Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T09:12:57.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 13 - Case in Germanic

from Part II - Morphology and Agreement Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Thomas McFadden
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides a synchronic and diachronic overview of morphological case in the Germanic languages, as well as its relationship to phonology, syntax, and semantics. After some terminological and typological preliminaries, I begin with coverage of the different case inventories found in the various Germanic languages, laying out the relevant morphological details and the tracking the changes that effected the steady reductions in the systems across historical stages. I then move on to a description of how the cases in a given inventory are distributed across grammatical environments, and how this correlates with syntactic, semantic, and lexical factors. Finally, I tackle a series of empirical and theoretical questions surrounding the interactions of case with other grammatical phenomena, which are of general cross-linguistic interest, but where the Germanic languages have played an especially important role in the literature. These include how cases relate to grammatical functions, the status of apparent oblique subjects and `quirky case‘, and more broadly what case phenomena might tell us about how morphology interfaces with syntax.

Keywords

caseloss of inflectionsyncretismgrammatical functionsthematic rolesquirky and inherent casesyntax-morphology interface
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 282 - 312
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, W. 1995. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Fanselow, G. 2000. “On the correlation between morphology and syntax: The case of V-to-I.” In Zwart, C. J-W. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax: Proceedings of GLOW 2000. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 219–242.Google Scholar
Allen, C. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. 1976. “The VP complement analysis in modern Icelandic.” In Papers from the Sixth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, Recherches linguistiques à Montréal, Vol. 6: 1–21.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. 1982. “The representation of case in modern Icelandic.” In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 427–503.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. and Bobaljik, J. D. 2017. “On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case.” In Coon, J., Massam, D., and Travis, L. deMena (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford University Press: 111–134.Google Scholar
Baker, M. and Vinokurova, N. 2010. “Two modalities of Case assignment: Case in Sakha,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 593–642.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach. Lund: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2002. “ ‘Oblique subjects’ in Icelandic and German,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 61–99.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. and Eythórsson, T. 2003. “The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects,” Journal of Linguistics 39: 439–472.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2009. “The development of case in Germanic.” In Barðdal, J. and Chelliah, S. (eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 123–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, P. and Subbarao, K. V. (eds.) 2004. Non-Nominative Subjects. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blake, B. 2001. Case, second edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2002. “Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 129–167.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. “On binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 11:1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Cook, P. 2006. “The datives that aren’t born equal: Beneficiaries and the Dative Passive.” In Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.), Datives and Similar Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 141–184.Google Scholar
Czepluch, H. 1996. Kasus im Deutschen und Englischen: ein Beitrag zur Theorie des abstrakten Kasus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delsing, L-O. 2002. “The morphology of Old Nordic II: Old Sw. and Old Dan.” In Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E. H., Karker, A., Naumann, H-P., Telemann, U., Elmevik, L., and Widmark, G. (eds.), The Nordic Languages, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 925–940.Google Scholar
Dewey, T. K. and Syed, Y. 2009. “Case variation in Gothic absolute con-structions.” In Barðdal, J. and Chelliah, S. (eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 3–21.Google Scholar
Enger, H-O. 2013. “Inflectional change, ‘sound laws’ and the autonomy of morphology,” Diachronica 30: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyþórsson, Þ., Johannessen, J. B., Laake, S., and Åfarli, T. 2013. “Dative case in Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese: Preservation and non-preservation,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35: 219–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1968. “The case for case.” In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.: 1–25.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. and Sprouse, R. 1991. “Lexical case phenomena.” In Freidin, R. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 392–416.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1985. “The case of German.” In Toman, J. (ed.), Studies in German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris: 65–101.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. “The license to license: Licensing of structural Case plus economy yields Burzio’s Generalization.” In Reuland, E. (ed.), Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, J. A. 2017. “The morphology of Germanic.” In Klein, J., Joseph, B., and Fritz, M. (eds.), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 913–95.Google Scholar
Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.) 2006. Datives and Other Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hróarsdóttir, Þ. 2000. “Interacting movements in the history of Icelandic.” In Tsoulas, G., Pintzuk, S., and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford University Press: 296–321.Google Scholar
Jacobs, N. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 2003. “Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic.” In Brandner, E. and Zinsmeister, H. (eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications: 127–163.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 2012. “Dative versus accusative and the nature of inherent case.” In Fernandez, B. and Etxepare, R. (eds.), Variation in Datives. Oxford University Press: 144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 1976. “Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’.” In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press: 303–333.Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. van 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1992. Structural Case. Ms., Institute for Advanced Study, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1997. “The rise of positional licensing.” In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge University Press: 460–494.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2001. “Structural case in Finnish,” Lingua 111: 315–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamontagne, G. and Travis, L. 1987. “The syntax of adjacency.” In Proceedings of WCCFL, 6: 173–186.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 2008. “On the development of Case theory: Triumphs and challenges.” In Freidin, R., Otero, C., and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, T. 2017. “Successive-cyclic case assignment: Korean nominative- nominative case-stacking,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 447–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, T. and Preminger, O. 2015. “Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary?” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33 :231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. 2001. “Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles,” Lingua 111: 419–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. 2002. “Icelandic verbs with dative objects,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 1–60.Google Scholar
Maling, J. and Sigurjónsdóttir, S. 2002. “The ‘new impersonal’ construction in Icelandic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 97–142.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and Licensing.” In ESCOL ’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics: 234–253.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1993. “Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions.” In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 113–150.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2002. “The rise of the to-dative in Middle English.” In Lightfoot, D. (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford University Press: 107–130.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2003 [2009]. “On the pronominal origins of the Germanic strong adjective inflection,” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 63: 53–82.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2005. “OV-VO in English and the role of case marking in word order,” English Language and Linguistics 9: 1–20.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas 2006. “German inherent datives and argument structure.” In Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.), Datives and Similar Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, T. 2009. “Structural case, locality and cyclicity.” In Grohmann, K. (ed.), Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 107–130.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2014. Deducing the structural /inherent / quirky case distinction from competing theories of case. Presentation at CGSW 29, University of York.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. and Sundaresan, S. 2011. Nominative Case is Independent of Finiteness and Agreement. Ms., Tromsø and Tromsø/Stuttgart. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001350.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2006. “The interpretation of German datives and English have.” In Hole, D., Meinunger, A., and Abraham, W. (eds.), Datives and Similar Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 185–211.Google Scholar
Meinunger, A. 2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkle, L. 1993. Bairische Grammatik. München: Hugendubel.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Weerman, F. 1999. Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. F. 1998. “The linguistic status of the early runic inscriptions of Scandinavia.” In Düwel, K. (ed.), Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 539–55.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. 1993. “On assigning semantic cases in Finnish.” In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 75–88.Google Scholar
Parrott, J. 2007. Distributed Morphological Mechanisms of Labovian Variation in Morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Parrott, J. 2009. “Danish vestigial case and the acquisition of vocabulary in Distributed Morphology,” Biolinguistics 3: 270–304.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 2002. “Morphological case and word order in Old English,” Language Sciences 24: 267–299.Google Scholar
Pollock, J-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Quinn, H. 2005. The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ratkus, A. 2015. “Gothic possessives, adjectives, and other modifiers in -ata,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27: 238–307.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (ed.) 2000. Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Richards, N. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. 2006. A Linguistic History of English, Vol. I: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. and Taylor, A. 2014. The Development of Old English: A Linguistic History of English, Vol. II. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1997. “Directionality and word order change in the history of English.” In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge University Press: 397–426.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schrodt, R. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II: Syntax. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. 2001. “On the nature of default case,” Syntax 4: 205–238.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, E. F. and Wood, J. 2013. “Case alternations in Icelandic ‘get’-passives,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35: 269–312.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1991. “Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2006. “The nom/acc alternation in Germanic.” In Hartmann, J. and Molnárfi, L. (eds.), Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 13–50.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2009. “The No Case generalization.” In Alexiadou, A. et al. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 249–280.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. 2002. Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expressivität. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundquist, J. D. 2002. Morphosyntactic Change in the History of the Mainland Scandinavian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. “Icelandic case and the structure of events,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5:197–225.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2006. “Case alternations in the Icelandic passive and middle.” Ms., University of Tromsø, available at ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000124.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H., Jacobsen, J. í L., and Hansen, Z. S. 2004. Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðska-parfelag.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J-R. 1977. “Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘Filters and Control’.” In Freidin, R. et al. (eds.), 2008. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wegener, H. 1991. “Der Dativ – ein struktureller Kasus?” In Fanselow, G. and Felix, Sascha (eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. Tübingen: Narr: 70–103.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2017. “The accusative subject generalization,” Syntax 20:249–291.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 2006. “Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure,” Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 1997. “Cause and the structure of verbs,” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27–68.Google Scholar
Yager, L., Hellmold, N., Joo, H-A, Putnam, M. T., Rossi, E., Stafford, C., and Salmons, J. 2015. “New structural patterns in moribund grammar: Case marking in heritage German,” Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 6, Article 1716. www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716.Google Scholar
Yip, M., Maling, J., and Jackendoff, R. 1987. “Case in tiers,” Language 63: 217–250.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., and Thráinsson, H. 1985. “Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×