Book contents
- The Semantics of Case
- Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics
- The Semantics of Case
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Dative Case
- 3 Spatial Cases
- 4 Case and Aspect
- 5 Differential Object Marking
- 6 The Genitive/Accusative Alternation in Balto-Slavic
- 7 Predicate Case
- 8 Generalizations and Conclusions
- Terminology
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2020
Book contents
- The Semantics of Case
- Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics
- The Semantics of Case
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Dative Case
- 3 Spatial Cases
- 4 Case and Aspect
- 5 Differential Object Marking
- 6 The Genitive/Accusative Alternation in Balto-Slavic
- 7 Predicate Case
- 8 Generalizations and Conclusions
- Terminology
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Semantics of Case , pp. 263 - 285Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Acton, Eric K. 2014. Standard Change and the Finnish Partitive-Accusative Object Distinction. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, ed. Christopher Piñón, 1–18.Google Scholar
Adger, D. and Ramchand, G. 2003. Predication and Equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Julia. 2011. Dative Alternations in German. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4): 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, R. 2004. Experiencer Datives in Kannada. Typological Studies in Language 60: 1–24.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1998. VP-Structure and the Syntax–Lexicon Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1996. The Relationship Between Dative and Locative: Kuryìowicz’s Argument from a Typological Perspective. Diachronica 13: 207–224.Google Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1997. Marking and Hierarchy: Types and the Grammaticalization of Case-Markers. Studies in Language 21: 313–368.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1973. The Deep Structure of Adjectives and Participles in Russian. Language 49: 349–360.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1978. Negation and Subject Case Selection in Existential Sentences: Evidence from Russian. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, Prequantifiers, and Discontinuous Agreement in Russian Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 91–138.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 2001. The Genitive of Negation: A Unified Analysis. In Franks, Steven, King, Tracy Holloway and Yadroff, Michael, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 2009. The Syntax of Argument Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria. 2003. The Extended Projection Principle and the Genitive of Negation Construction. In Brown, Sue and Przepiorkowski, Adam, eds., Negation in Slavic. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria and Brun, Dina. 2002. Specificity Matters: A New Look at the New Genitive of Negation. In Toman, J, ed., Proceedings of Tenth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2008. Case Syncretism. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 219–230.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 1994. The Syntax and Semantics of Russian Long and Short Adjectives: An X’-Theoretic Account. In Toman, J, ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 1997. Genitive of Negation Is Obligatory. In Browne, W, Dornisch, E, Kondrashova, N and Zec, D, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 2001. The Syntax of Slavic Predicate Case. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 21: 1–23.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 2004. The Case of Q. In Arnaudova, O et al., eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/nels/jbailyn/JFBailyn.html.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. and Citko, B. 1999. Case and Agreement in Slavic Predicates. In Dziwirek, K et al., eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Seattle Meeting, Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark and Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2017. On Inherent and Dependent Theories of Ergative Case. In Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane and Travis, Lisa Demena, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Balasch, Sonia. 2011. Factors Determining Spanish Differential Object Marking within Its Domain of Variation. In Michnowicz, Jim and Dodsworth, Robin, eds., Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Boneh, Nora. 2014. Modern Hebrew Non-Core Dative in Their Context. Lǝšonénu 74: 461–495.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Boneh, Nora. 2015a. On Discursive Datives in Modern Hebrew. In Catalonia-Israel Symposium on Lexical Semantics and Grammatical Structure in Event Conceptualization. The Linguistics Department at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Boneh, Nora. 2015b. Decomposing Affectedness: Truth-Conditional Non-Core Datives in Modern Hebrew. In Melnik, Nurit, ed., Proceedings of IATL 30.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account. Lingua 121: 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna and Chelliah, Shobhana L.. 2009. The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Edited volume. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. 2004. Non-Nominative Subjects in Comparison. In P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbaraou, eds., Non-Nominative Subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Vol. 1. pp. 49–76.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2008. Scalar Complexity and the Structure of Events. In Dölling, Johannes, Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana and Schäfer, Martin, eds., Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 245–265.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. On Affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beghelli, F. and Stowell, T. 1997. Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of each and every. In Szabolcsi, A, ed., Ways of Scope Taking. London: Kluwer, pp. 71–107.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. 2004. The Syntax of Experiencers in the Himalayas. In P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbaraou, eds., Non-Nominative Subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vol. 1, pp. 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, M. 1988. On the Grammar of Local Prepositions. In Bierwisch, M, Motsch, W and Zimmermann, I, eds., Syntax, Semantik, und Lexikon: Rudolf Rçñi.ka zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2007. The NOM/GEN “Subject” Puzzle in Polish. In Kosta, Peter and Schurcks, Lilia, eds., Linguistic Investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 127–145.Google Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 2005. The Role of Semantic Type on Differential Object Marking. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 19: 3–27.Google Scholar
