Vocative: paradigmatization of address

(with parallels from other case domains)

Michael DanielMoscow State University

Part 1.

Paradigmatization of address

An example: “new vocative” in Russian

Looks like case…in most cases, is identical to genitive plural

but doesn’t sound like onespecial phonetics, morphophonology etc

Conclusion: the new vocative is a not-fully-integrated member of the modern Russian case paradim

An example: “new vocative” in Russian

Cf. a (somewhat implicit) discussion of the status of the new vocative in the traditional Russian studies.

Cf. Corbett’s paper on morphosyntactic features, including the Russian case system, with comparable conclusions…

(Corbett 2008, also Spencer & Otoguro 2005, Spencer & Daniel 2009, Floricic in prep. on the peripherality of the vocative)

Matter of definition

“Vocative is not a case, because address is not a syntactic relation”

Indeed, many languages use means of address that are even less case-looking.

More examples: ‘non-case’ means of

addressA nominal form which is not exactly a case

Ancient Greek often use a bare stem for address

In Bagvalal, the vocative marker is attached to the direct stem instead of oblique. (Kibrik ed. 2001)

In some Celtic languages, the lenition-triggerring proclitic has disappeared, leaving lenition as the only marking of address… (e.g. Ball & Fife eds. 1993 on Welsh)

In Chukchi and Korjak, the second person predicative form of the noun is used in address. (Skorik 1967, Kibrik et al 2000)

More examples: ‘non-case’ means of

address

Not a nominal form:

Particles, prosody, truncation etc.

Matter of definitionA. Vocative is not a case, because address is not a syntactic relation

B. Many languages use not-very-much-case-looking means for address.

B follows from A!

This logic is corrupt. If the definition of case is purely functional (anchored in syntax / grammatical relations), the second observation is simply unnecessary. And if a vocative may be partially integrated, then we need an explanation.

Matter of definition

So, to the question “Is a form of nominal address a case?”, there are two possible ways of answering.

Answer 1. It is not, because it is functionally (semantically etc.) different from other cases.But then what the vocative is when it does look like a true case? And how to account for the cross-linguistic variation of more / less case-like vocatives described above?

Answer 2. Depends on formal parameters: is the form of nominal address integrated into the case paradigm or not? And if yes, to what extent? Then, in principle, it is a matter of degree of paradigmatization.

CASE PARADIGM

Nominal address

Latin ChukchiBagvalalWelshRussianA.Greek

Conclusion part 1

One can in principle adopt the functional definition of case (syntactic relations) which leaves the vocative outside the category. But:

languages where vocatives are inside the case paradigm are left unaccounted for

cross-linguistic variation of vocatives as being more or less integrated into the case paradigm is left unaccounted for

Part 2.

Variation in the degree of integration

of other case functions

Other functions

This discussion is relevant not only for the vocative, but for other functions whose ‘case’ nature is less disputed.

We take it for granted that Recipient-coding morphology is case, but sometimes it is not.

Functions of some cases are much less tranparently syntactic / grammatical relations than is the case with core arguments.

Functional heterogeneity of the category of case

Adnominal modification clearly is a function different from core argument marking, so that using the same label of ‘syntactic relation’ for both core cases and genitive is, in most cases, a matter of convention.

Functional heterogeneity of the category of case

A typological definition of another classical case category, comitative, has been shown to involve not only syntactic but also pragmatic and semantic criteria (cf. e.g. Arkhipov 2009).

Spatial functions are more semantic than syntactic, so that a syntactic functional definition of case as a category for conveying syntactic relations fails.

Functional heterogeneity of the category of case

Core cases themselves may encode different categories (semantic roles vs. syntactic relations).

There is no functional definition covering all what is commonly admitted to be cases in the languages of the world.

Formal heterogeneity of the case functions across

languages

Case 1. Categories conveyed by case markers in some languages may belong to different morphological sub-systems in other languages.

Formal heterogeneity of the case functions across

languagesPossession – non-integrated ‘genitives’: in Chukchi and Koryak, possessive relations are conveyed by productive formation of possessive adjectives;

in Slavic languages, in addition to the case marker of the genitive, there is a productive pattern of adjective possessive forms;

in Tsakhur (East Caucasian), there is no dedicated genitive and attributive formation is used instead.

Formal heterogeneity of the case functions across

languages

Recipiency – non-integrated ‘datives’:

in North Samoyedic (Nganasan, Enets, Nenets) the main strategy for expressing Recipients is by using a special type of (non-case) possessive marking

Formal heterogeneity of the case functions across

languages

Spatiality – non-integrated locative forms:

In East Caucasian, spatial relations clearly form a special (sub)system of nominal declension

Formal heterogeneity of the case functions across

languages

Case 2. Categories conveyed by case markers are not always fully co-integrated into one system.

Formal heterogeneity of the case functions across

languagesSpatiality:

In East Caucasian, the spatial subparadigm shows a certain degree of formal co-integration with the cases conveying syntactic and abstract relations: both syntactic cases and spatial forms are based on the so-called oblique stem.

Some Eastern Armenian nouns include a special stem formative in the locative/ablative formation (Vladimir Plungian, p.c.)

Formal heterogeneity of the case functions across

languages

A purely functional approach to the definition of the category of case (as the category indicating syntactic / grammatical relations of the noun) is thus problematic from the point of view of not only the position of the vocatives but also other widespread case functions – genitives, spatial cases, comitative etc.

CASE PARADIGM

Spatiality

Latin East Caucasian

Eastern Armenian

Conclusion part 2One can in principle adopt a functional definition of case (syntactic / grammatical relations). But:

why some languages include and some other languages exclude the same function from the inventory of cases is left unaccounted for cross-linguistic variation of the degree of the formal co-integration of different groups of functions is left unaccounted for case functions are heterogeneous, not fitting equally well into the notion of syntactic / grammatical relations

ConclusionsPurely functional definitions in typology do not always make sense (cf. discussion in Stassen in preparation, with reference to Haspelmath 1997). In most cases, it makes sense to combine semantic functional parameters with formal ones (e.g. dealing with a certain meaning expressed only morphologically, not with adpositions).

What is necessary for a typology of case and of case functions is however not simply an accent on the formal properties of the marker, but on its relation to other markers in the language: notions of homogeneous paradigm (cf. Zalizniak on case) and paradigmatization.

Conclusions

Case paradigms in the languages of the world are functionally heterogeneous and include different functional “clusters” - sub-systems of categories (argument marking, spatiality etc) or single categories (possession, comitative etc).

The degree to which these sub-sets are formally integrated into one paradigm may vary from language to language. That may be visible in the formal structure of the nominal paradigm.

ConclusionsIn a way, this is a ‘back-to-structuralism’ approach, enriched with a functional typological knowledge of the functions of case markers.

Structuralismaccent on paradigm structure, weaker interest towards cross-linguistic comparability and variation issues

Functional typologyaccent on cross-linguistic identification and variation of case functions, weaker interest towards the paradigm

Integrated approachThe position of sets of functionally related categories within a paradigm

The conclusion

One of the objectives of a typological study of the case is identifying these functional clusters across languages and analysing what clusters are more readily integrated into the same paradigm, and what happens otherwise – a typology of paradigms rather than a typology of functions.