop
1. Bremen: University of Bremen, IASS. Available at: -bre-
men.de/iaas/workshop/ergativ/
—— (2001). ‘Pra
¨
dikation—primar (und sekunda
¨
r) notionalgrammatisch’, in S.
Hackmack and K. H. Wagner (eds.), Pra
¨
dikation, 91– 158. Bremer Linguististik
Workshop
2. Bremen: University of Bremen, IAAS. Available at: http://
www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/iaas/workshop/praedi/
B
OLINGER, D.L. (1972). Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.
B
OSSONG,G.(1984). ‘Ergativity in Basque’, Linguistics 22: 341–92.
B
OWERS,J.(1993). ‘The Syntax of Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.
B
REKLE, H.E. (1970). Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax in der
englischen Nominalkomposition. Munich.
B
RESNAN, J., and KANERVA, J.M. (1989). ‘Locative Inversion in Chichew

ˆ
a: A Case Study
of Factorization in Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1–50.
B
RETTSCHNEIDER,G.(1979). ‘Typological Characteristics of Basque’, in F. Plank (ed.),
Ergativity, 371–84. New York: Academic Press.
B
ROADWELL, G.A. (1988). ‘Multiple u-role Assignment in Choctaw’, in Wilkins (1988c:
113–27).
B
ROSCHART,J.(1997). ‘Why Tongan Does it DiV erently: Categorical Distinctions in a
Language without Nouns and Verbs’, Linguistic Typology 1: 123–65.
References 423
VAN BUREN,P.(1979). ‘Comparatives and Linguistic Theory (with special reference to
the Localist Hypothesis of Language)’. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
B
URZIO,L.(1986). Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
B
UTT,M.(2005). Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
C
ALDWELL,R.(1875). A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian
Languages. London: Tru
¨
bner.
C
ARDEN,G.(1973). English QuantiWers: Logical Structure and Linguistic Variation.
Tokyo: Taishukan.
C
ARLSON,G.(1984). ‘On the Role of Thematic Roles in Linguistic Theory’, Linguistics
22: 259–79.

C
HAFE, W.L. (1970). Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
C
HAPIN, P.G. (1972). Review of R.P.S. Stockwell, P. Schachter, and B.H. Partee (1968)
The Major Syntactic Structures of English (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1968), Language 48: 645–67.
C
HOMSKY,N.(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
—— (1966). Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the Histor y of Rationalist Thought.
New York: Harper & Row.
—— (1969). ‘The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present Directions’, in Reibel and
Schane (1969: 3–12).
—— (1970). ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in Jacobs and Rosenbaum (1970: 184–221).
—— (1971). ‘Conditions on Transformations’, in S.R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky
(eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Repr. as Chomsky (1977a: 81–260.
—— (1972). ‘Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of Transformational Grammar’, in
S. Peters (ed.), Goals of Linguistic Theory, 63–130. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston. Repr. in N. Chomsky, Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar
(The Hague: Mouton, 1972).
—— (1976). ReXections on Language. London: Fontana.
—— (1977a). Essays on Form and Interpretation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
—— (1977b). ‘On Wh-Movement’, in Culicover et al. (1977: 71–132).
—— (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
—— (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and
Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
—— (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
—— (1988
). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge,

Mass.: MIT Press.
—— (1993). ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in Hale and Keyser (1993:
1–52).
—— (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
—— and H
ALLE,M.(1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
C
OCHRAN, E.E. (1963). A Practical German Review Grammar, 2nd edn. Englewood
CliVs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
424 References
COLE,P.W.(1983). ‘The Grammatical Role of the Causee in Universal Grammar’,
International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 115–33.
—— H
ARBERT, W., HERMON, G., and SRIDHAR, S.N. (1978). ‘On the Acquisition of
Subjecthood’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8: 42–71.
C
OLMAN, F., and ANDERSON, J.M. (2004). ‘On Metonymy as Word Formation: With
special reference to Old English’, English Studies 85: 547–65.
C
OMPANY,C.(2001). ‘Multiple Dative-Marking Grammaticalization: Spanish as a
Special Kind of Primary Object Language’, Studies in Language 25: 1–47.
C
OMRIE,B.(1973). ‘The Ergative: Variations on a Theme’, Lingua 32: 239–53.
—— (1976a). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—— (1976b). ‘The System of Causative Constructions: Cross-Language Similarity
and Divergences’, in Shibatani (1976: 261–312).
—— (1985a). ‘Causative Verb Formation and Other Verb-Deriving Morphology’, in
T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3: Grammatical
Categories and the Lexicon, 309–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—— (1985b). ‘ReXexions on Subject and Object Control’, Journal of Semantics 4: 47–65.

