Cover not available

In:Non-Nuclear Cases
Edited by Nicole Delbecque, Karen Lahousse and Willy Van Langendonck
[Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 6] 2014
► pp. 1–20

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Cases

A Continuum

Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.6.01del
We first briefly present the terminology and criteria which are commonly used in the linguistic literature in relation with the distinction between nuclear cases and non-nuclear cases. We emphasize the specific position obliques occupy with respect to these criteria and give a short overview on how this is accounted for in different theoretical frameworks. We pay some attention to the definition of “event schemas” and provide a series of concrete examples of specific form-meaning correlates. In the last section we introduce the different papers of this volume on prepositional and adverbial phrases expressing semantic roles typically associated with oblique case, such as instrumental, causal, spatial, temporal, etc. roles.
References (36)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2001. “Gibt es im Deutschen eine Klasse von Präpositionen mit Doppelrektion?” Deutsche Sprache . Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 29 (2001): 63-75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “The myth of doubly governing prepositions in German.” In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier, ed. by Erin Shay, and Uwe Seibert, 19-38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, John Travis. 2006. Argument/Oblique Alternations and the Structure of Lexical Meaning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stanford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1998. “Event Structure in Argument Linking.” In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by Miriam Butt, and Wilhelm Geuder, 97- 134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duden. 2005. Duden. Die Grammatik 7. Völlig neu erarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. “The Case for Case Reopened.” In Syntax and Semantics VIII: Grammatical Relations, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerrold M. Sadock, 59-81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Paul Kay. 1993. Construction Grammar Coursebook. University of California at Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1992. Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991b. Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “A dynamic usage-based model.” In Usage-based models of language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Constructions and constructional meaning.” In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, and Stéphanie Pourcel, 225–267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leys, Odo. 1989. “Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen.” Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 17 (1989): 97-113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002a. “Ergative and accusative patterning in Warrwa.” In The nominative & accusative and their counterparts, ed. by Kristin Davidse, and Béatrice Lamiroy, 285-317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik. Band IV, Teil IV: Syntax (zweite Hälfte). Halle an der Saale: Verlag von Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1982. Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2010. “Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity.” In Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, ed. by Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel, 21-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, Bert Cornillie, Dagmar Divjak, and Karel Van den Eynde. 2005. “Degrees of clause integration. From endotactic to exotactic subordination in Dutch.” Linguistics 43/3: 471-529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I: concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Belle, William, and Willy Van Langendonck. 1996. The Dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Eynde, Karel, Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen, Piet Mertens, and Lene Schoesler. 2002. “Distributional syntactic analysis and valency. Basic notions, procedures and applications of the Pronominal Approach.” In The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st century Volume 2. Computability of language and computer applications, ed. by Bruce E. Nevin, 163-202. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy, and William Van Belle. 1998. The Dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert, and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Sructure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffman, and Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue