You are on page 1of 18

102. Case porary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 399 417 Langacker, Ronald W.

(1991), Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Lyons, John (1977), Semantics, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Maiden, Martin (1995), A Linguistic History of Italian. London, New York: Longman Mosel, Ulrike (1982), Number, Collection and Mass in Tolai. In: Seiler, Hansjakob & Stachowiak, Franz Josef (eds.), APPREHENSION: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstnden. Teil II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in Einzelsprachen. Tbingen: Narr, 123154 Mufwene, Salikoko S. (1980), Number, Countability and Markedness in Lingala LI-/MA- Noun Class. Linguistics 18, 10191052 Pelletier, Francis J. (1975), Non-Singular Reference: Some Preliminaries. Philosophia 5, 451465

1073
Pelletier, Francis J. & Schubert, Lenhart K. (1989), Mass Expression. In: Gabbay, Dov & Guenthner, Franz (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 327407 Quine, Willard V. O. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press Rijkhoff, Jan (2002), The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press Sasse, Hans-Jrgen (1993), Syntactic Categories and Subcategories. In: Jacobs, Joachim & Stechow, Arnim von & Sternfeld, Wolfgang & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 646686 Siemund, Peter (forthc.), Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a CrossLinguistic Perspective. London: Routledge Wierzbicka, Anna (1988), The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Stockholm (Sweden)

102. Case
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A case system Problems of description Realisation Survey of case marking Diachrony of case References

1.

A case system

Case in its most central manifestation is an inflectional system of marking noun phrases for their relationship as dependents to their heads. Typically case marks the relationship of a noun phrase to a verb as in the following example from Turkish (cf. Lewis 1967: 25 52). (1) Mehmet adam-a elma-lar- Mehmet(nom) man-dat apple-pl-acc ver-di. give-past.3.sg Mehmet gave the apples to the man. Mehmet is in the nominative case which indicates the subject. Adam is in the dative case which indicates that it is the recipient of vermek give. Elmalar is in the accusative which indicates that it is the direct object. The accu-

sative also indicates that it is definite or at least specific, since in Turkish only specific direct objects are marked by the accusative. Non-specific direct objects are put in the nominative. Turkish has a system of six cases as in Tab. 102.1. The genitive marks an adnominal, dependent noun phrase as in adam-n ev-i mangen house-3.sg.poss (of the man his house), i.e. the mans house. In Turkish the possessor, if definite, is cross-referenced by a possessive pronominal suffix on the possessed noun, hence the -i. The locative marks location as in Istanbul-da in Istanbul, and the ablative indicates from or out of as in Ankara-dan from Ankara. nominative accusative genitive dative locative ablative adam adam adamn adama adamda adamdan

Tab. 102.1: Turkish case system

1074 In (1) the cases are determined or governed by the verb. Vermek to give requires a subject in the nominative, an indirect object in the dative and a direct object in the accusative or nominative. Cases can also be governed by prepositions or postpositions. Turkish has postpositions which govern the ablative like dolay because of: toplant-dan dolay meeting-abl because.of (because of the meeting). It also has postpositions that govern the genitive with pronouns but the nominative with nouns. Such a postposition is gibi like: kim-in gibi who-gen like (like whom), but bu adam gibi this man(nom) like (like this man). The word forms displayed in Tab. 102.1 make up a table or paradigm of case forms. In Turkish one could say that there is only one paradigm. It is true that noun stems of different shapes take different inflectional suffixes, but all these differences are phonologically conditioned by principles of vowel harmony and the like. The locative, for instance, has the form -da following stems with back vowels and -de following stems with front vowels. The d of this suffix devoices to t following a stem-final voiceless consonant: kitap-ta on (the) book. One could refer to -da, -de, -ta, and -te as case markers or one could consider that at a more abstract level there was only one locative case marker. We need to make a distinction between cases, (of which there are six in a system of oppositions) case markers or case forms (the affixes or word forms respectively that realise the oppositions) and case relations (the syntactic or semantic relations that the cases express). Case relations, also referred to by other labels such as grammatical relations or functions, need not be in a one-for-one correspondence with cases. In Turkish the nominative expresses the subject, but not all noun phrases in the nominative are subject since the nominative also marks a non-specific direct object of a transitive verb (see (13)). The term case is also used for the phenomenon of having a case system and a language with such a system is sometimes referred to as a case language.

XIII. Entittsbegriffe

2.

Problems of description

Turkish is a convenient language with which to illustrate a case system since there is in a sense only one paradigm and case is repre-

sented by a set of separable markers. However, the traditional study of case in the West has been concentrated on Ancient Greek and more particularly Latin where a number of complications are found. In Latin, for instance, it is not possible to separate number marking from case marking. The two categories have fused representation or cumulative exponence (Matthews 1974). This means separate paradigms for the two number categories, singular and plural. Moreover, there are different case/number markers for different stem classes. Traditionally five such classes are recognised and there are also variations within the classes. These inflectional classes are known as declensions from de cl na tio , literally a bending down or aside. This refers to the notion of varying from the basic form, the nominative. In fact the word case itself is from Latin ca sus a falling which is in turn calqued on the Greek pto sis. Again the notion is of falling away from the pto sis orthe , Latin ca sus rectus, the upright case. The non-nominative cases were traditionally the pto seis plagiai, or ca su s obl qu the oblique cases, literally, the leaning or sloping cases (Sittig 1931; Robins 1967: 29). Three declensions are illustrated in Tab. 102.2: the first declension (-a stems), second declension (-o stems), and third declension (consonant stems). The third declension also contains -i stems, which are not illustrated, nor are two other minor declensions, the fourth (-u stems) and fifth (-e stems). The distinctions are a reality, but the labels are not synchronically transparent and are to some extent based on reconstruction. In Latin there is also a three-way gender distinction: masculine, feminine, and neuter. With a few exceptions male creatures are masculine and females feminine, but inanimates are scattered over all three genders (though almost all neuter nouns are inanimate). There is a partial association of form and gender in that -a stems are almost all feminine and -o stems mostly masculine (except for a sub-class of neuters represented by bellum in Tab. 102.2). This means that there can be fusion of gender, number, and case. The point is illustrated in Tab. 102.2 where we have domina mistress of a household illustrating feminine -a stems and dominus master of a household, which is based on the same root, representing masculine -o stems. As can be seen from Tab. 102.2 domina

102. Case

1075 1 -a stems feminine domina mistress 2 -o stems masculine dominus master dominus domine dominum domin domino domino domin domin domino s domino rum domin s domin s neuter bellum war bellum bellum bellum bell bello bello bella bella bella bello rum bell s bell s co nsul consul co nsul co nsul co nsulem co nsulis co nsul co nsule co nsule s co nsule s co nsule s co nsulum co nsulibus co nsulibus 3 cons. stems

singular nominative vocative accusative genitive dative ablative plural nominative vocative accusative genitive dative ablative dominae dominae domina s domina rum domin s domin s domina domina dominam dominae dominae domina

Tab. 102.2: Latin case paradigms

simultaneously represents nominative case, feminine gender and singular number, dominum represents accusative case, masculine gender and singular number, and similarly with other suffixes. In Latin there is concord between a noun and an attributive or predicative adjective. This concord is sensitive to case and number and those adjectives that belong to the first and second declension are sensitive to gender so we find domina bona good mistress and nauta bonus good sailor where nauta is a noun of masculine gender in the first declension. With adjectives of the first and second declensions the inflections simultaneously represent case, number, and gender without exception. As can be seen six cases are recognised: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, and ablative; however, no paradigm exhibits six different forms. In the traditional descriptions a case is established wherever there is a distinction for any single class of nominals. The vocative, the case used in forms of address, has a distinctive form only in the singular of the second declension. Elsewhere there is a common form for the nominative and vocative, i.e. there is syncretism between the two cases. However, distinct no-

minative and vocative cases are recognised for all paradigms. The expression of location (place at) is interesting with respect to the principles of establishing cases. Location is usually expressed by a combination of a preposition like in and the ablative case: in urbe in the city. However, with towns and small islands (which were considered points rather than areas) no preposition was used and the form coincided with the genitive for names belonging to the first and second declension singular and with the ablative otherwise (e.g. Karthagine in Carthage), with a few alternative dative-like forms in the third declension (e.g. in Karthagin in Carthage). There were also a few fossilised forms like bello at war. Here a formal distinction correlates with a function, but there is no unique locative form for any class of nominal. Strict adherence to the principle of establishing a separate case wherever a formal distinction correlates with a function would demand setting up a locative case as in Tab. 102.3. In practice traditional Latin grammars sometimes talk about a locative case, but exclude it from their paradigms. However, this is perhaps to be regarded as the result of a space saving strategy rather than of a theory based decision.