Blutner, R. 2000. Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216.Google Scholar
Boneh, Nora and Nash, Léa. 2010. A Higher Applicative: Evidence from French. In Proceedings of IATL 25. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/25/Boneh_Nash.pdf.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir and Partee, Barbara H.. 1998. Formal and Lexical Semantics and the Genitive in Negated Existential Sentences in Russian. In Boskovic, Z, Franks, S and Snyder, W, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir and Partee, Barbara H.. 2002a. The Russian Genitive of Negation in Existential Sentences: The Role of Theme-Rheme Structure Reconsidered. In Hajieova, E and Sgall, P, eds., Travaux de Circle Linguistique de Prague (novelle serie) 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir and Partee, Barbara H.. 2002b. Genitive of Negation and Scope of Negation in Russian Existential Sentences. In Toman, J, ed., Proceedings of Tenth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G. and Yanovich, Igor. 2008. Russian Genitives, Non-Referentiality, and the Property-Type Hypothesis. In Antonenko, A et al., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting (FASL 16), Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowe, Heather. 1990. Categories, Constituents and Constituent Order in Pitjantjatjara. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brecht, Richard D. and Levine, James S. 1986. Case and Meaning. In Brecht, R. D. and Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic. USA: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Brown, Sue. 1999. The Syntax of Negation in Russian: A Minimalist Approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2006b.The Dative-Ergative Connection. In P. Cabredo-Hofherr and O. Bonami, eds., Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2012. From Spatial to Subject Marker. Handout of talk given at the Workshop on Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects, Iceland, June 2012.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. 1991. Semantic Case in Urdu. In Lisa Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, eds., Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 31–45.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. 2005. The Status of Case. In Dayal, Veneeta and Mahajan, Anoop, eds., Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1985. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small Clauses Reconsidered: Not So Small and Not All Alike. Lingua 118: 261–295.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class. Linguistica Silesiana 3: 13–21.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2004. Oblique-Case Subjects in Tsez. In Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao, eds., Non-Nominative Subjects. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, Vol. 1, pp. 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. 1998. The Great Daghestan Case Hoax. In Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song, eds., Case, Typology, and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–114.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Khalilov, Madzhid and Khalilova, Zaira. 2015. A Grammar of Bezhta. Leipzig-Makhachkala: ALEPH.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget and Harley, Heidi. 2015. A Force-Theoretic Framework for Event Structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2): 103–158.Google Scholar
Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. 2018. A Unified Theory of Case Form and Case Meaning. Talk given at the workshop On the Place of Case in Grammar (PlaCiG), Rethymno, Greece.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct Objects. In Barlow, M and Ferguson, C, eds., Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 159–179.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Csirmaz, Aniko. 2006. Interface Interactions – Aspect and Case. Handout of talk given at the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar.Google Scholar
Cuervo, M. C. 2003. Datives at Large. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Eva. 1994. Radial Categories in Grammar: The Polish Instrumental Case. Linguistica Silesiana 15: 83–94.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Eva. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative (Cognitive Linguistics Research 9). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dahl, Osten. 1971. The Genitive and the Subjunctive in Russian. Scando-Slavica 17: 135–139. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Dambriunas, Leonardas. 1980. Introduction to Modern Lithuanian. New York: Franciscan Fathers.Google Scholar
Danon, G. 2001. Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Linguistics 39(6): 1071–1116.Google Scholar
Danon, G. 2002. The Hebrew Object Marker and Semantic Type. In Proceedings of IATL 17.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 2004. Structural Case, Lexical Case and the Verbal Projection. In Dayal, Veneeta and Mahajan, Anoop, eds., Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 199–225.Google Scholar
De Jong, J.J. 1996. The Case of Bound Pronouns in Peripheral Romance. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 16.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. External Possession and Possessor Raising. In Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom047.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the Necessity of Distinguishing between (Un)Boundedness and (A)Telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1–19.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2006. Realtors and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djalali, Alex. 2012. If You Own It, It Exists; If You Love It, That Says Something about You, Not It: Semantically Conditioned Case in Finnish. In Arnett, Nathan and Bennett, Ryan, eds., Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 131–141.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67(3): 547–619.Google Scholar
