English Grammar Lessons Phrases & Clauses

Introduction to Phrases

Phrases are considered as the second level of classification as they tend to be

larger than individual words, but are smaller than sentences. We refer to the
central element in a phrase as the head of the phrase. If the head is a noun
then the phrase is called a noun phrase.

There are nine generally accepted classifications for phrases. These

classifications are generally based on the headword or construction of the
phrase. The headword can usually stand alone as a one-word phrase. It is the
only part that cannot be omitted from the phrase.

1. NOUN PHRASES

Noun phrases may serve as subjects, direct objects, indirect objects, or

objects of prepositions. Most noun phrases are constructed using
determiners, adjectives and a head noun.

Examples: My coach is happy. (noun phrase as subject)

2. VERB PHRASES

Verb phrases are composed of the verbs of the sentence and any modifiers of
the verbs, including adverbs, prepositional phrases or objects. Most verb
phrases function as predicates of sentences.

Example: Henry made my coach very proud. (verb phrase as predicate)

3. ADJECTIVAL PHRASES

Adjectival phrases are composed of the adjectives that modify a noun and
any adverbs or other elements that modify those adjectives. Adjectival
phrases always occur inside noun phrases or as predicate adjectives.

Example: Dad bought [(a blue and green) sweater]

4. ADVERBIAL PHRASES

Adverbial phrases are composed of the adverbs that modify verbs, adjectives,
or clauses. Adverbial phrases may occur with more than one word. The extra
adverb is called an intensifier.

Example: He scored the goal very quickly.

5. PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES

Prepositional phrases are composed of the preposition and a following noun

phrase. Prepositional phrases are used either adjectivally to modify nouns or
adverbially to modify verbs, adjectives, or clauses.

Examples:

The man in the house rented it. (prepositional phrase modifies a noun
adjectivally)

He went in the arena. (prepositional phrase modifies a verb adverbially)

Dad was happy about the goal. (prepositional phrase modifies an adjective
adverbially)

On reflection, I believe that she was correct. (prepositional phrase modifies a

clause adverbially)

6. GERUNDIVE PHRASES

Gerundive phrases may function in any way in which nouns may function: as
subjects, objects, objects of a preposition, or even nouns functioning as
adjectives Gerundive phrases may contain gerunds, adjectives, objects,
adverbs or other main verb elements.

Example: Dad talked about winning the game.

7. PARTICIPIAL PHRASES

Participles are root verbs with an "ed, en or ing" suffix. In the case of the past
participial, the form may be irregular. Participial phrases may contain objects
and other elements that might occur with main verbs. Participial phrases
always function as adjectives.
Example: Racing around the corner, he slipped and fell.

8. ABSOLUTE PHRASES

Absolute phrases are composed of a subject noun phrase and a participial

phrase. The absolute phrase is formally independent of the main clause. The
subject of the absolute phrase does not have to appear in the main clause--
because the absolute phrase has its own subject!

Example: [(My chores) (completed for the week)], I went on a walk.

9. INFINITIVE PHRASES

Infinitive phrases are composed of an infinitive verb (the base form of the
verb preceded by to) and any modifing adverbs or prepositional phrases. The
infinitive phrase has three functions: noun, adjective, adverb.

Examples:

My duty as a coach is to teach skills. (infinitive phrase functions as a noun)

My sister wanted a cat to love. (infinitive phrase functions as an adjective)

Bill is eager to work on his skating. (infinitive phrase functions adverbially,

modifying an adjective)

Introduction to Clauses

All clauses have a subject and a verb.

1. INDEPENDENT CLAUSE

This clause is a sentence and can act as a sentence.

Example: I wanted a new ball.

2. SUBORDINATE CLAUSES

A subordinate clause has a subordinator.

Examples: Fred knew that I wanted a new ball.

3. ADVERBIAL CLAUSES

Adverbial clauses modify the entire independent clause or another

subordinate clause to which they might be attached. Some adverbial
subordinators:" because, while, as, if, when, although, as if, after, since,
unless, before, until". Adverbial clauses signal common adverbial meanings
such as time of the event, place of the event, manner of the event, cause of
the event or condition for the event.

Examples:

I haven't been skating since we all went up to Banff last winter.

He stood there as if he was frozen to the very spot.

Fred jogs where there is no traffic because he likes it.

4. RELATIVE CLAUSES

Relative clauses modify nouns and sometimes indefinite pronouns. Relative

clauses occur with the relative pronouns "that, who, which, whom, whose"
Relative clauses may also begin with the following relative adverbs "when,
where, why".

Examples:

I saw the player [who hit you].

I saw the player [that hit you].

I like the park [where I jog].

I would like to know the reason [why you didn't eat the vegtables].

5. NOMINAL CLAUSES

Nominal clauses function as nouns and are subordinated by one of the

following subordinating conjunctions 'how that what when where whether
which who why". Nominal clauses may be replaced with a pronoun

Examples:

[How you did it] is not my concern. (That is not my concern)

[That I wanted a ball] was irrelevant in the discussion. ( It was irrelevant )

-------------

INTRODUCTION

To classify words, grammarians use two large categories called form and
function. Function is how the word or the phrase is used within the sentence
or clause, while form classifies the word or phrase by a simple definition
along with some general rules. For example, a noun is classified in form as a
word that can made be plural or possessive. The following sentence gives an
example of the difference between the two categories:

We admired the stone wall. In this sentence "stone" in function is

an adjectival that modifies "wall." In form "stone" is a noun because it can be
made plural or possessive: "stones" and "stone's."