1076 singular first declination second declination genitive locative ablative genitive locative ablative Ro mae Ro mae Ro ma Mile t Mile t Mile to plural Athe na rum Athe n s Athe n s Delpho rum Delph s Delph s

XIII. Entittsbegriffe

Tab. 102.3: Locative case in Latin

The practice of recognising a case on the basis of a distinction in one paradigm is widespread but not universal. Another descriptive practice is to recognise different sets of cases in different paradigms, in particular to use a common label for case markers or case forms that neutralise distinctions made in other paradigms. In Estonian, for instance, there is less differentiation in the case marking of the attributive adjective than in the noun, with a common form corresponding to several distinct forms in the noun. This has been referred to as an oblique case (cf. Comrie 1981: 121; see Tab. 102.4 for weak adjectives in German). Applying this practice to Latin we might say that there is a direct case for neuter nouns corresponding to the nominative and accusative of non-neuter nouns. However, to be consistent we would have to find common labels for all other syncretisms and all these deviations from the maximal differentiation principle complicate the description of concord (cf. Goddard 1982 on Australianist practice). Describing the meanings and functions of the cases in Latin and other Indo-European languages has long been a matter of dispute. The standard treatment in reference grammars is to list a number of meanings or functions for each case. A typical Latin grammar, for instance, would recognise an ablative of separation in Athe n s rede o I return from Athens, a locative ablative in Athe n s habito I live in Athens, and an instrumental ablative in gladio fer re to wound with a sword, with many other semantic subdivisions besides. The Roman writer Quintilian suggested splitting the ablative into an ablative proper and an instrumental (Institutio oratoria, 1.4.26). He appears to have been influenced by the fact that the separation and instrumental senses are differentiated in Ancient Greek, the separation or source sense being expressed via the genitive and the instrumental sense via the dative (Greek had no abla-

tive) (Hjelmslev 1935: 16). Since the nineteenth century it has been commonplace to point out that the separation, locative, and instrumental senses reflect three separate cases in Indo-European which syncretised in Latin, although, as noted above, it is still possible to pick out a locative in Latin by considering the fact that the locative meaning is expressed by genitive forms with some place names and ablative elsewhere. There is another approach to describing the meaning of cases and that is to characterise each in terms of a generalised meaning (Gesamtbedeutung) which minimally distinguishes one case from another. This notion goes back a long way. It can be found, for instance, in the work of the Byzantine grammarian Maximus Planudes (1260c. 1310), and is prominent in the writings of the scholastic grammarians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Hjelmslev 1935: 11 f.; Serbat 1981: 2426). The most prominent exponents of this approach in this century have been Hjelmslev (1935; 1937) and Jakobson (1936), and the idea still has its proponents such as Rubio (1966) and de Carvalho (1980) (see also the discussion in Touratier 1978). To maintain the generalised meaning or function one needs to attribute differences of semantic role to the choice of lexical filler or choice of governor (verb or adposition). Applying this latter principle to the Latin ablatives quoted above we can see that the separation sense of the ablative in Athe n s rede o can be attributed to the meaning of red re to return, the locative sense of the ablative in Athe n s habito to the meaning of habita re to dwell in, and so on (Rubio 1966: 155187). This might be called an emic approach since it seeks to establish that the etic varieties of meaning are predictable from the environment or it seeks to dismiss them as uses of cases (cf. Hjelmslev 1935: 90 f.). A prominent theme in establishing Gesamtbedeutungen is the idea of characterising cases in terms of local notions of position and direction. This has become known as the localistic approach to case and it goes back at least to Maximus Planudes. Obviously an ablative can be characterised in terms of source or origin, but so can a nominative at a more abstract level, since it can be thought of as expressing the source of the action. Similarly an accusative can be thought of as expressing the destination of the activity or process denoted by the verb (cf. Serbat 1981: 26).

102. Case

1077 (but see 4.2.2 on alternatives to the genitive). One finds either case inflection, usually with adpositions as well, or simply adpositions. Another widespread category used to mark the relationship of a noun phrase to a verb is a specialised relator noun to express relative position, that is, notions like over, under, beside, etc. English has examples such as top in on top of (note that top cannot be modified by a determiner or adjective when functioning as a relator noun). If we take the term case to embrace all these means of expressing the relationship of noun phrases to their governors, then all languages will be case languages and the notion becomes vacuous as a characterisation of means of expression. Case languages in the traditional sense, that is languages with inflectional case, are characteristic of Eurasia and Australia. Indo-European had case though this has been almost entirely lost in English and the western Romance languages. Case is characteristic of the Uralic, Altaic, Caucasian, Eskimo-Aleut, and Dravidian families. In Australia the Pama-Nyungan languages which cover most of the mainland have case as do a majority of the families found in the north of the continent. In Semitic there are up to three cases (nominative, accusative, and genitive) (Hetzron 1987: 659) and small systems are found in Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan languages (Tucker & Bryan 1966). In the Americas a number of languages have case systems, the Penutian, Yuman, and UtoAztecan languages, for instance, exhibit case as do Tarascan and Zoque. Some have the minimal number of cases, namely two, as in some Uto-Aztecan languages such as Yaqui, Chemehuevi, and Comanche (Sherzer 1976; rez 1983: 87). Sua 3.2. Within the noun phrase 3.2.1. Internal relations The head of a noun phrase will normally be able to take further noun phrases as dependents. The relationship of these to the head can typically be expressed by a variety of indirect cases (cases other than those used for subject and object; see 4), but often there is a special adnominal case. In Latin the genitive has this function (though it also marks the complement of a handful of verbs). It marks the possessor as in co nsulis villa the consuls villa, but it also marks a variety of types of complement as in the following phrase from Caesar (de Bello Gallico, 1.30.2).

Such an approach has its critics. Wierzbicka, for example, argues that the generalised definitions of Jakobson are too broad to be predictive and that one cannot learn to use the Russian cases from his formulas (Wierzbicka 1980: xv). However, Jakobson was able to analyse his generalised case meanings in terms of distinctive features and these facilitate generalisations over groups of cases. In Russian there is syncretism of nominative and accusative in some nouns but syncretism of accusative and genitive in others. Comrie (1986: 102 f.) demonstrates that one can capture the grouping nominative accusative by means of a feature [direct] and accusative genitive by means of a feature [ objective]. Thus the form stol which is the nominative and accusative of stol table can be described as a [ direct] form and the form slona which is the accusative and genitive of slon elephant can be described as [ objective]. Comries features are not Jakobsons and they are syntactically rather than semantically based.

3.

Realisation

3.1. Within the clause In 1, case was described as an inflectional system of marking the relationship of nominal dependents to heads. This describes case in languages like Ancient Greek and Latin where the case marking is integrated into the host word and where it marks the relationship of a nominal to a governing verb or preposition. The same applies to Turkish except that Turkish has postpositions rather than prepositions. In many languages, however, there are adpositions but no case inflection. In Korean and Japanese case relations are marked by postpositions. In Japanese the subject is marked by ga, the direct object by o and the indirect object by ni. (2) Sensei ga Tasaku ni hon o yat-ta. teacher sbj Tasaku io book obj give-past The teacher gave Tasaku a book. In some languages the core grammatical relations are distinguished by word order as in English or by the use of bound pronominal forms, either clitics or inflectional affixes. These pronominal forms are usually affixed to the verb as in the Bantu languages or enclitic to the first constituent of the clause as in some Uto-Aztecan languages. With the non-core cases these alternatives do not exist

1078 (3) ... pro veter-ibus Helve ti-o rum for old-abl.pl Helvetii-gen.pl iniu popul- Roma ri- s n- . injury-abl.pl people-gen Roman-gen ... for the old injuries inflicted by the Helvetii on the Roman people. The first genitive here is of a type traditionally called subjective genitive and the second objective genitive. They express complements corresponding to the subject and object of a verbal predicate meaning to injure. This development of a special adnominal grammatical case has parallels in a number of languages (see also 4.2.2). 3.2.2. External relations There are two common distributions of case marking within the noun phrase. In one type case appears not only on the head nominal in the noun phrase but also on the determiner and usually the adjective. This system is familiar from Indo-European languages and can be illustrated from Ancient Greek. In (4) the determiner and attributive adjective show agreement for case, number, and gender. Bios in (4) is masculine. tast-os (4) ho anexe the:m.nom.sg unexamined-m.nom.sg -os b life-m.nom.sg the unexamined life Concord is also found in Balto-Finnic, Semitic, in some Pama-Nyungan languages and elsewhere, but it is a minority system. In the other type, case marking appears on the final word in the noun phrase. We can distinguish two sub-types. In the first the final word is the head noun in the noun phrase. This is the system found in the Altaic, Dravidian languages, and Papuan languages. The following example is from the Papuan language Fore (Scott 1978: 110). kina mi-ti waye. (5) P that being-all go.3.sg He goes to those people. In the other sub-type the final word in the noun phrase is not always the head. This is the situation in various Australian and Amazonian languages (Derbyshire & Pullum 1986; 1989; 1991). The phenomenon also occurs in Basque: etxe zaharr-etan house oldpl.loc (in old houses) (Saltarelli et al. 1988: 77). The difference between postpositions and phrase-final inflection is not always clear. In

XIII. Entittsbegriffe

Korean it is normal to speak of postpositions, but the forms in question have variants for vowel-final stems and consonant-final stems: can mul ul cold water obj, but can ooyoo lul cold milk obj. At the other extreme is a language like Diyari (cf. Art. 137; Austin 1981a) where the marking consists of a series of morphologically determined variants plus some phonologically determined alternants that cannot be related synchronically to a single basic form. It would be difficult to maintain that sets of alternants like these were postpositions. Among Australian languages there are some that need mark only one constituent of the noun phrase but not necessarily the last word in the phrase. In Nyigina and Gooniyandi (McGregor 1990) discourse principles play some part. In Nyigina, for instance, the marking is often on the first word: gudyarrani wamba two-erg man (two men), or frequently on the word that is most significant: ginya marninga Wurrawurra-ni that woman Wurrawurra-erg (that Wurrawurra woman) (Stokes 1982: 59 f.). The ergative suffix marks the agent of a transitive verb. In another Australian language Uradhi the case marking applies obligatorily to the head, but only optionally to the dependents (Crowley 1983: 371 f.). (6) Utagha-mpu amanyma(-mpu) dog-erg big(-erg) udhumpuyn ighanhanga-n. back:acc break-past The big dog broke [the other dogs] back. In some languages there is concord between the determiner and what one would take to be the head noun, but not between the adjective and head. This is the situation in Yaqui (Uto-Aztecan), for instance (Lindenfeld 1973: 60). In the Indo-Aryan languages adjectives exhibit fewer case distinctions than nouns and in some, including Bengali (Klaiman 1987: 499), they exhibit no concord at all. In Germanic languages that exhibit a case system it is noticeable that in noun phrases with a determiner, an adjective, and a noun it is the determiner that displays the maximum amount of differentiation. A paradigm of German nouns is given in Tab. 102.4. It shows a masculine singular noun of the strong declension with an adjective and determiner.

102. Case

1079 der liebe Mann den lieben Mann des lieben Mannes dem lieben Mann(e) ben-i sev-dig -in-i (9) Ahmed-i Ahmed-gen 1.sg-acc love-nr-3.sg-acc bil-iyor-um. know-pres-1.sg I know that Ahmed loves me. The form -in is a third singular genitive form in cross-reference with Ahmed-i. In Turkish noun possessors are cross-referenced on possessed nouns: Biz-im heykel-imiz we-gen statue-1.pl.gen (our statue). The accusative on the nominalised verb marks it as the complement of biliyorum, and the accusative on ben marks it as the complement of sevmek. 3.3.2. External relations Where a clause rather than a noun phrase is a dependent, the same possibilities for case marking arise. In most instances the case marker appears only on the head of the clause, namely the verb, as in the following example from Finnish (Uralic) where the translative case (which expresses the notion of to with nouns) is found on the infinitive and indicates purpose (Branch 1987: 615). karttakirja-n (10) Osti-n bought-1.sg atlas-acc suunnitella-kse-ni automatka-n. plan-trnsl-1.sg.poss car.trip-acc I bought an atlas in order to plan a car journey. Another possibility is for the case marking of a dependent verb to spread to its dependents by concord. The following example is from Yukulta (Northern Australian). Note that the dative which is appropriate to the verb warratj- spreads to the allative-marked complement to yield a second layer of case marking (Keen 1972: 270). (11) Taamitya-ngandi ask-sbj.1.sg.&obj.3.sg.fut.aux natha-rul-ngkurlu warratj-urlu. camp-all-dat go-dat Ill ask him to come to the camp. This spreading may also occur where a clause modifies a noun phrase. In the following example from the Pama-Nyungan language Panyjima all words in the modifying clause show concord with the accusative-marked object of the main clause (Dench & Evans 1988: 28). (12) Ngatha wiya-rna ngunha-yu marlpa-yu I:nom see-past that-acc man-acc paka-lalha-ku nharniwalk-ku come-pfv-acc hither-acc warrungkamu-la-ku. morning-loc-acc

nominative accusative genitive dative

Tab.102.4: German case inflection

In Maba (Nilo-Saharan) a nominative-accusative distinction is made by tone only on the article: a ` ma ra ` -gu ` lion-art.nom versus ` ma ra ` -gu lion-art.acc (Tucker & Bryan a 1966: 199). In Georgian and Hurrian concord extends from the head of a noun phrase to dependent noun phrases bearing adnominal case marking (Plank 1990). The effect of this is to produce double case marking. (7) is from Old uk 1986: 69). Georgian (Melc (7) sarel-ita man-isa-jta name-instr father-gen-instr with fathers name Double case marking is not uncommon in Australia. It is found not only in languages with concord but in languages that mark case phrase-finally. In (8), which is from Alyawarra, -kinh marks the relationship of artwa ampu to ayliyla, and -ila marks the relationship of the phrase as a whole (Yallop 1977: 117 f.). (8) ayliyla artwa ampu-kinh-ila boomerang man old-gen-instr with the old mans boomerang 3.3. Within the subordinate clause 3.3.1. Internal relations In general case marking in a subordinate clause is the same as in an independent clause, particularly if the clause is finite. However, where a subordinate verb is nominalised it may take complements in the favourite adnominal case, i.e. the genitive. In Latin, for instance, the present participle may take a genitive complement corresponding to what would have been an accusative (or dative, ablative or even genitive) complement with the verb: appetente s gloriae seek:pres. part.nom.pl glory:gen (seeking glory) but appetunt gloriam seek:3.pl glory:acc (they seek glory). In Turkish the genitive is used to mark the subject of a nominalised verb. The object of such a verb if present takes the normal case marking (Kornfilt 1987: 640).

1080 I saw that man who came this way this morning. Concord in dependent clauses is not nearly so common as concord in noun phrases; the former implies the latter. 3.4. Within the word Case is most often realised via suffixes. The almost total absence of prefixes is striking (cf. Cutler et al. 1985). Squamish (Salishan) is reported to have case prefixes, and Coos and Siuslaw (Penutian) have a subject prefix in addition to cases marked by suffix and vowel alternation (Sherzer 1976: 69 f., 261 f.). Another example is to be found in Nungali, a Northern language of Australia (Hoddinott & Kofod 1976: 397). In this language there are noun classes. Prefixes mark case and class simultaneously (Tab. 102.5). class absolutive 1 2 3 4 di-gal nya-ngarrung nu-ngulud ma-yadayn oblique nyi-gal ganyi-ngarrung nyu-ngulud nyi-yadayn water woman camp skin

XIII. Entittsbegriffe

Tab. 102.5: Nungali class/case prefixes

In some languages the case marking is not linearly separable from the stem. Consider the umlauted datives of Germanic, for instance. In Old English the dative of fo t foot is fe t which derives from *fo ti via f ti and f t, the original -i suffix having induced an assimilatory fronting in the stem vowel before being lost. In Serbo-Croat the genitive/ dative and locative in i-stems are distin ri thing(gen/dat) verguished by tone: stva sus stva ri thing(loc) (Corbett 1987: 398 f.). In Russian the genitive singular and nominative plural are distinguished in some instances by stress: ruk hand.gen.sg versus ki hand.nom.pl (Comrie 1987: 333). The ru ultimate union of stem and case is suppletion as evidenced, for example, in the pronouns of Indo-European languages. In some languages there is what is called an oblique stem. In Tamil, for instance, singular nouns have a stem distinct from the nominative to which all oblique case marking is added. Maram tree, for example, has a nominative maram and an oblique stem marratt- to which the case markers are suffixed: maratt-ai tree:obl-acc, maratt-ukku tree: obl-dat, etc. (Steever 1987: 737). Sometimes

the differentiation is the result of phonological processes as in Ancient Greek where the oblique stem is original and the nominative s results from cluster simplification, e.g. elp hope:nom has an oblique stem elp d- as in d-os hope:obl-gen, elp d-i hope:oblelp dat. In the nominative d has been lost before s. In other languages the oblique stem consists of the base plus a non-functioning case marker. In Lezgian the ergative of lam donkey is lamra which form serves as a stem for the genitive lamran, dative lamraz, etc. (Mel uk 1986: 63). c Another category of inflection found frequently on nouns is number. The marking for number, like case marking, is usually via suffixation, and the number suffix normally precedes the case suffix as in Tamil: a -ai Ru-kal river-pl-acc (rivers) (Steever 1987: 737). Where pronominal possessors are marked on the noun these usually appear before the case marking as in Turkish where they appear between the number marking and the case -i-m-on marking; similarly in Hungarian: hajo ship-pl-1.sg.poss-loc (on my ships) (Abondolo 1987: 584). In the Balto-Finnic languages, however, the possessor marking usually follows the case marking. In Finnish, for instance, we find: kirko-lla-mme churchadess-1.pl.poss (at our church) (Branch 1987 : 610). The adessive case expresses the sense of near or at. Another category sometimes marked on nouns, and often on their dependents, is gender or class. Where there is a separable suffix as in Dravidian or Semitic, this usually appears before the case marking as in Arabic: mudarris-at-u-n teacher-f-nom-indef (a female teacher) (cf. Kaye 1987: 672). Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan) is exceptional in marking noun class by post-case suffixation on determiners: ba-gu-l that-dat-m versus ba-gu-n that-dat-f (Dixon 1972: 44).

4.

Survey of case marking

In describing types of case marking it is useful to separate those cases that primarily mark the core or nuclear grammatical relations (subject and direct object) from the others. The former are sometimes called direct cases and the latter oblique, but this use of oblique is confusing since, as noted in 2, the term oblique is traditionally used to mean non-nominative. It would seem preferable to speak of direct and indirect cases. Kuryowicz

102. Case

1081 tive case. This system is referred to as an ergative system and languages with this system are referred to as ergative languages (Comrie n 1984 : 1978; Dixon 1994; Plank 1979; Givo 151). The Caucasian language Avar provides an example (Ebeling 1966: 77). r-ula. (15) W-as w-eke m-child(nom) m-run-pres The boy runs. (16) Inssu-cca j-as (m)father-erg f-child(nom) cc-ula. j-e f-praise-pres Father praises the girl. In Avar, as in ergative languages generally, the nominative (or absolutive) is unmarked. The case marker glossed as erg(ative) is the one that also indicates instruments and could be labelled more accurately ergativeinstrumental. It is common to find that in ergative languages the so called ergative marks a peripheral (adjunct) function such as genitive, locative or instrumental as well as agent of a transitive verb. The w- in (15) is a masculine class marking prefix and the j- in (16) a feminine class marker. Note that the verb cross-references the absolutive. In some languages case marking is sensitive to the relative position of the agent and patient on a hierarchy. In Fore (Papuan), for instance, the use of the ergative case is determined by the following hierarchy: pronoun, personal name, kin term > human > animate > inanimate (cf. Tab. 102.6). If an entity higher on the hierarchy acts on an entity lower on the hierarchy, no case marking is used, but if a lower entity acts on a higher, the lower appears in the ergative. So if a man kills a pig (higher acting on lower), then no ergative is used, but if a pig kills a man (lower acting on higher) then the ergative marker -wama is used (Scott 1978: 100117). aegu ye. (17) Yagaa wa pig man 3.sg:hit:3.sg The man kills the pig. (18) Yagaa-wama wa aegu ye. pig-erg man 3.sg:hit:3.sg The pig kills the man. In languages with ergative case marking on nouns it is true more often than not that the ergative marking is lacking from first and second person pronouns and sometimes from third. This latter situation is found in Yupik Eskimo, for instance, where nouns exhibit

(1949: 40; 1964: 179) made a distinction between grammatical and concrete cases. With the former he held the syntactic function to be primary and with the latter the semantic function. Among the grammatical cases he included the genitive (see 3.2.1 and 4.2.2). It is difficult to maintain a strict distinction between grammatical and concrete cases (Nichols 1983), but there are useful generalisations to be made about the marking of direct cases as opposed to indirect ones, and one can make further generalisations about a subgroup of indirect cases, namely the local cases. These are the cases that express location, destination, relative position (above, inside), etc. 4.1. Direct cases Languages differ in the way they use case marking to distinguish the agent and patient complements of predicates. Agent in this context covers not only the semantic role of agent but also other roles that are treated in the same way syntactically, similarly with patient. In the majority system, which is exemplified by Latin, the agent of a two-place transitive verb is encoded in the same way as the sole argument of a one-place predicate, namely in the nominative case. On the other hand the patient of a transitive verb is encoded in the accusative case. This system has come to be called an accusative system and languages with this system are called accusative languages (cf. Dixon 1972; 1994). In many languages this pattern of marking does not hold if the patient is indefinite or non-specific. In these circumstances the patient remains unmarked. As noted in 1 this is the situation in Turkish. (13) Bir adam gr-d-m. a man see-past-1.sg I saw a man. (14) Adam- gr-d-m. man-acc see-past-1.sg I saw the man. There is another case treatment of agent and patient which is not so common but quite widespread. In this system the patient of a transitive verb is treated in the same way as the sole argument of a one-place predicate. The case covering these functions is usually the zero case and is referred to by some as the nominative and by others as the absolutive. The agent of a two-place transitive verb is encoded in what is usually called the erga-

1082 1, 2, 3 ergative accusative kinship personal names human animate

XIII. Entittsbegriffe

inanimate

Tab. 102.6: Case marking hierarchy

nominative-ergative marking but pronouns remain unmarked for all core functions (Reed et al. 1977). In Kiranti and Gyarong (both Tibeto-Burman) first and second person pronouns lack ergative marking, but all third persons exhibit it (Delancey 1987: 806). A few languages, perhaps only a score or so, organise their core grammar on an agent versus patient basis irrespective of transitivity. These have been called active languages (Klimov 1973) or split-S languages (where S stands for intransitive subject) (Dixon 1994). In these languages agent complements of one-place verbs are marked in the same way as agent complements of two-place verbs while the patient complements of one-place verbs are marked like the patients of two-place verbs. Such languages include the American Indian languages Dakota, Arikara, and Seneca, where the marking shows up only in pronominal affixes, and the Austronesian language Acehnese, where agent clitics precede the verb and patient clitics follow. The agent in a transitive clause is marked by a preposition le (Durie 1985: 180195). In the Kartvelian languages of the Caucasus the active pattern is to be found in the case marking of Georgian and Laz (Harris 1981; 1985). The following examples are from Laz (Harris 1985: 52 f.). (19) Bere-k imgars. child-erg 3.sg:cry The child cries. (20) Bere oxori-s doskidu. child house-dat 3.sg:stay The child stayed in the house. (21) Baba-k mec caps father-erg sbj.3.sg:give:obj.3.sg&io.3.sg skiri-s cxeni. child-dat horse The father gives a horse to his child. In Georgian this pattern applies only to certain classes of verbs in the aorist tense group. In the present tense all subjects are in the no-

minative case and the direct object in the dative (Harris 1981: 46). Some languages employ both ergative and accusative case. This is the situation in Nez Perce though first and second persons lack ergative marking. The following examples illustrate the nominative-ergative-accusative opposition (Rude 1985: 83, 228). ay-na ama. (22) Hi-pa ha 3.sg-arrive-pfv man The man arrived. (23) Ha amap-im a ayato-na man-erg woman-acc e-nehne-ne. pe 3.sg&3.sg-take-pfv The man took the woman away. Interpretations of the distribution of core case marking have been popular since the mid 1970s. Silverstein (1976) pointed out that ergative and accusative marking show regularities of distribution with respect to the following hierarchy (1 stands for first person, 2 for second, and 3 for third). Accusative marking may be restricted to first and second person pronouns, to all pronouns, to pronouns and personal names, and so on. If it appears at any point on the hierarchy, it appears on all points to the left. Conversely ergative marking may appear on inanimates (as in the northern Australian language Mangarayi; cf. Merlan 1982: 57), on all nouns, all nouns and third person pronouns, or all nominals. If ergative marking appears at any point on the scale, it appears on all points to the right. It should be noted that the three categories at the top (left) of the hierarchy are inherently definite and that in quite a number of languages patients in the three categories at the lower end of the hierarchy are marked when in direct object function only if definite or at least specific (cf. (13), (14)). Another point is that the same marking is often used for direct objects as is used for indirect objects. Spanish provides a well known example

102. Case

1083 affixes, or by first or second person pronouns which more often than not lack ergative marking. 4.2. Indirect cases 4.2.1. Local cases The term local in this context refers to place. Local cases express notions of location (at), destination (to), source (from), and path through. Usually at least two different cases are employed to make local distinctions, though not necessarily two exclusively local cases. Indo-European languages originally used two local cases, locative and ablative, with the accusative expressing destination and path. In Turkish there is a locative and an ablative, with destination expressed via the dative. A case expressing destination is found in a number of languages including Balto-Finnic and Altaic languages. A separate case for path is not so common but such a case is found in a few Australian languages (Blake 1987: 40), and is part of the local case system in Avar (Tab. 102.7). Where languages have large case systems it is always through the elaboration of the local cases. This is a feature of the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic family and of the Northeast Caucasian languages. It arises from a combination of markers for relative orientation (above, beside, etc.) with markers for location, destination, source, and path. One dialect of Tabassaran (Northeast Caucasian) is reported to have 53 cases (Comrie 1981: 209). In Avar (also Northeast Caucasian) there are 27 cases, including 20 local cases deriving from a combination of four cases and five orientation markers. The combinations of orientation markers and case markers are morphologically agglutinative and semantically transparent. In a language like this one could simply recognize a

deseo un empleado want:1.sg an employee means I want an employee, any one will do. However, deseo a un empleado with the patient marked by the preposition a to, which also marks indirect objects, means I want a (specific) employee. In Spanish specific animate objects are marked by a. Comrie (1978: 384388) and Dixon (1979: 69; 1994) emphasise the discriminatory function of direct case marking. With a twoplace verb only one argument needs to be marked and with one-place verbs no marking is needed. Languages with both ergative and accusative marking usually employ them in a complementary way. Silverstein, Comrie and Dixon see motivation for the economy here in that agent marking (ergative) is restricted to nominals for which the agent role is less expected and patient marking (accusative) to nominals for which the patient role is less expected (but see Silverstein 1981: 241). Mallinson & Blake (1981: 8691) draw attention to the fact that the hierarchy (Tab. 102.6) above relates not just to the markedness of a nominal to appear as agent or patient, but to topic propensity. Entities to the left of the hierarchy are unmarked choices for topic whereas entities to the right, particularly inanimates, are marked choices. Mallinson & Blake (1981: 103106) endorse the view of Wierzbicka (1981: 6668) that first and second person pronouns tend to avoid ergative marking because of their propensity to be topic. An ergative marked noun phrase is not an ideal means of expression for a topic because of the presence of agent marking. Topics are normally presented without semantic marking. Interestingly ergative marked noun phrases are uncommon in discourse. A transitive subject is very frequently given rather than new and tends to be represented by zero anaphora, clitic pronouns or

locative (location) on (top) of at under in, among in a hollow object


Tab. 102.7: Avar local cases

allative (destination) -d-e -q-e -f -e -f-e --e

ablative (source) -da-ssa -q-a -f -a -f-a --ssa

perlative (path) -da-ssa-n -q-a-n -f -a-n -f-a-n --ssa-n

-da -q -f -f -

1084 layer of orientation markers plus a layer of case markers. Tab. 102.7 is based on Ebeling (1966). If one analyses a further outermost layer of forms as case markers rather than as clitic particles, the system is even larger (Hjelmslev 1937: 225). The method of labelling local cases builds on the model of the Latin abla t vus ablative which is made up of the preposition ab from plus a stem la tivus the root of which is la t, the suppletive root of the perfect participle of fero I bear. Other labels are formed by varying the preposition or by combining prepositions with the stem ess vus from esse to be uk 1986: 7275). (cf. Melc ad to allative: to(wards) (the exterior of ) in into illative: into ab from ablative: from (the exterior of ) e(x) out of elative: from (the inside of ) super above superlative: on, above trans through translative: through per through perlative: through, along essive: at (cf. locative) in in inessive: in(side) ad to adessive: at

XIII. Entittsbegriffe

not be derived from a combination of the labels for the columns and rows. The -tta form, for instance, has developed a number of functions including a partitive one (cf. (26), (27) below). 4.2.2. Other indirect cases In Latin there are three indirect cases: the ablative, the genitive, and the dative. As noted in 2 the ablative represents a syncretisation of three cases in Indo-European: two local cases (ablative proper and locative (see 4.2.1)) and instrumental. All these cases have analogues in a variety of languages and counterparts naturally tend to be named on the basis of Indo-European models. In Latin the dative marks the indirect object of most three-place verbs including da re to give whence it derives its name: Cassius Bru to librum dat Cassius:nom Brutus:dat book:acc give:3.sg (Cassius gives a book to Brutus). It also marks the complement of a score or so of two-place verbs such as auxilior I help, igno sco I pardon, and placeo I please. All these verbs are non-activity, nonimpingement verbs, though not all such verbs take a dative complement; de lecto I please, for instance, takes an accusative complement. A case with this kind of distribution and function is found in numerous languages including other Indo-European languages, in Turkish and other Altaic languages, in Caucasian languages, and in many Australian languages. In some there is an alternation between transitive verbs and derived intransitive verbs with a dative or other indirect complement. The derived intransitive is used where there is reduced semantic transitivity along one or more parameters (cf. Hopper & Thompson 1980). In Kalkatungu (Pama-Nyungan), for instance, the agent of a transitive verb is in the ergative and the patient in the

Tab. 102.8: Local cases

More often than not there is some fusion and/or semantic shift that obscures the transparency of the system. In Finnish, for instance, there are 15 cases of which nine are local. As a first approximation one can say that there are three local cases for location, destination, and source, which can appear on their own or appear with interior (inside) and exterior markers (outside). These are displayed in Tab. 102.9. As can be seen, the system is only partly agglutinative. Moreover, the meanings can-

location general interior -na essive -ssa inessive in -lla adessive at

source -tta partitive -sta elative from(inside) -lta ablative from(outside)

destination -ksi translative -(h)Vn illative into -lle allative to(wards)

exterior

Tab. 102.9: Finnish local cases

102. Case

1085 of a handful of verbs such as oblivisc to forget and misere r to pity. The unmarked adnominal case normally covers the sense of possessor, and the label possessive case is a common alternative. A genitive is found not only in Indo-European languages, but also in Uralic, Caucasian, Altaic, Dravidian languages, and Semitic. In Australian languages a single case covers the range of the Latin dative and genitive cases and the label dative is preferred. In Australian languages the dative often expresses purpose as in he went for fish or a beneficiary as in he got the medicine for father. However, in some of these languages there is a separate case labelled purposive or benefactive to cover one or both of these senses. Basque has both a purposive and a benefactive as well as a dative (Saltarelli et al. 1988: 156166). A large number of languages have possessive affixes for first, second, and third person. In many of these the possessive affix crossreferences the possessor. An example from Turkish was given in 1, namely adam-n ev-i man-gen house-3.sg.poss (the mans house). Here of course there is a genitive, but in many languages the cross-referencing is the sole means of marking possession. A variety of languages including Basque, Zoque, Ossete (Indo-Iranian), and Finnish have a comitative case expressing accompaniment. An instrumental case encodes the instrument with which an action is carried out as in she wiped the screen with a cloth. It is found in the Indo-European family (e.g. Sanskrit), Uralic (e.g. Komi-Permyak), Altaic (e.g. Nanai), Dravidian (e.g. Tamil), Basque, Tonkawa (Uto-Aztecan), Tarascan, Australian, and elsewhere. It is sometimes used to encode the agent of the passive in an accusative language (e.g. Russian) and the agent of a transitive verb in an ergative language (as in Avar, Tibetan, and the majority of PamaNyungan languages). In the Uralic languages a case called abessive (Latin ab-esse to be absent) or privative (Latin pr va re to deprive) is found. It means lacking, not having. In Finnish, for instance, rahta-tta is money-priv (moneyless). This case is also found in Australia where it is matched by a having case called the concomitant or proprietive. These two categories tend to show up in many Australian languages in lexicalised formations. In Kalkatungu, for instance, putu-yan stomachpropr means pregnant. In light of this and

nominative (24). A handful of two-place verbs such as yakapi to understand and utharra to wait for take a nominative actor and a dative patient/theme. However, for any transitive verb a derived intransitive alternative is possible under certain conditions. In the imperfective aspect, for instance, the agent is in the nominative and the patient in the dative (25) (cf. Blake 1979: 44 f., 55). (24) Nyin-ti lhai yurru. you-erg hit man:nom You hit the man. (25) Nyini lhai-minha-n yurr-ku. you:nom hit-ipfv-2.sg man-dat You are hitting the man. In eastern Europe it is common to find that partly affected patients are put in the partitive case as in Hungarian (Moravcsik 1978: 261). (26) Olvasta a knyvet. read:3.sg the book:acc He read the book. (27) Olvasott a knyvbl. read:3.sg the book:prtv He read some of the book. In Estonian and Finnish the partitive is used for the patient if it represents part of a whole or an indefinite quantity, or if the action is incomplete, or if the polarity of the clause is negative. In Polish and Russian similar conditions determine the choice of genitive as opposed to accusative (Moravcsik 1978: 265, 269; see also Plank 1984, ed.). In Latin the dative is used to encode the agent with the gerundive form of the verb as in pax mihi petenda est peace:nom me:dat seek:ger be:3.sg (peace is to be sought by me). The dative is used under certain conditions to mark the agent in a range of other languages including Icelandic and several Indic languages. In Georgian an agent appears in the dative in the evidential mode (Harris 1981: 117127, 247249). These dativemarked agents often display some syntactic properties of subjects and are sometimes referred to as indirect subjects (cf. Klaiman 1987: 507 on Bengali). Some Northeast Caucasian languages have an affective case exclusive to this function (Comrie 1981: 223). A genitive case is widespread. On the basis of Latin one would normally ascribe the label genitive to the most common or unmarked adnominal case, although one would not expect such a case to be exclusively adnominal. In Latin the genitive marks the complement

1086 other evidence the having and lacking suffixes have been taken to be derivational. On the other hand they exhibit concord in languages with case concord which suggests they are inflectional and should be considered cases (Blake 1987: 87 f.; Dench & Evans 1988: 713). Aversive (lit. turning from), evitative (avoiding), and causal have been used for a case category common in Australian languages. It indicates what is to be feared or avoided as in Kalkatungu: yanyi-ngungu rumpi ghost-avers fear (He is afraid of ghosts). Where a case covers a variety of indirect functions it is often labelled oblique (see 2 and 4). Yaqui, for example, has only two cases: nominative and oblique. A parallel system occurred in Old French. In the traditional description of Ancient Greek and Latin a vocative case appears (Tab. 102.2). The vocative is used as a form of address. In Latin, for instance, domine is the form used to address a dominus as in Quo va dis, domine? whither go:2.sg lord:voc (Where are you going, master?). Vocatives do not enter into constructions, but rather stand outside them or are inserted parenthetically. They are unlike other cases in that they do not mark the relation of dependents to heads. For these reasons vocatives have not always been considered cases (Hjelmslev 1935: 4). In Ancient Greek and Latin the vocatives claim to being a case is structural. The vocative is a word-final suffix like the recognised case suffixes. However, modified forms of nouns used as forms of address also occur in languages that do not have case inflection.

XIII. Entittsbegriffe

5.

Diachrony of case

5.1. Origin of case marking In many areas case marking is of long ancestry as witnessed by formal complexity (suppletive variants and fusion) and semantic complexity. This is true of case marking in Indo-European languages, for instance, and in such a situation the prospects for determining the origin of particular case markers are not too promising. On the other hand there are some languages including the IndoIranian branch of Indo-European where the development of new case markers is attested. Moreover, there are many languages in which we can plausibly reconstruct the origin of postpositions and phrase-final postpo-

sition-like case markers, and there is evidence pointing to the fact that the latter derive from the former. There are two common origins for adpositions and case markers, one nominal and the n 1984: 228232). other verbal (cf. Givo Locative markers can often be shown to derive from a noun. The Sinhalese dative -t and locative -ge come from Sanskrit artha aim, wealth and grha house, place, town respectively, and the locative suffix in Sora derives from ba place (Starosta 1985: 111, 122). The Persian suffix -ra, used for marking specific objects, derives from a noun ra di aim, goal (Windfuhr 1987: 541). With adpositions and inflectional case markers of nominal origin it appears to be often the case that the original noun is a head with an adnominal dependent. The comitative in Karelian, for instance, is marked by -ke as in velle-n-ke with the brother where -ke derives from *kera-lla at a turn, on time of used with genitive attributes as in Finnish koira-n keralla dog-gen with (with the dog). The genitive -n is reflected as -n in vellenke (Anttila 1972: 149). In developments like this the original head (*kera-lla in this instance) eventually becomes an affix and the original dependent a stem. Verbs, particularly in their non-finite forms, frequently give rise to adpositions as with the English preposition regarding which obviously derives from the present participle of regard. In Sanskrit the past participle of kr to do, make gave rise to a postposition te me:gen governing the genitive: mama kr for (for me) (Andersen 1979: 26). Within systems of case markers there is frequent development from concrete to grammatical. The Latin preposition ad to develops into Spanish a which not only marks indirect objects, but also specific, animate objects: vi a Juan I saw John (cf. 4.1 above). Similarly another Latin preposition per through develops into Rumanian pe which means on but which also marks direct objects that are animate or pronominal (Mallinson 1987: 315 f.). Within inflectional case marking systems one notes that often markers of grammatical cases are shorter than markers of concrete cases, a sign of a longer span of development taking in one extra stage (Lehmann 1982: 85). There are also numerous instances of the same marker having concrete and syntactic functions. For instance, the accusative in Latin covers the local function of destination as well as that of

102. Case

1087 ordinate purposive forms and as independent purposive or desiderative forms. The development seems to be from noun dative to dependent verb dative to independent verb with the dative reanalysed. The three stages can be illustrated from Kalkatungu (cf. Blake 1979: 56). In (28) there is a noun in the dative expressing purpose. In (29) a nominalised verb taking the dative expresses purpose. In (30) a form consisting of a verb stem, a nominaliser, and a dative serves as a main verb. (28) Ngai ingka-nha natha-aya. I:nom go-past nurse-dat I went for the nurse. (29) Ngai ingka-nha natha-ngku I:nom go-past nurse-erg nanyi-nytya-aya. see-nr-dat I went so the nurse could have a look [at me]. (30) Natha-ngku ngai nanyi-nytyaaya. nurse-erg I:nom see-purp The nurse is going to have a look at me. The use of an originally subordinate verb form as a main verb probably arises from the ellipsis of semantically weak governing verbs with meanings like go (cf. the modal-like force of go in English Im going to wash ). Where this ellipsis occurs in a language that exhibits concord from the verb to the other constituents of a dependent clause, the result is marking covering the whole verb phrase. An example of a language with such concord was given above from Yukulta (11), a Tangkic language of northern Australia. The following example is from another Tangkic language called Kayardild (cf. Dench & Evans 1988: 24; Evans 1985: 332385). (31) Nyingka kurri-nang-ku niwan-ju you:nom see-neg-fut 3.sg-fut balmbi-wu. tomorrow-fut You will not see her tomorrow. The set of forms -ku ~ -ju ~ -wu has dativelike functions and a proprietive or having function when used as a normal case marker. In examples like (31) it has what Evans calls a modal function, and it has an unusual distribution in that it is found on the verb and all dependents within the verb phrase. In some languages there is formal identity of case markers and switch reference markers. This identity can be seen in the

direct object. Given that in attested instances the direction of development is regularly from concrete to abstract one would expect the local function to have developed into the grammatical. In Nez Perce the ergative marker -nim can be traced to a local form meaning hither (Rude 1988: 1). 5.2. Loss of case marking Case systems can wither away, their functions taken over by other grammatical mechanisms. Proto-Indo-European is reconstructed as having eight cases but most of its daughter languages have fewer: Latin six (cf. 2), Ancient Greek five and also Old English (if we count the vestigial instrumental separately from the dative), Modern German four. Rumanian has three cases, nominative/accusative, genitive/dative, and vocative (Mallinson 1987: 310312), but the Western Romance languages have lost the entire Indo-European case system save for distinct pronominal forms, mostly clitic, for subject, object, and indirect object. In Western Europe subjectverb-object word order has taken over the main function of nominative and accusative, namely to mark subject and object, and prepositions have supplanted the non-core cases. In some languages, particularly in the Americas and in northern Australia, two or sometimes three arguments of the verb are represented by clitic forms or by inflection on the verb. The forms involved are often identifiable diachronically if not synchronically with case marked pronouns. In many of these languages there is no case marking on core noun phrases and one would assume that case marking has been lost from these noun phrases (cf. Blake 1988: 3137). 5.3. Developments of case markers Whether a case system withers away or not certain markers are likely to develop new functions. It is common to find case marking on adverbs as in English homewards or the parallel German formation heimwrts where the -s is of genitive origin. Dependent verbs are often marked for case (as illustrated in (9) and (10)) and such case-marked verbs often develop new functions. In Latin the active infinitive derives from a locative-marked form (e.g. age-re to do < *-si loc) and the passive infinitive derives from a dative-marked form (e.g. ag- to be done < *-ei dat) (Coleman 1985: 308). In several Australian languages dative-marked forms serve as sub-

1088 Muskogean, Yuman, and Uto-Aztecan languages (Jacobsen 1983: 151) as well as in Australian languages (Austin 1981b). The following examples are from the Yuman language Dieguen o (Langdon 1970: 150154). In (32) -(v)c marks the subject; in (33) it marks the fact that the unexpressed subject is the same as the subject of its sister clause and is glossed s(ame)s(ubject).
? (32) Siny-c ecweyuw-m woman-nom 3.sg:sing-ds ? eyip-s. sbj.1.sg&obj.3.sg:hear-asrt I heard the woman sing.

XIII. Entittsbegriffe Blake, Barry J. (1988), Redefining Pama-Nyungan: Towards the Prehistory of Australian Languages. In: Evans, Nicholas & Johnson, Steve (eds.), Aboriginal Linguistics 1. Armidale/NSW: University of New England, Department of Linguistics, 190 Blake, Barry J. (2002), Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Branch, Michael (1987), Finnish. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 593617 Brecht, Richard D. & Levine, James S. (1986, eds.), Case in Slavic. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica flexions sur les cas: Carvalho, Paulo de (1980), Re orie des cas latins. Linformation Vers une the grammaticale 7, 311 Coleman, R[obert] G. G. (1985), The Indo-European Origins and Latin Development of the Accusative with Infinitive Construction. In: Touratier, Christian (ed.), Syntaxe et Latin, Actes du IIeme Congres International de Linguistique Latine, Aixen-Provence, 2831 Mars 1983. Aix-en-Provence: de Provence, 307344 Universite Comrie, Bernard (1978), Ergativity. In: Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.), Syntactic Typology. Sussex: The Harvester Press, 329394 Comrie, Bernard (1981), The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press Comrie, Bernard (1986), On Delimiting Cases. In: Brecht & Levine (1986, eds.), 86105 Comrie, Bernard (1987, ed.), The Worlds Major Languages. London, Sydney: Croom Helm, 322 328 Comrie, Bernard (1987), Russian. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 329347 Corbett, Greville (1987), Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 391409 Crowley, Terry (1983), Uradhi. In: Dixon, R[obert] M. W. & Blake, B[arry] J. (eds.), Handbook of Australian Languages, Vol. III. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 306428 Cutler, Anne & Hawkins, John A. & Gilligan, Gary (1985), The Suffixing Preference: A Processing Explanation. Linguistics 23, 723758 Delancey, Scott (1987), Sino-Tibetan Languages. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 797810 Dench, Alan & Evans, Nicholas (1988), Multiple Case-Marking in Australian Languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8.1, 147 Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1986; 1989; 1991), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

nya-ta? am-c (33) ? amp 1.sg:walk when-1.sg:be.around-ss ? ewuw-s. sbj.1.sg&obj.3.sg:saw-asrt As I was walking, I saw him. The suffix -(v)m marks direction away from the point of reference and toward the object as in ? ewavem away to the house as well as instrumental and accompaniment. It is also used to indicate that a verb has a different subject from that of a sister clause. This is illustrated in (32) where it is glossed d(ifferent)s(ubject). There is general agreement that same-subject and different-subject markers derive from case marking forms. For further information on case consult Blake (2002).

6.

References

Abondolo, Daniel (1987), Hungarian. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 577592 Andersen, Paul Kent (1979), Word Order Typology and Prepositions in Old Indic. In: Brogyanyi, Bella (ed.), Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic and Typological Linguistics, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2334 Anttila, Raimo (1972), An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York: Macmillan Austin, Peter (1981a), A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Austin, Peter (1981b), Switch-reference in Australia. Language 57, 309334 Blake, B[arry] J. (1979), A Kalkatungu Grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Blake, Barry J. (1987), Australian Aboriginal Grammar. London: Croom Helm

102. Case Dixon, R[obert] M. W. (1972), The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 9) Dixon, R[obert] M. W. (1976, ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and Atlantic Highlands New Jersey: Humanities Press Dixon, R[obert] M. W. (1979), Ergativity. Language 55, 59138 Dixon, R[obert] M. W. (1994), Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Durie, Mark (1985), A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of a Dialect of North Acehnese. Dordrecht: Foris Ebeling, Carl L. (1966), Review of Chikobava and Cercvadzes The Grammar of Literary Avar. Studia Caucasica 2, 58100 Evans, Nicholas R. D. (1985), Kayardild, the Language of the Bentinck Islanders of North West Queensland. Ph.D. dissertation, The Australian National University (Canberra) n, Talmy (1984), Syntax: A Functional-TypoGivo logical Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins Goddard, Cliff (1982), Case Systems and Case Marking in Australian Languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 167196 Harris, Alice C. (1981), Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Harris, Alice C. (1985), Diachronic Syntax. Orlando: Academic Press (Syntax and Semantics 18) Hetzron, Robert (1987), Semitic Languages. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 654663 gorie des cas: Hjelmslev, Louis (1935), La cate tude de grammaire ge ne rale, Vol. I. Kobenhavn: E Munksgaard (Acta Jutlandica: Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet 7.1) gorie des cas: Hjelmslev, Louis (1937), La cate tude de grammaire ge ne rale, Vol. II. Kobenhavn: E Munksgaard (Acta Jutlandica: Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet 9.3) Hoddinott, William G. & Kofod, Frances M. (1976), Djamindjungan. In: Dixon (ed.), 397 401 Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra A. (1980), Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56, 251299 Jacobsen, William Jr (1983), Typological and Genetic Notes on Switch-reference Systems in North American Indian Languages. In: Haiman, John &

1089
Munro, Pamela (eds.), Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar, 151183 Jakobson, Roman (1936), Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. [reprinted in: Jakobson, Roman (1971), Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 2371] Kaye, Alan S. (1987), Arabic. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 664685 Keen, Sandra L. (1972), A Description of the Yukulta Language: An Australian Aboriginal Language of Northwest Queensland. M.A. Thesis, Monash University (Melbourne) Klaiman, M[imi] H. (1987), Bengali. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 490513 erk obs c ej teorii erKlimov, Georgij A. (1973), Oc gativnosti. Moscow: Nauka Kornfilt, Jaklin (1987), Turkish and the Turkic Languages. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 619644 ` me du classeKuryowicz, Jerzy (1949), Le proble ment des cas. Biuletyn PTJ 9, 2043 [reprinted in: Kuryowicz, Jerzy (1960), Esquisses linguistiques. Wroclaw-Krakow: Ossolineum, 131 150] Kuryowicz, Jerzy (1964), The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter Langdon, Margaret (1970), A Grammar of Dieguen o: The Mesa Grande Dialect. Berkeley: University of California Press Lehmann, Christian (1982), Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch. Kln: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft, Universitt Kln (Arbeiten des Klner Universalien-Projekts 48.1) Lewis, Geoffrey L. (1967), Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lindenfeld, Jacqueline (1973), Yaqui Syntax. Berkeley: University of California Press Mallinson, Graham (1987), Rumanian. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 303321 Mallinson, Graham & Blake, Barry J. (1981), Language Typology: Cross-Linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland (North-Holland Linguistic Series 46) Matthews, P[eter] H. (1974), Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press McGregor, William (1990), A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: Benjamins uk, Igor A. (1986), Toward a Definition of Melc Case. In: Brecht et al. (1986, eds.), 3585 Merlan, Francesca (1982), Mangarayi. Amsterdam: North Holland (Lingua Descriptive Series 4)

1090
Moravcsik, Edith A. (1978), On the Case Marking of Objects. In: Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. IV: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 249289 Nichols, Johanna (1983), On Direct and Oblique Cases. Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 9, 170192 Plank, F[rans] (1979), Bibliography on Ergativity. In: Plank, Frans (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London etc.: Academic Press, 511554 Plank, Frans (1984, ed.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press Plank, Frans (1990), Suffix Copying as a MirrorImage Phenomenon. European Science Foundation, Programme in Language Typology: Working Paper 1, 111 Reed, Irene & Miyaoka, Osahito & Jacobsen, Steven & Afcan, Paschal & Krauss, Michael (1977), Yupik Eskimo Grammar. University of Alaska: Alaska Native Language Center and the Yupik Language Workshop Robins, R[obert] H. (1967), A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman n a la Sintaxis Rubio, Lisardo (1966), Introduccio Estructural del Latin, Vol. I: Casos y Preposiciones. Barcelona: Ariel (Convivium 4) Rude, Noel (1985), Studies in Nez Perce Grammar and Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon (Oregon) Rude, Noel (1988), On the Origin of the Nez Perce Ergative NP Suffix. [Conference on Grammaticalization, University of Oregon, 1215 May 1988] Saltarelli, Mario et al. (1988), Basque. London etc.: Croom Helm (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars) Scott, Graham (1978), The Fore Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Serbat, Guy (1981), Cas et Fonctions. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France Sherzer, Joel (1976), An Areal-Typological Study of American Indian Languages North of Mexico. Am-

XIII. Entittsbegriffe sterdam, Oxford: North-Holland (North-Holland Linguistic Series 20) Silverstein, Michael (1976), Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In: Dixon (ed.), 112171 Silverstein, Michael (1981), Case Marking and the Nature of Language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1.2, 227244 Sittig, Ernst (1931), Das Alter der Anordnung unserer Kasus und der Ursprung ihrer Bezeichnung als Flle. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (Tbinger Beitrge zur Altertumswissenschaft 13) Starosta, Stanley (1985), Relator Nouns as a Source of Case Inflections. In: Leed, Richard L. & Acson, Veneeta Z. (eds.), For Gordon Fairbanks. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 111 133 (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 20) Steever, Sanford B. (1987), Tamil and the Dravidian Languages. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 725746 Stokes, Bronwyn (1982), A Description of Nyigina, a Language of the West Kimberley, Western Australia. Ph.D. dissertation, The Australian National University (Canberra) rez, Jorge A. (1983), The Mesoamerican Indian Sua Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Touratier, Christian (1978), Quelques principes tude des cas (avec application a ` lablatif pour le latin). Languages 50, 98116 Tucker, A[rchibald] N. & Bryan, Margaret A. (1966), Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press Wierzbicka, Anna (1980), The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor/MI: Karoma (Linguistica Extranea. Studia 9) Wierzbicka, Anna (1981), Case Marking and Human Nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1.1, 4380 Windfuhr, Gernot L. (1987), Persian. In: Comrie (1987, ed.), 523546 Yallop, Colin (1977), Alyawarra: An Aboriginal Language of Central Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies

Barry Blake, Bundoora (Australia)