Egger, Julia. 2016. Asking the Magic Mirror: Fairytales and Animacy in Malayalam. Nijmegen: Radboud University term paper.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1987. The Invisible Category Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 613–632.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. 1984. The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. 1986. Pronominal Versus Zero Representation of Anaphora in Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. and Zimmer, K, eds., Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–231.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. and McNally, L. 2011. Bare Nominals and Incorporating Verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 87–128.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical Notes on Tangkic. In Bossong, George and Chafe, Wallace, eds., Mouton Grammar Library 15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1985. Intensional Descriptions and the Romance Subjunctive Mood. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1994. Specificity and Scope. In Nash, L and Tsoulas, G, eds., Langues et Grammaires 1. Paris: University of Paris 8, pp. 119–137.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 2003. Assertion, Belief and Mood Choice. Paper presented at the Workshop on Conditional and Unconditional Modality, ESSLLI, Vienna.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. and Swart, Henrieta de. 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2000. The Quantization Puzzle. In Tenny, C and Pustejovsky, J, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the Delimitation of Events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1): 55–101.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and Maximalization. In Rothstein, Susan, ed., Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–256.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana and Rothstein, Susan. 2006. Telicity as a Semantic Parameter. In Lavine, James, Franks, Steven, Filip, Hana and Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (ASL 14), The Princeton University Meeting. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 139–156.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. 2000. The Languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 357–404.Google Scholar
Fong, Vivienne. 2003. Resultatives and Depictives in Finnish. In Nelson, Diane, and Manninen, Satu, eds., Generative Approaches to Finnic and Saami Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 201–234.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2012. Spatial Relations in Hinuq and Bezhta. In Filipović, Luna and Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M., eds., Space and Time in Languages and Cultures: Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
Fowler, George. 1996. Oblique Passivization in Russian. Slavic and East European Journal 40: 519–545.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1997. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax Revisited: A Minimalist Retrospective. In Boskovic, Z, Franks, S and Snyder, W, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. On Sinn and Bedeutung. In Michael Beaney, The Frege Reader 1997. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fukuda, Shin. 2007. Object Case and Event Type: Accusative-Dative Object Case Alternation in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistic Society 33(1): 165–176. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i1.3525.Google Scholar
García, Marco. 2007. Differential Object Marking with Inanimate Objects. In Kaiser, Georg and Leonetti, Manuel, eds., Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”, Arbeitspapier 122. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 63–84.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle and McNally, Louise. 2005. On the Property Analysis of Opaque Complements. Lingua 115: 885–914.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2006. Copular Sentences in Russian Vs. Spanish at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. In Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10: 10th annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, October 13–15, 2005, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin; ZASPil Vol. 44, pp. 99–110.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2007. Predication and Equation in Copular Sentences: Russian vs. English. In Comorovski, Ileana and von Heusinger, Klaus, eds., Existence: Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Springer, pp. 79–105.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2010. The Argument Structure of Predicate Adjectives in Russian. Russian Linguistics 34(3): 239–260.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, Anja and Zwarts, Joost. 2016. Hitting the Nail on the Head: Force Vectors in Verb Semantics. In Moroney, Mary, Little, Carol-Rose, Collard, Jacob and Burgdorf, Dan, eds., Proceedings of SALT 26. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, pp. 433–450.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott M. 2005. The Lattice of Case and Agentivity. M.Sc. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin. 1980. A Pragmatic Analysis of Specificity. In Heny, F, ed., Ambiguity in Intensional Contexts. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
De Groot, Casper. 2017. Discovering the Assignment: An Uralic Essive Typological Questionnaire. In de Groot, , ed., Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2009. Differential Object Marking in (Khalkha)-Mongolian. In Shibataki, R and Vermeulen, R, eds., Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Guntsetseg, Dolgor, von Heusinger, Klaus, Klein, Udo and Niyazmetowa, Dildora. 2008. Differential Object Marking in Mongolian and Uzbek. Paper presented at SFB 732, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Harves, S. 2002a. Genitive of Negation and the Syntax of Scope. In M. van Koppen, E. Thrift, E. J. van der Torre and M. Zimmerman, eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE 9, pp. 96–110.Google Scholar
Harves, S. 2002b. Unaccusative Syntax in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Görgülü, Emrah and Mameni, Morgan. 2009. On Definiteness and Specificity in Turkish and Persian. In Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Hegedüs, V. 2008. Hungarian Spatial PPs. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 33(2): 220–233.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs.Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.Google Scholar