This can be better understood in a Web site titled "Adverbials." We can

change the class of a word by adding prefixes or suffixes. Example: The
word "play" is a verb, but it can be changed to an adjective by adding -ful to
make it "playful." The girls play. The girls are playful. Therefore, the class of
the word has changed from a verb to an adjective.

Form

There are four form classes:

Noun

Verb

Adjective

Adverb

Here are some characteristics of the different form classes that will help you
distinguish between them:
 Nouns

Characteristics of nouns:

depicts a person, place, or thing

determiners and articles (my, the, a)

some derivational affixes: -ion, -ness, -ment, and -er

some inflectional suffixes: -s, -'s, -s'

can be made plural or possessive

Verbs

Characteristics of verbs:

depicts an action

always obeys the verb expansion rule: tense + (modal) + ("have" + "-
en") + ("be" + "ing") + main verb

some derivational affixes: -ify, -ate, -ize, en-, de-

inflectional suffixes: -s, -ing, -ed, -en

Adjectives

Characteristics of adjectives:

describes a noun

some derivational affixes: -y, -ous, -ful, -ish

inflectional suffixes: -er, -est

Adverbs

Characteristics of adverbs:

describes a verb

derivational affix: -ly

inflectional suffixes: -er, -est

All of these form classes have derivational and inflectional affixes. These
affixes are prefixes or suffixes that change the meaning or the class of a
word. Example: Adding in- or un- to a word can make the word negative.
She is happy. She is unhappy. The first sentence means that she is happy,
and the second one means that she is not happy. An affix may not work for
every word in a class, however. Example: Adding -ful to a verb can make it an
adjective, but this is not true for all verbs. You could make "thank" into
"thankful," but you could not use this suffix in the verb "talk" to make it
"talkful." You would add a different suffix: "talkative." The only explanation
that can be given for these inconsistencies is that these are rules in the
English language that deal with the morphology of word and how they are
used. It is something that can be chased back for centuries. This is why it is
always useful to have a dictionary if you ever have any questions about a
word and its different classes.

Form Class

Derivational Affixes

Inflectional

Suffixes

Noun

-ion*, -ment, -ance

-s*, -'s*,-s'*,

-es*

Verb

en-, be-, de-, -ify, -en, -ate, -ize

-s*, -ing*, -ed*,-en*

Adjective

-ous*, -y, -ful, -fic, -ic, -ate, -ish, -ary, -ive, -able

-er*, -est*

Adverb

-ly*,-wise, -ward

-er*, -est*

*These affixes very often can help you determine the class of the word. For
example, most words that end in "-ly" are adverbs.

These are only a few examples of affixes that can be used to change words to
other classes. To learn more about some affixes and their meanings, go to a
site titled Morphemes.

DEFINITIONS

adjective: member of the form classes; modifies a noun; most adjectives

can be inflected to be made comparative or superlative (small, smaller,
smallest) and can be qualified or intensified (rather small, very small); some
derivational endings (-ous, -ish, -ful, and -ary).

adverb: member of the form classes; modifies a verb--names time, place,

reason, manner, and the like; some can be qualified (very slowly, rather
slowly); can be made comparative or superlative (more slowly, fastest); some
derivational endings (-ly, -wise, -ward).

derivational affixes: a prefix or suffix that is added to a word in a form

class to change its meaning or class.

form classes: categories of words that have derivational and inflectional

morphemes. Most English words belong to one of the four form classes.

functional shift: a shift in which a word changes classes without the

addition of affixes (They call him everyday. -- verb. The call came in after
lunch. -- noun).

inflectional suffix: a suffix that changes the grammatical role of a word in

a sentence. Example: the suffix -s forms the third-person singular form of
most verbs (He talks to his boss every morning.)

noun: a member of the form classes; fills headword slot in a noun phrase;
can be plural and possessive (dogs, dog's); derivational endings (-ion, -tion,
-ment, -ness); can sometimes function as adjectivals and adverbials (They
formed a baseball team.)

verb: a member of the form classes; depicts the action in the sentence;
can always be marked with auxiliaries; inflectional endings (-s, -ing, -ed, -en);
derivational endings (-ify, -ize, -ate).

TIPS

The Form Classes classify most of the words in the English Language.

All of the classes have derivational affixes, which can change the class of
one word to another class.

Remember, if you ever wonder in what situation a word should be used or

what the correct affix for a word is, you can refer to a dictionary.

Knowing the affixes of the classes can help you improve your lexicon
(vocabulary) to make it more varied. Your writing can also improve because
it will help you flow from one class to another easily.

Example: If you know that you can make a noun from a verb by adding
-ion( act--action), then that is another way to use that word and you have
another word in your "mental dictionary."

----------

Constituent (linguistics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In syntactic analysis, a constituent is a word or a group of words that

functions as a single unit within a hierarchical structure.

