I've been trying to understand correct terminology for describing the "case" of phrases (as opposed to individual nouns) where that case is not marked on any word within the phrase. Is it common, for example, to refer to a phrase a whole as being locative ("to the store") or benefactive ("for the dog") or instrumentative ("with the knife") and so forth. I know the concept of "thematic relations" is sometimes discussed for the semantics of verb-phrase relations, but in general is it more common to just talk about "case" in both semantic and syntactic contexts, or does "case" tend to imply grammar and morphology more than semantics? Can we classify prepositions in terms of the various possibilities of prepositional governance (certain "cases" are associated with certain prepositions, not others)? Can we speak of a system of case options amongst subordinate phrases that slots in alongside tense–aspect–mood–evidentiality (TAME): i.e., if we wanted to add some concept related to case supplementing TAME, what would be that fifth item? Tense-aspect-mood-evidentiality-??
1 Answer
"Case" refers specifically to morphological systems, so it would be very confusing to use that term for languages which don't have such a system.
Thematic relations/roles are the semantic relationships between the verb and its nouns. Case is one way that thematic relations can be expressed, but so are prepositions, or syntax.
Neither case nor thematic relations should be though of as part of TAME, as the TAME categories are all about characterising the verb itself. Consider that each verb can be used in different tenses, aspects, etc. without a change to what the verb itself means. In contrast, which thematic relations a verb has is largely fixed. Context won't change a verb's instrument role into a location role, for example. If a verb can vary like that it's probably more evidence of polysemy.
Voice or valency does change what roles a verb has, but it's not usually considered very similar to TAME, and I've never seen it listed as one of them. I'll have to think more about why that is though.
-
Interesting, and thanks for taking the time - I'm still unclear about "TAME ... characterising the verb itself". My understanding is that sentences basically compile a series of details about a verb - insofar as the verb profiles a state, process, or change, some of these details are temporal (the time-frame relative to the speaker's present and whether the state/process/change is/was ongoing, completed, etc.). But other details may be equally salient (purpose, means, location) and it feels arbitrary to distinguish tense/aspect from other details just because they're marked morphologically ... Commented Jul 19 at 1:04
-
... By analogy English doesn't have evidential marking, yet we can still analyze phrases like "I heard that" as supplying evidential data vis-a-vis the relevant verb. We use notions of evidentials (at least, people seem to) even if they're expressed via subordinate clauses and not morphosyntactic constructions. So what is the analogous generalization of "case", which might have case per se as its manifestation on a syntactic level but also cover phrases' thematic "roles" vis-a-vis verbs? How do we name phrases' semantic roles by analogy to the case of a hypothetical single noun in their place? Commented Jul 19 at 1:19
-
So tense is a grammaticalised expression of the semantics of relative time. In the same way case is a grammaticalised expression of semantic roles.– curiousdannii ♦Commented Jul 19 at 1:27
-
1"Case" can also be used in a semantic sense as "deep case", which expresses thematic roles (see Fillmore, eg). That usage goes beyond morphology. -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_grammar Commented Jul 19 at 8:24
-
@OliverMason That's a niche usage within one/a few frameworks. Even many linguists wouldn't be familiar with it, let alone non-linguists who are familiar with the more typical case from language studies/learning/etc.– curiousdannii ♦Commented Jul 19 at 8:48