Heinämäki, O. 1984. Aspect in Finnish. In de Groot, C and Tommola, H, eds., Aspect Bound: A Voyage into the Realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 19: 245–274.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2008. Verbal Semantics and the Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus 20: 1–31.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg. 2003. The Interaction of Animacy, Definiteness and Specificity in Spanish. In Heusinger, Klaus von and Kaiser, Georg, eds., Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, pp. 41–65.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg A.. 2011. Affectedness and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Morphology 21(3–4): 593–617.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. The Case of the Direct Object in Turkish: Semantics, Syntax and Morphology. Turkic Languages 9: 3–44.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2017. Partitivity and Case Marking in Turkish and Related Languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 20, 1–40.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, Klein, Udo and Niyazmetowa, Dildora. 2008. Transitivity and the Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking. Paper presented at the Workshop Transitivity and Case Alternations, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, Klein, Udo and Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2011. The Case of Accusative Embedded Subjects in Mongolian. Lingua 121: 48–59.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. 1999. Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–398.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. 1935/37. La catégorie des cas. Facs, edition 1972, Munich: Wilhem Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André and Abraham, Werner. 2006. Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. 1993. Introduction. In Holmberg, Anders and Nikanne, Urpo, eds., Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen and Malchukov, Andrej L.. 2007. On Fluid Differential Case Marking: A Bidirectional OT Approach. Lingua 117 (9): 1636–1656.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen and Zwarts, Joost. 2008. Case in Formal Semantics. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huhmariniemi, S. and Miljan, M. 2018. Finnish and Estonian Partitive Case: in-Between Structure and Semantics. Talk given at the workshop On the Place of Case in Grammar (PlaCiG), Rethymno, Greece.Google Scholar
Hynönen, Emmi. 2017. The Essive in Finnish. In de Groot, Casper, ed., Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–56.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania. 2006. This Is Definitely Specific: Specificity and Definiteness in Article Systems. Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. 1977. Specificity and the Interpretation of Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 233–245.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim. Morfologija, čast vtoraja [The grammatical structure of Russian in comparison with Slovak – Part two: morphology]. Bratislava: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps Even Quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 305–354.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman O. 1984. Contribution to the General Theory of Case: General Meanings of the Russian Cases. In Waugh, Linda R., ed., Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 59–103.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental (Cognitive Linguistics Research 4). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000. Case and Double Objects in Icelandic. In Nelson, D and Foulkes, P, eds., Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Peter. 1963. German Grammar II. Number and Case. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2005. Genitive Case: A Modal Account. In Falk, Yehuda, ed., Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 21 (IATL 21).Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2007. Property-Denoting NPs and Non-Canonical Genitive Case In Friedman, Tova and Gibson, Masayuki, eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 17 (SALT 17). Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University, pp. 148–165.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2009. Intensional Genitive Case and Existential Commitment. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL): The Yale Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2010a. Russian Aspect as Number in the Verbal Domain. In Laca, Brenda and Hofherr, Patricia, eds., Layers of Aspect. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2010b. Genitive Objects, Existence and Individuation. Russian Linguistics 34(1): 17–39. DOI 10.1007/s11185-009–9051-x.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2011. On Speaker Identifiability. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 19(1): 47–84. DOI:10.1353/jsl.2011.0008.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2013. Semantics of Genitive Objects in Russian: A Study of Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive Case. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2015. Scalarity in the Verbal Domain: The Case of Verbal Prefixation in Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2019. Translative Case in Finnish: A Force-Dynamic Account. In Noa Brandel, ed., Proceedings of IATL 33, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. in press. The Definiteness Effect in Russian Existential and Possessive Sentences. In Witkoś, Jacek, Krzek, Malgorzata and Dalmi, Gréte, eds., Approaches to Predicative Possession: The View from Slavic and Finno-Ugric, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. in progress. Change versus Force in the Finnish Case System. Ms., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2011a. Bare NPs and Semantic Incorporation: Objects of Intensive Reflexives at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. In Browne, Wayles, Cooper, Adam, Fisher, Alison, Kesici, Esra, Predolac, Nikola and Zec, Draga, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL 18): The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 226–240.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2011b. Syntax and Semantics of Bare NPs: Objects of Intensive Reflexive Verbs in Russian. In Bonami, Olivier and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo, eds., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8 (Proceedings of CSSP 8), pp. 221–238.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and Levin, B. 2002. Telicity Corresponds to Degree of Change. Unpublished Ms., Northwestern University and Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and Levin, B. 2008. Measure of Change: The Adjectival Core of Degree Achievements. In McNally, L and Kennedy, C, eds., Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 156–182.Google Scholar