Phrases (noun phrases, verbal phrases, etc.) are usually constituents of a

clause, but clauses may also be embedded into a bigger structure. For
example, in the clause "I didn't hear what you said," the subordinate clause
"what you said" is embedded into the main clause and is syntactically its
object; this can be demonstrated by substituting the pronoun "it" for the
subordinate clause "what you said"; the result of this substitution is the
clause "I didn't hear it."

Contents

[hide]

1 Constituency tests

1.1 Substitution (replacement)

1.2 Movement

1.3 The stand-alone (or question) test

1.4 Other tests

2 Constituency tests and disambiguation

3 References

[edit] Constituency tests

Various constituency tests exist. Some syntacticians arrange such tests on a
scale of reliability, with less-reliable tests treated as useful to confirm
constituency though not sufficient on their own[1].

Failing to pass a test, however, does not always mean that the unit is not a
constituent. It is best to apply as many tests as possible to a given unit in
order to prove or to rule out its constituency.

[edit] Substitution (replacement)

Using "it" instead of the whole clause "what you said" is called substitution,
or replacement. This is one of the tests used to determine the internal
structure of a sentence, i.e. to determine its constituents. Substitution
normally involves using pronouns like it, he, there, here etc. in place of a
phrase or a clause. If such a change yields a grammatical sentence where the
general structure has not been altered, then the sequence of words which is
being tested is a constituent:

e.g. I don't know the man who is sleeping in the car.

I don't know him who is sleeping in the car. (ungrammatical)

I don't know him.

The ungrammaticality of the first changed version and the grammaticality of

the second one demonstrates that the whole sequence, the man who is
sleeping in the car, and not just the man is a constituent functioning as a
unit.

[edit] Movement

Movement includes such operations as clefting, fronting, pseudo-clefting and

passivization.

Fronting is the simplest movement operation when the sequence we want to

test is moved to the front of the sentence:

He is going to attend another language course to improve his English.

To improve his English, he is going to attend another course.

Clefting involves placing a sequence of words X within the structure

beginning with "It is/was": It was X that...

She bought a pair of gloves with silk embroidery.

It was a pair of gloves with silk embroidery that she bought.

Pseudo-clefting (also preposing) is similar to clefting in that it puts emphasis

on a certain phrase in a sentence. It involves inserting a sequence of words
before "is/are what" or "is/are who":

A pair of gloves with silk embroidery is what she bought.

Passivization involves more than just movement. Apart from putting the
object in the subject position and the subject after the preposition by, it also
triggers changes in the verb form:

A car driving at breakneck speed nearly hit the little dog.

The little dog was nearly hit by a car driving at breakneck speed.

In case passivization results in a grammatical sentence, the phrases that

have been moved can be regarded as constituents.

[edit] The stand-alone (or question) test

This test refers to the ability of a sequence of words to stand alone as a reply
to a question. It is often used to test the constituency of a verbal phrase but
can also be applied to other phrases:

What did you do yesterday? - Worked on my new project.

vs.

What did you do yesterday? - Worked on. (ungrammatical, which means

that [worked on] is not a unit).

Linguists do not agree whether passing the stand-alone test is sufficient,

though at a minimum they agree that it can help confirm the results of
another constituency test[1].

[edit] Other tests

Other constituency tests can be used in a limited number of syntactic

environments:

Deletion checks whether a sequence of words can be omitted without

influencing the grammaticality of the sentence — in most cases local or
temporal adverbials can be safely omitted and thus constitute a syntactic
unit;

Coordination relies on the fact that only constituents can be coordinated,

i.e., joined by means of the coordinating conjunction "and" (e.g., He enjoys
[writing short stories] and [reading them to his friends].)

[edit] Constituency tests and disambiguation

Syntactic ambiguity characterizes sentences which can be interpreted in

different ways depending solely on how one perceives syntactic connections
between words and arranges them into phrases.
 Possible interpretations of the sentence They killed the man with a gun

a) The man was shot;

b) the man who was killed had a gun with him.

The ambiguity of this sentence results from 2 possible arrangements into

constituents:

a) [They] {killed [the man] [with a gun]}.

b) [They] {killed [the man with a gun]}.

In a) with a gun is an independent constituent with instrumental meaning , in

b) it is embedded into the noun phrase the man with a gun modifying the
noun man. The autonomy of the unit with a gun in the first interpretation can
be tested by the Stand-Alone test:

How did they kill the man? - With a gun.

However, the same test can be used to prove that the man with a gun in b)
should be treated as a unit:

Who(m) did they kill? - The man with a gun

----------

Case

Anna Kibort
 What is 'case'

Expressions of 'case'

The status of 'case' as a feature

The values of 'case'

Oddly behaving case markers

Problem cases

Key literature

1. What is 'case'

Case is a feature that expresses a syntactic and/or semantic function of the

element that carries the particular case value.

Most cases which express a syntactic function are also associated with a
semantic function (e.g. of an agent, an experiencer, an undergoer) for
particular classes of predicates in the given language. Arguably, the
exception to this are cases which signal that the element in a syntactic
position is a placeholder for a grammatical relation, i.e. it is not expressing a
semantic participant (e.g. es in German, which may function like the
expletives it or there in English).

Although most cases can be attributed a semantic function (or a range of

semantic functions), a distinction is often made (and widely accepted)
between more abstract (grammatical) cases expressing core syntactic
relations such as subject and object, and more concrete cases that express
various specific semantic roles, especially spatial relationships (Haspelmath
forthcoming p.1; cf. Blake 1994:32-34). Haspelmath (forthcoming p.1) lists
the following term pairs that have been used for these two types of cases:

grammatical cases vs semantic cases (e.g. Blake 1994:32)

relational cases vs adverbial cases (e.g. Bergsland 1997)

 grammatical cases vs concrete cases (e.g. Jespersen 1924:185)

core cases vs peripheral cases (e.g. Blake 1994:34)

abstract cases vs concrete cases (e.g. Lyons 1968:295)

Other terms pairs used for this distinction include:

argument vs adjunct cases

structural vs semantic cases

non-local vs local cases

The distinction is made in slightly different ways by different authors and for
different languages, but the basic intuition behind it seems to be the same:
the first type of case includes cases imposed by the verb on its arguments (or
on core arguments), and the second type includes cases found on adjuncts
(or on non-core arguments). One of the difficulties in clarifying this intuition
stems from the fact that there is no consensus regarding argumenthood vs
adjuncthood. Another difficulty stems from the fact that a further distinction
within the second type of case remains unaccounted for: that between
casemarked nouns functioning as adjuncts or non-core arguments vs
casemarked nouns whose case has been imposed by an adposition (where
the adpositional phrase functions as an adjunct or a non-core argument).

The distinction between abstract (grammatical) and concrete (semantic)

cases is better understood when we consider the case system as having two
parts: the set of case values available in the language, and the rules for their
assignment (see the 'Feature Inventory' page for definitions of these
concepts).

Abstract, or grammatical, cases in the given language are those cases whose
values are assigned contextually. Case values can be assigned contextually
either through government (typically by a verb or a preposition), or through
agreement (e.g. in constructions with predicate nominals - nouns and
adjectives - as in Polish or Slovene). Examples:
(1) nominative and accusative case values assigned by the verb, e.g. Polish:

Kasia kocha Marka.

Kate.NOM loves Mark.ACC

'Kate loves Mark.'

(2) accusative case value assigned by the preposition, e.g. Polish:

przez niego

through he.ACC

'because of him / through him'

(3) genitive case value on the predicate adjective matches the genitive case
value of the quantified noun of the subject noun phrase, e.g. Polish (example
adapted from Corbett 2006:134, who cited it from Dziwirek 1990:147):

Sześć kobiet było smutnych.

six.NOM woman.PL.GEN was.N.SG sad.PL.GEN

'Six women were sad.'

It is important to note that the generally accepted definition of case as

expressing a relationship of the dependent noun to its head (Blake 1994:1;
Haspelmath forthcoming p.2) corresponds to abstract cases assigned through
government (i.e. as in examples 1 and 2).

One of the main functions of abstract (grammatical) cases is to express

grammatical relations - however, in some languages grammatical relations
can be purely syntactic. In such languages the formal evidence identifies
grammatical relations, not morphosyntactic cases.
Concrete, or semantic, cases in the given language, whether non-spatial or
spatial cases, are those cases whose values are assigned to the elements
inherently, i.e. without a governor or a controller. In instances of semantic
case, the case value is imposed on the element only due to the semantics.
The value may be selected from a range of available semantic values. For
example, apart from assigning core grammatical relations to the principal
participants and assigning case values to the nouns expressing them, the
speaker may choose to use additional nominals in the same clause to express
additional information. The motivation for the choice of case value for such
oblique nominals is similar to the choice made by the speaker between, say,
the singular or plural value of number, which is also assigned to the nominal
inherently.

On this view of grammatical versus semantic case, predicate-less utterances

(e.g. labels, titles and other instances of citation forms which are not part of
connected discourse) in which nominals carry a default case (e.g. the
nominative) would be considered instances of semantic case, rather than
grammatical case, because a grammatical nominative must be imposed on
the element by the governing verb.

Furthemore, in languages which do not use grammatical relations to organise

their relational clause structure, but instead grammaticalise semantic roles or
information flow (see Kibrik 1997 for a typology of relational clause
structure), the cases found on adpositionless noun phrases are more likely to
be semantic (assigned for semantic or discourse reasons) than grammatical
(assigned due to government by the verb).

Jump to top of page/ top of section

2. Expressions of 'case'

Since there is no consensus about the concepts involved in the category of

case, not every linguist will extend the label 'case' to the same range of
phenomena (see Butt 2006:Chapter 1 for an overview). In this Inventory case
is considered an inflectional category, expressed morphologically (usually by
affixation, also by tone, or changes within the noun stem; for an overview of
case forms and the position of case markers on nouns, see Dryer 2005). In
some languages case marking may be applied selectively across the lexicon,
with either some or all cases being restricted to appear on a subset of the
nominals (Iggesen 2005a,b).

On a different, widely accepted view of case, syntactic positions in a clause

may be treated as case. This view is a consequence of adopting the definition
of case as expressing a relationship between a dependent and its head. If this
function of case is taken as definitional, it emerges that "[l]anguages may
choose to encode this relationship either structurally in terms of designated
positions (e.g., English) or via overt morphological markers" (Butt 2006:4).
However, some languages, like Icelandic, employ both strategies
simultaneously (combining a rather rigid word order with a fairly rich and
complex case marking system; see Zaenen, Maling & Thráinsson 1985), and
some other, like Bulgarian, have virtually no case marking and allow quite a
lot of freedom in word order (word order in Bulgarian being governed by
discourse configurational factors; see Kiss 1995 for a discussion with respect
to Hungarian) (Butt 2006:5).

On the view adopted here, syntactic positions may constitute formal evidence
for the identification of grammatical relations. However, case is a feature
identified through morphology, and although it may be employed to express
grammatical relations, grammatical relations do not have to be expressed
with case. Hence, the expressions of case considered here will involve only
those which make use of morphology.

The descriptive labels that were created for cases are sometimes also used to
label adpositions (Haspelmath forthcoming p.4 gives examples of the
grammar of Cavineña by Guillaume 2004:Ch.14, and the grammar of Burunge
by Kiessling 1994:192-193). This is not unreasonable, as in most languages
adpositions play at least some part in marking the relationship of dependent
nouns to their heads and/or indicate the semantic function of the element in
the clause. Thus, adpositions can be thought of as functioning in much the
same way as cases in languages, the main difference being that they are
analytic means of expression, as opposed to synthetic (for discussion of the
range and variety of cases assigned by adpositions, including the nominative
case, see Libert 2002; see also §6 below, 'Problem cases', for an overview of
the differences between cases and adpositions). On the view of case
presented here, however, case is treated as a feature which is recognised
through morphology (a morphosyntactic, or a morphosemantic feature), so as
such it must be inflectional, and the best guide to the affixal status of a case
marker is its phonological integration into the host (see Blake 2001:9-12 for
his discussion of adpositions as analytic case markers, including a discussion
of Japanese, Korean and Hindu-Urdu).

Jump to top of page/ top of section

3. The status of 'case' as a feature

A case value may be assigned to an element in one of three ways. For every
language, it is possible to work out the case assignment system which is a
set of rules that determine which of these three methods is used, i.e. how the
syntax and/or semantics of the language assign case values to the elements
that can carry the case feature.

When a case value is assigned contextually, the assignment follows the rules
specified by government (most commonly), or agreement (less commonly).
Case is typically a contextual feature of government. However, in some
languages it is possible for case to be assigned through agreement in
constructions with predicate nominals (nouns and adjectives; see example (3)
in section §1 above; for other examples and discussion of case as a feature of
agreement, see Corbett 2006:133-135).

When a case value is assigned inherently, the assignment follows the rules
specified by the inherent case assignment system in the given language.
Note that it is commonly assumed that case is not an inherent feature of the
noun or noun phrase, and that it expresses a relationship the noun bears to
its head. However, when a case value is assigned to a noun phrase for purely
semantic reasons, without a governor or a controller, it can be thought of as
being assigned to the noun phrase inherently, in much the same way as a
number value is assigned inherently to a noun (which can then function as
the controller of agreement).

Jump to top of page/ top of section

4. The values of 'case'

Establishing how many cases (that is, values of the feature case) there are in
a language may be a difficult task, the difficulty being caused primarily by
syncretism. There are instances in the literature of careful argumentation for
difficult instances, notably the debates as to the number of case values in
Russian (Zaliznjak 1973 and Comrie 1986), Latin (Comrie 1986 and
references therein; Corbett forthcoming), and Latvian (Fennell 1975; Comrie
1986). These three debates are summarised below in §6 ('Problem cases').

Where the case system in a language is used to express grammatical

relations, the core cases include the nominative, accusative and ergative,
with the genitive and dative often included in the core set. For detailed
discussion of the functions of these cases, their terminological alternatives,
and types of case marking alignments, see Blake (2001), Comrie (2005), and
Haspelmath (forthcoming), and also Goddard (1982). For discussion of split
case marking systems and a way of dealing with them with syncretism, see
Baerman, Brown & Corbett (2005) and an overview in Baerman & Brown
(2005).

Typical semantic nonspatial cases include the instrumental, comitative, and

also proprietive, abessive, comparative, similative, causal, aversive.

Cases expressing spatial relations (also semantic) can be grouped into four
broad directional classes: cases expressing location ('at'), goal ('to'), source
('from'), and path ('through, along'). The basic terms for these are: locative,
allative, ablative, and perlative. Additionally, the label terminative is used for
a movement that goes all the way to its endpoint, and orientative - for a
movement that goes only in the direction of its goal. By combining directions
and orientations (such as 'in', 'on', 'at', 'behind', 'under') with each other, and
adding further markers for deictic distinctions, over a hundred spatial cases
can be distinguished. In Finno-Ugric languages the actual figure is around a
dozen or so, while in Northeast Caucasian languages it runs to around forty or
fifty. However, as noted by Haspelmath (forthcoming): "Comrie & Polinsky
(1998) and Comrie (1999) point out that these 'cases' are not single
inflectional categories, but combinations of categories from at least two
different inflectional category-systems. Already Kibrik et al. (1977:51) had set
up a separate inflectional category-system localization for the different
orientation markers, which combine with different spatial case-markers. On
this view, a label such as super-elative would not stand for a single case, but
for a localization-case combination" similar to a tense-aspect combination.
See see Blake (2001) and Haspelmath (forthcoming) for more detailed
discussion of semantic (spatial and non-spatial) cases, their functions and
terminology, and Iggesen (2005c) for an overview of the distribution of
languages with smaller and larger case inventories.