C
OOK, W.A. (1978 ). ‘A Case Grammar Matrix Model’, in Abraham (1978: 296–309).
—— (1979). Case Grammar: Development of the Matrix Model (1970–1978). Washing-
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
C
OOPER,R.(1976). ‘Lexical and Non-Lexical Causatives in Bantu’, in Shibatani (1976:
313–24).
—— and P
ARSONS,T.(1976). ‘Montague Grammar, Generative Semantics, and Inter-
pretative Semantics’, in Partee (1976: 311–62).
C
ORBETT, G.G., FRASER, N.M., and MCGLASHAN, S. (eds.) (1993). Heads in Grammatical
Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
C
ULICOVER, P.W., WASOW, T., and AKMAJIAN, A. (eds.) (1977). Formal Syntax. New York:
Academic Press.
—— and W
ILKINS,W.(1986). ‘Control, PRO, and the Projection Principle’, Language
62: 120–53.
C
URRY, H.B. (1961). ‘Some Logical Aspects of Grammatical Structure’, in R. Jakobson
(ed.), Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, 56–68. Providence, RI:
American Mathematical Society.
D
AHL,O
¨
.(1980). ‘Some Arguments for Higher Nodes in Syntax: A Reply to Hudson’s
‘‘Constituency and Dependency’’ ’, Linguistics 18: 485–8.
—— (1987). ‘Case Grammar and Prototypes’, in Dirven and Radden (1987: 147–61).
D

ANES
ˇ
,F.(1968). ‘Some Thoughts on the Semantic Structure of the Sentence’, Lingua
21: 55–69.
D
ARRIGOL,J P.(1829). Dissertation critique et apologe
´
tique sur la langue basque.
Bayonne.
D
AVIDSON, D., and HARMAN, G. (eds.) (1972). Semantics of Natural Language.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
D
ELANCEY,S.(1981). ‘An Explanation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns’,
Language 57: 626–57.
References 425
DELANCEY,S.(1991). ‘Event Construal and Case Role Assignment’, Berkeley Linguistic
Society 17: 338–53.
D
EMIRDACHE, H., and MATHEWSON,L.(1995). ‘On the Universality of Syntactic Categor-
ies’, NELS 25: 79–94.
D
ENISON,D.(1993). English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.
D
ENISON,N.(1957). The Partitive in Finnish. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemien
Toimituksia, ser. B, vol. 108.
D
IK, S.C. (1968). Coordination: Its Implications for the Theor y of General Linguistics.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
—— (1978). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

D
IRVEN, R., and RADDEN, G. (eds.) (1987). Concepts of Case.Tu
¨
bingen: Narr.
D
IXON, R.M.W. (1972). The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
—— (1977). ‘Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?’, Studies in Language 1: 19–80. Rev.
as Dixon (1982: 1–62).
—— (1979). ‘Ergativity’, Language 55: 59–138.
—— (1982). Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: de Gruyter.
D
O
¨
LEKE, W H. (1814). Versuche philosophisch-grammatischer Bemerkungen, II: U
¨
ber die
Casus, die Tempora, das Pronomen und das Verbum Substantivum. Halberstadt and
Leipzig.
D
OUGHERTY, R.C. (1970). ‘Recent Studies on Language Universals’, Foundations of
Language 6: 505–61.
D
OWTY,D.(1976). ‘Montague Grammar and the Lexical Decomposition of Causative
Verbs’, in Partee (1976: 201–46).
—— (1982). ‘Grammatical Relations and Montague Grammar’, in P. Jacobson and
G.K. Pullum (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, 79 –130. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
—— (1989). ‘On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘‘Thematic Role’’ ’, in G.
Chierchia, B.H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings, 2:

Semantic Issues, 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
—— (1991). ‘Thematic Roles and Argument Selection’, Language 67: 547–619.
D
RYER,M.(1986). ‘Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and AntiDative’, Language 62:
808–45.
D
UNN,J.(1998). ‘Disjunct and Nondisjunct Possession in a Coast Tsimshian Text’,
paper presented to the Linguistic Society of America, Society for the Study of the
Indigenous Languages of America, New York.
VAN EIJK, J., and HESS,T.(1986). ‘Noun and Verb in Salish’, Lingua 69: 319–31.
F
ALK, Y.M. (2000). ‘Philippine Subjects in a Monostratal Framework’, paper presented
at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association,
16–18 Apr. 1999, University of Toronto. Available at: />msyfalk/PhilippineSubjects.pdf
F
ILLMORE, C.J. (1965). ‘Toward a Modern Theory of Case’, Project on Linguistic Analysis,
Ohio State University 13: 1–24. Repr. in Reibel and Schane (1969: 361–75).
426 References
—— (1966). ‘A Proposal concerning English Prepositions’, Georgetown University
Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 19: 19–33.
—— (1968a). ‘The Case for Case’, in Bach and Harms (1968: 1–88).
—— (1968b). ‘Lexical Entries for Verbs’, Foundations of Language 4: 373–93.
—— (1969). ‘Types of Lexical Information’, in F. Kiefer (ed.), Studies in Syntax and
Semantics, 109–37. Dordrecht: Reidel. Repr. in Steinberg and Jacobovits (1971:
370–92).
—— (1970). ‘The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking’ , in Jacobs and Rosenbaum
(1970: 120–33).
—— (1971). ‘Some Problems for Case Grammar’, Georgetown University Monograph
Series on Languages and Linguistics 23: 35–56.
—— (1972). ‘Subjects, Speakers, and Roles’ , in Davidson and Harman (1972: 1–24).

—— (1977). ‘The Case for Case Reopened’, in P.W. Cole and J.M. Sadock (eds.),
Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
F
ISCHER, O.C.M., and VAN DER LEEK,F.(1987). ‘A ‘‘Case’’ for the Old English Imper-
sonal’, in W. Koopman, F. van der Leek, O.C.M. Fischer, and R. Eaton (eds.),
Explanation and Linguistic Change, 79–120. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
F
LETCHER,P.(1971). ‘Case Grammar: Its Viability as an Alternative Grammatical
Model’, Lingua 28: 237–50.
F
ODOR, J.A. (1970). ‘Three Reasons for Not Deriving ‘‘Kill’’ from ‘‘Cause to Die’’ ’ ,
Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429–38.
F
OLEY, W.A., and VAN VALIN, R.D. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
F
OWLER, H.W. (1926). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
F
RANKLIN,K.(1971 ). A Grammar of Kewa, New Guinea. PaciWc Linguistics, Series C. 16.
Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Australian National University.
F
RASER,BRUCE (1971). ‘A Note on the Spray Paint Cases’, Linguistic Inquir y 2: 604–7.
F
REI,H.(1939). ‘Sylvie est jolie des yeux’, in Me
´
langes de linguistique oVerts a
`
Charles
Bally, 83–92. Geneva: Georg.

F
REY, W., and PITTNER,K.(1998). ‘Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen
Mittelfeld’, Linguistische B erichte 176: 489–534.
—— —— (1999). ‘Adverbialpositionen im deutsch-englischen Vergleich’, in M. Doh-
erty (ed.), SprachspeziWsche Aspekte der Informationsverteilung, 14–40. Berlin: Aka-
demie.
F
RIES, C.C. (1952). The Structure of English: An Introduction to the Construction of
English Sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
F
UDGE, E.C. (1967). ‘The Nature of Phonological Primes’, Journal of Linguistics 3: 1–36.
F
UJIMURA, O. (ed.) (1973). Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC.
G
ILDERSLEEVE, B.L., and LODGE,G.(1968). Latin grammar, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan.
G
IVO
´
N,T.(1976). ‘Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement’, in Li (1976: 149–88).
G
LEASON, H.A. Jr. (1965). Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
References 427