Kettunen, L. 1943. Vepsan Murteiden Lauseopillinen Tutkimus. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia LXXXVI.Google Scholar
Khrizman, Keren. 2011. Imperfective Aspect and Partitive Case in Russian. M.A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
Kim, Minjoo. 2003. The Genitive of Negation in Russian: A Relativized Minimality Account. In Partee, B et al., eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 11. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, Soowon and Maling, Joan. 1998. Case Assignment in the Siphta Construction and Its Implications for Case On Adverbials. In King, Ross, ed., Description and Explanation in Korean Linguistics. East Asia Program, Cornell University, pp. 133–168.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive Case and Aspect. In Butt, M and Geuder, W, eds., The Projection of Arguments. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001b. The Partitive Revisited. Handout of talk, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, June 2001.Google Scholar
Klein, Udo. 2007. Comparing Rule-Based and Constraint-Based Analyses of Differential Object Marking. Handout of talk given at the workshop on Differential Case Marking, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Klein, Udo and Peter, de Swart. 2011. Case and Referential Properties. Lingua 121: 3–19.Google Scholar
Klenin, Emily. 1978. Quantification, Partitivity, and Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Comrie, B, ed., Classification of Grammatical Categories. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc, pp. 163–182.Google Scholar
Komar, E. S. 1999. Dative Subjects in Russian Revisited: Are All Datives Created Equal? In Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Coats, Herbert and Vakareliyska, Cynthia M., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 245–264.Google Scholar
Kondrashova, N. 1994. Agreement and Dative Subjects in Russian. In Avrutin, S et al., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The MIT Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 255–85.Google Scholar
Kondrashova, N. 2009. Licensing Modality in Infinitival Structures. In Reich, Jodi, Babyonyshev, Maria and Kavitskaya, Daria, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Yale Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 131–146.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 2000. Prepositions, Postpositions, Circumpositions and Particles: The Structure of Dutch PPs. In Koopman, H, ed., The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. London: Routledge, pp. 204–260.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2003. Scrambling, Subscrambling and Case in Turkish, Word Order and Scrambling. In Karimi, S, ed., Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 125–155.Google Scholar
Krasovitsky, Alexander, Long, Alison, Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan and Corbett, Greville G.. 2008. Predicate Nouns in Russian. Russian Linguistics 32: 99–113.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from Its Verb. In Rooryck, Johann and Zaring, Laurie, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or Pseudo-Scope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites? In Rothstein, S, ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. Telicity and the Meaning of Objective Case. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution. In Sag, I and Szabolcsi, A, eds., Lexical Matters. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The Origins of Telicity. In Rothstein, S, ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 197–235.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. and Modarresi, F. 2016. Number Neutrality and Anaphoric Update of Pseudo-Incorporated Nominals in Persian (and Weak Definites in English). In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1971. Słowiański genetivus po negacij. In Sesja naukowa międzynarodowej komisji budowy gramatycznej języków słowiańskich, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101.Google Scholar
Lee, In Que. 1997. Dative Constructions and Case Theory in Korean. Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Lees, Aet. 2015. Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages: Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. German Possessor Datives: Raised and Affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 101–142.Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The Space of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative Verbs: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Lingvisticae Investigationes 31(2): 285–312.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 26. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Lori and Simpson, Jane. 1981. Quirky Case and Lexical Representations of Icelandic Verbs. In Hendrick, Roberta A., Masek, Carrie S. and Miller, Mary Frances, eds., Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 185–196.Google Scholar
Levinson, Dmitry. 2005. Aspect in Negative Imperatives and Genitive of Negation: A Unified Analysis of two Phenomena in Slavic Languages. Ms. Stanford University, California.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levy-Forsythe, Zarina. 2018. Object Incorporation in Uzbek. M.A. thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar
Lomonosov, M. V. 1952. Rossijskaja Grammatika [Russian Grammar]. Polnoje sobranije sočinenij [Complete Works], vol. 7 (Trudy po filologii 1739–1758 gg.).Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, E. and Ibatullina, D. 2015. Case Theory and Case Variation in Tatar. In Лютикова, Е, Циммерлинг, А and Коношенко, М, eds., Материалы международной конференции Типология морфосинтаксических параметров 2015. 2. Мoscow: МПГУ, pp. 228–244.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, E. and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2015. The Tatar DP. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 60(3): 289–325.Google Scholar
Magometov, A. A. 1965. Tabasaranskij Jazyk (Isledovanie i Teksty) [The Tabasaran Language (Investigation and Texts)]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Maienborn, C. 2005. A Discourse-Based Account of Spanish ser/estar. Linguistics 43(1): 155–180.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and Asymmetries in Differential Case Marking. Lingua 118: 203–221.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. and Helen, de Hoop. 2011. Tense, Aspect, and Mood Based Differential Case Marking. Lingua 121: 35–47.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. L. and Spencer, Andrew. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. L. and de Swart, P. 2008. Differential Case Marking and Actancy Variations. In Malchukov, A and Spencer, A, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 339–355.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1993. Of Nominative and Accusative: The Hierarchical Assignment of Grammatical Case in Finnish. In Holmberg, A and Nikanne, U, eds., Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping Among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles. Lingua 111: 419–464.Google Scholar
Manandise, E. 1988. Evidence from Basque for a New Theory of Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. In Westphal, Germán F, Ao, Benjamin and Chae, Hee-Rahk, eds., ESCOL 91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pp. 234–253.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In Mchombo, S. A., ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–151.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa and Williams, Alex. eds., University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 4.2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 201–225.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2000. The Instrument of Inversion: Instrumental Case in the Russian Copula. Proceedings of WCCFL 19.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2008. A Case Study of Predication. In Marušič, F and Žaucer, R, eds., Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics. Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 213–239.Google Scholar
Mayo, Peter. 2002. Belorussian. In Comrie, Bernard and Corbett, Greville G., eds., The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The Structure of Inherent, Quirky and Semantic Cases. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax–Morphology Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential Sentences without Existential Quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–392.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 2004. Bare Plurals in Spanish Are Interpreted as Properties. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3: 115–133.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise and van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Redefining the Weak/Strong Distinction. Expanded version of a paper presented at the 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium.Google Scholar
Melchuk, Igor. 1986. Toward a Definition of Case. In Brecht, R. D. and Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic. USA: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2004. Specifying Who: on the Structure, Meaning, and Use of Specificational Copular Clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Erika. 1991. Case and the Finnish Object. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 193–228.Google Scholar
Miyoshi, Nobuhiro. 2002. The Genitive of Negation in Slavic: A Minimalist Approach. In Toman, J, ed., Proceedings of Tenth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. and Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Dative Subjects in Malayalam: Semantic Information in Syntax. In M. K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan, eds., Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. 1978. On the Case Marking of Objects. In Greenberg, J, ed., Universals of Human Language; Volume 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 249–290.Google Scholar
Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muller, Claude. 1997. De partitif et la negation. In Forget, D, Hirschbuhler, P, Martineau, F and Rivero, M. L., eds., Negation and Polarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2011. Varieties of Instrumental. In Malchukov, A. L. and Spencer, A, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 593–600.Google Scholar
Nash, Léa. 1996. The Internal Ergative Subject Hypothesis. In Kusumoto, Kiyomi, ed., NELS 26. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Rice, S. 2006. Transitivity Schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In Gries, S. Th. and Stefanowitsch, A, eds., Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225–260.Google Scholar
Nikanne, Urpo. 1993. On Assigning Semantic Cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, Anders and Nikanne, Urpo, eds., Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, pp. 75–89. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ojajärvi, Aulis. 1950. Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Özge, U. 2011. Turkish Indefinites and Accusative Marking. In Simpson, A, ed., Proceedings of WAFL 7. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 253–267.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkiz. 2005. Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 1992. O semantičiskeskom podxode k sintaksisu i genitivnom subjekte glagola byt’. [On the semantic approach to syntax and the genitive subject of the verb byt’]. Russian Linguistics 16: 53–63.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 1997. Roditel’nyj subjecta v otricatel’nom predloženii: sinaksis ili semantika? [Genitive of subject in a negative sentence: syntax or semantics?]. Voprosy jazykoznania 2: 101–116.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L. 2011. Varieties of Ergative. In Malchukov, A. L. and Spencer, A, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 562–571.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type Shifting Principles. In Groenendijk, J, de Jongh, D and Stokhof, M, eds., Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalised Quantifiers. Dordrecht:Foris.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Copula Inversion Puzzles in English and Russian. In Dziwirek, K, Coats, H and Vakareliyska, C, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 361–395.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2000. Some Remarks on Linguistic Uses of the Notion of “Event.” In Tenny, C and Pustejovsky, J, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2005. Weak Noun Phrases: Semantics and Syntax. Paper presented at Dialog-21, Moscow.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2008. Negation, Intensionality, and Aspect: Interaction with NP Semantics. In Rothstein, Susan, ed., Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. and Borschev, Vladimir. 