Jump to top of page/ top of section

5. Oddly behaving case markers

A flag icon According to the most widely accepted definitions of case (e.g.
Blake 2001:1: "Case is a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of
relationship they bear to their heads"), case is not expected to occur on
elements other than nominal phrases. However, in many languages case
markers are found on adverbials of time (clearly adjuncts, not arguments of
the verb) and other measure phrases. Examples come from Latin, German,
Polish and other Slavonic, and Korean (although, arguably, some measure
phrases could be analysed as objects rather than adjuncts). In the following
German example (from Butt 2006:7), the measure phrase in (1b) appears in
the accusative, while in the analogous Polish examples the adverbial of time
appears in the instrumental:

(1) a. Ich habe gearbeitet.

I.NOM have.PRES.1SG work.PASTP

'I worked.'

(1) b. Ich habe [den ganzen Tag] gearbeitet.

I.NOM have.PRES.1SG the.M.ACC whole.M.ACC

day(M).ACC work.PASTP

'I worked the whole day.'

(2) Pracowała wieczorem.

worked.3SG.F evening(M).INSTR

'She worked in the evening.'

(3) Pracowała całymi dniami.

 worked.3SG.F whole.PL.INSTR day(M).PL.INSTR

'She worked all day every day.'

Although case on adverbial phrases is a problem for those syntactic theories

which assume that case can appear only on arguments of the verb, but not
on adjuncts, this issue is not a problem for a theory of case which
distinguishes between contextual and inherent case assignment and allows
for semantic case values to be assigned inherently to any element of the
clause. On this view, case values on adverbials in examples like (2) and (3)
are instances of canonical semantic cases.

A flag icon The vocative poses a similar problem to adverbial cases

mentioned above: nominal phrases carrying vocative case typically do not
appear as dependents of the verb, and often stand outside constructions
(outside clausal syntax), being inserted parenthetically. Because it does not
encode any syntactic relationship of a dependent to a head, the vocative is
frequently not considered a case (Hjelmslev 1935:4; Blake 2001:8; Iggesen
2005:82-83; Haspelmath forthcoming: p.8; also Daniel 2005). In most
languages which have the vocative, it is a morphological category which is
usually badly integrated into the paradigm of case forms (for example, it very
rarely has the plural, very rarely triggers special agreement, and is usually
characterised by odd morphology). Corbett (forthcoming) re-analyses the
vocative in Russian within a canonical approach and argues that, despite
being non-canonical, it is the least problematic of the four non-canonical
Russian cases (the other three cases being the second genitive, the second
locative, and the adnumerative).

On the view of case presented here, the vocative can be considered a purely
semantic case, since semantic cases are not dependent on a syntactic head.
If we accept this approach, we will find some languages which have a
morphological locative (a modified form of a noun) used as a form of address,
but which do not have other case inflection. Blake mentions two such
languages: Yapese (Austronesian) has no morphological case marking on
nouns, but Yapese personal names have special forms used for address
(Blake 2001:8; after Jensen 1991:229f); and Mohawk (Blake 2001:184, ft.8;
from Mithun p.c.) has no case marking, but there is, or was, an address form.
(Similarly, in Maori, bisyllabic names - but not longer names - used as terms
of address are preceded by a preposition e which otherwise marks the
demoted subject in the passive; also Blake 2001:184, ft.8). Thus, a
morphologically marked vocative does not have to participate in a case
paradigm. This situation is somewhat similar to that in languages in which the
genitive is paradigmatically isolated and the existence of the genitive is the
only reason to posit that the language has the feature of case.

In sum, a purely semantic case is not determined by a rule of syntax, and a

morphological vocative can be considered a semantic case. Although in may
be optional in languages which have a special hortative and/or imperative
construction, often it can also function as an utterance on its own, without
any syntactic configuration at all. Furthermore, it may sometimes be allowed
to function as a second person subject, as in Polish:

(1) Zrobiłeś mi przyjacielu wielką przysługę.

do.2SG.M me.DAT friend(M).VOC great.F.ACC

favour(F).ACC

'My friend, you've done me a great favour.'

A flag icon The genitive is a case that may, in some (in fact, many)
languages, be licensed by a nominal rather than a verb or a preposition. In
such instances, the genitive has sometimes been referred to as a 'nominal
case', licensed by and modifying a 'nominal predicate', as opposed to 'verbal
cases' which are licensed and governed by verbal predicates (see e.g. Butt
2006:8-9).

A flag icon Butt (2006:7-8) notes that it is often assumed in syntactic theories
that finiteness and case marking are in complementary distribution. For
example, embedded predicates are case marked typically only when they are
non-finite (for example, embedded infinitives in Urdu). In many of the
instances where an embedded predicate may be overtly case marked and it
is not an infinitive, it turns out to be a nominalisation. In Urdu, the infinitive
itself can be regarded as a kind of deverbal noun which has some nominal
properties. Possible counterexamples to this generalisation have been
discussed, e.g. by Nordlinger & Saulwick 2002 (see their example (32) for a
dative (purpose) marked future). The interesting question of what it would
mean for a finite form, such as a verb, to have the feature of case, is still
open to discussion (cf. Harris 2007).
A flag icon Kayardild modal cases (Evans 1995; 2003) are components of
tense-aspect-mood-polarity (TAMP) marking in this language, and have been
suggested to participate in agreement. For a re-analysis of Kayardild modal
cases as exponents of semantically assigned TAMP values, see Kibort (2010).

Jump to top of page/ top of section

6. Problem cases

A question mark icon Is there agreement in case within noun phrases?

Corbett (2006:133) notes that traditional grammars often mention agreement
in case on a par with other agreement features (gender, number, or person).
Yet a closer look suggests that case is different. Within a noun phrase the
adjective and the noun may stand in the same case, e.g. in Russian, v nov-
om avtomobil-e in new-M.SG.LOC car(M)-SG.LOC 'in a new car', both the
adjective and the noun stand in the locative. However, the value of case in
such instances is not imposed by one of these elements on the other, but it is
imposed on the noun phrase by government by some other syntactic element
(in this example the preposition v 'in' requires the locative case). Therefore, if
we define agreement as requiring a controller and a target, the matching of
case values here does not count as agreement.

For all those who adopt a view of syntax based on the notion of constituency,
nov- avtomobil'- is a constituent. Thus, we have matching of features within
the noun phrase resulting from government, rather than agreement in case.
Note that the same is true of case stacking phenomena, as in many
Australian or Daghestanian languages (for examples and references, see
Corbett 2006:135). (For those who accept a dependency view of syntax, if the
noun is the head of the phrase and the adjective depends on it, and both
show case, we would have agreement in case, as argued in Mel'čuk
1993:329, 337).

A question mark icon Dependent marking vs head marking. Case is typically

found on noun phrases and expresses the relationship that the noun phrase
(the dependent) bears towards the verb or the preposition (the head). This is
referred to as dependent marking. In head marking, the head of the phrase
bears information about its dependents, i.e. the participants in the clause.
Since head marking also expresses the relationship between nominal
elements and the verb, it has sometimes been argued that instances of head
marking could also be seen as a type of case (for discussion, see Blake
2001:13-14, and Butt 2006:5-6 who notes that case-bearing affixes are often
historically derived from the incorporation of pronouns). These two types of
marking strategies can be represented schematically as follows (Nordlinger
1998:46, cited in Butt 2006:5):

Dependent-marked (as in Latin):

Noun+Case Noun+Case Noun+Case Verb

Head-marked (as in Navajo):

Noun1 Noun2 Noun3 Verb+Aff1+Aff2+Aff3

It is taken here as definitional of case that it expresses a syntactic and/or

semantic function of the element that carries the particular case value. The
cross-referencing affixes or clitics are better analysed as either agreement in
other feature(s), in particular the feature of person, or as incorporated
pronouns. The majority of languages use some kind of pronominal
representation of certain core grammatical relations apart from their
representation via noun phrases, and crossreferencing a head and its
arguments as schematised in (2) is better seen as a type of pronominal
representation on the verb, rather than case.

A question mark icon Are there semantically assigned 'core' cases? Mithun &
Chafe (1999) argue that there are instances of semantic assignment of 'core'
cases. For example, Iroquoian languages arguably have an agent-patient
system of case marking, and in Central Alaskan Yupik case marking depends
on the affectedness or immediacy of involvement of the participants; hence,
in none of these languages case marking appears to be determined by
grammatical relations. However, on a different analysis, these languages can
be thought of as having stricter conditions for arguments to qualify to be
subjects or objects, and the selection of cases also varies depending on the
verbs.

A question mark icon Ungoverned case in exclamations. Blake (2001:9)

mentions one more instance of ungoverned case used outside sentence
constructions. A standard Latin example is mē miserum 1SG.ACC
miserable.ACC 'Oh, unhappy me!' (note that in corresponding English
expressions, the oblique form of the pronoun is used). Mel'čuk (1986:46)
gives a Russian example Aristokratov na fonar'! aristocrat(M).PL.ACC onto
lantern(M).ACC 'Aristocrats on the street-lamps!'. Blake remarks that "one
would guess that some expressions of this type have developed from
governed expressions, but that the governor has been lost" (2001:9). Hence,
exclamations of this type can be regarded as instances of ellipsis.

A question mark icon How many cases are there in Russian, Latin, or Latvian?
In most traditional and pedagogical literature (for a current standard source
listing declensional cases in Russian see, for example,
http://masterrussian.com/aa071600a.shtml), Russian is described as having
six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, and
prepositional/ablative), but there are very good reasons for distinguishing at
least three more cases in this language (Zaliznjak 1973; Comrie 1986;
Corbett forthcoming). First, contemporary Russian is developing a separate
vocative case (distinct from nominative). Second, some nouns such as syr
'cheese' have a distinct form for partitive (genitive) syru in addition to
(nonpartitive) genitive syra. And finally, apart from the prepositional case,
there is a distinct locative case in Russian, as in prepositional [o] sade
('[about] the orchard') and locative [v] sadu ('[in] the orchard') from sad
('orchard'). According to Comrie (1986), the fact that the last two case
distinctions in Russian are an innovation may account for the reason why
most contemporary sources are reluctant to recognise them: they do not fit
in with the traditional assumptions as to what cases a Slavonic language may
have. However, they have to be considered in any adequate synchronic
description of Russian.

Latin and Latvian provide even more challenging examples of a discrepancy

between the standard assumption regarding their case systems and the
reality of the morphological phenomenon of case. Apart from pointing out the
inadequacy of standard descriptions, Comrie (1986) uses these two examples
as further support for his claim that the traditional characterisation of case,
inadequately combining formal and functional criteria, leads to immense
complications in the description of case.

In short, it is standard to describe Latin as having six cases (nominative,

vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, and ablative) and then, while
discussing the declension of individual morphological classes, introduce an
additional form (locative case) for a small subset of nouns (names of towns
and small islands, and a very restricted number of individually specifiable
lexical items) in most of these classes. For other nouns, the function
performed by the locative case is expressed by using the preposition in 'in'
which takes the ablative case. Apart from the fact that, by the traditionally
adopted distributional criterion, the locative has to be defined as a separate
case, we have here 'distributional grounds for identifying a prepositional
phrase (with one set of nouns) with a case (for another set of nouns)' (Comrie
1986:94).

The case system of standard Latvian, on the other hand, is an example of a

system which is impossible to analyse adequately with traditional formal tools
(Fennell 1975, Comrie 1986). Traditional accounts of Latvian list a separate
instrumental case which, however, only occurs with the preposition ar. In the
singular, the allegedly 'instrumental' form of the nominal that appears after
ar is identical to the accusative, and in the plural it is identical to the dative.
If a separate instrumental case was established on this basis, it would be
distinguishable formally from both the accusative and the dative. However,
according to traditional accounts, all Latvian prepositions take the dative in
the plural regardless of the case (accusative, genitive, or dative) that they
govern in the singular.

The best solution to this inconsistency in traditional description (though still

adhering to the traditional rules of description) would seem to be to say that
Latvian has no instrumental, and that the preposition ar governs the
accusative case (with the provision that, like all Latvian prepositions, in the
plural it governs the dative). However, by the distributional criterion, this
suggestion (as well as the original traditional account) creates a
contradiction: a given preposition may not govern one case in the singular
and a different case in the plural, because in this way the very distributions of
one and the same case would be different in the singular and the plural.

The distributional criterion forces us to say that the cases occurring after
prepositions in Latvian (other than after prepositions that take the dative in
the singular) can never be identified with singular cases occurring other than
after prepositions, although 'accusative2' and 'genitive2' (which would be the
cases occurring after prepositions) in the plural are homonymous with the
dative. As is clear, this solution is redundant and misses the obvious
generalisation, which should be captured in a grammar of Latvian, that all
prepositions in Latvian require the same form of a plural nominal.

Comrie's solution to the description of a complex case system like this is an

approach to the notion of case which attempts to synthesise the formal and
functional aspects of case and, in particular, scrutinises the relation that
holds between these two sides. His approach relies on the notion of feature
analysis of case: both distributional and formal cases can be characterised in
terms of the same component features (e.g. the feature [genitive]), but a
formal case (e.g. syra 'cheese.NONPARTITIVE', syru 'cheese.PARTITIVE', muki
'flour.GENITIVE') may correspond to a subset of the features of a
distributional case ([genitive, nonpartitive], [genitive, partitive], or [genitive],
respectively), thus giving rise to many-to-one mappings between
distributional and formal cases. This enables an adequate analysis of case
'syncretism' and at the same time accounts for generalisations within a case
system (for details see Comrie 1986).

For the most recent contribution to the debate about the number of cases in
Russian (adopting a canonical approach), and about determining the values
of the feature case in general, see Corbett (forthcoming).

A question mark icon Cases versus adpositions. The following excerpt from a
Wikipedia article on 'Preposition and postposition'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preposition), accessed on 7 January 2008, offers
a light overview of the differences between adpositions and case markings
which are observed despite their functional similarity:

Adpositions combine syntactically with their complement phrase. Case

markings combine with a noun morphologically.

Two adpositions can usually be joined with a conjunction and share a

single complement, but this is normally not possible with case markings: {of
and for the people} vs. Latin populi et populo, not *populi et -o ('people-GEN
and -DAT').

One adposition can usually combine with two coordinated complements,

but this is normally not possible with case markings: of {the city and the
world} vs. Latin urbis et orbis, not *urb- et orbis ('city and world-GEN').

Case markings combine primarily with nouns, whereas adpositions can

combine with phrases of many different categories.

A case marking usually appears directly on the noun, but an adposition can
be separated from the noun by other words.

Within the noun phrase, determiners and adjectives may agree with the
noun in case (case spreading), but an adposition only appears once.

A language can have hundreds of adpositions (including complex

adpositions), but no language has this many distinct morphological cases.