The jungle of the Czech local cases
Pavel Caha, CASTL, Tromsø
Abstract: The paper puts forth an argument in favour of syntactic status of
case, i.e, against its purely morphological treatment. The argument is based on
the investigation of the numerous cases that appear on nouns inside locative
PPs in Czech. The system of case distribution is shown to be sensitive to a
couple of semantic characteristics, such as projectivity, dimensionality and
others. The data also show that these discreet elements of meaning are arranged
in an implicational hierarchy. Importantly, the hierarchy established on
semantic grounds is identical to the feature hierarchy needed to capture
syncretism patterns in the language. Thus, there is an isomorphism between
semantic and morphological decomposition. This can be explained only if both
form and meaning of case derive from an identical underlying representation,
the syntactic structure.
1. Introduction
Put broadly, one of the goals of linguistic theory is to uncover the underlying
primitives of linguistic structures, and determine their internal organization
(see, e.g., Cinque and Rizzi 2010 for a recent discussion). This paper
contributes to this program by looking at the category of case. In particular, the
goal is to argue for a fine-grained syntactic decomposition of case with
relevance for both morphology and semantics.
1.1 Background
In executing such a program, linguists usually draw on two sources of
evidence: overt morphological distinctions, and linguistically relevant meaning.
Sometimes, the two go together; for instance, number distinctions in Slavic are
both morphologically expressed, and semantically relevant. This can be taken
as evidence for the existence of an independent Number projection inside the
extended NP, the locus of the relevant morphemes, and the source of the
perceived meaning.
For other categories in the extended NP, the situation may be less clear for
essentially two reasons. First, there can be a clear meaning distinction, but no
overt morphology to come along, as in the case of definiteness across a number
of Slavic languages (excluding, of course, those languages that actually show
definite articles, like Bulgarian). Consequently, there is an ongoing debate
whether definiteness (D) is actually projected in the syntax of such languages
or not (see, e.g., Pereltsvaig 2007 and Bošković 2008 for recent contributions
to the debate, arguing each for a different conclusion).
The second (converse) case is a situation where we do have a
morphological distinction, but an apparent lack of a clear meaning contribution.
The category of gender is often mentioned in this connection (but see FerrariBridgers
2008 for arguments against this view), and case is usually next in line.
For instance, faced with an apparently meaning-independent distribution of
case, a strand of research proposes that there are no case features (or
projections) in syntax, and takes the relevant morphological distinctions to arise
at PF only (Marantz 1991, McFadden 2004, Sigurdsson 2008). On an abstract
level, this is comparable to approaches such as Bošković (2008), where
definiteness is understood as a purely LF level property, with no syntactic
correlate.
In this broad context, the present paper argues that case is a regular part of
the extended projection of an NP, just like number, and it is relevant not only to
PF, but also for formal aspects of linguistic meaning (LF). I add, however, that
I am going to discuss a specific empirical domain, and the reader should not
expect an overarching theory of case. Yet, the data I discuss show that there are
reasons to believe that a theory with ‘syntactic case’ has interesting
consequences that cannot be captured by its ‘morphological alternative.’
1.2. The empirical domain in focus: a first glimpse
I base my argument on case selection in locative PPs. I argue that the facts
reveal an intimate connection between the feature make-up of a given case as
manifested in syncretism, and its semantic contribution. The argument that
builds on this observation is that such a correlation can be explained only if the
phonological realization of a case and its semantic contribution both derive
from a single abstract representation: the syntactic structure.1
To get a more concrete idea of where we are going, consider the following
example.
(1) v {aut-ě / *aut-o / *…}
in car-PREP car-ACC
‘in the car’
The example shows that a preposition in Czech requires the noun to appear in a
particular case, the prepositional case in (1). Any other case is ungrammatical.
At the same time, there are several cases locative prepositions govern:
apart from the prepositional (1), there is the genitive (2-a), instrumental (2-b),
and accusative (2-c).
(2) a. u aut-a
at/next-to car-GEN
‘at/next to/close to the car’
1
This is virtually the same argument for the unification of morphology and syntax/semantics
as Baker’s (1985) Mirror Principle.
b. pod aut-em
under car-INS
‘under the car’
c. v pátek-ø
in Friday-ACC
‘on Friday’
In all of these examples, there are no alternative possibilities (just like in (1)
above), keeping the meaning constant. ‘Car’ in (2a) has to be in the genitive,
and ‘Friday’ in (2c) has to be in the accusative, even though the same
preposition (v) requires a different case in (1). It is also interesting to note that
in spite of the large variety of cases, the dative is never found in Czech locative
PPs.
The main descriptive goal of the paper is to show that there is a rigid
system underlying the surface diversity, and that this underlying system is
related to the morphology of case.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In section 2, I focus on both
spatial and temporal locatives, and argue that case selection reflects an abstract
spatial meaning of the PP. In particular, I will draw on notions such as
projectivity, and dimensionality of the Ground argument. Once these abstract
meanings of cases are recognized, the question arises whether these meaning
components correspond to something independently motivated. In order to get
a handle on this issue, section 3 introduces a case decomposition proposed by
Caha (2009) on grounds of case syncretism. Once the two systems are
juxtaposed (i.e., the semantic one and the morphological one), it becomes clear
that there is a neat correlation between them; case features needed for
syncretism are identical to the elements of meaning identified in the analysis of
examples (1-2). Section 4 sums up the argument, and section 5 offers an
appendix with an explanation for the absence of the dative case in locative PPs.
2. The semantics of cases
This section highlights the empirical facts and generalizations concerning case
selection in Czech locatives, and proposes an account in terms of semantic
characterization of individual cases. The presentation focuses primarily and
systematically on spatial PPs, with temporal uses of particular items mentioned
where relevant. The table below gives the set of spatial prepositions that I will
be concerned with here. These correspond to the so called ‘primary
prepositions’ in the Czech grammatical tradition (see, e.g., Petr 1986).
Table I: Czech primary spatial prepositions
Preposition Gloss Case
U At Gen
V In Prep
Na On Prep
Po All over (surface) Prep
Pod Under Ins
Před In front of Ins
Za Behind Ins
Nad Above Ins
As apparent from the table, these prepositions assign three distinct cases, the
prepositional, the genitive and the instrumental. A fourth case will emerge
when we consider temporal uses of some of these prepositions. In particular,
the preposition v ‘in’ requires in certain contexts the accusative case, absent in
the domain of spatial locatives.
2.1 Defining the group
The table above does not represent an exhaustive list of all Czech prepositions,
but rather a linguistically defined sub-group, representing the core of the
prepositional system. Thus, the prepositions above are distinguished from other
items that can be classified as prepositions by the characteristics in (3):
(3) Primary prepositions
a. morphologically simplex
b. appear as verbal prefixes
c. historically underived
d. have a canonical prosodic shape (a syllable, epenthesis aside)
On the basis of the criteria in (3), I set aside a large group of complex
prepositional expressions, a representative of which is in (4).
(4) na-spod-u krabic-e
on-bottom-PREP box-GEN
‘on the bottom of the box’
Such complex Ps as naspodu ‘on the bottom’ differ from the core prepositions
by all the criteria in (3). They are complex, derived, phonologically heavy, and
cannot occur as verbal prefixes. The first three properties are illustrated in (4),
the last property is shown in (5):
(5) a. na-skočit
on-jump
‘jump on’
b. pod-skočit
under-jump
‘jump under sthng.’
c. *na-spod-(u)-skočit
on-bottom- PREP-jump
The decision to put such items aside in our investigation is supported by the
observation that case selection in fact applies internally to these prepositional
expressions. As apparent from the glosses in (4), the last part of the complex
preposition na-spod-u is a morpheme that corresponds to the prepositional case,
regularly required by the initial member of the complex preposition, na ‘on’ in
this particular case. This suggests that the element spod ‘bottom,’ acts like a
noun, carrying the case marker selected for by the initial preposition, despite
the fact that there is no noun spod ‘bottom’ in Czech.2
Related to this is the observation that the Ground argument (box) of such
complex prepositions, if possible at all, is uniformly marked by the genitive
case. I find it plausible that this genitive has the same source as the adnominal
genitive; for instance, Terzi (to appear) and Pantcheva (2008) analyze such
Grounds as actual possessors of the space denoted by the nominal-like element
(‘bottom’ in (4)). Hence, on the basis of such considerations, I set these
examples aside as irrelevant for the investigation at hand.
Perhaps more controversially, the criteria in (3) are also not met by a small
group of prepositions that appear morphologically simplex from the synchronic
point of view, even though historically, they can be broken down into pieces.
Crucially, apart from being historically derived from nouns, these prepositions
fail to occur as prefixes, and do not meet the canonical prosodic shape. The
prepositions under discussion are mezi ‘between’ (INS), mimo ‘outside of, apart
from’ (ACC) and proti ‘opposite’ (DAT). I leave their analysis for future work.
2
This analysis is further supported by the fact that in the directional counterpart of (4), given
in (i) below, the –u disappears:
(i) Dal to na-spod-ø krabice.
Put.PAST.3.SG it on-bottom-ACC box.GEN
‚He put it on the bottom of the box.’
This effect follows from the assumption that the –u is a prepositional case ending, because in
directional contexts, the preposition na ‚on’ requires the accusative in Czech, and not
the prepositional.
2.2 Prepositions with the instrumental
Having established the data set on the basis of (3), I start with the group of the
four prepositions taking INS (these are ‘above,’ ‘below,’ ‘in front of’ and
‘behind’). The relevant characteristic of this group has been noted in Gehrke
(2008), who points out that all these prepositions are “projective” (see Zwarts
and Winter 2000 for the notion, and also Emonds 2007 for similar observations
pertaining to Czech). Projectivity means that in order for the PP denotation to
be computed, a system of coordinate axes (front/back, up/down) must be
projected, and anchored in the Ground argument in accordance with a frame of
reference (see, e.g., Levinson 2003). Note that prepositions that do not require
INS (‘at,’ ‘in,’ ‘on’) do not require such axes, and hence, we arrive at a defining
characteristic of all and only those primary prepositions that require INS.
The presence/absence of axial information correlates with the
acceptability of measure phrases (Zwarts and Winter 2000). Thus, all and only
prepositions with INS allow for measure phrases:
(6) Measure phrase availability
a. 3 metry {nad / pod / za / před } krabic-í
3 meters above / under / behind / in front of box-INS
‘3 meters {above / under / behind / in front of} the box’
b. *3 metry {v / na / po } krabic-i
3 meters in on all over box-PREP
intended ‘in the box, 3 meters deep’ etc.
c. * 3 metry u krabic-e
3 meters at box-GEN
intended: ‘at the box, 3 meters away from it’
(6a) shows that all prepositions with INS combine with a measure phrase. (6b,c)
then show, respectively, that prepositions with PREP and GEN do not combine
with measure phrases.
Repeating what is relevant, all and only prepositions with the instrumental
require a system of axial coordinates to be projected, and anchored in the
Ground argument. This state of affairs requires that the relation between the
four projective prepositions and the case they select be stated in semantic
terms, rather than on an item per item basis. In the latter case, there would
simply be no way of accounting for the observation that projectivity requires
the instrumental case.
In addition, it is possible to construct minimal pairs that differ in terms of
projectivity alone, and the case varies accordingly. Thus, Czech like English
allows for a non-projective use of certain prototypically projective prepositions.
An example from English is the preposition under: apart from under the table,
the temporal use under the reign of X is also an option. This latter use is clearly
non-projective: it expresses a simultaneous location of two eventualities on the
temporal axis, and disallows measure phrases.
In Czech, the preposition za ‘behind’ has very much the same nonprojective
use (and shows a rather similar restriction on the character of its
complement, clearly preferring long intervals to shorter periods). The
interesting fact from the current perspective is that when used in its latter sense,
the instrumental following za ‘behind’ becomes ungrammatical:3
(7) *za vlád-ou X
behind reign-INS X
‘under the reign of X’
If we would state the selection for case on an item per item basis, (7) represents
a puzzle that calls for yet another stipulation (za assigns instrumental, unless
used as a non-projective preposition). Under the alternative approach, the
ungrammaticality of (7) follows directly: since there is no projectivity, there
can be no instrumental.
Finally, let me mention for the purpose of the discussion to come one last
thing. The general conclusion that projectivity plays a role in the grammar of
prepositions is not surprising: projective prepositions form a grammatical class
in more languages than just Czech (and related Slavic languages). Let me
illustrate the point by an example discussed in Zwarts (2008).
Zwarts (2008) focuses on the question how directionality is expressed
across a number of languages, keeping the locative configuration fixed. The
following table (adapted from Zwarts’ work) shows source marking in English
(goal marking will be discussed shortly):
Table II: Source marking in English
AT IN ON BEHIND FRONT OVER UNDER
LOC at in on behind in front over under
SOURCE from out of off from behind from in
front
from
over
from under
The first line of the table listss abstract spatial configurations, rendered by
English items on the second line. The bottom line of the table shows the
expression of a source path originating at a particular location, e.g., off for
FROM ON. What is relevant in the current perspective is that English shows a
neat split between projective and non-projective prepositions in this domain.
While projective locations require a complex expression (the prefixation of
from), non-projective locations show a suppletive form (shaded).
3
In this use, the preposition requires the genitive. I return to this fact later on and skip giving
an example here.
To sum up, there are a number of reasons to believe that the instrumental
in Czech locative PPs is responsible for the projective meaning of the PP, and,
conversely, that projectivity requires the instrumental. We have also seen that
the notion of projectivity figures in the grammar of other languages than Czech,
and is thus a good candidate for a grammatically relevant meaning element (as
opposed to the distinction between ‘cat’ and ‘dog,’ which is presumably purely
conceptual and has no grammatical consequences).
2.3 The genitive and the prepositional
Setting aside the projective prepositions, we are left with two groups in Table I:
v ‘in,’ na ‘on’ and po ‘all over,’ which assign the prepositional, and u ‘at,’
which assigns the genitive.4
What is the source of the difference? Is it semantic,
or does it need to be specified by an arbitrary stipulation in the lexical entry of
these prepositions?
Relevant in this context is again the study by Zwarts (2008), mentioned
above. The first point to make is that Zwarts finds a number of languages
which are similar to Czech in making a grammatically relevant cut between ‘at’
on the one hand, and ‘on’ and ‘in’ on the other. One such language is German,
which actually shows a double contrast. First, while the goal version of the
German ‘at’ (bei) assigns dative, the goal directional rendering of ‘in’ and ‘on’
(in and auf) require the accusative. Second, ‘at’ (bei) has a suppletive goal
directional counterpart zu ‘to,’ while items for ‘in’ and ‘on’ remain unchanged
(in and auf).
Similar situation concerning suppletion arises in English goal marking, as
shown in the following table that extends the observations made in the
preceding subsection:
Table III: Source and Goal marking in English
AT IN ON BEHIND FRONT OVER UNDER
LOC at in on behind in front over under
SOURCE from out of off from
behind
from in
front
from
over
from
under
GOAL to in(to) on(to) behind in front over under
As can be seen in Table III, only AT has a suppletive form for the expression of
a goal path. English suppletion thus seems to make the same cuts as Czech case
4
The preposition po is used in Czech spatial locatives as a „plural“ version of na ‚on,’
meaning something like ‚at multiple places on.’ For this reason, I treat na ‚on’ and po
‚all over’ as identical as far as the formal properties of the locative configuration are
concerned, and simply stop mentioning po at all, with the understanding that whatever
considerations apply to na, apply to po as well.
marking: one distinction runs between projective prepositions and the rest, and
another dividing line separates AT from the rest of the items.
Even if subtle, the correlation suggests that the difference between ‘in/on’
on the one hand, and ‘at’ on the other is likely to be more interesting than a
lexical diacritic. Arbitrary diacritics simply do not make the same cuts across
two independent lexicons.
In what follows, I am going to adopt Zwarts’ proposal for the distinction
between the prepositions under discussion. In his analysis, AT corresponds to a
“general, unspecified location near, on, or in a reference object, in contrast to
the more specific location that one finds with IN and ON, that necessarily refer
to parts of the reference object (its interior or surface).” Thus, for Zwarts, “AT
is relevant with objects that have no interior or surface, or for which these
spatial parts are not relevant.” Putting the pieces together, we arrive at the
picture in (8), which introduces an additional property, namely dimensionality.
The property reflects Zwarts’ proposal that IN and ON locations require the
Ground object to have an interior or surface; if an object has at least one of the
two, it must extend in at least two dimensions.
(8) a. projectivity = instrumental
b. dimensionality = prepositional
c. simple location = genitive
The general conclusions of (8) can be supported by further data and
observations. For example, in Czech, the claim that u ‘at’ occurs with simple
‘underspecified’ co-location of two objects receives support from the following
fact: only u ‘at’ allows that the Figure and Ground are reversed without a
change in truth conditions. Thus, for instance, if the house is u ‘at’ the barn,
then also the barn is u ‘at’ the house. However, reversing the Figure and
Ground with other prepositions necessarily changes the truth conditions. If the
tree is in the barn, it cannot be the case that the barn is in the tree.
This can be understood under the proposal (8). Specifically, if prepositions
other than u ‘at’ presuppose a certain dimensionality or orientation of the
Ground argument (as revealed by the case marking), then the reversal of the
Figure and Ground automatically leads to different truth conditions. That is
because after the reversal, the dimensionality/orientation applies to a different
object. Complementarily, since the genitive case says nothing of this kind, the
Figure and Ground may be reversed.
Temporal PPs provide further evidence supporting the approach. We have
seen in the preceding subsection that the spatial adposition za means ‘behind’
and selects the instrumental (9a). In the temporal domain, however, it means
‘during’ and selects the genitive (9b).
(9) the ambiguity of za ‘behind, during’ (colloquial Czech)
a. Karel se za komunist-ama schovával.
Karel REFL behind communists-INS hide-PAST
‘Karel was hiding behind communists.’
b. Karel se za komunist-ů schovával.
Karel REFL under communists-GEN hide-PAST
‘Karel was hiding under the communist regime.’
As highlighted in the previous subsection, (9b) is perhaps closest to the
temporal use of English under as in under the reign of ... or under such
conditions, etc. What is relevant for our concerns, is that the temporal use of za
in (9b) is abstractly like AT, because the two events are cotemporaneous. If that
is so, the switch of the complement to genitive marking follows.
Thus, making the same conclusion as before, taking semantics (in this case
the dimensionality of the reference object) to be the factor responsible for case
selection, we have a neat explanation for why ‘in’ and ‘on’ behave as a group
to the exclusion of ‘at.’ If, on the other hand, we took the prepositional case to
be a diacritic, there would be no story to tell.
2.4 v as ‘AT’ and an additional case
Further, if the fact that v ‘in’ and na ‘on’ select the prepositional case was a
matter of a lexical diacritic, we would wrongly predict that the prepositional
case is going to show up also in examples where the preposition ‘in’ combines
with a complement that has no dimension. Such combinations arise regularly in
Czech in the expressions of a punctual location on the temporal axis. As an
example, consider the expression at noon, expressed literally as in noon in
Czech. As the next example shows, the prepositional case is ungrammatical in
this context:
(10) *v poledn-i
in noon.PREP
‘at noon’
Once again, this is unexpected if case selection is stated in the lexical entry of
an adposition. On the other hand, the explanation of case selection in semantic
terms predicts this effect; since the noun poledne ‘noon’ denotes a point on the
temporal axis (12 o’clock), it makes no sense to talk about its dimensionality.
The prepositional is thus correctly ruled out in (10).
Another relevant fact concerning the temporal use of v ‘in’ concerns its
combination with the noun hodina. This Czech noun is ambiguous, and denotes
either a point (the equivalent of the English ‘o’clock’) or an interval,
corresponding to the English ‘hour.’ Interestingly, when the noun bears the
prepositional case following v ‘in,’ it necessarily switches to the interval
reading (‘hour’), and the whole example expresses a containment within a three
hour long interval. The point like reading is unavailable.
(11) ve tř-ech hodin-ách
in three hour-PREP
‘within three hours’
‘*at three o’clock’
This is predicted if the prepositional case contributes dimensionality. Since the
noun hodina has a reading under which it can act as a dimensional object
(container), this reading is forced when it is marked by the prepositional case,
and the point-like reading must be discarded.
Summing up the discussion so far: as (10) and (11) show, the expression
of a point-like location on the time axis is incompatible with the prepositional
case. This follows from the characterization of the prepositional as a case that
introduces the dimensionality of the Ground as a part of its meaning. If that is
so, it cannot apply to points, and the facts fall out neatly.
Finally, let me turn to an interesting new aspect of the temporal data.
Given all that has been said up to now, we would expect the genitive case to
appear instead of the prepositional in examples such as (10) and (11). However,
this is not the case; instead, the accusative case must be used:
(12) a. v poledn-e
in noon-ACC
‘at noon’
b. ve tř-i hodin-y
in three-ACC hour-ACC
‘at three o’clock’
Why is that so? What I suggest is that the explanation for this fact lies in the
nature of the complements. Specifically, all the nouns that can be used this way
(apart from hours also days) denote conventional points (locations) on the
temporal axis.
Why should that be relevant? The reason is that across a number of
languages, a class of nouns denoting ‘conventional locations’ are independently
known to behave in a special way. For example, in Latin, names of cities,
towns and small islands (i.e., names of locations) do not require a preposition
in locative contexts, while other nouns do. Similarly in Modern Greek, there is
a class of common nouns denoting locations (such as ‘house,’ ‘cinema,’ or
‘beach’) which allow for their preposition to be absent, while other nouns in the
same context require it (see den Dikken and Ioannidou 2006).
Hence, the idea to be developed below in more detail is that due to the fact
that the nouns in question denote ‘conventional locations,’ they are allowed to
stay ‘bare,’ i.e., without the expected genitive marking.
2.5 The argument so far
To sum up the results of the discussion: there are a number of reasons to
believe that the distribution of case in Czech spatial locatives is governed by a
couple of semantic notions: (i) presence/absence of axial information
(instrumental vs. the rest), and (ii) in the absence of axial information, the
presence/absence of dimensionality (prepositional vs. genitive). Further, within
the non-projective domain, a particular class of nouns (names of temporal
locations) are special, and surface in the accusative.
(13) preposition: a. projective à ins
b. non-projective i) dimensional à prep
ii) non-dimensional à gen
c. a special class of temporal locations à acc
Set against a broad background of approaches to nominal architecture, I take
this to be an indication that case has relevance for both interfaces, and hence,
that it has a regular syntactic status, comparable to number.
2.6 Two open issues
As things stand, there are two issues left open: an empirical one, and a
theoretical one. I introduce them in turn.
The empirical issue is this: why does the dimensional/non-dimensional
opposition in (13) applies only in the class of non-projective prepositions? In
this context, it is worth pointing out that the issue is in fact broader: when it
comes to projective locations, the dimensionality of the Ground does not play a
role in any language I know. For example, as Zwarts (2008) has observed,
English goal suppletion (see table III) distinguishes between dimensional and
non-dimensional Grounds in non-projective locations (at is suppletive, in(to)
and on(to) are not). But such a bifurcation is not replicated within the class of
projective locations, and one would like to know why.
The theoretical issue is the following: even on an account where case
distinctions arise at PF only, PF is still derived on the basis of syntactic
structure. Hence, it is enough if the relevant semantic notions are somehow
present in syntax, because then case on the nominal can be constructed at PF
according to simple translation rules. For example: if the preposition is
projective, mark its DP complement by the instrumental. Consequently, there is
still no argument for the syntactic status of case.5
5
This point is discussed in detail by McFadden (2010).
The reason I have brought up these issues simultaneously is that the
answer to the empirical question will ultimately provide reasons to doubt that
case arises as a result of mapping rules like the one given above. I present the
reasoning in the next sub-section, and elaborate on it in the remainder of this
paper.
2.7 The semantic hierarchy
The simplest answer as to why dimensionality of the Ground is not relevant for
the projective locatives under discussion is that all Grounds in such PPs are
uniformly either dimensional, or non-dimensional. If that is so, it follows that
dimensionality cannot produce any differential behaviour in this particular class
of locations.
This conclusion can be independently supported by semantic
considerations. The starting point is the fact that all the items under discussion
allow for a reading that Levinson (2003) calls an intrinsic frame of reference.
This means that in order “[t]o lock [the coordinate axes] to a ground object, the
front or back of that object must be found, together with the centroid of the
mass which will form the origin X of the coordinate system” (Levinson,
2003:41). If that is correct, then the Ground argument must be sufficiently
structured in space in order for these parts to be determined. In other words, it
must be dimensional.
The outcome is that we now have two independent reasons to believe that
the Ground arguments of the relevant class of projective prepositions are
dimensional, and hence, that the best way to characterize the original set of
prepositions is as follows:
Table IV: Czech primary spatial prepositions and their characteristics
Preposition Gloss Case Axis Dimension
u at GEN no no
v in PREP no yes
na on PREP no yes
po all over (surface) PREP no yes
pod under INS yes yes
před in front of INS yes yes
za behind INS yes yes
nad above INS yes yes
Such a characterization of the cases implies increasing semantic complexity: a
simple region for u ‘at,’ a dimensional region for v ‘in,’ na ‘on’ and po ‘all
over,’ and finally, a dimensional oriented region for the rest of the items. Such
an organization of the system of locative expressions can be straightforwardly
understood in terms of a fine-grained semantic decomposition, where
individual cases correspond to syntactic/semantic structures of increasing
complexity:
(14) The increasing complexity of Grounds
a. GEN = [ region of [ Ground ] ]
b. PREP = [ dimensional [ region of [ Ground ] ] ]
c. INS = [ oriented [ dimensional [ region of [ Ground ] ] ] ]
The characteristics in (14) should be understood as characteristics of the
Ground arguments, rather than characteristics of the PP as a whole. Thus, the
claim is that the role of the genitive case is to apply to the denotation of the DP
and deliver its region (cf. Wunderlich 1991 for the notion of Eigenspace, see
also Svenonius 2008 who proposes that case has precisely the function of
converting an object to its region). The preposition u ‘at’ applies to the
denotation (14a), and produces an outcome that is distinct from (14a); to be u
‘at’ the Ground is not the same as to be (in) its region (it means being close to
this region). Similarly, the prepositional case produces a region of the Ground
that is sufficiently structured for ‘in’ and ‘on’ to apply, picking the interior or
surface as the relevant parts of the dimensional region delivered by the
prepositional marking.
This way of understanding cases allows us to incorporate the insight that
nouns denoting conventional locations are special. In particular, since these
nouns denote locations as part of their lexical meaning, they do not need to be
mapped onto locations by the addition of the genitive case. Under this line of
reasoning, the accusative case emerges as a form of the bare Ground, without
any additional (locative) layers of meaning, see (15a). This analysis of the
accusative as essentially a ‘bare’ DP directly corresponds to the observed facts:
in a number of languages, conventional locations transparently lack a part of
the structure characteristic for the elsewhere class.
(15) The increasing complexity of Grounds
a. ACC = [ Ground ]
b. GEN = [ region of [ Ground ] ]
c. PREP = [ dimensional [ region of [ Ground ] ] ]
d. INS = [ oriented [ dimensional [ region of [ Ground ] ] ] ]
The outcome of the discussion, as summarized in (15), is thus the conclusion
that the semantic characterization of individual cases in locative PPs reveals the
existence of a structured set of meaning primitives. These primitives apply to
DPs in a fixed sequence, constructing spatially more and more elaborate
regions.
The question I turn to now is how the (de)compositional picture to the
right of the equation sign in (15) translates onto the form of the case that
appears on the left side of the equation. For example, in (15), the semantics of
the prepositional includes the semantics of the genitive, which in turn includes
the semantics of the accusative. Is there an independent evidence for such a
conclusion?
In the next section, I introduce the proposal of Caha (2009) who presents
morphological evidence from syncretism for exactly the same containment
relations that we have constructed in (15). The result is then a perfect match
between semantic and morphological feature structures.
If correct, this conclusion is out of reach for the PF approach to case. The
reasoning is this: recall that if case is a PF phenomenon, it can still reflect the
syntactic/semantic structure as long as the mapping to PF has an access to this
structure. But it is a plain mystery why the translation rules that introduce case
features should produce an exact copy of the original syntactic/semantic
structure. Under the alternative, advocated here, the isomorphism is the result
of the proposal that there actually is only one structure, and this structure
underlies both meaning and form.
3. Morphological evidence for case containment
This section provides the needed evidence for case containment coming from
the domain of syncretism. The section begins by introducing a strong empirical
restriction on non-accidental syncretism, and develops a model designed to
capture it.
3.1 A linear contiguity constraint on syncretism
Building on previous work by, a.o., McCreight and Chvany (1991) and
Johnston (1997), Caha (2009) proposes that syncretism in case is restricted by
an abstract linear contiguity requirement. The constraint says that there is a
particular linear order of cases such that only contiguous regions show
syncretism. For Czech, as well as other Slavic languages, the sequence is given
in (16).
(16) NOM – ACC – GEN – PREP – DAT – INS
I illustrate the generalization (16) on a sample of paradigms:
Table V: A fragment of the Czech declension
two, n. peach, sg. apple, sg. Charles, sg. You us our, pl.m.
NOM dv-a broskev-ø jablk-o Karel-ø ty my naš-i
ACC dv-a broskev-ø jablk-o Karl-a teb-e ná-s naš-i
GEN dv-ou broskv-e jablk-a Karl-a teb-e ná-s naš-ich
PREP dv-ou broskv-i jablk-u Karl-ovi tob-ě ná-s naš-ich
DAT dv-ěma broskv-i jablk-u Karl-ovi tob-ě nám naš-im
INS dv-ěma broskv-í jablk-em Karl-em teb-ou námi naš-imi
In the table, cases are ordered top-down according to the sequence (16). The
shaded cells show syncretisms of pairs of adjacent cases, and move gradually
one notch down as we go in the table from left to right, and then from right to
left again. Most allowed syncretisms of adjacent cases are illustrated by two
paradigms, except for DAT – INS, attested (as a pair) only in one paradigm (the
numeral two). Crucially, there are no syncretisms that skip across cells.6
Clearly, the linear contiguity constraint is something that our theory
should capture. I tackle this in the next sub-section.
3.2 Case decomposition
Syncretism is traditionally taken as evidence for the claim that cases are not
primitive entities, but they decompose into features (see, e.g., the seminal work
by Jakobson 1962). This has the immediate advantage that natural classes of
cases can be referred to with the help of such features, and syncretism can be
restricted to these classes. In this respect, the linear contiguity constraint (16) is
a valuable generalization, because it helps us select the right type of feature
representation; in particular, we would like (16) to fall out as a consequence of
case decomposition.
Now if (16) is taken as the empirical benchmark, it can be shown that any
decomposition that uses Jakobsonian cross-classification by equipollent (+/-)
features is incapable of delivering the constraint (see Caha 2009:ch.1 for a
detailed reasoning). What we need instead to capture the constraint is a system
where individual cases are characterized by a monotonically increasing number
of privative features. Specifically, the constraint (16) follows as a theorem if
individual cases are characterized by the following decomposition:
6
I note only briefly that in Czech, there are apparent counterexamples to this ordering once
the complete declension system is taken into consideration. However, these cases can
be shown to arise due to regular phonological processes. Hence, we need to make a
distinction between syncretism that is grammatically relevant (two cases expressed by
the same morpheme), and syncretism which arise due to the phonological conflation
(two distinct morphemes). Since the counterexamples have been exhaustively
discussed in Caha (2009:ch 8), I refer the reader to the quoted work for discussion.
(17) The decomposition of case
a. NOM = [A]
b. ACC = [A,B]
c. GEN = [A,B,C]
d. PREP = [A,B,C,D] etc.
Let me informally illustrate the reasoning how (17) derives (16). The main
idea, shared among various frameworks, is that lexical entries are not tailor
made for one representation only, but they can be associated to a larger number
of representations. Syncretism is then just a surface effect of this situation.
What is crucial in such a setting is the following. Assuming that a lexical
entry may have a specification that makes it suitable for a non-trivial set of
cases, (16) follows if an entry may only target a set of cases that forms a
contiguous region in (16). That is achieved in Caha (2009) by the proposal that
any lexical entry which applies to a given case, say GEN in (17), applies
automatically also to all cases contained in GEN, i.e., NOM and ACC. If that is the
case, no entry can apply to a discontinuous region in (16), say GEN and NOM
only. (This assumption is called the Superset Principle, see Starke, 2009.)
The theory sketched in the previous paragraph thus constrains syncretism
to contiguous regions in (16), but it is as yet incapable to deal with syncretisms
that do not include NOM. Thus, recall that the entry for any case will
automatically apply in all cases contained in it, leading only to syncretisms that
stretch from the given case to NOM. This apparent problem disappears once
competition among entries is taken into consideration, and the Elsewhere
Condition is adopted to regulate it.
Thus, almost any theory where entries are associated to non-trivial sets of
cases will meet with a situation where more than one entry is applicable in a
given case. Suppose, for example, that there are two entries, A and B. A is
specified for GEN, applying automatically also in ACC and NOM, and B is
specified for NOM only. The result is that in NOM, both rules may apply. In such
cases, a competition arises with the result that the most specific entry wins over
the others (the Elsewhere Condition, see Kiparsky 1973). In our example, the
entry B, associated to the features of NOM only, takes precedence over its
competitor A, specified for NOM, ACC, GEN. The result of the competition is that
A surfaces in GEN and ACC only, a contiguous region that does not include
NOM. Hence, when we introduce the Elsewhere Condition, the generative
capacity of the system is increased to yield also contiguous syncretisms beyond
NOM.
Note that even after competition is introduced, there is still no way to
derive non-contiguous syncretism. Suppose, for example, that we would like to
encode a syncretism of NOM and GEN to the exclusion of ACC. That would first
require an entry that can apply in NOM and GEN. Such an entry, I will call it X,
would be specified as [A,B,C], applying automatically in GEN, ACC and NOM.
Then, we need an entry that applies in ACC only. If we come up with such an
entry, it will restrict the application of the entry X to GEN and NOM only, which
is a non-contiguous region. However, in the system proposed, there can be no
such entry. That is because any entry that applies in ACC, applies automatically
also in any case contained in it, i.e., in NOM. Hence, any entry that wins over X
in ACC, will win also in NOM, restricting the application of X to GEN.
To sum up, the theory of Caha (2009) derives the constraint (16) from the
proposal that there is a containment relation among cases, as has been indicated
in (17).
3.3 The syntactic structure of case
The reader will have observed by now that there is a correlation between the
case representations established on grounds of syncretism and the elements of
meaning established for cases in locative PPs. To make that explicit: in (17),
the prepositional differs from the genitive by an additional feature (D). In the
semantic representations established earlier, the prepositional adds the meaning
of dimensionality to the region denoted by the genitive. Similarly, according to
both analyses, the instrumental contains the prepositional, etc. It is then clear
where the discussion proceeds from now on; the goal is to unify these two
representations into one.
However, under standard assumptions, there is at least one theoretical
obstacle for the unification. Traditionally, case features are considered to be
bundled under one terminal node in syntax (see e.g., Embick and Noyer 2007,
Calabrese 2008). This view is not directly compatible with the way semantic
composition works. In this domain, the standard assumption has been that
semantic composition proceeds by functional application where both the
function and its argument correspond to a dedicated node in the structure (e.g.,
Heim and Kratzer 1998; see also, e.g., Svenonius 2008 for the application of
this logic to prepositional phrases in a decompositional perspective).
I now turn to independent evidence suggesting that the latter (“semantic”)
view is correct in the case at hand, and that case features are in fact syntactic
heads, ordered in a functional sequence. The proposal is depicted in (18):
(18) [ins F [dat E [prep D [gen C [acc B [nom A DP ]]]]]]
In the tree, the individual case features identified on the basis of syncretism are
granted head status, with individual cases corresponding to phrasal constituents
built out of these features. For example, the genitive case corresponds to a
syntactic constituent, where the DP is embedded under the features A, B, and
C, added in this order. I propose that these features are base-generated on top of
the DP (rather than NP); this makes sense both from the perspective of
morpheme ordering (to be discussed shortly), and semantic composition; as
highlighted at the very outset, the idea is that each of the features brings in a
semantic contribution, and combines compositionally with the DP (rather than
the NP).
Note that under this view, individual case morphemes will have to
correspond to whole phrasal constituents, or stretches of the functional
sequence (see, e.g., Neeleman and Szendröi 2007, Starke 2009, Caha 2009).
Thus, the idea is that the instrumental morpheme spells out a constituent (or a
stretch of the functional projection) from A-F.
The reason why (18) seems to be the right way to proceed is based on the
following considerations, developed in detail in Caha (2011). Assuming that ccommand
maps onto linear precedence (Kayne, 1994), it follows that case
features will precede the DP in the base-generated order, and correspond to a
preposition.7
As an example, consider the English morphemes of, to or with,
and note that in the absence of movement, these morphemes precede the
determiner, supporting the conclusion that case heads are base-generated higher
than the D projection. Under this view, it follows that in languages with case
suffixes, the DP has to move to the left of the features each case is composed
of. For example, if the genitive is to end up as a suffix, the DP must move to
the left of the feature C.8
With this setup in mind, we arrive at a prediction. The prediction stems
from the fact that languages are known to vary in the absolute height of
movement (see, e.g., Cinque 2005). Thus, it is not the case that the DP either
stays in situ (with all cases marked as prepositions), or moves all the way to the
top of the tree (14) (with all cases suffixed). We then expect that there are
languages where the DP moves to an intermediate position in the syntactic
hierarchy. For example, the DP may move only above E, but not higher. In
such a language, DPs express the instrumental case by a preposition, and all
other cases on the hierarchy as a suffix (e.g., Icelandic).
In fact, the predictions are even stronger. Based on this reasoning, we not
only predict that certain languages are attested, but we also predict that
languages are rather restricted when it comes to the variation between what
case is expressed as a suffix, and what case needs a preposition. In fact, these
two distinct marking strategies are predicted to occupy contiguous regions on
the syncretism hierarchy (16), repeated below as (19). That is because once we
7
Thus, we need a definition of case broader than ‚suffixal inflectional category of the noun.’
Moravcsik (2009) proposes to understand case as a formal device that marks the role
of the noun phrase in the sentence, and I adopt this view here as well.
8
This approach thus treats case suffixes essentially as case postpositions. This might be too
simplistic for a number of cases, and so ultimately, the system should be extended to
distinguish between case suffixes and case-like postpositions. There are ways to
achieve this, but I cannot discuss this here in detail for reasons of space.
establish the highest landing site of the DP in (18), all case functions higher up
than the landing site need a preposition. All cases lower are expressed as a
suffix.
(19) NOM – ACC – GEN – PREP – DAT – INS
Before we have a look at whether this is correct or not, I will remove the
prepositional case from the scale. I do this for purely practical reasons. In
particular, our investigation has now reached a stage where we would like to
investigate certain prediction on cross-linguistic grounds. For that reason, we
need to work with notions that have a wide cross-linguistic applicability. This
is true for all of the cases, with the exception of the prepositional. If the present
paper is on the right track, then the prepositional in fact means something like
“dimensional, non-projective region.” But descriptive grammars usually have
no term like this, and it would be too simplistic to equate the prepositional with
the locative case of other languages, simply because “locative” is a too coarse
notion.
With this issue clarified, we then predict the following generalization to be
true:
(20) a. In the sequence of case-functions (20b), suffixal/prepositional marking
occupies a contiguous region on the scale.
b. NOM – ACC – GEN – DAT – INS
As far as I know, (20) is a correct statement that describes the set of possible
and impossible languages. I do not provide a detailed empirical discussion here;
note, however, that the correctness of (20) has been observed independently. In
particular, a generalization along the lines of (20) has been independently
proposed by Blake (1994). Specifically, Blake observes that case suffixes in a
language form a contiguous region on a scale that subsumes (20b), starting
from the NOM.
Summing up: we have seen that case syncretism in Czech leads to a
particular case decomposition, such that features characteristic for each case
monotonically grow. There are a number of ways to understand this
theoretically; either all the features are located inside a single terminal, or they
are each a separate terminal, or any mixture of the two extremes. This section
has argued that the features-as-heads approach not only fits well with standard
ideas concerning semantic composition, but also leads to interesting (and
correct) empirical predictions. In particular, the case features under discussion
interact with the height of DP movement, yielding an accurate view on suffixal
vs. prepositional marking of case. If this is correct, and the features do indeed
interact with syntactic movement, it follows that these features must be
terminals on their own, rather than form a syntactically opaque bundle.
3.4 Where syncretism and PP semantics meet
The point which the discussion leads to should be obvious by now: PP
semantics and case syncretism both point to the conclusion that INS contains
PREP, PREP contains GEN, and GEN contains ACC.
Thus, looking at the semantics of PPs, we were led to conclude that the
case marking of the Ground reveals the existence of discreet layers of meaning.
We start from the bare Ground (ACC), then map it on the region occupied by it
(GEN), and enrich the region successively by adding information about its
dimensionality (PREP) and axial orientation (INS).
(21)a. ACC = [ Ground ]
b. GEN = [ region of [ Ground ] ]
c. PREP = [ dimensional [ region of [ Ground ] ] ]
d. INS = [ oriented [ dimensional [ region of [ Ground ] ] ] ]
The same underlying organization of case is revealed by the patterns of
syncretism. In (22), I apply the logic of (17) to the cases at hand, ignoring
structure (but not features) immediately relevant to present concerns.
(22) Morphology
a. ACC = [ B,A [ DP ] ]
a. GEN = [ C [ B,A [ DP ] ] ]
b. PREP = [ D [ C [ B,A [ DP ] ] ] ]
c. INS = [ E,F [ D [ C [ B,A [ DP ] ] ] ] ]
The correlation between (21) and (22) is directly captured under the proposal
that each case feature needed for syncretism contributes semantic information,
leading to an increasingly complex specification of the NP. The bare bones of
how (21) and (22) can be brought together are given as the numbered
paragraphs (i)-(iv):
(i) I assume that accusative has a very general bleached meaning, and
consequently, its denotation can be simplified to the denotation of the
embedded DP itself.
(ii) If that is so, the feature C has to have the semantic function of
mapping that object onto its region (it takes, e.g., a box as an input, and
produces the region occupied by the box as an output). As noted above, this is
similar to the role for case in general as proposed in Svenonius (2008).
Following Zwarts and Winter (2000), the preposition u ‘at’ applies to this
region, and produces a set of ‘short’ vectors; the Figure is located at the end of
one such vector.
(iii) The feature D that derives the prepositional from the genitive adds the
aspect of dimensionality: the region becomes structured, and its interior and/or
surface are determined. The prepositions v ‘in’ or na ‘on’ apply to such a
denotation, picking the relevant part of the object where the Figure is located.
(iv) The combination of features E and F delivers an object that is oriented
in space. A coordinate system is anchored in the Ground, and axes projected
through relevant parts of the object. The preposition applies to this denotation,
and picks the relevant axis along which the Figure is located.
3.5 Conclusions
In this section, I have introduced a linear restriction on syncretism in Czech,
and I have provided an explanation for it in terms of a particular decomposition
of case into features. Specifically, the proposal says that features characteristic
for each case grow monotonically.
I have further noted that under standard assumptions, case features are all
located inside a single terminal. There are, however, two reasons which favour
an alternative where case features are each located under a separate terminal.
The first reason is that such a structure is directly compatible with standard
mechanisms of compositional semantics. The second reason is that such a
structure may then interact with DP movement, and leads to correct empirical
predictions.
In the last part, I have informally sketched the semantic contribution of
individual features.
4. Summary and conclusions
This paper started from the observation that case government by Czech
prepositions is semantically determined. Projective locations require the
instrumental, dimensional locations take the genitive, and a non-specific
collocation of objects is accompanied by the genitive. I have argued that this
situation reveals the existence of a set of meaning primitives, such as
dimensionality or orientation, which are hierarchically organized, leading to
various degrees of semantic complexity.
These observations receive support from the behaviour of temporal PPs;
there we can observe that it is the type of abstract meaning, rather than the
preposition, what determines the case of the Ground argument. The accusative
has emerged as the fourth case, and I have portrayed it as corresponding
essentially to the form of a bare DP.
The next observation was that the morphology of Czech case points to the
same type of hierarchical organization, leading to an interesting parallel
between the microscopic world of morphological features hidden inside
morphemes and the semantic composition operating on their basis.
The general conclusion is that the correlation between morphological and
semantic decomposition provides evidence for the syntactic status of case. The
proposal says that case corresponds to a number of meaningful features (each
harboured by a separate functional projection). This unique representation maps
both on meaning and form. The null hypothesis is the correct one.
5. Appendix: The dative
What follows is an appendix to the theoretical debate on the status of case. Its
purpose is to answer a question that remains concerning the empirical domain
under discussion. The investigation will concern the role of the dative case, in
particular, the observation that dative is absent in Czech locatives (Emonds,
2007). I propose that the reason for this is that dative (in Czech) is
“directional.” More precisely, it denotes a change of state leading to the
denotation of its complement. If that is so, its absence in (stative) locatives
follows.
To briefly illustrate the idea on examples, consider the data below. The
data are intended to show that in stative sentences, such as (23), possession is
expressed by the genitive, and the dative is unavailable.
(23) To auto je {Petr-a / *Petr-ovi}
the car is Peter-GEN Peter-DAT
‘This car belongs to Peter.’
However, with dynamic verbs the facts are the exact opposite: in (24), Peter’s
(resultant) possession of the theme argument is expressed by the dative, and the
genitive is disallowed.
(24) Dej to {*Petr-a / Petr-ovi}
Give it Peter-GEN Peter-DAT
‘Give it to Peter.’
These facts follow if dative is a change-of-state case, incompatible with stative
verbs (23), but required by dynamic ones (24).
The change of state characteristic of the dative can be strengthened
further. For instance, dative arguments of certain verbs, illustrated in (25a), are
possible in eventive passives (25b), but impossible in stative passives (25c):9
(25) a. Udělili Karlovi medaili
awarded.3PL Karel.DAT medal.ACC
9
See Veselovská and Karlík 2004 for the discussion of Czech stative vs. eventive passives.
‘They awarded the medal to Karel.’
b. Karlovi byla udělena medaile.
Karel.DAT was awarded medal.NOM
‘The medal was awarded to Karel.’
c. *Karlovi je udělená medaile.
Karel.DAT is awarded medal.NOM
Intended: ‘The medal has been awarded to Karel.’
Again, the contrast between (25b,c) follows if DAT denotes a change of state,
and is incompatible with stative environments. Extending this reasoning, we
conclude that since locative PPs are stative, they likewise exclude DAT.
References:
Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second
edn.
Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of
NELS 37, edited by Emily Efner and Martin Walkow, pp. 101-114.
Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. thesis, CASTL, University
of Tromsø.
Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. On absolute and contextual syncretism. In
Inflectional Identity, edited by Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins, pp.
156–205. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its
exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36, pp. 315 – 332.
Cinque, Guglielmo and Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic
structures. In The Oxford Handbook of linguistic analysis, edited by Bernd
Heine and Haiko Narrog, pp. 51 – 65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Den Dikken, Marcel, and Ioannidou, Alexandra. 2006. P-drop, D-drop, Dspread.
Ms., CUNY.
Embick, David and Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax
morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces,
edited by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, pp. 289 – 324. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Emonds, Joseph. 2007. Czech cases and the Syntacticon: Poznámky k, o,
okolo, nad něčím a pro někoho. In Czech in generative grammar, edited
by Mojmír Dočekal, Markéta Ziková, and Jana Zmrzlíková, pp. 81 – 104.
LINCOM, München.
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in motion. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar.
Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Jakobson, Roman. 1962. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre:
Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In Selected writings, vol. 2, pp.
23–71. Mouton, The Hague.
Johnston, Jason Clift. 1997. Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of
Morphological Categories. Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge:
MA.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris
Halle, edited by Paul Kiparsky and Steven Anderson. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in
Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eastern States
Conference on Linguistics, vol. 8, pp. 234–253. MIT.
McCreight, Katherine and Catherine V. Chvany. 1991. Geometric
representation of paradigms in a modular theory of grammar. In
Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, edited by Frans Plank, pp. 91 –
112. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the
derivation: a study on the syntax-morphology interface. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Pennsylvania.
McFadden, Thomas. 2010. Mapping out the Syntax-Morphology Interface:
How Can We Figure out When Case-Assignment Happens? Handout of a
talk given at GACL 4, University of Cyprus, May 9th.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 2009. The distribution of case. In The Oxford Handbook
of Case, edited by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, pp. 231–245.
OUP, Oxford.
Neeleman, Ad and Kriszta Szendröi. 2007. Radical pro-drop and the
morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38, pp. 671–714.
Pantcheva, Marina. 2008. The place of PLACE in Persian. In Syntax and
semantics of spatial P, edited by Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit
Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen, pp. 305–330. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Petr, Jan et al. 1986. Mluvnice češtiny 2: tvarosloví. Academia, Praha.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. On the universality of DP: A view from Russian.
Studia Linguistica 61(1), pp. 59 – 94.
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to
language. In Nordlyd 36: Special issue on Nanosyntax, edited by Peter
Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke, and Tarald Taraldsen, pp.
1–6. University of Tromsø, Tromsø. Available at
www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/.
Svenonius, Peter. 2008. Projections of P. In Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P,
edited by Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen,
pp. 63–84. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Terzi, Arhonto. to appear. Locative prepositions and ‘Place’. In The
Cartography of Syntactic Structure, vol.6 , edited by Guglielmo Cinque
and Luigi Rizzi. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Veselovská, Ludmila and Karlík, Petr. 2004. Analytic passives in Czech.
Zeitschrift für Slawistik 49, pp. 163 – 235.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional
syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29: 591–621.
Zwarts, Joost. 2008. Encoding spatial direction: The role of case, lexicon and
word order. Paper presented at the Workshop on Locative Case,
Nijmegen, August 2008.
Zwarts, Joost. to appear. Forceful prepositions. In Language, Cognition and
Space: The State of the Art and New Directions, edited by Vyvyan Evans
and Paul Chilton. Equinox Publishing.
Zwarts, Joost and Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: A modeltheoretic
analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language,
and Information 9: 169–211.
Author: Pavel Caha
Affiliation: CASTL, Universitet I Tromsø
Postal address: Teorifagbygget, H4P5
Universitet i Tromsø
Breivika
9037, Tromsø
Norway
e-mail: Pavel.Caha@uit.no