2004. The Semantics of Russian Genitive of Negation: The Nature and Role of Perspectival Structure. Paper presented at SALT 14.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. and Borschev, Vladimir. 2007. Pros and Cons of a Type-Shifting Approach to Russian Genitive of Negation. In ten Cate, B. D. and Zeevat, H. W., eds., Proceedings of the Sixth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (Batumi 2005). Berlin: Springer, pp. 166–188.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. and Borschev, Vladimir. 2008. Existential Sentences, BE and the Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Comorowski, I and von Heusinger, K, eds., Existence: Semantics and Syntax. New York: Springer, pp. 147–191.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1998. Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Proceedings of IATL 13, pp. 167–190.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. The Genitive of Negation and Aspect in Russian. In Y. Rose and J. Steele, eds., McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 14, pp. 111–140.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2000. On Accusative Adverbials in Russian and Finnish. In Wyner, Adam Z., ed., The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics. The Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference (IATL 15), Jerusalem, 165–190.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the Nature of Intra-Clausal Relations. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David M. 2013. Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories. In Guéron, J and Lecarme, J, eds., The Syntax of Time. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Podobryaev, A. 2013. Differential Case Marking in Turkic as Intermediate Dependent Case. In Özge, U, ed., Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8). 67. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge: MITWPL, pp. 281–292.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M and Nedjalkov, V. 1987. Contrasting the Absolutive in Chukchee: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Lingua 71: 239–269.Google Scholar
Potebnja, A. A. 1958. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike. Vol. I-II. Moscow: Min. prosv. RSFSR.Google Scholar
Priestly, T. M. S. 2002. Slovene. In Comrie, Bernard and Corbett, Greville G., eds., The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pugh, Stefan M. and Press, Ian. 1999. Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2000. What Applicative Heads Apply To. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Volume 7(1): 197–210.Google Scholar
Rákosi, György. 2008. Some Remarks on Hungarian Ethical Datives. In József, Andor, Béla, Hollósy, Tibor, Laczkó and Péter, Pelyvás, eds., When Grammar Minds Language and Literature. Festschrift for Prof. Béla Korponay on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday. Debrecen: Institute of English and American Studies, University of Debrecen, pp. 413–422.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2011. Licensing of Instrumental Case in Hindi/Urdu Causatives. Nordlyd 38, ed. Peter Svenonius, pp. 49–85. CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier Scope: How Labor Is Divided between QR and Choice-Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The Theta System: Syntactic Realization of Verbal Concepts. UIL-OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The Theta System – an Overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2007. Lardil “Case Stacking” and the Structural/Inherent Case Distinction. lingBuzz/000405.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2013. Lardil “Case Stacking” and the Timing of Case Assignment. Syntax 16(1): 42–76.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2007. Case in Spatial Adpositional Phrases: The Dative-Accusative Alternation in German. In Alboiu, Gabriela, Avram, Andrei, Avram, Larisa and Dana, Isac, eds., Festschrift for Alexandra Cornilescu. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H., and Huybregts., R 2007. Location and Locality. In Karimi, S, Samiian, V and Wilkins, W. K., eds., Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 339–364.Google Scholar
Rigau, G. 1986. Some Remarks on the Nature of Strong Pronouns in Null-Subject Languages. In Bordelois, I, Contreras, H and Zagona, K, eds., Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 143–163.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R. 2009. Kayardild Morphology, Phonology and Morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Rozental, D., Golub, I and Telenkova, M 2008. Sovremennyj Russkij Jazyk. Moscow: Airis Press.Google Scholar
Salminen, Taru. 2002. Retention of Abstract Meaning: The Essive Case and Grammaticalization of Polyphony in Finnish. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele, eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sands, Kristina. 2000. Complement Clauses and Grammatical Relations in Finnish. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Sawicki, Lea. 1988. Verb-Valency in Contemporary Polish: A Study of the Major Valency-Types. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, M. 1994. Dative Subjects in Russian. In Toman, J, ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 129–72.Google Scholar
Serdobolskaya, Natalya and Toldova, Svetlana. 2006. Direct Object Marking in Finno-Ugric and Turkic Languages: Verb Semantics and Definiteness of Direct Object NP. Paper presented at the Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation, 13–15 October 2006, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2017. Parameterizing Ergativity: An Inherent Case Approach. In Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane and Travis, Lisa Demena, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siegal, Elitzur Bar-Asher and Boneh, Nora. 2015. Decomposing Affectedness: Truth-Conditional Non-core Datives in Modern Hebrew. In Melnik, Nurit, ed., Proceedings of IATL 30. www.iatl.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IATL30proceedings-01-Bar-Asher-Siegal_Boneh-.pdf.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1985. Event Chains, Grammatical Relations, and the Semantics of Case in German. Chicago Linguistic Society 21: 388–407.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1987. The Semantics of Dative and Accusative in German: An Investigation in Cognitive Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1993. Cases as Conceptual Categories: Evidence from German. In Geiger, Richard A. and Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, eds., Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 531–565.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1995. Semantic Motivation vs. Arbitrariness in Grammar: Toward a More General Account of the Dative/Accusative Contrast with German Two-way Prepositions. In Irmengard, Rauch and Carr, Gerald, eds., Insights in Germanic Linguistics I: Methodology in Transition (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 83). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 293–323.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1999. From Instrument to Irrealis: Motivating Some Grammaticalized Senses of the Russian Instrumental. In Dziwirek, K, Coats, H and Vakareliyska, C, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 413–433.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2001. Why Quirky Case Really Isn’t Quirky (Or How to Treat Dative Sickness in Icelandic). In Cuyckens, Hubert and Zawada, Britta, eds., Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 115–159.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2002. The Polysemy of German es, Iconicity, and the Notion of Conceptual Distance. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 67–112.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2005. The Conceptual Structure of German Impersonal Constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17: 79–140.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. 1995. On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component CON of UG. Handout of talk UCLA, April 7, 1995.Google Scholar
Soschen, A. 2002. On the Distribution of Copula Elements in Hebrew, Russian and Spanish. Ms., University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, V. 2018. Case, Function and PP Structure in Ancient Greek. Talk given at the workshop On the Place of Case in Grammar (PlaCiG), Rethymno, Greece.Google Scholar
Starke, M. 2017. Resolving (DAT = ACC) ≠ GEN. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 104. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.408.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1985. The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sulger, S. 2012. Nominal Argument Structure and the Stage-/Individual-Level Contrast in Hindi/Urdu. In Online Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Icelandic Case and the Structure of Events. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2006. Interpreting Uninterpretable Features. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 375–413.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Drowning “into” the River in North Sámi: Uses of the Illative. In Filipović, Luna and Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M., eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. LOT Publications.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter and Helen, de Hoop. 2007. Semantic Aspects of Differential Object Marking. In Puig-Waldmüller, E, ed., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 598–611.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter and Helen, de Hoop. 2018. Shifting Animacy. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1–2): 1–23.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1983. How Language Structures Space. In Pick, H and Acredolo, L, eds., Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Taube, M. 2015. The Usual Suspects: Slavic, Yiddish, and the Accusative Existentials and Possessives in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2): 27–37.Google Scholar
Testelets, J. G. and Khalilov, M. Sch.. 1998. Bezhtinskij jazyk [The Bezhta Language]. Moscow Jazyki mira: Kavkazskije jazyki.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1986. Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. In Brecht, R. D. and Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Ueda, Masako. 1993. Set-Membership Interpretations and the Genitive of Negation. Russian Linguistics 17: 237–262.Google Scholar
Uspensky, B.A. 1993. “Davnopreshedshee” i “vtoroj roditel’nyj” v russkom jazyke. [“Plusquamperfect” and the “second genitive” in Russian]. In Issledovanija po slavjanskomu istoricheskomu jazykoznaniju. Moscow: Moscow University Press.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne and Maling, Joan. 1996. Is Partitive Case Inherent or Structural? In Hoeksema, J, ed., Partitives. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne and Brattico, Pauli. 2014. The Finnish Accusative: Long Distance Case Assignment Under Agreement. Linguistics 52(1): 73–124.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen and Lee, Yae-Sheik. 1996. The Domain of Direct Case-Assignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 629–664.Google Scholar
Wolff, Phillip. 2007. Representing Causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(1): 82–111.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1995. Object Agreement in Palauan: Specificity, Humanness, Economy and Optimality. In Beckman, J. N., Dickey, L. W. and Urbanczyk, S, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 655–700.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistics Inquiry 37(1): 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadroff, Michael. 1995. AspP and Licensing of Pro-arb Objects. In Proceedings of WECOL 94. Los Angeles: UCLA Press.Google Scholar
Yoon, James. 2004. Non-Nominative (Major) Subjects and Case Stacking in Korean. In Bhaskararao, Peri and Karumuri Venkata, Subbarao, eds., Non-nominative Subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, volume 2, pp. 265–314.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl and Erguvanlı, Eser. 1994. Case Marking in Turkish Indefinite Object Constructions. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, pp. 547–552.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Ede. 1993. On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1: 149–179.Google Scholar
Zucchi, A. 1999. Incomplete Events, Intensionality and Imperfective Aspect. Natural Language Semantics 7: 179–215.Google Scholar
Zushi, M. 1992. The Syntax of Dative Constructions in Japanese. Ms., McGill University.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2005. The Case of Prepositions: Government and Compositionality in German PPs. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, Haifa, June 23, 2005.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2006. Case Marking Direction: The Accusative in German PPs. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar