Download Proto-Roles and Case Selection in Optimality Theory

Proto-Roles and Case Selection in Optimality Theory
Beatrice Primus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Proto-Roles......................................................................................................................... 2
Two dimensions of role-semantic information: Causal dependency and involvement...... 5
Formal abbreviations.......................................................................................................... 7
The Thematic Case Selection Principle and its OT-implementation ............................... 10
Intransitive predicates, Case Markedness and Case Dependency.................................... 16
Ditransitive predicates, Case Distinctness and Dative Constraint ................................... 19
Diachronic case variation ................................................................................................. 21
Meaning variation and paradigmatic lexical constraints.................................................. 30
Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 34
1 Introduction
The main theoretical assumptions of this paper are inspired by Dowty's (1991) Proto-Role
approach and Optimality Theory (OT)1. One of the main assumptions is that all principles and
constraints are violable, even if this is not stated explicitly. The OT constraints are
supplemented by more general principles that are meant to enhance the explanatory power of
the OT framework by showing that families of constraints and their fixed ranking fall under
such principles. The main departure from Dowty's proposal is the distinction between the
degree of involvement of a participant and the semantic dependency of Proto-Patients upon
Proto-Agents, a distinction which motivates the division of labour between case and structural
linking (cf. Primus 1996, 1999a, 2002b). This paper focusses on case linking. The main
departure from generative approaches on case linking is the assumption that the distinction
between structural and lexical case does not hold universally and that there are languages (e.g.
German) that do not have structural cases (cf. Primus 2002b). The present investigation is
embedded in a typological perspective and offers an OT analysis of the basic typological
distinction between ergative, accusative and split intransitive constructions. This broader view
is supplemented by more detailed analyses of German with special focus on the diachronic
and synchronic case variation with psych-verbs.2
The outline of this paper is the following. After an exposé of Dowty's Proto-Role
approach (§ 2), the two dimensions of role semantics, causal dependency and involvement,
are discussed (§ 3). In section 4, the most important terms are introduced in a formally
abbreviated way. The Thematic Case Selection Principle and its Ergative Parameter are
implemented within OT in section 5. The next two sections introduce the most important
competing case constraints, Case Markedness, Case Dependency and Case Distinctness on the
basis of intransitive predicates (§ 6) and ditransitive predicates (§ 7). Ditransitive predicates
are also meant to serve as an empirical basis for a discussion of the role-semantic Dative
Constraint. Diachronic case variation is the topic of section 8, which focusses on case
variation with psych-verbs, the decline of constructions without a nominative and of the
genetive. Section 9 deals with lexical meaning variation and its impetus on case selection. A
summary of the main results is given in section 10.
1
The OT proposal of Aissen (1999) is meant to implement Dowty's approach, but in fact the gradience of his
cluster concepts is not taken into consideration.
2
The investigations leading to the present paper are funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG), Project
B10, SFB 282 "Theory of the Lexicon".
2
2 Proto-Roles
Dowty (1991) views thematic roles such as agent and patient as prototype cluster concepts
and calls them Proto-Roles. This assumption has three important consequences. First,
agentivity and patienthood are a matter of degree: an argument may be more agentive or
patientlike than another due to the fact that an argument may have a varying number of
properties that define a Proto-Role. Secondly, thematic roles are not necessarily discrete (i.e.
distinct) entities and accordingly, an argument may have thematic features that would fall
under two thematic roles within traditional approaches. Thirdly, predicates may assign the
same thematic properties to two of their arguments. Under these assumptions, Dowty needs
only two Proto-Roles to capture the mapping of thematic roles to grammatical functions:
Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient. These assumptions of the Proto-Role approach are the main
reason why his proposal has been chosen for a further elaboration in this paper and in earlier
work (cf. Primus 1995, 1999a).3
In general terms, a thematic role is viewed by Dowty as a set of entailments of a class of
predicates with respect to one of their argument types. Formally speaking, a thematic
entailment is a (second order) property of a predicate relative to one of its arguments. I will
call the properties defining a Proto-Role basic thematic relations, since they will not be
decomposed further.
The properties (or basic thematic relations) that characterize the Agent Proto-Role are
listed in (1):
(1) Contributing properties for the Agent Proto-Role:
(a) volitional involvement in the event or state
(b) sentience (and/or perception) with respect to the event or state denoted by the verb
(c) causing an event or change of state in another participant
(d) movement (relative to the position of another participant)
((e) exists independently of the event named by the verb)
(f) possession of another entity
(1a)-(1e) are Dowty's proposal (1991:572). (1f) includes possession in the list, following,
among others, Jackendoff (1991). Each of these characteristics is semantically independent.
Nevertheless, some of them tend to co-occur (e.g. volition or causation and movement) and
one property may unilaterally imply another (e.g. volition implies sentience, cf. Dowty
(1991:606). Dowty illustrates the semantic distinctiveness of each of the Proto-Agent
entailments with the first arguments of the predicates in (2a)-(2) and assumes that these
predicates have just one entailment for the subject entity. (2f) has been added to illustrate
possession:
(2) (a) Volition alone: John is being polite to Bill. John is ignoring Mary.
(b) Sentience/perception alone: John knows/believes/is disappointed at the statement.
John sees/fears Mary.
(c) Causation alone: His loneliness causes his unhappiness.
(d) Movement alone: The rolling tumbleweed passed the rock. Water filled the boat. He
accidentally fell.
((e) Independent existence: John needs a car.)
(f) Possession alone: John has a car.
3
Closely related proposals (cf. Dowty 1991, Primus 1999a, Chap. 3) are the macrorole approach of Van Valin
(cf. Foley / Van Valin 1984, Van Valin / LaPolla 1997) and the transitivity concept of Hopper and Thompson
(1980).
3
The basic concepts used in (1) and (2) are not defined by Dowty, but some of his comments
are helpful. Volitionality is used in the sense of intentionality on the part of the participant in
question. As known from philosophical approaches to action and agentivity, there are more
mental properties defining an agent besides his intention to do something. He is also able to
start and stop the event at will, he is responsible for the event, he is able to do it, etc. (cf.
Rayfield 1977:787f., Thalberg 1972:51). Therefore, Dik's term control seems to be more
appropriate (Dik 1978). Psychological research (cf. Libet 1985) also suggests that the
conscious part in initiating an action is not the impulse to act but rather the control of that
impulse.
Sentience comprises an emotion, a sensation, a specific mental attitude, or the awareness
of the situation denoted by the verb. Including sentience in the list of Proto-Agent properties
is uncommon within linguistic tradition, but it is in conformity with the philosophical
approaches dealing with the concept of action (cf. Thalberg 1972:66). Recall that intention,
control, or volition unilaterally imply sentience of the event named by the verb.
Despite its unchallenged importance for the notion of agentivity, causation is one of the
most controversial terms in (1) above. It will be discussed in section 3 more extensively.
Movement is attributed by Dowty to any form of activity of the argument in question (also
for the first argument of look at). It is a Proto-Agent property only if it is an autonomous
activity, i.e. an activity whose source of energy lies within the participant and which is not
caused by another participant. In this sense, causation has priority over movement for
distinguishing agents from patients (cf. Dowty 1991:574). This seems to be a very promising
idea which will be taken up in section 3. It is in conformity with cognitive linguistic research
demonstrating the relevance of the concept of self-propelled movement for the cognitive
development of the notion of agentivity and causation (cf. Premack 1990, Leslie 1995,
Premack / Premack 1995). As a consequence, if movement is caused by another participant, it
will be considered a Proto-Patient property in the present approach. Thus for instance, in John
threw the ball both entities move, but it is only the ball, the Proto-Patient, that moves as a
response to John's movement.
Independent existence, which is only tentatively included in Dowty's list (cf. the brackets),
has a special status. It means that the referent is de re or specific rather than de dicto or nonspecific, or that it is presumed to exist before and after the event. The special status of
independent existence is noticed by Dowty himself (1991:573): it is logically entailed by all
other Proto-Agent statements. Although there are some verbs that have this particular
entailment but none of (1a)-(1d), there are apparently no verbs having any of (1a)-(1d) including possession in (1f) - without entailing existence (for the given argument) as well.
The distinction between independently and dependently involved participants is crucial in the
present approach for the distinction between Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient and for the rolesemantic factor that determines structural linking (i.e. the basic order of verbal arguments).
Let us now turn to Proto-Patient and the basic thematic relations defining it. Cf. (3):
(3) Contributing properties for the Patient Proto-Role:
(a) is controlled (volitionally affected) by another participant
(b) is causally affected by another participant
(c) undergoes a change of state, e.g. is moved or physically manipulated by another
participant
(d) is the target of the sentience of another participant
((e) is dependent on another participant or on the situation denoted by the verb)
(f) is the object of possession of another participant
These basic concepts have already been illustrated by the second arguments in (2) above,
except for change of state in (3c). As noticed by Dowty himself, Proto-Patient entailments are
4
harder to isolate and a change of state is particularly difficult to find in isolation. A
perceptible physical, not just mental change of state that is not volitionally brought about (but
plausibly caused) by another participant is found in the second argument of John
(inadvertently) spilled the water and possibly in its intransitive variant the water spilled if one
assumes an implicit causing event for unaccusative verbs in English (cf. Levin / Rappaport
Hovav 1995).
Some of the thematic roles found in the literature can be defined in Dowty's model on the
basis of the lists in (1) and (3). In the narrowest sense of the term, agents can be defined by
the properties listed in (1a-d), with volition or control being the crucial factor. Experiencers
are sentient participants that have no other agentive properties in the traditional use of the
term.
The Proto-Role approach can also cope with arguments that have both agent and patient
properties like the traditional notions of recipient, goal and benefactive that can be defined in
this way (cf. Proto-Recipient in Primus 1999a). Such a role is found with verbs denoting a
change in possession (give x something y, take something y from x, bake x a cake y) or a
change in sentience (tell x a story y, show x a picture y). As a possessor or an experiencer,
such an argument is a Proto-Agent relative to the third participant. At the same time it is a
Proto-Patient relative to the first participant, which causes its change in possession and
sentience (cf. section 4 below).
Besides minor points, such as including possession in the list, two major departures from
Dowty's concept of Proto-Patient have to be mentioned. The first is the treatment of aspectual
concepts. For Dowty a change of state includes coming into existence, going out of existence
and both definite and indefinite changes of state. Some but not all arguments of this type are
incremental themes, a notion that is included in Dowty's Proto-Patient list, but not in (3)
above. Incremental themes are participants gradually affected in accomplishment events.
Some of them undergo a perceptible and existential change of state, such as in build a house,
write a poem, eat a cake, but others do not, cf. memorize a poem. Purely aspectual notions
such as incrementality and punctuality are treated here as a separate factor which may
influence the syntactic realization of arguments.
The second departure is the basic status given to the distinction between an independent
and a dependent involvement. In the present approach, it is not considered an additional
property (see the brackets in (1e) and (3e)), but rather the underlying criterion that
distinguishes the properties of Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient from each other. The ProtoPatient properties in (3) involve the same basic concepts that also characterize the ProtoAgent: volition, causation, change (e.g. movement, physical activity), sentience and
possession. The basic difference between the two roles is that a Proto-Agent does not entail
the presence of another participant, while a Proto-Patient does. This dependency notion
contributes to the clarification of the notion of affectedness, which is considered by many
linguistics to be the characteristic property of patients.
As to a deeper explanation for this dependency notion, cognitive approaches to the notion
of causality contribute towards its clarification. Contrary to the assumption of Dowty and
other linguists who treat causation as one component of agentivity, cognitive approaches
suggest that causality is the relevant cluster concept and agentivity the derived manifestation
of it (cf. Lakoff / Johnson 1980, Premack 1990, Leslie 1995, Premack / Premack 1995). If this
turns out to be a viable hypothesis, the fact that a Proto-Patient depends on a Proto-Agent is
an epiphenomenon of the dependency between cause and effect. This idea will be elaborated
in the next section.
5
3 Two dimensions of role-semantic information: Causal dependency and
involvement
The dependency between cause and effect has been formulated explicitly in the tradition of
philosophical logic in terms of the implication relation p→q, in which p is a sufficient
condition for q and q a necessary condition for p. According to one of Hume's well-known
proposals, a cause is an 'object' (i.e. an event, following Davidson 1967) that is a sufficient
condition for another 'object' and this follows from empirical, i.e. non-logical laws (cf.
Mittelstraß 1984:376). A well-known example is a rolling ball causing the movement of
another ball. Two further factors, which have been shown to be relevant for causal cognition
and the development of causal notions in infants (cf. Leslie 1995, Premack / Premack 1995),
deserve special mention: the causing object must be contiguous in space with the causally
affected object and the resulting event must immediately succeed the causing event (cf. also
Stegmüller 1983). In our example, the causing ball must touch the causally affected ball, and
the movement of the affected ball must immediately succeed the movement of the causing
ball.
Talking about 'the' cause of an event is a gross idealization. According to Stegmüller
(1983) the cause is the sum of all necessary conditions which are sufficient for the effect only
in their totality. This leads us to the second of Hume's proposals, which has been taken up by
Lewis (1973): if an 'object' had not been, the other 'object' would never have existed. Leaving
the counterfactual aspect aside, this alternative view takes the cause to be a necessary
condition for the effect. This is a genuine dependency notion. These observations legitimate
us to test an individual causal factor on the basis of counterfactual necessity.
The causal notion that is captured most appropriately and directly by the philosophical
approaches mentioned above is physical, mechanical causation. It is best illustrated by
situations in which an object physically moves another object. As pointed out by Premack
(1990), among others, there must be a crucial asymmetry in the movement of the two objects
in order to establish a causal relation. The movement of the causer has to be self-propelled;
i.e., the source of the energy lies within this object. In fact, it suffices to postulate the weaker
condition that the movement of the first object is independent from the movement of the
second. Additionally, physical causal relations have the above-mentioned properties of
physical contact (spatial contiguity) and temporal immediate succession. In the present
approach, this physical causal relation is captured by the movement component in the notions
of Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient.4 It does not only explain the dependency of a moved ProtoPatient on an autonomously moving Proto-Agent, but also the fact that physical contact, i.e.
physical manipulation, is a relevant condition on case selection (cf. Primus 1999a, Chap. 4,
for German).
The other causal notions are psychological. Agents pursue goals and act voluntarily upon
entities which are not necessarily contiguous in space and whose change is not necessarily
physical and temporarily immediate. Such situations are denoted by the verbs threat, console
or promise. This goal-oriented notion is called teleological causality in both cognitive (cf.
Leslie 1995) and philosophical approaches (cf. von Wright 1971). It characterizes the
volitional or intentional involvement of a participant in the event named by the verb and is the
most uncontroversial and widely accepted component of the notion of agentivity. Despite the
fact that von Wright restricts his notion of voluntary action to situations with two or more
participants, there is general consensus in the linguistic literature that the monovalent verbs
walk and work denote controlled situations.
4
Dowty (1991: 573) himself acknowledges that causation is almost always accompanied by movement.
6
The other psychological causality notion is sentience. Sentience is an important condition
for action. Recall that volitional or intentional involvement in an event implies sentience of
that event on the part of the agent participant (cf. Dowty 1991:607, Thalberg 1972:66). But
even when it occurs in isolation, as with psych-verbs such as know, like and see, sentience is a
systematic causal factor that satisfies the counterfactual necessity criterion. If the first
participant had not had the verb-specific sentience, the situation named by the verb would not
have occured and the second participant would not have been an object of sentience.
Following Cheng / Novick (1991) such a causal factor will be called an enabling condition. It
is comparable to the causal role of oxygen in forest fires. The reason why oxygen is not called
'the cause' of a forest fire despite its being a necessary condition for fire is the fact that, under
normal circumstances, there are no fires without oxygen. The same holds mutatis mutandis for
experiencers. There is abundant psycholinguistic literature demonstrating that with two-place
sentience verbs, the stimulus is also judged to be a causal factor (cf. the overview in Rudolph /
Försterling 1997). But the difference between experiencers and stimuli that is crucial for
subject selection is the fact that it is experiencers that have the specific mental or sensory
property denoted by the verb (cf. Brown / Fish 1983). In other words, experiencers (not
stimuli) are enabling conditions that are specifically involved in the situation denoted by the
verb.5
As to possession, the following observations of Premack / Premack (1995:193f.) about the
cognitive, socially relevant difference between the notion of group and that of possession are
revealing. Both notions imply that two or more objects are physically connected and capable
of co-movement. But only possession requires that one object be more powerful than the
other. Ultimatively, it is the ability to control the possessed object that counts according to the
authors. Recall that control implies sentience and, in prototypical cases, also movement. What
distinguishes verbs such as murder or nominate from possession verbs such as own is the fact
that control is a verb-specific entailment of murder or nominate, but not of own (e.g. *Peter
deliberately owns three houses). In order for a statement such as x owns y to be true, x has to
have some control over y, but the verb own does not specify this relation. The specific control
relation does not depend on the verb, but on the terms involved. Possessing a house differs
from possessing an arm. In the first case, the control of the possessor is manifest in the ability
to sell or buy the possessed object; in the second case, it is the ability to control movement
that counts.
In sum, cognitive approaches to the notion of causality offer a promising way of
explaining the dependency of Proto-Patients on Proto-Agents on the basis of the dependency
between cause and effect. A first, more minor consequence of this approach to Proto-Patients
is that arguments of different intransitive verbs can only be distinguished by the number of
agent properties they accumulate or by a different causal or aspectual structure they are
embedded in (cf. Primus 1999a, Primus 2002b). The fact that an argument does not bear any
relevant agentive property (e.g. John is tall) does not automatically qualify it for a patient or
theme, as often proposed in the literature.
A major consequence of this view is that two dimensions of role-semantic information can
be discerned. The first one is the degree of involvement of a participant. It is captured in a
Proto-Role approach by the number of consistent agentive or patient-like Proto-Role
entailments (or features) an argument accumulates. This aspect is crucial for Dowty's
Argument Selection Principle, which states that "the argument for which the predicate entails
the greatest number of Proto-Agent properties will be lexicalized as the subject of the
predicate; the argument having the greatest number of Proto-Patient entailments will be
lexicalized as the direct object" (1991: 576). But a closer analysis of argument selection on a
5
The causal and aspectual type of the situation is different with verbs such as frighten or please in English.
They denote a change of state in the experiencer that is caused by the stimulus (cf., among others, Dowty 1991:
579).
7
larger cross-linguistic basis (cf. Primus 1995, 1999a, 2002b) has revealed that this aspect is
only relevant for case-based grammatical functions. Dowty's principle makes false predictions
for structurally expressed grammatical functions (basic order), which are sensitive to the
semantic dependency between co-arguments: the semantically independent argument is
structurally superior to or precedes the semantically dependent co-argument. In this respect, a
Proto-Patient is dependent on a Proto-Agent. This dependency is expressed by placing the
Proto-Agent in a structural position that is superior to or precedes the position of the ProtoPatient (cf. Primus 1996, 1998). The degree of agentivity or patienthood is irrelevant for
structural linking.6
In conclusion, the basic concepts defining the agent and patient prototype are nothing new
to the linguistic community. These are volition or control, causation, physical change (or
movement), sentience and possession. For empirical reasons, the list can be ammended in
various ways without affecting the logic of the principles that restrict the syntactic realization
of arguments: one can substitute a basic concept with another (e.g. volition by control), split a
concept into more basic ones (e.g. control into volition, responsability, etc.), or drop it
altogether. Such steps may be needed as our knowledge about role semantics and argument
selection will advance, but they are not crucial for the further argumentation in this paper.
One major departure from previous approaches is the fact that two dimensions of rolesemantic information are distinguished: the degree of involvement of a participant and the
semantic dependency between the participants. An argument whose thematic features are
assigned independently from another argument is a Proto-Agent, a participant whose thematic
features are assigned in dependence of another (implicit or explicit) argument is a ProtoPatient. In the next section the most important concepts and assumptions will be implemented
more formally and will be conveniently abbreviated.
4 Formal abbreviations
The Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient properties introduced in the previous sections will be
abbreviated as follows:
argument variables
variable for the situation denoted by the verbal predicate
argument included in s
variable for any basic thematic predicate, e.g. ctrl, exp
x causes s or some aspect in s
x controls s or some aspect in s
some aspect of y is under control of x
x is physically active
y is physically manipulated, e.g. moved, by x
x experiences a sensory or mental state
x experiences a sensory or mental state relative to y
x is in possession of y
6
x, y, z
s
s[y]
pred
caus(x,s)7
ctrl(x,s)
ctrl(x,y)
phys(x)
phys(x,y)
exp(x)
exp(x,y)
poss(x,y)
Previous research has also acknowledged different dimensions of role-information, cf. for instance Jackendoff
(1987, 1991) and Grimshaw (1990). But the dependency notion introduced here is more general and captures
asymmetries beyond role semantics such as antecedent-anaphor and scope relations. Furthermore, I am not
aware of a previous approach that has tied different types of semantic information to the division of labour
between case and structure.
7
Strictly speaking, the causation relation involves two events, though the causing event is rarely explicitly
denoted by the verb (cf. a typical causative verb such as x broke y). In linguistic tradition the causing event is
reduced to the argument involved in it and is conventiently called causer.
8
Some of the basic thematic predicates that define Proto-Roles are tied by unilateral
implications, as mentioned in the previous sections. Here are some examples:
(4) (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
ctrl(x,s) ⇒ caus(x,s)
exp(x,s) ⇒ caus(x,s)
p-caus(x,s[y]) ⇒ phys(x,s[y])
ctrl(x,s) ⇒ exp(x,s)
The implications in (4a) and (4b) capture the fact that controllers and experiencers are causal
factors of the situation denoted by the verb: s cannot take place without a specific property or
or an event involving x. (4c) captures the fact that prototypical causation, p-caus, is physical
causation where some activity of a participant causes a physical change in another participant
in s. (4d) abbreviates the assumption that controllers of s are also sentient (i.e. aware) of s.
The relative order of the argument variables is relevant. Given any basic thematic
predicate with more than one argument pred(x,y), the first variable x is reserved for the
independet argument, i.e. the Proto-Agent, and the second variable y for the Proto-Patient, i.e.
that argument whose property denoted by the basic thematic predicate is dependent on x:
(5)
Proto-Patient
│
pred(x,y)
│
Proto-Agent
The relative order of arguments for a predicate captures the causal dependency notion that
distinguishes Proto-Agents from Proto-Patients and that is relevant for structural syntactic
linking. In order to see how this works let us analyze the valency of a ditransitive verb such as
give in one of its most common uses (e.g. Peter gave Mary an apple):
(6) Partial lexical valency information for give:
Proto-Roles: ctrl(x,s)
phys(x,z) > phys(y,z)
poss(x,z) > poss(y,z), exp(y,z)
[caus(x,s)]
[exp(x,s)]
a-structure:
λzλyλx[give'(x,y,z)]
case linking in German: nomx, daty, accz
This analysis is in conformity with the view that valency is a multi-dimensional phenomenon
(cf. Hopper/Thompson 1980, Jacobs 1994a). The issue whether the different types of
information are mentally represented in a modular way, i.e. on separate tiers, is not crucial for
the current argumentation. In absence of firm evidence for this assumption, I assume that they
are not separated in the mental representation. The separation only serves illustrative
purposes. For the same reason, the representations are not free of redundant information.
The Proto-Role analysis does not take the event structure of the verb into consideration
(cf. Engelberg (2000) for an elaborate treatment within a Proto-Role approach), since most of
this quite elaborate structure is not immediately relevant for case selection. The temporal
succession relation > has been added between the poss- and phys-predicates in order to
9
illustrate the fact that give denotes a transfer of possession from x to y and that the physical
contact with z also changes from x to y. The information caus(x,s) and exp(x,s) is bracketed
since it is redundant (cf. the implications of ctrl(x,s) in (4) above). From exp(x,s) it follows
that x is aware of the whole situation denoted by give, including awareness of y and z. The
thematic analysis is arguably incomplete. The fact that the existence of all three participants is
independent from the situation denoted by give and that they are enabling conditions for s in
the sense defined in section 3 above has not been added because it does not help to
discriminate these participants.
The argument structure (abbreviated as a-structure) also offers partly redundant and partly
new information. The substructure give'(x,y,z), including the relative order of arguments, is
derivable from Proto-Role information. The non-redundant part of the lambda-substructure
captures the number of arguments that have to be realized syntactically; the redundant part
mirrors their relative order. The problems of mapping principles such as the Theta-Criterion
of generative grammar that assume a one-to-one correspondence between theta-roles and
syntactic arguments (cf. Dowty's critique (1991)) can be avoided if the Theta-Criterion is
applied to this substructure (cf. Bierwisch 1988, Haider 1993, Chap. 5, Wunderlich 1997).
Given the Proto-Role information and the lambda-substructure, case linking is, in general,
partly predictable and partly idiosyncratic. Since the following section will deal with case
linking in more detail, it will not be discussed here. The relative basic order of arguments is
fully predictable by their relative order in the semantic valency representations (starting with
their relative order in the Proto-Role frame) and by the Case Hierarchy nom > acc > dat
introduced below (cf. Primus 1996, 1998). Whether more specific structural positions (e.g.
Spec-IP for nomx) are also predictable is a more controversial matter that will not be pursued
here (cf. Baker (1997) for a discussion).
Since an exact valency analysis of verbs is not always necessary for the main line of
argumentation, the following additional abbreviations are helpful:
Proto-Agent
Proto-Patient
an argument with a large number of consistent (either
agentive or patient-like) Proto-Role properties
an argument with a small number of consistent Proto-Role
properties
an argument with A- and P-properties
Involvement Hierarchy
Dependency Hierarchy
unilateral implication, e.g. Amax→NOM
if an argument is a maximal agent, it is in the nominative
A
P
θmax, i.e. Amax or Pmax
θmin, i.e. Amin or Pmin
Amin\Pmin
θmax > θmin, i.e.
Amax > Amin or Pmax > Pmin
A >dep P
/
e.g. Amax/NOM
The relevant pieces of information that are obtained from the semantic valency analysis of
give can now be abbreviated as follows. The argument x is Amax, a maximal agent; y is
Amin\Pmin, a Proto-Recipient; and z is Pmax, a maximal patient. This means that x is higher on
the agentive Involvement Hierarchy than y (x is more agentive than y) and that z is higher on
the patient Involvement Hierarchy than y (z is more 'affected' than y). As to dependency, the
following relations are obtained from the Proto-Role analysis: x >dep y, x >dep z, y >dep z.
These dependency relations lead us to the well-known thematic hierarchy which is crucial for
structural coding, as mentioned above:
(7) Agent > Recipient > Patient
10
The assumptions discussed so far and the abbreviations introduced in this section are needed
for thematic case selection constraints, which are the topic of the next section.
5 The Thematic Case Selection Principle and its OT-implementation
The principle restricting case selection in terms of thematic Proto-Role information is (8):8
(8) Thematic Case Selection Principle
For any language L, for any participants that are syntactic arguments and for the highest
ranking cases (i.e. morphological coding categories) A and B in L:
(a) The greater the number of Proto-Agent basic relations a participant accumulates, the
more likely it is coded by A.
(b) The greater the number of Proto-Patient basic relations a participant accumulates, the
more likely it is coded by B.
The Ergative Parameter:
(i) A construction in L is ergative if and only if A (commonly called ergative) is the
second category and B (commonly called absolutive or nominative) the first category on
the Case Hierarchy of L.
A language L is ergative if and only if L has ergative constructions.
(ii) A construction in L is accusative (i.e. nominative) if and only if A (commonly called
nominative) is the first category and B (commonly called accusative) the second category
on the Case Hierarchy of L.
A language L is accusative if and only if L has no ergative constructions.
The principle (8) presupposes a Case Hierarchy, such as that in (9):
(9) nominative/absolutive >m accusative/ergative >m dative >m other oblique cases9
1C
2C
3C
4C
According to terminological usage, the two highest ranking cases are called nominative /
absolutive and accusative / ergative. The term oblique is used for all cases that are below 1C.
Due to this terminological tradition, the Case Hierarchy (9) holds for many languages, but it is
not universally valid. Nevertheless, a hierarchy-based principle such as (8), which is only
sensitive to the relative ranking of cases, is universally applicable, even if each language has
its own case hierarchy. One can avoid the problem of language-specific hierarchies by using
the numerical order (1 > 2 > 3 etc.) and case variables, as suggested in (9).
Case is used in (8) in a broader sense including adpositional10 and verb agreement
markers. The latter qualify as equivalent for cases only if they are directly linked to thematic
roles and are not predictable from another coding device such as case or structure. Agreement
markers of this type are found in Tupinamba, for example (cf. (21) below). In other
languages, verb agreement is determined by case relations (e.g. German) or structural
8
Dowty's proposal cited above is closely related but not identical to (8). The main difference to Dowty and
many other approaches with similar principles is that in (8) the variables A and B range only over cases in the
broader sense and that the principle itself does not link the most prominent syntactic function, the subject, to the
Proto-Agent.
9
Instead of >m in the sense of 'higher than, more prominent than' one can use (cf. earlier work by the author)
<m in the sense of 'less marked' in accordance with the numerical ordering 1 < 2 < 3.
10
If a language uses both cases and adpositions, the constraints for cases and adpositions may not coincide. This
happens in German, for instance (cf. Primus 1999b). The constraints for German to be introduced below hold
only for cases in the narrower sense.
11
relations (e.g. English), or some other factor. In such languages, agreement markers are not
directly linked to thematic roles. In some languages, case itself is not directly linked to
thematic roles, but is predictable from structural relations. This holds for the nominative and
accusative (objective) in English (cf. Chomsky 1981).
As in Dowty (1991), (8) is conceived as a principle based on lexical information that is
meant to capture lexical defaults or the absence thereof. This means that genuine
counterexamples have to be systematic. Isolated verb lexemes violating (8) are cumbersome
(for the mental lexicon as for the theoretician), but not fatal.
The formalization of the principle (8) in OT makes its basic assumptions more explicit. It
is based on the Involvement Scale θmax > θmin with its two manifestations Amax > Amin and
Pmax > Pmin. The principle (8) aligns the Involvement Scales harmonically with the first two
elements of a Case Hierarchy, A and B. In OT, a harmonic alignment generates an invariant
ranking of constraints (cf. Prince / Smolensky 1993: 129f.). In this particular application, we
get the invariant rankings in (10):
Constraint Schema for Thematic Case Selection
(a)
Amax/A
(b)
Amin/A
Pmax/B
>>
<<
Amax/¬A
<<
<<
>>
Pmin/B
Amin/¬A
Pmax/¬B
>>
(10)
Pmin/¬B
The Ergative Parameter specifies A and B as either 1C or 2C, so that the two ranking options
in (11) and (12) are obtained:
Amax/¬1C
Amin/1C
(a)
Amax/2C
>>
Amax/¬2C
<<
<<
Ergative Thematic Case Selection
Amin/¬2C
Pmax/2C
>>
Pmin/2C
Amin/¬1C
(12)
Amin/2C
(b)
<<
<<
>>
(b)
Pmax/1C
Pmin/1C
Pmax/¬2C
>>
Amax/1C
Pmin/¬2C
>>
Pmax/¬1C
>>
(a)
<<
Accusative Thematic Case Selection
<<
(11)
Pmin/¬1C
(11) and (12) are inverse rankings if 1C = ¬2C and 2C = ¬1C, as stated in the Ergative
Parameter. Reranking is the method of capturing typological variation in OT (cf. Légendre et
al. (1993) with particular reference to this typological distinction). If in a language cases are
selected according to the rankings in (11), the language is accusative. An ergative language is
characterized by the rankings in (12).
Case coding is sensitive to the distinctness of Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient and to the
Involvement Scale θmax > θmin. The first dimension is captured in the horizontal rankings and
tied to the involvement criterion of maximality: maximal agents and patients are more clearly
and systematically distinguished from each other than minimal ones. Therefore, the
horizontally aligned constraints compete with each other due to their identical semantic
information. (11a) states that the constraint linking a maximal agent to the first case, the
nominative, ranks above the constraint linking a maximal agent to a non-nominative (e.g.
accusative, dative, etc.). In (11b) the same ranking schema applies to maximal patients and
12
the second case, the accusative. As to ergative constructions, (12a) states that the constraint
linking a maximal agent to the second case, commonly called ergative, ranks above the
constraint linking a maximal agent to a non-ergative (e.g. absolutive or nominative, dative,
etc.). In (12b) the same ranking schema applies to maximal patients and the first case,
commonly called absolutive or nominative.
The vertical rankings illustrate the sensitivity of case selection to the Involvement Scale,
i.e. the quantity of thematic information an argument accumulates. They order constraints
with identical case information that vary along θmax > θmin. As to accusative patterns, (11a)
states that the constraint linking a maximal agent to the nominative is stronger than the constraint linking a minimal agent to this case. As a corollary, the constraint linking a minimal
agent to a non-nominative case dominates the constraint linking a maximal agent to a nonnominative case. As to ergative patterns, (12a) ranks the constraint linking a maximal agent to
the ergative higher than the constraint linking a minimal agent to this case. This implies, as a
corollary, that the constraint linking a minimal agent to a non-ergative case dominates the
constraint linking a maximal agent to a non-ergative case.
The constraints can be verified or falsified according to their logical form. The notation
max
A /1C, for instance, is an abbreviation of the implication [Amax→1C], which is logically
equivalent to *[Amax&¬1C]. This means that this constraint excludes maximal agents that do
not occur in the nominative.
The following evaluations will take thematic information as input and cases as output, but
the framework is also compatible with the other perspective. Note, for example, the logical
equivalence between [Amax→1C] and [¬1C→¬Amax]. In this direction, the constraint states
that a verbal argument in the dative or accusative cannot express a maximal agent.
The Ergative Parameter (8i)-(8ii) and the rankings in (11)-(12) specify the variables A and
B for ergative and accusative constructions. Ergative constructions are illustrated in (13b) and
(14b) with examples from Avar, a Caucasian language, and Dyirbal, an Australian language:
(13)
Avar (Charachidzé 1981:144f.)11
(a) yas
y-orč&'ana.
girl(ABS,CL2)
CL2-woke-up
'A/the girl woke up.'
(b) y-osana
CL2-took
yas
di-cca.
girl(ABS,CL2)
I-ERG
'I took a/the girl.'
(14)
Dyirbal (Dixon 1972:59)
(a) bayi
ya_a
baniÕu.
DEM(ABS) man(ABS)
come(NFUT)
'The man is coming/came.'
(b) bayi
ya_a
DEM(ABS) man(ABS)
ba0gun
Çugumbi_u
DEM(ERG) woman(ERG)
balgan.
hit(NFUT)
'The woman is hitting/hit the man.'
In an ergative construction, the highest ranking, morphologically least marked case (the
absolutive or nominative is used for the patient of a transitive clause. The same case also
codes the only argument of an intransitive clause (cf. (13a)-(14a)). The second,
11
The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: ABS - absolutive, ERG - ergative, CL1, CL2 - nominal
classes in Caucasian languages that are affiliated to gender distinctions and trigger verbal agreement as
indicated, DEM - demonstrative, NFUT - non-future tense.
13
morphologically more marked case (the ergative) is linked to the agent of a transitive clause.
The accusative pattern can be seen in the English translations in (13) and (14), where the first
case is linked to the agent of a transitive clause and to the only argument of an intransitive
predicate. The second, more marked case (the accusative or objective) is linked to the patient
of a transitive clause.
Ergativity in the strict typological sense has the following characteristic properties:
(15)
(i) Ergative constructions are a rather frequently used option for linking grammatical
functions to thematic roles.
(ii) Ergativity is basically a morphological, i.e. case-based, phenomenon. There is no
syntactic ergativity without morphological ergativity (cf. Comrie 1978, Dixon
1994:177, Croft 1991:30f.).12
(iii) The Ergative Parameter is most clearly manifest in the constellation Amax & Pmax
(i.e. highly transitive clauses in the terminology of Hopper / Thompson (1980)).
(iv) Morphological split ergativity is never dependent on the choice of the verb
lexeme (but on the clause type, on tense or aspect, on the animacy or person category
of the verbal argument, etc., cf. Silverstein (1976)).
These characteristic properties are explained as follows in the present approach. Case coding
is sensitive to the mere distinctness of Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient and to the Involvement
Scale θmax > θmin, i.e. the quantity of thematic information an argument accumulates. Since
agents and patients proper, Amax and Pmax, accumulate a high number of thematic properties
each, they are equally suited to be coded by the highest ranking category (i.e. the nominative
or absolutive). The existence and the rather high frequency13 of languages with ergative
constructions (cf. (15i)) as well as the fact that ergativity is basically a case-based
phenomenon (cf. (15ii)) are easily explained by this fact.14
As to (15iii), the Ergative Parameter is most clear in the constellation Amax & Pmax (i.e. in
semantically highly transitive clauses) and this is related to the fact that there is no lexemebound variation in the role constellation Amax & Pmax with respect to 1C and 2C (cf. (15iv)). If
a language chooses the linking option (11) for a verb α, it cannot choose the linking option
(12) for a verb β, if both verbs select maximal agents and patients. If a language allows a verb
α such as hit(x,y) with the case pattern 1Cx & 2Cy (i.e. nomx & accy), then the coordinated
constraint [Amax/1C & Pmax/2C] dominates the constraint [Amax/2C & Pmax/1C]. Cf. Tab. 1:
12
A similar conclusion is reached within generative grammar by Baker (1997). Since only structural linking is
considered to be basic in this paradigm, Baker's conclusion that there are no structural ergative languages
confirms the observation (15ii).
13
As to frequency, Nichols (1992:90), for example, offers information about 168 languages with overt
pronominal, nominal or verbal inflection. About 25% of these language are ergative with respect to at least one
of these overt inflectional categories. Overt ergative inflection is favoured on nouns and reaches 39%. The
remaining 61% are languages with overt accusative inflection on nouns. By contrast, structural ergativity is an
extremely rare phenomenon. Besides being rather frequent, ergative constructions are genetically and
diachronically quite stable (cf. Nichols 1992, Chap. 5).
14
Alternative explanations for the existence of languages with ergative constructions, including Dowty (1991:
581f.), reverse the thematic hierarchy agent > patient into patient > agent for ergative constructions. This is not
only highly stipulative, but also empirically questionable. Semantic roles are based on universal basic concepts,
such as volition, causation, change and sentience, and there is little plausibility in claiming that speakers of
ergative languages have a different view of such notions. Additionally, most approaches treat case as a
superficial, epiphenomenal trait. Such an approach cannot explain the fact that syntactic ergativity unilaterally
implies morphological ergativity.
14
Tab. 1
Input: Amax & Pmax
)Verb α
Verb β
Amax/1C & Pmax/2C
Amax/2C & Pmax/1C
*
*!
The constraints are aligned in a tableau from left to right as stated in the ranking hypothesis of
the respective language. If a candidate x violates a constraint and there is another candidate y
that does not violate it, x has a fatal violation (cf. *!) and is eliminated from the competition.
The winner (cf. )) is the candidate that has the smallest number of violations of the relevant
highest constraint. If a competition is decided at a certain point of evaluation, further
evaluations relative to weaker constraints are irrelevant (cf. the shaded columns).
In order to license a verb β such as write(x,y) with the case pattern 2Cx & 1Cy (i.e. ergx &
nomy), the ranking shown in Tab. 2 has to apply:
Tab. 2
Input: Amax & Pmax
Verb α
)Verb β
Amax/2C & Pmax/1C
Amax/1C & Pmax/2C
*!
*
A language allowing both verb lexemes α and β would have the constraints tied in an equal
rank, which would violate the fixed ranking hypothesis of (11) and (12).
However, the co-occurence of ergative and accusative constructions (morphological split
ergativity) does not violate the ranking assumptions of the present approach, because this split
is never dependent on the choice of the verb lexeme (cf. (15iv)). Ergative and accusative case
patterns can only co-occur if there are other case selection constraints that rank above those
linking cases to maximal agents and patiens. These cannot be constraints having lexical
thematic information as an input because there are no thematic constraints that are stronger
than those given in (11) and (12) for maximal agents and patients.
Rather, (11) and (12) are compatible with a situation where constraints taking tense or
aspect categories as input dominate constraints taking maximal agents and patients as input.
Taking only agents into consideration for illustration purposes, the general schema for
morphological split ergativity is A-X/¬2C >> Amax/2C, where A-X is an agent in a
construction with a specific tense, person or another relevant category.15 This schema is
compatible with the ergative ranking. If the condition X is not met, the ergative construction
is selected.
Such a situation is found in the perfect tense (PF) in Georgian and the Hopa dialect of
Laz, where maximal agents occur in the dative and recipients in another oblique case (e.g.
allative (ALL)). In the aorist (AOR), the ergative construction is chosen. Cf. (16):
(16)
Laz (Hopa dialect, Harris 1985:308f.)
(a) baba-k
cxeni
meč&u
father-ERG horse(NOM)
skiri-s
give(AOR) child-DAT
'The father gave a horse to (his) son.'
(b) baba-s
cxeni
father-DAT horse(NOM)
nuč&amun skiri-ša
give(PF)
child-ALL
'The father has given a horse to (his) son.'
15
Aissen (1999) shows how a person- or animacy-determined split between ergative and accusative
constructions can be implemented in OT.
15
Such a variation also occurs in ergative Indic languages, where the dative-agent construction
is restricted to potentialis and other irrealis moods (cf. Abbi 1991). In Laz, the case pattern
(16b) is also found in the potentialis (cf. Dumézil 1967).
This construction is prima facie a counterexample to the ranking schematas in (10)-(12),
since it seems to have a maximal agent that occurs in a case that is neither a nominative nor an
ergative. There are at least two ways of explaining the dative in (16b). The first is constructional. This solution assumes a higher ranking constraint such as A-PERF/DAT (cf. the schema
A-X/¬2C above) that requires a dative agent in the perfect. This constraint does not falsify
the invariant ranking hypothesis in (11) or (12) since it is not of the same type as the
constraints in (11) and (12). This option is shown in Tab. 3:
Tab. 3
Input: Amax
)(16a) ¬Perfect
)(16b) Perfect
A-PERF/DAT
Amax/2C
*
(16a) wins because it does not fall under A-PERF/DAT (as indicated by the shading) and
satisfies Amax/2C, which is the highest operative constraint for (16a). (16b) is also a winner
because it satisfies A-PERF/DAT.
The second solution is semantic. It is appropriate if there is a relevant semantic difference
between (16a) and (16b), for instance, if the agent in (16b) is not maximal. In this case, (16a)
and (16b) do not compete. Given Amin as an input for (16b), the invariant ranking Amin/¬2C
>> Amax/¬2C will let (16b) win. (16a) is also a winner due to Amax/2C >> Amax/¬2C for
ergative constructions. This semantic solution has some appeal. Dative-agent constructions
are used if the agent is inactive (the perfect construction of Laz is interpreted as stative in the
literature) or irrealis-potential, a criterion that was introduced by Hopper / Thompson (1980)
and that can be included in the list of Proto-Role properties without changig the logic of the
constraint schema.
(16b) would be a serious and genuine counterexample to (11)-(12) if some verb lexemes
had ergative agents and a fair amount of other verb lexemes dative agents and no
constructional difference or meaning difference with respect to the maximality of the agent
was found. A language with a variation of this kind has not been found yet.
In conclusion, the thematic motivation of case selection is not only the distinction between
Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient but also the distinction between a maximal and a minimal
agent (or patient respectively). In other words, case is sensitive to the degree of involvement
of a participant. The highest ranking, i.e. most strict, case constraints tie maximal agents and
patients to the first two cases of a language. This scenario can be congenially implemented in
Optimality Theory by a universally fixed ranking of constraints. An important consequence of
this basic function of case linking is that both Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient may be maximal
and that either of them can be tied to the first case of a language. This yields the major
typological distinction between accusative and ergative constructions. In an optimality
theoretic framework, this means that there are two involvement scales that yield two inverse
fixed rankings: one for Proto-Agent and one for Proto-Patient. Another consequence of the
assumed basic function of case is that the ergative-accusative distinction is case-based (and
not structural) and that it is most clearly manifest with maximal agents and patients. Case
patterns that do not obey the semantic case constraints exist due to other constraints that rank
above the thematic ones. In principle, such constraints can be formal (i.e. constructional) or
functional. This is in conformity with the well-known observation that case selection has
various other motivations beyond that of distinguishing thematic roles. If no such competing
case constraint can be found, a case pattern violating the thematic constraints is unmotivated.
Such a pattern should be restricted to a few verb lexemes.
16
The next section will discuss a major type of formal constraints that compete with the
thematic case selection constraints and will introduce lexical parochial constraints in order to
capture idiosyncratic patterns.
6 Intransitive predicates, Case Markedness and Case Dependency
Passive (and antipassive) constructions also seem to violate the fixed rankings of the Ergative
Parameter. A passive is a syntactically intransitive construction with P/1C (e.g. English the
apple was eaten); an antipassive has A/1C in an ergative language, a pattern that is also found
with intransitive verbs in the unmarked voice (cf. the Dyirbal example (14a) above). These
case patterns are explicable by an independent, higher ranking constraint forcing 1C to
appear. Two solutions are plausible. The first one is functional and seems to be appropriate
for the passive (and antipassive), at least in some languages. As known from functionaltypological work, the patient is more topical than the agent in the passive. Thus, Bresnan /
Dingare / Manning (2001, cf. also Sells 2001) propose a constraint that ties topics to subjects
(i.e. to 1C in the present approach). This constraint takes care that in the passive patients
occur in the nominative even if they have to be in the accusative in the basic construction.
An alternative, more general solution, which is applicable to any predicate, including
passive and antipassive ones, is based on Case Markedness and Case Dependency (cf.
Woolford 2001). The relevant underlying principle is stated in (17):
(17)
Formal Case Principle: The assignment of a lower ranking case by a predicate P
implies unilaterally the assignment of a higher ranking case by P; the higher the rank
of a case is, the less restricted is the class of predicates that assign it.
(17) is an economy-driven markedness constraint schema that captures the well-known
universal implication that the selection of a marked element implies unilaterally the selection
of a less marked element. (17) is formalized in OT as (18):
(18)
(a) Case Dependency
*[nC&¬mC] >> *[nC&mC]
given mC > nC
*[nC&¬mC] is equivalent with [nC→mC] and means 'nC does not occur without mC'
(b) Case Markedness
*nC >> *n-1C (alternative: n-1C! >> nC!)
OBL = 2C, 3C etc.
Examples: *[OBL&¬1C] >> *[OBL&1C]
*DAT >> *ACC / *ERG >> *NOM / *ABS (alternative: NOM! >> ACC! >> DAT!)
The case dependency constraints in (18a) prohibit, for instance, an oblique case without a
nominative (or absolutive) as well as a dative without an accusative (or ergative). (18b) is a
special case of a ranking schema for scale-based constraints (cf. Prince / Smolensky 1993:
129f.): If x > y on a scale, then Con(x) >> Con(y) or *Con(y) >> *Con(x). Con is a variable
for any imperative constraint applying to x and y, while *Con is the prohibitive variant. In
Primus (1999a,b) the imperative variant was chosen, but the prohibitive variant is also in use
(cf. Woolford 2001). The choice depends on the empirical data that are under examination: if
one is interested in constructions without a nominative, it is more economical to start the
evaluation with the strongest relevant constraint, which is 1C! and not *DAT.
The absolute markedness constraints in (18b) are logically stronger than the dependency
constraints in (18a). Thus, 1C! bans any verbal syntactic argument structure without a
nominative, whereas *[OBL&¬1C] only eliminates syntactic argument structures with
17
obliques and no nominatives. The difference between the two constraints shows up in the data
that are evaluated in Tab. 7 and Tab. 8 below (cf. Fn. 23).
Similarly, *DAT is logically stronger than *[DAT&¬1C]. In order to be operative
*[DAT&¬1C] has to dominate *DAT. Languages with this ranking allow datives in transitive
and ditransitive constructions, but ban the dative as the only syntactic argument of intransitive
verbs (e.g. Japanese, cf. Woolford (2001)). If *DAT dominates *[DAT&¬1C], the language
has no dative at all (e.g. English, Swedish).
Two language types exist due to the fact that there are two logical options of ranking the
Nominative-Requirement 1C! relative to the semantic constraints that license an oblique case
for a Proto-Agent, Amax/¬1C or Amin/¬1C. This typological distinction is called 'activeinactive' or 'split intransitivity' in typological research. Cf. (19)-(20):
(19)
All clauses have a nominative: 1C! >> Amax/¬1C or Amin/¬1C
E.g. English, French, Swedish (accusative languages); Dyirbal and Yidiny (cf. Blake
1987:28f., ergative languages)
(20)
Not all clauses have a nominative: Amax/¬1C or Amin/¬1C >> 1C!
E.g. German, Latin, Icelandic (accusative languages); Bats, Lhasa Tibetan, Tupinamba
and other Tupi-Guarani languages (ergative languages)
The ranking options mention two semantic constraints, Amax/¬1C or Amin/¬1C. (19)-(20)
captures the competition between the Nominative-Requirement and the most dominant
semantic antagonist. Amax/¬1C, specifically Amax/2C, is the strongest antagonist in ergative
languages where this constraint is higher than Amin/¬1C (see (12) above). In accusative
languages Amin/¬1C is the highest semantic antagonist (see (11) above). Split intransitivity
will be illustrated with examples from Tupinamba and German. Let us start with Tupinamba:
(21)
Tupinamba (Jensen 1990:117f.)
(a) syé
só-reme
1SG,1C go-if
'If/When I go.'
(b) syé
katú-reme
1SG,1C good-if
'If/When I am good.'
(c) syé
nupã
1SG,1C hit
'He/They/You hit me.'16
The prefix category used for the Proto-Patient in transitive clauses, syé in the examples above,
is generalized over all intransitive dependent clauses. For dependent clauses, we have the
same ranking that characterizes an ergative language without split intransitivity, e.g. Dyirbal:
16
There is only one prefix slot for transitive verbs as shown in (21c). In this situation, the choice of the
agreement marker is further determined by the relative position of the Proto-Agent and the Proto-Patient on the
Person Hierarchy 1st > 2nd > 3rd. The syntactic argument with the highest rank on the Person Hierarchy
determines the agreement prefix according to its Proto-Role. If it is the Proto-Agent, it takes an 2C-prefix; if it is
the Proto-Patient, it takes a 1C-prefix.
18
1C! >> Amax/2C. In independent intransitive clauses, however, the situation is different, cf.
22):
(22) (a) a-só
1SG,2C-go
'I go/went.'
(b) syé
katú
1SG,1C good
'I am good.'
The single argument of intransitive verbs has different agreement markers. The verb prefix in
(22a) is also used for the 1st person agent of a transitive verb. The prefix in (22b) is the same
as that for the 1st person patient of the transitive verb in (21c). Tupinamba has no overt cases
on nominals or free pronouns. The split intransitivity of independent clauses is captured by
the characteristic ranking Amax/2C >> 1C! The two opposite rankings of Tupinamba show that
a typological distinction can cut across clause types within one language (cf. Silverstein
1976).
German and Tupi-Guarani languages have in common that not all intransitive verbs select
the same case. But they differ from each other by the fact that in German, oblique arguments
are not a default option, but rather the lexical exception. This is the main reason why German
is not considered to be a typical active language. Cf. (23):
(23)
(a) Sie arbeitet. Sie ist deshalb müde.
'She (nom) is working. Therefore, she (nom) is/feels tired.'
(b) Ihr ist schwindlig.
'She (dat) feels dizzy.'
The default case pattern in German is shown in (23a). This default is captured by the ranking
1C! >> Amin/¬1C, as in English. This ranking holds for every verb lexeme that is not
explicitly listed in a lexical constraint dominating the Nominative-Requirement. Such a
constraint is needed for predicates such as (23b). Following Hammond (1995), lexical
exceptions are captured by parochial lexical constraints, as shown in (24):
(24)
Amin/¬1C licensed by lexical constraints in German:
LEX-Aexp/DAT (kalt, schwindlig, übel sein) >> 1C! >> Amin/¬1C
For illustrative purposes, only three adjective+copula predicates, schwindlig / kalt / übel sein
'feel dizzy / cold / sick', have been included in the lexical constraint. The predicate müde sein
'feel tired' is explicitly not included in the list as it cannot select a non-nominative
Experiencer. Tab. 4 evaluates two relevant candidates for each type of predicate:
Tab. 4
Input: x = Amin = Aexp
schwindlig: nomx
)schwindlig: datx
müde: datx
)müde: nomx
LEX-Aexp/DAT (kalt,
schwindlig, übel sein)
*!
1C!
Amin/¬1C
*
*
*!
*
19
The columns shaded with vertical lines indicate that the lexical constraint does not apply to
müde sein. This kind of treatment is also appropriate for Icelandic, Russian, Latin, Rumanian,
Quechua, Avar, Laz and Hindi, where a rather small number of intransitive verbs select an
oblique case. But note that parochial lexical constraints are also needed for Tupinamba and
other typically split intransitive languages. As amply documented in the typological literature,
the split is not fully predictable on the basis of the thematic role of the argument in question.
The competition between the Nominative-Requirement and the semantic constraint
Amin/¬1C (or Amax/¬1C for ergative languages) explains not only typological variation but
also diachronic variation, which will be discussed in section 8. Before discussing the latter, I
will complete the range of competing case constraints by taking ditransitve predicates into
consideration.
7 Ditransitive predicates, Case Distinctness and Dative Constraint
There is general agreement that the following examples show a semantically typical ditransitive verb (e.g. give) and case patterns that are widely distributed for such verbs among
the languages of the world:
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
German: Der Vater (1C) gab dem Sohn (3C=NP) ein Pferd (2C).
English: The father (1C) gave a horse (2C) to his son (3C=PP).
English: The father (1C) gave the son (2C) a horse (2C).
Laz (= 16a): babak (2C) cxeni (1C) meču skiris (3C).
The examples are translations of each other in order to facilitate cross-linguistic comparison.
The thematic analysis of the verb give(x,y,z) in section 4 above has revealed that the roles
selected by this verb can be abbreviated as x = Amax, y = Amin\Pmin and z = Pmax. Recall that a
combination of A- and P-properties is abbreviated as Proto-Recipient for convenience. A
similar analysis holds for verbs with benefactives as in Peter is baking Mary a cake. The
relation between Mary and cake in these examples implies a possessor-possessed relation (cf.
Jackendoff 1991, Shibatani 1996). Other typical ditransitive verbs such as teach, tell and show
have the Proto-Agent implication of sentience for the argument y. If x teaches y z, then x
intends that y gets to know z. If x shows y z, then x intends that y sees z (cf. Blansitt 1973).
The evaluation for the maximal agent can proceed on the basis of the constraints
introduced so far. Amax/1C requires the nominative for Amax in an accusative construction and
Amax/2C requires the ergative in an ergative construction (cf. (28)). Since ergative
constructions have been dealt with in the preceding sections, let us focus on the more familiar
accusative languages and take a closer look at German, which has three productive adverbal
cases (the genetive is residual and non-productive). In Tab. 5, 18 of the 27 logically possible
candidates are eliminated by Amax/1C:
Tab. 5
1-9
10-18
x = Amax
dat
acc
y
z
2
3 candidates
32 candidates
Amax/1C
*!
*!
As to the candidates 1-9, Actrl, phys/1C, a special case of Amax/1C, is only violated in some AcIconstructions (cf. Primus 1999b).17 Potential violations are also found with verbs selecting
17
The AcI-constructions with Actrl, phys in the accusative are, for example, Ich sah den Vater (acc) dem Sohn
einen Apfel geben 'I saw how the father gave an apple to the son'. Despite the violation of Amax/1C, this
construction is the best candidate in the given role configuration (cf. Primus 1999b: 161f.).
20
nominative less agentive recipients and oblique more agentive arguments, such as erhalten,
bekommen 'receive, get' (cf. Maria bekam ein Buch von Peter 'Mary got a book from Peter')
and their equivalents in other languages. This pattern cannot win as a default in an accusative
language due to the fixed ranking Amax/1C >> Amin/1C. But note that with such predicates the
adpositional agent is not a controller (cf. Kunze 1991). The maximal agents of passive
constructions do not violate Actrl, phys/1C either, under the plausible assumption that the
adpositional marking is constructional and not assigned via government by the verbal
predicate.
The evaluation of the case options for the second and third argument of give requires
additional constraints. The first is Case Distinctness, a constraint that is well-known from
different types of approaches:
(29)
DIST: No identical case categories within the case frame of a predicate.
A further constraint restricts the semantic function of the dative. In German (and other Indoeuropean languages), the dative is restricted to arguments that accumulate minimal agent
properties. What a minimal agent is may vary from language to language. In German, a
controlling and thus sentient, physically active participant, Actrl, phys, is a maximal agent that
falls under Amax/1C. The Dative Constraint (cf. Primus 1999a,b) is given in (30):
(30)
Dative Constraint (e.g. Modern German):18 DAT/Amin = ¬Amin/¬DAT
Such a system tolerates only those datives as a lexical default that are linked to minimal
agents. It is not only violated by a Pmax and Amax in the dative, but also by a dative Pmin, unless
this minimal patient also has minimal agent properties.
Tab. 6 continues the evaluation of Tab. 5 and evaluates the remaining 9 candidates with
respect to DIST and the highest semantic constraint Pmax/2C (their relative ranking is not
crucial, as suggested by the interrupted line, since 24 will win at either ranking):
Tab. 6
19
20
21
22
23
)24
25
26
27
x = Amax
nom
nom
nom
nom
nom
nom
nom
nom
nom
y = Amin\Pmin
nom
acc
nom
acc
dat
dat
dat
nom
acc
z = Pmax
nom
acc
acc
nom
nom
acc
dat
dat
dat
Pmax/2C
*!
*!
*!
*!
*!
*!
DIST
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
Candidate 24 is the winner in German and other languages that have a third case such as the
dative, which qualifies semantically for Amin. Although this pattern is the default option, the
suboptimal candidate 20 incurring only one violation of DIST deserves special mention. In
German, it is licensed by a lexical constraint above DIST that lists a few verbs with a similar
but not identical thematic interpretation, such as lehren 'teach', abfragen 'test somebody on
something', fragen 'ask somebody something' and bitten 'ask / request something from
somebody', as well as AcI-predicates (ich lasse dich einen Brief schreiben 'I let you write a
18
The dative constraint DAT/Amin and the ranking DAT/Amin >> DAT/Pmin is not universal. DAT/Pmin seems to be
stronger in some languages such as Dyirbal, for instance (cf. Blake 1977).
21
letter').19
In a language like English, *DAT ranges over DIST, so that 20 (or an adpositional marking
or y) is the optimal candidate (cf. (26)-(27) above).20
The previous sections focussed on typological case variation in terms of ergative,
accusative and split intransitive case patterns. This variation was captured by different
constraint rankings. The most important types of competing constraints restricting case
selection were introduced: constraints in terms of role-semantics, markedness and
distinctness. These are, of course, not the only factors that restrict case selection, but they are
certainly very important ones.
The next section will focus on diachronic case variation and psych-verbs in German.
Psych-verbs are of particular interest as they involve minimal agents and patients. For these
roles, the thematic constraints are of a lower rank and in competition with each other. As a
consequence, they are more liable to be dominated by other constraints that affect case
selection. The decline of case patterns without a nominative is the main topic of the next
section, but the consequences of the loss of the genetive will also be taken into consideration.
8 Diachronic case variation
As well known, earlier stages of German (and of other Indoeuropean languages)21 were more
tolerant with respect to case patterns without a nominative. (31) shows examples from Old
High German (OHG):
(31)
(a) noch regenot nicht mé (Milstätter genesis & Exodus 145,29)
'(It) did not rain anymore.'
(b) was sambaztag in themo tage (Tatian 88, 3)
'(It) was saturday on that day.'
(c) thaz guates uns ni brusti (Otfrid IV,27,16)
'that we (dat) did not lack the good (gen)'
(d) mih thursta (Tatian 152, 6)
'He (acc) was thirsty.'
On the basis of previous research (cf. Behaghel 1923-1932, Held 1903, Eggenberger 1961,
Seefranz-Montag 1983, Lenerz 1985, Ebert 1986, Große 1990, Abraham 1991), the
development can be sketched as follows. The reconstructed period before the first written
texts can be captured by the constraint ranking in (32):
(32)
Early OHG: FULL-INT-ARG, TOP/SPEC-V2, LEX-Amin/¬1C >> 1C!
The comma between constraints indicates that their relative ranking is not crucial (for instance
because they do not compete). The new constraint FULL-INT-ARG is a special case of a more
general faithfulness constraint FULL-INT (cf. Grimshaw 1997) that prohibits deletion of lexical
semantic information as well as insertion of items that are not in the semantic argument
structure of a head (e.g. expletives). The second new constraint, TOP/SPEC-V2, is a special
case of SPEC-V2 (cf. Müller 2000) that requires a syntactic phrase in the preverbal position of
19
Note that two nominatives (cf. candidate 21) are also licensed by copula verbs such as sein 'be', werden
'become', bleiben 'remain'. This presupposes that the case of the predicative is assigned via government (cf.
Comrie (1997) for arguments in favour of this assumption).
20
In fact, in order to let 20, i.e. the pattern with two accusatives, win over 21, i.e. the pattern with two
nominatives, one has to postulate that DIST-NOM dominates DIST-ACC (cf. Primus 1999, Stiebels 2002).
21
Seefranz-Montag (1983) offers a cross-linguistic overview of the loss of case patterns without a nominative.
22
main declarative clauses (verb-second constraint). The more specific constraint requires the
placement of topics in this position.22 The language defined by the ranking (32) can roughly
be characterized as semantically and discourse-functionally more transparent than Modern
German. The effect of FULL-INT-ARG >> 1C! can be shown for rain, a verb without a
thematic argument (as indicated by the empty brackets), in a construction without a topic in
Tab. 7:
Tab. 7
Input: regenen()
)regenot nicht mé
iz regenot nicht mé
FULL-INT-ARG
1C!
*
*!
TOP/SPEC-V2 can be neglected in Tab. 7, as there is no topic to be placed in Spec-V2.
The effect of TOP/SPEC-V2, LEX-Amin/¬1C, FULL-INT-ARG >> 1C! can be illustrated with
the intransitive experiencer verbs denoting bodily sensations such as friosan 'feel cold',
hungaren 'be hungry' and thursten 'be thirsty'. They fall under the lexical constraint LEX-Aexp/
ACC in OHG, cf. Tab. 8:23
Tab. 8
Input: thursten(x)
x = Topic, Aexp
)mih thursta
thursta mih
iz thursta mih
FULL-INTARG
LEX-Aexp/ACC TOP/SPEC-V2
1C!
(friosan, hungaren, thursten)
*
*!
*!
*!
A rather early development, starting before the first written texts, was that the nominative
expletive ez/iz 'it' emerged, first in Spec-V2 and later in other positions as well (cf. e.g. Lenerz
1985, Ebert 1986: 29f.). This can be taken as evidence that FULL-INT-ARG was gradually
demoted and that TOP/SPEC-V2 was gradually generalized to SPEC-V2, which bans verb-first
main declarative clauses altogether. This stage is illustrated in (33a):
(33)
(a) iz ist gescrîban fona thir, thaz ... (Otfrid II,4,57)
'It is written about you that ...'
(b) nist thir iz sorga, thaz (Tatian 63, 3)
'There is no worry for you that ...'
(33b) shows that the expletive nominative was occasionally used after the verb and that SPECV2 was still violable (under the plausible assumption that the proclitic negation n- is not a
22
An alternative explanation of the historical facts can be achieved if SPEC-V2 is replaced by a constraint (cf.
Jacobs 1994b) that requires at least one syntactic argument for each verbal predicate in the unmarked voice
(passives and imperatives violate this constraint). But note that this constraint cannot explain the word order
facts, which are captured better by SPEC-V2.
23
A comparison between weather verbs without a thematic argument and experiencer verbs with one oblique
argument reveals the difference between the logically stronger constraint 1C! and the weaker constraint
*[OBL&¬1C]. The candidate regenot nicht mé only violates the stronger constraint; mih thursta violates the
weaker constraint as well. In order to be operative, *[OBL&¬1C] has to dominate 1C!. Languages with this
ranking (e.g. Italian, Rumanian) have weather verbs without a nominative expletive (cf. Ital. piove, Rum. plouâ
'it rains'), but ban experiencer verbs without a nominative even if the experiencer is in an oblique case (cf. Ital.
mi (acc) fa freddo (nom), Rum. îmi (dat) este frig (nom) 'I feel cold'). An ergative language with this ranking is
Basque (Saltarelli 1988: 63f., 146f.).
23
syntactic constituent in Spec-V2).24
With the beginning of the Middle High German (MHG) period, the situation found in
Modern German gradually developed. All verbs without a thematic argument such as regnen excluding passives and imperatives - took an obligatory nominative expletive, which, due to
its obligativity, was also used in a postverbal position. Some of the one-place verbs with an
oblique experiencer were used with an optional nominative expletive. The situation in Modern
German is captured by the following constraint ranking (cf. also (24)):
(34)
Modern German: SPEC-V2, LEX-Amin/¬1C >> 1C! >> FULL-INT-ARG
The effect of the demotion of FULL-INT-ARG relative to SPEC-V2 and 1C! is shown with
regnen 'rain' in main declarative clauses in Tab. 9:
Tab. 9
Input: regnen()
Regnet heute.
Heute regnet.
)Heute regnet es.
)Es regnet heute.
SPEC-V2
1C!
*!
*
*!
FULL-INT-ARG
*
*
So far, we have seen that the Nominative-Requirement, a formal markedness constraint, has
gained a higher relative rank due to the demotion of the faithfulness constraint FULL-INT-ARG.
But a strengthening of the Nominative-Requirement is also attested relative to competing
thematic constraints. This is shown with frieren 'feel cold' in Tab. 10 (all candidates obey
SPEC-V2):
Tab. 10
Input: frieren(x)
x = Aexp
Mich friert.
)Mich friert es.
LEX-Aexp/ACC
(frieren, hungern,
dürsten)
1C!
FULL-INT-ARG
*!
*
The winner obeys the lexical parochial constraint for accusative experiencers as well as the
Nominative-Requirement but violates semantic faithfulness to the argument structure of the
predicate. There is also a more optimal candidate without such a violation: friosan, hungaren
and thursten had a valency variant with a nominative experiencer from the very beginning of
the documented history of German. The most optimal change was the elimination of the
variant with the oblique experiencer. This means that the number of lexemes falling under
LEX-Aexp/ACC decreased while the number of lexemes satisfying the NominativeRequirement increased.
Another pertinent change in the history of German is the decline of the verbal genetive. In
earlier and modern stages of German, the genetive expresses a Proto-Patient. In OHG and
MHG, the patient could either be a volitionally, physically affected participant, as shown with
the genetive object of drink in (35a), or a less affected patient, as shown in (35b):
(35)
24
(a) ni drenk ih thes gimachon. (Otfrid II,8,52)
'I have not drunk of the same (wine) (gen)'
Verb-first main declaratives violating SPEC-V2 still exist in Modern German, though only in stylistically
highly marked contexts, e.g. certain types of narrative.
24
(b) thaz wib thaz thero duro sah (Otfrid IV,18,6)
'the woman who saw the door (gen)'
Many verbs, including those illustrated in (35), allowed an alternation of the genetive with the
accusative. The exact semantic function of this alternation is still a matter of debate.25 No
matter what the exact nature of it is, the genetive was restricted to arguments with ProtoPatient properties and could be selected for controlled and physically manipulated patients.
This situation is captured in (36):
(36)
Genetive Constraint in OHG and MHG: GEN/P = ¬P/¬GEN
In Modern German, a controlled and physically manipulated patient cannot be expressed by
the genetive or dative (cf. Primus 1999b). Recall that the constraint involving the specified
maximal patient Pctrl,phys/ACC is violable only if accusative selection is generally blocked, as
in the passive. Even for minimal patients, the genetive is unproductive in Modern German and
is only selected by ca. 50 verbs.
Another change that has to be taken into consideration is that the restriction of datives to
arguments with minimal agentive properties DAT/Amin was weaker in OHG and MHG than in
Modern German. In other words, the functional variability of the dative was greater.
On the basis of these preliminary assumptions, the case variation allowed by psych-verbs
in OHG and MHG is shown in Tab. 11 and Tab. 12:
Tab. 11
)1
)2
)3
)4
)5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
25
x = Aexp y = Pexp
nom
acc
acc
nom
nom
dat
dat
nom
nom
gen
gen
nom
gen
acc
gen
dat
acc
gen
dat
gen
acc
dat
dat
acc
nom
nom
acc
acc
dat
dat
gen
gen
DIST
*!
*!
*!
*!
1C!
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)
*(*)
*(*)
¬P/¬GEN Amin/¬1C <<>> Amin/1C
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*
*!
*
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Some argue for a partitive function of the genetive (e.g. Grimm 1837), others view this partitive function as an
epiphenomenon of its function to express irresultativity or imperfectivity (Donhauser 1991, Leiss 1991) and
indefiniteness (Leiss 1991). Yet others (cf. Erdmann 1876, Schrodt 1996) claim that the genetive was used for
objects that exist independently of the situation denoted by the verb.
25
Tab. 12
)1
)2
)3
)4
)5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
x = Aexp y = Pexp
nom
acc
acc
nom
nom
dat
dat
nom
nom
gen
gen
nom
gen
acc
gen
dat
acc
gen
dat
gen
acc
dat
dat
acc
nom
nom
acc
acc
dat
dat
gen
gen
DIST
*!
*!
*!
*!
1C!
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)
*(*)
*(*)
¬P/¬GEN Pmin/¬2C <<>> Pmin/2C
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*
*!
*
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The higher ranking constraint DIST eliminates the candidates 13-16. They are, indeed, not
attested. The weaker competing thematic constraints for Amin and for Pmin are tied and
determine complementary patterns leaving the competition to be decided by the NominativeRequirement and the thematic Genetive Constraint, irrespective of their rank (cf. dotted line).
Thus, it does not matter whether ¬P/¬GEN eliminates the candidates 6-8 at a later stage of the
evaluation (as shown in Tab. 11 and Tab. 12) or earlier.
These candidates are intrinsic losers relative to the constraints at issue. This also holds for 1C!
and the candidates 7-12. Since all candidates that are still in competition violate 1C! once, this
violation can be cancelled by the Mark Cancellation Convention, as indicated by the brackets.
Examples for the attested candidates are the following (unless the first attested occurence
is in MHG, the OHG form is given):
1 (nomx\accy): ahtôn 'think, believe', bigrîfan 'understand', denken, thenken 'think, understand',
forhten 'fear', frewen 'be glad about', frowôn 'be glad about', gerôn 'strive for, desire', gilouben
'believe', hazzôn 'hate', hôren 'hear', kennen 'know', minnôn 'love', (h)riuwan, riuwen 'feel
sorry about, regret', wânen 'believe, hold true', wizzen 'know', wuntâron 'wonder', wunsgen,
wunschen 'want, desire'
2 (accx\nomy): anen 'have a presentiment, foresee', dunken, thunken 'believe, imagine', riuwen
'distress', ruoren 'move psychically', thwingan 'plague, distress'
3 (nomx\daty): frewen 'be glad about', frowôn 'be glad about', goumen 'take heed', kenâden
'have mercy', milten 'feel mercy, compassion'
4 (datx\nomy): anen 'have a presentiment, foresee', lîhhên 'like', dunken, thunken 'believe,
imagine', zeman 'like, be appropriate'
5 (nomx\geny): denken, thenken 'think, understand', fergezzen 'forget', frewen 'be glad about',
frowôn 'be glad about', gerôn 'strive for, desire', goumen 'take heed', gilouben 'believe',
kenâden 'have mercy', lustôn 'want, feel like', milten 'feel mercy, compassion', (fir)missan
'miss', wânen 'believe, hold true', wunsgen, wunschen 'want, desire'
9 (accx\geny): bidriezen 'feel sad about', grûwen, grûsen 'shudder, feel uneasy about', jâmern
'feel sorrow, grieve', langen 'desire, long for', (gi)lusten 'want, feel like', wuntâr sîn 'wonder'
10 (datx\geny): [brestan 'lack'], grûwen, grûsen 'shudder, be reluctant'
26
There are verbs that allow a case pattern without a nominative, but their number is very small.
This is obvious from Greule's (1999) valency dictionary that is based on a complete corpus
analysis of the 9th century texts. In this corpus, only the following verbs are attested:
(gi)brestan 'lack' (datx\geny), (gi)lîhhên 'like' (datx\PPy or datx\nomy), (gi)lusten 'want, feel
like' (accx\geny) and, among the one-place verbs, hungaren 'feel hungry' (acc or nom) and
thursten 'feel thristy' (acc or nom). Although brestan 'lack' is not a psych-verb proper, it is
mentioned here in order to complete the list of verbs that allowed a case pattern without a
nominative in Greule's corpus. As indicated, several verbs had a case variant with a
nominative. If one takes further sources for OHG and MHG into consideration (e.g. Lexer
1872-1878, Erdmann 1876, Behaghel 1923: 571f., 614f., 694f,; 1924: 128f., Schützeichel
1969), one can add a few more verbs, as shown in the list for the candidates 9 and 10. This
means that the exceptional candidates 9 and 10 are best captured by a lexical parochial
constraint.
By contrast, the winning candidates 1-5 are not only more numerous (the list from above
only offers a selection of verbs), but also productive. With the exception of candidates 3 and
5, which became obsolete due to the strengthening of the Dative Constraint and the loss of the
adverbal genetive in German, more and more lexemes were added to the candidate lists 1, 2
and 4 in the course of time.
In sum, the situation attested in OHG and MHG can be captured by the following
constraints and their indicated relative rank:
DIST >>
FULL-INT-ARG >> LEX-Amin/¬1C, LEX-Amin/¬1C & LEX-Pmin/¬1C >> 1C!
¬P/¬GEN
Amin/¬1C <<>> Amin/1C
Pmin/¬2C <<>> Pmin/2C
The relative rank of the constraints is as specified above. If it is not indicated, it is not crucial,
in principle. However, taking learnability considerations into account, it is plausible to assume
that inviolable constraints, or constraints that only tolerate lexical parochial exceptions, such
as ¬P/¬GEN and 1C!, are very reliable constraints that eliminate candidates as soon as
possible.
The main relevant changes leading to the Modern German system are the loss of the
adverbal genetive, the fact that a double violation of the Nominative-Requirement does not
tolerate any lexical exceptions, the demotion of FULL-INT-ARG and the higher rank of the
Dative Constraint. The relevant constraints for Modern German and the crucial rankings are
summarized as follows:
DIST >>
LEX-Pmin/GEN >> *GEN
LEX-Amin/¬1C >> 1C! >> FULL-INT-ARG
LEX-[¬Amin&DAT] >> ¬Amin/¬DAT
Amin/¬1C <<>> Amin/1C
Pmin/¬2C <<>> Pmin/2C
The effect of the demotion of FULL-INT-ARG was discussed above. Tab. 13 shows the effect
of the other relevant changes:
27
Tab. 13
)1
)2
3
)4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
x = Aexp
nom
acc
nom
dat
nom
gen
gen
gen
acc
dat
acc
dat
nom
acc
dat
gen
y = Pexp
acc
nom
dat
nom
gen
nom
acc
dat
gen
gen
dat
acc
nom
acc
dat
gen
DIST
*GEN
*!
*!
*!
*!
*!
*!
*
*
*
*
**
1C!
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)!
*(*)
*(*)
*(*)
¬Amin/¬DAT
*!
*
*
*
The constraints mentioned in Tab. 13 suffice to delimit the range of case variation for psychverbs in Modern German. The thematic constraints for Amin and Pmin license complementary
sets of candidates and are, therefore, not decisive, as shown for OHG and MHG in Tab. 11
and Tab. 12. The relative rank of the general Genetive Constraint *GEN and of the
Nominative-Requirement is not crucial. The candidates 1, 2 and 4 will win irrespective of
their relative rank. They are the only candidates that do not violate any constraint fatally,
under the plausible assumption that a single violation of 1C! is not fatal with polyvalenced
verbs.
Candidate 5 with a genetive stimulus is attested as a relic of older stages (cf. Tab. 12 and
Tab. 13), but is obsolete in Modern German (e.g. der Toten gedenken 'honour the dead (gen)'
and der Mitfahrenden achten 'consider the fellow travellers (gen)'). These verbs are best
captured by a parochial lexical constraint.
The same holds for the pattern with a dative stimulus (candidate 3), e.g. jemandem
(ver)trauen 'to trust somebody', dem Wein zugetan sein, 'to be devoted to wine', der Bergtour
entgegensehen 'to look forward to / to await the mountain tour' (cf. also entgegenfiebern /
entgegenbangen 'to expect feaverishly / fearfully'). The verbs with the particle entgegen'towards each other, against' can be explained by the fact that in its semantically transparent
reading, entgegen- (e.g. entgegenlaufen 'run to meet', entgegeneilen 'rush to meet') selects a
dative in conformity with the Dative Constraint. An explanation of the impact of the lexicon
entry for entgegen- on its use with psych-verbs will be offered in section 9 below.
The remaining candidates are highly productive (cf. Klein / Kutscher, this volume):
1 (nomx\accy): bedauern 'feel sorry for', hassen 'hate', lieben 'love', kennen 'know, be
acquainted with', lieben 'love', mögen 'like', sehen 'see', schätzen 'appreciate', wissen 'know
something', wünschen 'wish'
2 (accx\nomy): bedrücken 'depress', deprimieren 'depress', inspirieren 'inspire', interessieren,
'be interested in', jucken 'itch to do', langweilen 'be bored at', kratzen 'bother about', reizen
'provoke sb.', wundern 'wonder'
4 (datx\nomy): auffallen 'attract attention', behagen 'like', dämmern 'dawn on sb.', gefallen
'like', missfallen 'dislike', nutzen 'be of advantage to sb.', nahegehen 'affect', schmecken 'like,
be tasty', schwerfallen 'be difficult to sb.'
In contrast to earlier stages a double violation of the Nominative-Requirement is not even
tolerated as a lexical exception in Modern German, considering only cases in the narrower
28
sense. The only two-place verb that is commonly used without a nominative is grauen 'feel
uneasy about, shudder'. It selects a dative experiencer and a prepositional stimulus, cf. (37):
(37) Zwar graute ihr vor dem Gespräch mit ihm, aber sie hätte es doch gern hinter sich
gebracht. (Charlotte Link, Die Täuschung, p. 378)26
'She (dat) felt uneasy about talking to him, but she wanted to bring it to an end.'
The difference between one-place and two-place verbs is obvious. As late as the 18th century,
the following patterns without a nominative were productive: mich ruht / schwitzt / scheißert /
brunzert / kotzert 'I (acc) feel an urge to rest / sweat / shit / piss / vomit' (Ebert 1986: 31). As
noted in section 6 above (cf. 24)), the one-place experiencer predicates including
adjective+copula are still used without a nominative in Modern German. These one-place
verbs incur only one violation of 1C!; however, two-place verbs without a nominative violate
1C! twice. In other words, it is more severe not to select a nominative when there are two
arguments that semantically qualify for it.
In sum, the Nominative-Requirement imposes severe restrictions on case selection as
early as OHG. Its increased impact is manifest from the fact that one of its semantic
antagonists, FULL-INT-ARG, has been demoted. As a consequence of this reranking, weather
verbs, which have no thematic argument, have acquired an obligatory nominative expletive.
Verbs with at least one thematic argument and no nominative, notably psych-verbs, are best
captured as lexical exceptions as early as OHG. But even in competition with parochial
thematic constraints that license case patterns without a nominative, the NominativeRequirement shows an increased impact. The number of verbs falling under these lexical
parochial constraints has decreased considerably. The only still productive lexical domain is
the adjective+copula construction in its psychical reading (cf. Tab. 4 above).
There are two ways to explain the increased impact of the Nominative-Requirement on
case selection in the history of German. The first one takes the rationale for this markedness
constraint as an ultimate cause of the development under discussion. The premise of OT
markedness constraints, to which the Nominative-Requirement belongs, is a markedness
hierarchy, i.e. a case hierarchy in this particular case.27 Without the impact of competing
semantic constraints, these formal constraints will ultimately lead to complete case syncretism
and case loss. At the end of this development, only the first case of the hierarchy, the
nominative, will survive. This goes hand in hand with a grammaticalization of the higher
ranking cases and of the nominative in particular, both formally (loss of case markers) and
functionally (loss of functional transparency). The generalization of the verb-second
constraint SPEC-V2 to non-topics (cf. Seefranz-Montag (1983) in informal terms and Lenerz
(1985) in terms of generative grammar) has enhanced the need of expletive arguments with
weather verbs in particular. This is a plausible explanation for the rise of expletives in SpecV2 and the demotion of FULL-INT-ARG, a semantic faithfulness constraint that competes with
the Nominative-Requirement. But note that Case Markedness is needed in order to explain
26
All tokens of grauen in this novel are used in this valency variant. There is also a variant with an optional
nominative expletive.
27
Seefranz-Montag (1983: 18f.) takes an increased hierarchization of cases in Ide. into consideration, but she
does not make this idea more precise, for instance by formulating the case hierarchy and case selection principles
that make use of it. Furthermore, she considers the case hierarchy an epiphenomenon of the general principle of
formal economy (1983: 21). The same line of argumentation is found within OT. Some linguists prefer to derive
the case hierarchy from a postulated fixed ranking of case markedness constraints (e.g. Fanselow 2000). In the
present paper, the hierarchy is postulated first and the fixed ranking of constraints is derived from it. The reason
for this option is that the hierarchy serves as a basis for a wide range of phenomena that go far beyond case
selection. Note that a case system with an unordered set of cases is difficult to acquire and that a case hierarchy
is mirrored in the course of case acquisition (cf. Primus 1999a: 28f.). Languages without such a hierarchy seem
to exist (e.g. Guarani, cf. Primus 1999a 94f.). Guarani uses only a two-way distinction of lexically assigned
agreement markers instead of cases and only one agreement slot per predicate.
29
that the expletive has to be in the nominative. This line of explanation only considers formal
factors as an ultimate cause of this development. The ranking of the thematic constraints
licensing oblique experiencers or other oblique minimal agents is not affected by this
development. This is obvious from the fact that oblique experiencers and other patterns with
an oblique minimal agent (cf. (39a) below) are very productive in Modern German as long as
they do not violate the Nominative-Requirement.
But there are also linguists who offered a semantic-cognitive explanation for the loss of
constructions without the nominative (cf. Posner 1984) whereby these changes are viewed as
a consequence of a more rational or impersonal conceptualization of the world. This view has
been criticized in past research with convincing arguments (cf. Wegener 1999 with particular
reference to psych-verbs) that can be formulated more precisely in terms of the thematic
constraints introduced in the present paper. The cognitive scenario can be captured by taking
the demotion of the relevant semantic constraints, Amin/¬1C in particular, as an ultimate
cause. This demotion will automatically lead to a relative enhancement of the NominativeRequirement. The cognitive scenario suggests that this demotion is triggered by a semantic
shift in the conceptualization of minimal agents as controllers of the situation. This semantic
change can be formalized as Amin > Amax in the present Proto-Role framework. In this event,
the semantically shifted verbs will fall under Amax/1C; LEX-Amin/¬1C will become obsolete.
There is some evidence that such a semantic shift might be at issue. Cf. (38), where # signals
a semantic anomaly:
(38)
(a) #Mich hungert, weil ich abnehmen will.
'I (acc) feel hungry because I want to slim down.'
(b) Ich hungere, weil ich abnehmen will.
'I (nom) feel hungry because I want to slim down.
The construction with the nominative experiencer (38b) has a simple experiencer reading as
well as a controller experiencer reading which the accusative experiencer construction (38a)
lacks. A similar situation is illustrated in (39) with an activity verb:
(39)
(a) #Mir ist die Vase (un)absichtlich zerbrochen.
'I (dat) broke the vase (in)advertently.'
(b) Ich habe die Vase (un)absichtlich zerbrochen.
'I (nom) broke the vase (in)advertently.'
The problem of the generalized cognitive explanation for the loss of constructions without a
nominative is apparent in (39): the dative construction that lacks the control reading is the
more recent development (cf. Schmid 1988).
The same problem arises if one considers the numerous recent lexical innovations that
demonstrate the productivity of the verb class falling under Amin/¬1C, e.g. mir ist mulmig
zumute / kalt / schlecht 'I (dat) feel nauseous / cold / sick', mich kratzt / juckt das nicht 'I (acc)
do not bother about that' (cf. also Klein / Kutscher, this volume). These predicates lack a
control reading. As shown by Wegener (1999) for Modern German, the lexemes falling under
Aexp/¬1C are more numerous than those that obey Aexp/1C. The situation attested for OHG in
the 9th century is the opposite, although Greule's (1999) corpus is too limited for a firm
conclusion: the verbs selecting Aexp/1C were more numerous than those selecting Aexp/¬1C.
The impressive number of lexical innovations that have increased the class of lexemes falling
under Aexp/¬1C refute the assumption of a general cognitive shift, which is needed in order to
explain the general and uncontroversial promotion of the Nominative-Requirement.
The appeal of the general cognitive shift is also weakened by the following argument. An
oblique case blocks the control interpretation for the argument in question due to the fact that
30
Actrl/1C is inviolable in German, at least in the lexical domain that is at issue here (cf.
Seefranz-Montag 1983: 69f. for earlier stages).28 Therefore, it is implausible to assume that a
verb may acquire the control reading first and then change the oblique into the nominative. In
contrast, the nominative violates neither Amin/1C nor Amax/1C. In other words, the nominative
is semantically more flexible than an oblique in terms of control. Thus, the control reading is
best seen as the consequence (and not as the source) of the shift from oblique to nominative.
In sum, an OT implementation can formalize the mechanism that leads to the loss of
constructions without a nominative and thus, contribute towards a more precise evaluation of
the general causal explanations for this loss. But there are still open questions. Given the fact
that minimal agents and patients in general and psych-verbs in particular, allow a considerable
amount of case variation not only cross-linguistically but also in one and the same language,
the question arises how the different case patterns are distributed among verb lexemes.
Another question refers to the role of lexical meaning variation for case selection. An answer
to these questions is sketched in the next section (cf. Klein / Kutscher, this volume, for an
elaboration).
9 Meaning variation and paradigmatic lexical constraints
The impact of meaning variation on argument linking and case selection has been rarely dealt
with in the literature. Given the fact that, in general, verbs have several readings in terms of
role semantics, it is unclear what this means for case selection. Let us illustrate the problem
with the paradigmatic semantic variation of the verb give illustrated in (40):
(40)
(a) Peter gab ihr einen Apfel.
'Peter gave her an apple.'
(b) Peter gab ihr Geld.
'Peter gave her money.'
(c) Dieses Geld gab ihr neue Hoffnung.
Lit. 'This money gave her new hope.'
(d) Peter gab der Tür einen Tritt.
'Peter gave the door a bang (lit. a kick).'
(40a) implies a physical manipulation of the third participant; in (40b) the physical component
is optional if one considers a bank transfer as an option. In (40c) it is absent altogether and in
(40d) it is present only relative to the second participant. As to control, (40a,b,d) are plausibly
assumed to have this implication, but (40c) only denotes an uncontrolled situation. This
meaning variation has to be captured in the lexical entry of the lexeme give. Note that verbs
such as murder, interrogate and nominate lack the variablity in terms of control and that other
verbs such as touch, move and kiss lack the variability in terms of physical manipulation.
Furthermore, move (e.g. Mary was moved to tears by this) has a psychical reading, which kiss
lacks, if we ignore non-conventionalized metaphoric uses. Finally, the role-semantic
interpretation of (40c,d) is idiomatic, i.e. non-compositional. The third argument, e.g.
Hoffnung 'hope' and Tritt 'kick', crucially contributes to the identification of the kind of
situation denoted by the verb, whereas the verb lexeme is semantically bleached.
As the examples show, the different readings are expressed by the same case pattern,
which suggests that there is a general tendency to express different readings by the same case
pattern. In the present approach, this is captured by the following lexicon economy constraint
and its application to the case patterns in the valency entry of a lexeme:
28
AcI-constructions with a controller in the accusative (cf. Fn. 17) are not at issue here.
31
(41)
(a) Lexicon Economy (LEX-EC): Minimize lexical entries.29
(b) Case-Pattern Economy (LEX-EC-CASE): Minimize the number of case patterns in
the valency entry of a lexeme.
(41b) is a formal economy constraint that competes with functional expressivity constraints.
In other words, a language in which LEX-EC-CASE is of a relatively high rank (within a
specified domain) will not express the different readings of give by case. The opposite type of
language would be a language with a 'fluid' case linking, a term introduced by Dixon (1979)
for languages such as Bats (=Tsova Tush), in which in certain domains, i.e. intransitive verbs
in certain person categories, different readings in terms of control are expressed by ergative
vs. nominative case.
LEX-EC-CASE has no role-semantic competitor if the only case pattern selected is licensed
for each reading. In order to keep the amount of linking options manageable, only cases in the
narrower sense, but no adpositions, are considered in the following.
Let us see how this works for the illustrated readings of give in German. As seen in Tab. 5
and Tab. 6 above, the winner for the reading that accumulates the greatest number of ProtoRole entailments is nomx\daty\accz. This reading will be called the strongest reading. The
strongest reading Actrl,phys and Pctrl,phys is needed in order to eliminate competing candidates.
As mentioned in section 7 above, the pattern nomx\accy\accz is also selected by some
ditransitive verbs such as lehren 'teach', abfragen 'test somebody on something', fragen 'ask
somebody something' and bitten 'ask / request something from somebody'. None of these
verbs has a Pctrl,phys-implication. This suggests that the psychical reading in (40c) and the
reading (40d), where the second argument instead of the third one bears this implication, may
in principle select the double accusative construction. But for the psychical reading, the
dative-accusative pattern is also optimal. Therefore, in compliance with LEX-EC-CASE, the
pattern nomx\daty\accz will be selected for every reading.
The idiomatic reading (40d) has a special status because it involves a competition between
lexicon economy and a thematic constraint. (40d) is an admittedly rare example of a violation
of Pctrl,phys/ACC, a constraint that is otherwise inviolable in basic (non-passive) clauses in
German. This shows that LEX-EC-CASE may occasionally win over inviolable constraints.
LEX-EC-CASE also helps to find a leading thread in the seemingly unsystematic
distribution of the case patterns of psych-verbs in German (cf. Klein / Kutscher, this volume).
Let us illustrate this with verbs selecting a dative stimulus in Modern German. Recall that
these verbs violate the Dative Constraint ¬A/¬DAT, as they select the dative for the stimulus
and not for the experiencer. Only the verbs with the particle entgegen- are productive in this
class, e.g. der Bergtour entgegensehen 'to look forward to the mountain tour' (cf. also
entgegenfiebern / entgegenbangen 'to expect feaverishly / fearfully'). This use of the particle
entgegen- 'towards each other, against' is semantically opaque, but in their transparent
reading, verbs with entgegen- presuppose an event in which both participants are involved as
agents. Thus, for example entgegenlaufen 'run to meet' refers to a situation in which the two
participants move towards each other. The agentivity of the second participant may be
maximal with respect to the presupposed event, but relative to entgegenlaufen it is not. For the
psych-verbs with entgegen-, LEX-EC-CASE beats ¬A/¬DAT and forces the case pattern with
the dative in analogy to the semantically transparent uses of this particle. In sum, LEX-ECCASE may beat thematic constraints, particularly when idiomatic readings are involved.
29
This type of lexicon economy constraint and analogical levelling have clear parallels that are not further
discussed here.
32
Another illustration of the impact of LEX-EC-CASE can be shown with the case variation
involving two-place verbs. Cf. (42)-(40):
(42)
(a) Peter unterstützt / kritisiert / preist dich (acc) / eine gute Sache (acc).
'Peter supports / criticizes / praises you / a good thing.'
Peter ruft dich / etwas.
'Peter calls you / something'
(b) Peter hilft / applaudiert / dankt / dir (dat) / *einer guten Sache (dat).
'Peter helps / applauds / thanks you / a good thing.'
(43)
(a) *Peter unterstützt dich eine gute Sache.
(b) *Peter hilft dir eine gute Sache.
The verbs in (42a) have two readings. In the first reading, the second argument is agentive, in
the second reading, the second argument lacks agentive properties.30 The verbs in (42b) have
this second reading only. (43) shows that the two interpretations are in a paradigmatic
relation; i.e., they hold for the same argument slot.
Let us discuss the second reading first. This reading presupposes an event in which the
second participant is independently involved as an agent. The agentivity with respect to this
event may be maximal, but relative to the verb unterstützen or helfen 'help, support', for
instance, it is not. The argument in question is also a minimal patient because it is affected by
the first participant: the outcome of the presupposed event crucially depends on the first
participant. This means that y is Amin\Pmin, as specified. This type of argument falls under two
weak tied constraints: Amin/DAT (cf. the stronger Dative Constraint ¬Amin/¬DAT (30)) and
Pmin/ACC (cf. the ranking for acusative constructions (11)). This is shown in Tab. 14:
Tab. 14
helfen(x,y)
unterstützen(x,y)
y = Amin\Pmin
)unterstützt / hilft ihr
)unterstützt / hilft sie
Amin/DAT
Pmin/ACC
*
*
Tab. 14 demonstrates that verbs with this reading may in principle select the dative or the
accusative for their second argument. The potential dative-accusative variation for the verb
class which help belongs to is corroborated by language acquisition data (cf. Wegener 1995)
as well as by the fact that passive variants that presuppose an underlying accusative are
attested (e.g. sie werden geholfen 'you (nom) are helped'). It is also corroborated by the
attested diachronic dative/accusative-alternation for helfen.
The crucial difference between unterstützen, kritisieren and preisen, on the one hand, and
helfen, applaudieren and danken, on the other hand, is the fact that the former, but not the
latter have a reading in which the second argument lacks agentive properties. This reading
lacks the agentive component that licenses the dative. Cf. Tab. 15:
30
In older varieties of German, loben 'praise' belonged to this class. A residue of its use with a second nonagentive participant is das gelobte Land 'the praised land' in Modern German. In Modern German, this use is
obsolete, cf. Peter lobt dich / *eine gute Sache 'Peter praises you / a good thing'.
33
Tab. 15
unterstützen(x,y)
y = Pmin
unterstützt der Sache
)unterstützt die Sache
¬Amin/¬DAT
Pmin/ACC
*
*
Now LEX-EC-CASE kicks in, takes different semantic subentries of the lexeme unterstützen as
input and blocks case variation. For unterstützen, the result is clear: the accusative pattern will
win because it is licensed by all relevant constraints. Cf. Tab. 13:
Tab. 16
unterstützen(x,y) both readings
unterstützt dir / die Sache
unterstützt dir / der Sache
)unterstützt dich / die Sache
LEX-EC-CASE
Losers - thematic
constraints
PAR-DIST
der Sache!
*
*
*
Leaving the last constraint in Tab. 15 and Tab. 16 aside for the moment, the result for help is
less clear. Cf. Tab. 17:
Tab. 17
helfen(x,y) one reading
hilft dir / dich
hilft dich
)hilft dir
LEX-EC-CASE
Losers - thematic
constraints
PAR-DIST
*
*
Let us now turn to PAR-DIST. Following Plank (1987), two functional expressivity constraints
have to be dissociated. The syntagmatic one has only one lexeme reading as input and takes
care that different co-occurring role-semantic functions are expressed by different cases. It is
captured by DIST above. Recall that languages with DIST >> *DAT >> *ACC license the dative
in ditransitive constructions (cf. Tab. 6 above for German). The other functional expressivity
constraint is paradigmatic. Let us call it PAR-DIST. It takes care that two lexical entries with
different role-semantic functions have different case patterns. Unterstützen and helfen, for
instance, are such verbs. PAR-DIST lets the dative pattern win for helfen because it
discriminates it from unterstützen, which has at least one pertinent different reading. Note that
PAR-DIST also licenses case variation for the two readings of unterstützen. In a 'fluid' case
system, where LEX-EC-CASE is lower in rank in some domains, case variation is expected to
occur in these domains.
Seefranz-Montag (1983: 24f.), among others, claimed that earlier stages of German were
generally more 'fluid' in the sense discussed here: different readings of a verb lexeme were
more readily differenciated by case than in Modern German. Good examples are hôren 'hear'
with the accusative and 'obey' or 'listen to' with the dative, or sehan 'see' with the accusative
and 'take care, watch over' with the genetive. The genetive-accusative alternation, which was
tied to systematic semantic differences as mentioned above, could also be mentioned here.
With the experiencer of psych-verbs, the accusative alternated both synchronically and
diachronically with the dative without a palpable difference in meaning (cf. Seefranz-Montag
1983: 162). The assumption that the earlier system was globally more fluid is questionable. It
is more appropriate to claim that the lexical domains where case variation for a lexeme is
tolerated have changed. Thus, for instance, in Modern German, case variation between the
nominative and the dative (cf. (39a,b) above) as well as alternations between cases and
adpositions (cf. Ickler 1990) are a productive, more recent phenomenon.
34
This clearly shows that the lexical paradigmatic constraints introduced in this section are
restricted to specified lexical domains and that they do not have a rank that can be fixed
globally relative to the entire valency lexicon of a language. Despite the empirical difficulty to
assess their relative rank and to specify the relevant domain appropriately, they are a type of
constraints on case selection that deserves consideration. In contrast to the constraints
discussed in the previous sections, the paradigmatic constraints take various lexical entries as
input and capture the competition between the tendency to express thematic paradigmatic
distinctions and the tendency to minimize the case patterns for a lexeme. They also help to
understand case patterns that are not readily explained by role-semantic or case markedness
constraints (cf. Klein / Kutscher, this volume, for an elaboration).
10 Conclusion
The case selection approach pursued here is lexicalist and non-structural in the following
sense. Although case selection has been shown to be determined by various factors, including
formal markedness, linking thematic roles to cases was not mediated by structure, as proposed
within generative grammar for structural cases. According to the assumption defended this
option exists for some languages with highly grammaticalized cases such as English. In case
systems such as German, cases are directly linked to thematic roles, as shown in the paper.
Even in this type of language, formal markedness constraints interfere with thematic
constraints. They are responsible for phenomena that are also found in languages with
structural cases: the generalization of the nominative in all clauses and of the accusative in
transitive clauses and, as a consequence, the functional opacity of these cases. Thus, it is
obvious that case markedness constraints in OT and structural case principles in generative
grammar show a considerable overlap.
The most general argument for the differentiation of languages with and without structural
cases is the functional difference between case and structure, which was marginally dealt with
in the present paper (cf. Primus 1999a, 2002b in greater detail). But in German, there is also
grammatical evidence against structural case assignment (cf. e.g. Haider 1985, 1993 within
generative grammar and Primus (2002a) within the present approach with special reference to
psych-verbs). Furthermore, there is neurolinguistic evidence that the assignment of the
nominative and accusative is mediated by structure in English (cf. Coulson / King / Kutas
1998), but not in German (cf. Frisch 2000, Frisch / Schlesewsky 2001).
The present paper offered an OT formalization of a modified version of Dowty's ProtoRole approach. A particular concern was the hypothesis that the distinction between a
maximally involved agent or patient, θmax, and a minimally involved one, θmin, is crucial for
case linking. The varying degree of involvement is captured by a varying number of
entailments that a verbal lexical entry determines for one of its arguments. This information
was abbreviated in the Involvement Scale θmax > θmin. In contrast, structural linking is
sensitive to another dimension of role semantics that was captured in terms of semantic
dependency and that was discussed in greater detail in other publications (see above).
The relevance of the Involvement Scale, θmax > θmin, and the Case Hierarchy, 1C > 2C >
other oblique C, for case selection was made more precise in terms of Optimaliy Theory by a
fixed ranking of constraints that is derived from these scales and their harmonic alignment.
An important question for any linking theory is how well it captures the typological
variation in terms of ergative, accusative and split intransitive (active) linking and their
characteristic properties. As shown in the paper, the ergative-accusative distinction emerges
when the two θmax-roles are linked to the first two cases of a language. These are the highest
ranking thematic constraints. Since there are exactly two θmax-roles, maximal agent or
maximal patient, either of them qualifies for the first case of a language so that two inverse
35
ranking options arise. On the basis of these assumptions, the characteristic properties of
ergative constructions are readily explained. Ergativity is basically a morphological, i.e. casebased, phenomenon that is frequently attested and that is most clearly manifest in the
constellation Amax & Pmax. In contrast, structural-syntactic ergativity is rarely attested and
presupposes morphological ergativity. Furthermore, morphological split ergativity in the strict
typological sense is never dependent on the choice of the verb lexeme; such an option is not
allowed by the inverse ranking hypothesis for the two θmax-roles.
Thematic constraints were supplemented by formal case selection constraints such as the
Nominative-Requirement and by Case Distinctness. The competition between the
Nominative-Requirement and the thematic constraints that license an oblique case for the only
argument of an intransitive verb yields the typological variation known as split intransitivity
(or active-inactive). This competion allows lexeme-bound variation that has to be captured by
lexical parochial constraints. The ranking variation of the Nominative-Requirement relative to
competing functional constraints was also illustrated with diachronic data, i.e. the decline of
case patterns without a nominative in the history of German.
In contrast to the pattern of variation for Amax & Pmax, which is severely restricted and
never dependent on the choice of the lexeme, the pattern of variation for θmin-roles is less
restricted because the thematic constraints for these roles are intrinsically lower in rank. As a
consequence, they compete more readily with other case constraints and with each other. This
was shown for ditransitive predicates and the competition between the constraint linking the
dative to minimal agents (e.g. Proto-Recipients) and Case Distinctness. As expected, the case
of the Proto-Recipient varies from lexeme to lexeme within one language and crosslinguistically. Lexeme-bound variation also occurs when thematic constraints for θmin-roles
compete with each other, as shown for psych-verbs in German.
The pattern of variation for θmin-roles turns out to be less idiosyncratic when paradigmatic
lexicon optimization strategies and the role of lexical meaning variation for case selection are
taken into consideration. Paradigmatic constraints take various lexical entries as input, such as
different meaning variants, for instance. They capture the competition between the tendency
to express the thematic variants of a lexeme or thematic differences between lexemes by case,
and lexicon economy, i.e. the tendency to use the same case pattern for the thematic variants
of a lexeme. Such issues have been neglected in past research on case linking, but the
preliminary evidence for such constraints that are presented in this paper and in Kutscher /
Klein (this volume) show that this line of thought is promising for further research.
References
Abbi, Anvita (1991): Identity crisis of dative subjects and experiencer nominals in Indian
languages. In: International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 20, 1-50.
Abraham, Werner (1991): Null subjects: from Gothic, Old High German and Middle High
German to modern German. From pro-drop to semi-pro-drop. Groninger Arbeiten zur
Germanistischen Linguistik 34, 1-28.
Aissen, Judith (1999): Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. In: Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673-711.
Baker, Mark C. (1997): Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In: Haegeman, Liliane (ed.):
Elements of grammar. Handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 73-137.
Behaghel, Otto (1923-1932): Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. 4 Bde.
Heidelberg.
Bierwisch, Manfred (1988): On the grammar of local prepositions. In: Bierwisch, M. /
Motsch, W. / Zimmermann, I. (Hgg.): Syntax, Semantik und Lexikon. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1-66.
36
Blake, Barry J. (1977): Case marking in Australian languages, Canberra (Australian Institute
of Aboriginal Studies).
Blake, Barry J. (1987): Australian aboriginal grammar. London: Croom Helm.
Blansitt, Edward L. (1973): Bitransitive clauses. In: Working Papers on Language Universals
13, 1-26.
Bresnan, Joan / Dingare, Shipra / Manning, Christopher (2001): Soft constraints mirror hard
constraints: voice and person in English and Lummi. Ms. Stanford University.
Brown, Roger / Fish, Deborah (1983): The psychological causality implicit in language.
Cognition 14, 237-273.
Charachidzé, Georges (1981): Grammaire de la langue avar. Paris: Jean-Favard.
Cheng, Patricia W. / Novick, Laura R. (1991): Causes versus enabling conditions. Cognition
40, 83-120.
Chomsky, Noam (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Comrie, Bernard (1978): Ergativity. In: Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.): Syntactic typology:
Studies in the phenomenology of language. Sussex: The Harvester Press, 329-394.
Comrie, Bernard (1997): The typology of predicate case marking. In: Bybee, Joan / Haiman,
John / Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.): Essays on language function and language type.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-50.
Coulson, S. / King, J. / Kutas, M. (1998): Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response
to morphosyntactic violations. In: Language and Cognitive Processes 13, 21-58.
Croft, William (1991): Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. The cognitive
organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davidson, Donald (1967): The logical form of action sentences. Rescher, Nicolas (ed.): The
logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 81-95.
Dik, Simon C. (1978): Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dixon, Robert M. W. (1972): The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, Robert M. W. (1979): Ergativity. In: Language 55, 59-138.
Dixon, Robert M. W. (1994): Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donhauser, Karin (1991): Das Genitivproblem in der historischen Kasusforschung. Ein
Beitrag zur Diachronie des deutschen Kasussystems. Unveröff. Habilitationsschrift
Passau.
Dowty, David R. (1991): Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. In: Language 67, 547619.
Dumézil, Georges (1967): Documents anatoliens. IV: Récits lazes en dialecte d'Arhavi. Paris:
Presses universitaires de France.
Ebert, Robert Peter (1986): Historische Syntax des Deutschen 2: 1300-1750. Bern: Lang.
Eggenberger, Jakob (1961): Das Subjektpronomen im Althochdeutschen. Chur.
Engelberg, Stefan (2000): Verben, Ereignisse und das Lexikon. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Erdmann, Oskar (1876): Untersuchungen über die Sprache Otfrids. Halle: Verlag der
Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Fanselow, Gisbert (2000): Optimal exceptions. In: Stiebels, Barbara / Wunderlich, Dieter
(eds.): Lexicon in focus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 173-209.
Foley, William A. / Van Valin, Robert D. (1984): Functional syntax and universal grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frisch, Stefan (2000): Verb-Argument-Struktur, Kasus und thematische Interpretation beim
Sprachverstehen. In: MPI-Series in Cognitive Neuroscience 12.
Frisch, Stefan / Schlesewsky, Matthias (2001): The processing of double case ungrammaticalities in German. Ms. Universität Potsdam.
Greule, Albrecht (1999): Althochdeutsches syntaktisches Verbwörterbuch. Frankfurt a.M.:
Peter Lang.
37
Grimm, Jacob (1837): Deutsche Grammatik. 4. Bd.: Syntax. Göttingen (Nachdruck
Hildesheim 1967).
Grimshaw, Jane B. (1990): Argument Structure. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane B. (1997): Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373-422.
Große, Rudolf (1990): Funktionen des Pronomens iz im Althochdeutschen. In: Betten, Anne
unter Mitarbeit von Claudia M. Riehl (Hg.): Neuere Forschungen zur historischen Syntax
des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 29-38.
Haider, Hubert (1985): The case of German. In: Toman, Jindri (ed.): Studies in German
grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 65-101.
Haider, Hubert (1993): Deutsche Syntax - generativ. Tübingen: Narr.
Hammond, Michael (1995): There is no lexicon! In: http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html
Harris, Alice C. (1985): Diachronic syntax. The kartvelian case. Orlando: Academic Press.
Held, Karl (1903): Das Verbum ohne pronominales Subjekt in der älteren deutschen Sprache.
Berlin (Palaestra 31, Nachdruck New York/London 1967).
Hopper, Paul J. / Thompson, Sandra (1980): Transitivity in grammar and discourse. In:
Language 56, 251-299.
Ickler, Irene (1990): Kasusrahmen und Perspektive. In: Deutsche Sprache 18, 1-37.
Jackendoff, Ray (1987): The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. In: Linguistic
Inquiry 18, 369-411.
Jackendoff, Ray (1991): Semantic structures. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.
Jacobs, Joachim (1994a): Kontra Valenz. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Jacobs, Joachim (1994b): Das lexikalische Fundament der Unterscheidung von obligatorischen und fakultativen Argumenten. In: Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 22,
284-319.
Jensen, Cheryl (1990): Cross-referencing changes in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. In:
Payne, Doris L. (ed.): Amazonian linguistics. Studies in lowland American languages.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 117-158.
Kutscher, Silvia / Klein, Katarina (this volume): Psych-verbs and lexical economy.
Kunze, Jürgen (1991): Kasusrelationen und semantische Emphase. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Lakoff, George/Johnson, Mark (1980): Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. Kap. 14: "Causation: Partly emergent and partly metaphorical", 69-76.
Légendre, Géraldine / Raymond William / Paul Smolensky (1993), An optimality-theoretic
typology of case and grammatical voice systems. In: Berkeley Linguistic Society 19: 464478.
Leiss, Elisabeth (1991): Grammatische Kategorien und sprachlicher Wandel: Erklärung des
Genitivschwunds im Deutschen. In: Bahner, Werner et al. (Hgg.): Proceedings of the 14th
international congress of linguists. Berlin, August 1987. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 14061409.
Lenerz, Jürgen (1985): Zur Theorie des syntaktischen Wandels: das expletive es in der
Geschichte des Deutschen. In: Abraham, W. (Hg.): Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen.
Tübingen: Narr, 99-136.
Leslie, Alan M. (1995): A theory of agency. In: Sperber, Dan et al. (eds.), 121-141.
Levin, Beth / Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1995): Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical
semantics interface. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.
Lewis, David (1973): Causation. In: Journal of Philosophy 70, 556-572.
Lexer, Matthias (1872-78): Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch. 3 Bde. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Libet, Benjamin (1985): Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in
voluntary action. In: The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, 529-566.
Mittelstraß, Jürgen (1984): Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Band 2.
Mannheim: Wissenschaftsverlag.
38
Müller, Gereon (2000): Elemente der optimalitätstheoretischen Syntax. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Nichols, Johanna (1992): Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Plank, Frans (1987): Direkte indirekte Objekte, oder: Was uns lehren lehrt. In: Leuvense
Bijdragen 76, 37-61.
Posner, Roland (1984): Sprachgeschichte der Emotionen - Zur Entwicklung der Emotionen
und ihres sprachlichen Ausdrucks seit dem Mittelalter. In: Zeitschrift für Semiotik 6, 353354.
Premack, David (1990): The infant's theory of self-propelled objects. In: Cognition 36, 1-16.
Premack, David / Premack, Ann James (1995): Intention as psychological cause. In: Sperber,
Dan et al. (eds.), 185-199.
Primus, Beatrice (1995): Relational typology. In: Joachim Jacobs / Arnim von Stechow /
Wolfgang Sternefeld / Theo Vennemann (eds.): Syntax. An international handbook of
contemporary research. Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1076-1109.
Primus, Beatrice (1996): Dependenz und Serialisierung: das Deutsche im Sprachvergleich. In:
Lang, Ewald / Zifonun, Gisela (Hgg.): Deutsch - typologisch. Jahrbuch des Instituts für
Deutsche Sprache 1995. Berlin: de Gruyter, 57-91.
Primus, Beatrice (1998): The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of
Europe. In: Siewierska, Anna (ed.): Constituent order in the languages of Europe. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 421-473.
Primus, Beatrice (1999a): Cases and thematic roles - Ergative, accusative and active.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Primus, Beatrice (1999b): Rektionsprinzipien. In: Wegener, H. (Hg.), 135-170.
Primus, Beatrice (2002a): Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariaton bei psychischen Verben.
In: Hummel, Martin / Kailuweit, Rolf (eds.): Semantische Rollen. Tübingen: Narr. To
appear.
Primus, Beatrice (2002b): Division of labour: The role-semantic function of basic order and
case. In: Colleman, Timothy / Defrancq, Bart (eds.): Contrastive analysis and linguistic
theory. Proceedings of the 2nd International CoLLaTE Colloquium. Palgrave Macmillan.
To appear.
Prince, Alan / Smolensky, Peter (1993): Optimality Theory. Ms. Rutgers University.
Rayfield, David (1977): Handlung. In: Meggle, Georg (Hg.): Analytische Handlungstheorie.
Band I. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 69-88.
Rudolph, Udo / Försterling, Friedrich (1997): The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A
review. In: Psychological Bulletin 121, 192-218.
Saltarelli, Mario (1988): Basque. London: Croom Helm.
Schmid, Joseph (1988): Untersuchungen zum sogenannten freien Dativ in der
Gegenwartssprache und auf Vorstufen des heutigen Deutsch. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.
Schrodt, Richard (1996): Aspekt, Aktionsart und Objektsgenitiv im Deutschen: Wie weit kann
eine systematische Erklärungsmöglichkeit für den Schwund des Genitivobjekts gehen? In:
Brandner, Ellen / Ferraresi, Gisella (eds.): Language Change and Generative Grammar.
Sonderheft 7, Linguistische Berichte, 71-94.
Schützeichel, Rudolf (1969): Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Tübingen.
Seefranz-Montag, Ariane (1983): Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellung. München: Fink
Sells, Peter (2001): Voice in Optimality Theory. In: Légendre, G. / Grimshaw, J. / Vikner, S.
(eds.): Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press, 356-391.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1996): Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In:
Shibatani, Masayoshi / Thomson, Sandra A. (eds.): Grammatical constructions. Their
form and meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 167-194.
39
Silverstein, Michael (1976): Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Dixon, Robert M. (ed.):
Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Humanities Press, 112-171.
Sperber, Dan / Premack, David / Premack, Ann James (eds.) (1995): Causal cognition. A
multidisciplinary debate. Oxford: Clarendon.
Stegmüller, Wolfgang (1983): Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und
Analytischen Philosophie. Band I: Erklärung, Begründung, Kausalität. 2nd ed. Berlin:
Springer.
Stiebels, Barbara (2002): Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expressivität.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag. I.E.
Thalberg, Irving (1972): Enigmas of agency. Studies in the philosophy of human action.
London: George Allen.
Van Valin, Robert D. / LaPolla, Randy (1997): Syntax. Structure, meaning and function.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wegener, Heide (1995): Kasus und Valenz im natürlichen DaZ-Erwerb. In: Eroms, HansWerner / Eichinger, Ludwig M. (Hgg.): Dependenz und Valenz. Hamburg: Buske, 337356.
Wegener, Heide (1999): Zum Bedeutungs- und Konstruktionswandel bei psychischen Verben.
In: Wegener, H. (Hg.), 171-210.
Wegener (Hg.) (199): Deutsch kontrastiv. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Woolford, Ellen (2001): Case patterns. In: Légendre, G. / Grimshaw, J. / Vikner, S. (Hgg.):
Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press, 509-543.
Wright, Georg Henrik von (1971): Explanation and understanding. Ithaca.
Wunderlich, Dieter (1997): Cause and the structure of verbs. In: Linguistic Inquiry 28, 27-68.