Please fill in your text in the yellow colored table element

Lemma

case

Definiens

A system of morphological marking of the roles of dependent

position (English)

nominals in clauses and other constructions.

German

Kasus

equivalent
Definiens
position
(German)
Further

Case is a system of morphological marking of dependent

explanation

nominals for the syntactic and/or semantic relation they bear to

EA not more than

4000 characters,
SA not more
20000 characters!

their heads (cf. BLAKE 2001: 1), i.e. predicates, adpositions, or

other nominals, or, to put it more broadly, to constructions in
which nominals occur. Case is the paradigm example of
dependent marking (NICHOLS 1986) or flagging (term introduced
in HASPELMATH 2005) as opposed to head marking or indexing,
which expresses the syntactic relation on the head of the
construction. In current typological discussions it is common to
subsume under the terms case marking or flagging both
morphological (e.g. affixal) expression and the use of adpositions
(as e.g. in English). This is justified as far as it is often difficult to
distinguish affixes from adpositions on principled grounds in a
cross-linguistically applicable way and since the two types of
expression fulfill basically the same functions (cf. HASPELMATH
2009: 506-507). Bearing this in mind, it is still assumed in
typological and descriptive practice that, first, case is primarily a
morphological phenomenon (hence languages such as English
do not exhibit case apart from the pronouns like she vs. her or

who vs. whom), and, second and even more importantly, it is not
legitimate to conflate morphological case and adpositions in
languages having both (e.g. Latin or Classical Arabic). However,
exception is sometimes made for languages where adpositions
mark core grammatical relations such as subject and object (e.g.

Japanese or Polynesian), though it is still much more a matter of

individual descriptive traditions than of principled and crosslinguistically justified terminological choice.
On the other hand, the understanding of case in typology should
not be confused with that of some versions of Generative
grammar, which consider abstract case to be a universal
property of all languages responsible for noun phrase licensing
and thus, strictly speaking, independent of formal realization. In
the following, case will be understood as a surface
phenomenon present in some languages and absent in others,
and showing both striking cross-linguistic similarities and huge
typological variation.
The most evident domain of cross-linguistic variation in case
systems is the mere number of case grams languages have
(IGGESEN 2013), ranging from two (e.g. Old French, Amharic,
Yimas) to dozens (as in some Finno-Ugric or Nakh-Dagestanian
languages), with the mode of six-eight cases. Huge case arrays
always involve elaborate systems of marking of spatial relations
(cf. CREISSELS 2009, LESTRADE 2010), often decomposable on
both semantic and formal grounds, see e.g. COMRIE/POLINSKY
1998 on the Nakh-Daghestanian systems.
When speaking about case, it is necessary to distinguish its
functional-semantic, morphosyntactic and morphological aspects
(cf. the distinction between syntactic case and morphological
case and a discussion of their mismatches in SPENCER 2006; cf.
also CORBETT 2008). Since it is whole (potentially complex) noun
phrases (NPs) rather than individual words that bear
semantic/syntactic relations to constructions, from the functional
point of view, case is a syntactic feature of NPs (much in the
same way as tense or mood are, strictly speaking, features of
clauses rather than just verbs). However, from the point of view
of morphology case is an inflectional property of words. From this
dual nature of case emerges one of the important parameters of
cross-linguistic variation, i.e. distribution (locus) of case marking
in NPs. Following DENCH/EVANS (1988: 3-6), it is necessary to
distinguish the following types:

(i) head-marking: case is marked on the head noun only, as in

Uradhi (1)
(1) Uradhi (Pama-Nyungan, Queensland, Australia;
DENCH/EVANS 1988: 5)
[utagha-mpu amanyma]ERG udhumpuny ighanhanga-n.
dog-ERG big back(NOM) break-PST
The big dog broke (the other dogs) back.
(ii) edge-marking: case is marked on the edge of the NP, i.e.
after its last word, as in Basque (2), or, much more rarely, before
its first word, as in Movima (3); since languages with
morphological case tend to be head-final (BAKKER/SIEWIERSKA
2009: 295296) and case markers tend to be suffixal (DRYER
2013), perhaps the most common type of case distribution is its
expression on the finally occurring head noun.
(2) Basque (isolate, Spain, France; HUALDE/ORTIZ DE URBINA
(eds.) 2003: 171)

gizon gazte hon-i

man young this-DAT
to this young man
(3) Movima (isolate, Bolivia; HAUDE 2006: 282)

n-is tochi wutu

OBL-ART.PL small

pan

(from) those small pans

(iii) partial or complete concord: case is marked both on the head
and on some or all of the words in the NP; in the classic IndoEuropean languages, only adjectives and pronouns, as opposed
to nouns, admit case concord, as in Lithuanian (4); in other
languages, even nouns already inflected for case participate in
concord, thus giving rise to Suffixaufnahme (PLANK ed. 1995), as
in Martuthunira (5).
(4) Lithuanian (Baltic < Indo-European; own knowledge)

skait-au [raytoj-o nauj- knyg-]ACC

read-PRS.1SG writer-GEN.SG new-ACC.SG book-ACC.SG
I am reading the writers new book.
(5) Martuthunira (Pama-Nyungan, Western Australia; DENCH
1994: 170)

ngayu panyuma-lalha [warrirt-i ngurnula-ngu-u kanyara-wu-u]ACC

1SG.NOM repair-PST spear-ACC that-GEN-ACC man-GEN-ACC
I fixed a spear that belonged to that man...
(iv) second-position marking: case is suffixed to the first word of
the NP, as in Yawuru in (6); German with its tendency to express
most case distinctions on the determiners or, when these are
absent, on prenominal adjectives, is also close to this type.
(6) Yawuru (Nyulnyulan, Northern Australia; HOSOKAWA 1991:
3536)

kadyarri nganggani [kamb-gap darlu dyanu]ABL.

far I.will.be that-ABL wifes.mother my
Ill keep a distance from my wifes mother [who is here].
Locus of marking is in principle independent of the degree of
morphological boundedness of case markers. Thus, as
ANDERSON ET AL. (2006) show, there are languages, such as Nias
or Somali, where edge-marking of case is expressed by
extremely bounded morphology, e.g. tonal alternation (7).
(7) Somali (Cushutic < Afroasiatic, Somali; ANDRZEJEWSKI 1956:
2426)
a. [ms=ki y rken]ABS myu dly?
snake=DEF REL they.saw:ABS he killed
Did he kill the snake that they had seen?
b. [ms=ki y rken]NOM myu dly?
snake=DEF REL they.saw:NOM him killed
Did the snake they had seen kill him?
Case is overwhelmingly expressed by suffixes or enclitics
(DRYER 2013), though case prefixes as well as nonconcatenative exponents such as segmental or tonal alternations
are also attested. In terms of its interaction with other nominal
morphological features (e.g. number), case can be expressed
both separately from them, as in Turkish (8), and cumulatively
with them, as in Latin (9), the latter option being fairly rare
(BICKEL/NICHOLS 2013).
(8) Turkish (Turkic)

adam-lar-a
man-PL-DAT

to the men
(9) Latin (Italic < Indo-European)

homin-ibus
man-DAT.PL
to the men
Other morphological issues relevant to the expression of case
include case syncretism, declension classes and various types of
case stacking, i.e. situations when a single noun contains
several distinct case markers. Thus, in many languages some
case forms take other case forms as stems, as e.g. in NakhDagestanian languages (KIBRIK 1991), cf. (10).
(10) Archi (Lezgic < Nakh-Dagestanian, Russia; KIBRIK 1991:
256)
bridge

Singular

Plural

Nominative

qin

qonn-or

Ergative

qinn-i

qonn-or-aj

Genitive

qinn-i-n

qonn-or-e-n

Dative

qinn-i-s

qonn-or-e-s

Superessive

qinn-i-t

qonn-or-e-t

The most important and complex domain related to case is that

of its semantics and syntax. Functions of cases are extremely
heterogenous, and choice of case marking can be sensitive to
lexical, semantic, morphosyntactic and pragmatic conditions.
Cases are traditionally classified into core (direct, grammatical,
syntactic) vs. peripheral (oblique or semantic). The former are
used to mark the major syntactic relations of S (intransitive
subject), A (transitive agent), P (transitive patient; COMRIE 1978,
HASPELMATH 2011) as well as of adnominal possessor, while the
latter predominantly express adverbial relations and have more
concrete meanings (e.g. instrument, location, accompaniment
etc.). However, the argument vs. adjunct dichotomy is not
unproblematic (HASPELMATH 2014), and moreover, the coreperipheral distinction actually pertains to uses of cases rather
than to case grams or case markers themselves, since one and
the same case can have both syntactic uses induced by

government and adjunct uses expressing concrete semantics (cf.

NICHOLS 1983). Thus, in Russian, all cases but the Nominative
have both grammatical and semantic uses; e.g., the core
Accusative is the default case for the direct object and also
expresses temporal duration, while the peripheral Instrumental,
in addition to a variety of semantic uses marks subcategorized
objects of certain prepositions, adjectives and verbs. With
respect to the syntactic uses of cases the notion of assignment
is often appealed to; it is common to think that heads assign
case to the nominal dependents they govern. This view is not
unproblematic, since, as has been argued in the generative
literature (e.g. BABBY 1994), structural cases such as the
subject nominative or the direct object accusative are assigned in
certain syntactic configurations (i.e., in informal terms,
constructions) rather than by individual lexical items such as
verbs or adpositions (the latter assign inherent or lexical
cases). Moreover, in many languages even core cases have
certain semantic or discourse flavours (e.g. in many languages
the use of the overtly marked accusative correlates with
specificity, definiteness, animacy or total affectedness of the
object), so classifying cases into syntactic vs. semantic is
hardly adequate.
In the functional-typological approaches to case it is often
claimed that the primary function of core cases is to distinguish
between participants of the transitive event and that this function
together with the universal principle of economy explains the
distribution of overt core case marking, i.e. types of
morphological alignment (accusative, ergative etc., see COMRIE
1978, BICKEL 2010) and their alternations (see e.g. COMRIE 1989:
124127 for a classic formulation). Indeed, in some languages
this is the case, e.g. in Malayalam, where the overt Accusative is
used in those cases where the mapping of NPs to the roles of A
and P may not be evident from the context (11a,b), and is not
used when the context alone makes it clear (11c,d).
(11) Malayalam (Dravidian, India; DE SWART 2006: 252, 254)
a. Kappal tiramaalaka-e bheediccu.

ship wave:PL-ACC split:PST

The ship broke through the waves.
b. Tiramaalaka kappal-ine bheediccu.
wave:PL ship-ACC split:PST
The waves split the ship.
c. Tiiyy kuil naippicu.
fire hut destroy:PST
Fire destroyed the hut.
d. Veam tiiyy keutti.
water fire extinguish:PST
Water extinguished the fire.
However, as has been argued by many scholars (see e.g. SONG
2001: Ch. 3 for an overview), distinguishability alone cannot
explain most of the actual case systems and the very need to
overtly distinguish arguments is overstated, at least since many
languages perfectly tolerate violations of distinguishability (see
e.g. ARKADIEV 2008). Rather, core cases tend to have an
indexing function (SONG 2001: 159165), serving to flag
arguments or certain of their properties regardless of the actual
need to distinguish them.
The most important fact about case functions is that most cases
in most languages are polysemous (see e.g.
MALCHUKOV/NARROG 2009), i.e. have several or many distinct
functions whose distribution may be dependent on syntactic
constructions, predicates with which NPs combine, and lexical
semantics of nominals themselves (on the latter, see ARISTAR
1997). Though much is known in typology on the cross-linguistic
patterns of case polysemy (see chapters 3642 in
MALCHUKOV/SPENCER eds. 2009), many aspects of this field are
still to be explored.
In the domain of core argument marking, the so-called case
alternations (case-marking splits or differential case marking)
are widespread, when an NP fulfilling the same syntactic/
semantic role can appear in different cases (on the typology of
such situations see e.g. MALCHUKOV/DE SWART 2009, BICKEL
2011). These alternations can be conditioned by the lexical

features of the nominal itself (see e.g. IGGESEN 2005 on caseasymmetry), by its grammatical or semantic properties such as
definiteness (mostly relevant for Ps, hence differential object
marking), by such semantic features as agentivity or volitionality
(mostly relevant for As, hence differential agent marking), as well
as by nominal-external features such as tense-aspect or
independent vs. subordinate status of the clause. Though
explanatory notions such as referential hierarchies
(SILVERSTEIN 1976 and much following literature) and, again,
distinguishability and economy, have been evoked to explain
many of case alternations, it is yet unclear to what extent
putative universal functional tendencies play a role as opposed
to historical developments peculiar to particular language
families and areas (cf. BICKEL/WITZLACK-MAKAREVICH/ZAKHARKO
2015).
An integrative typology of case functions has been proposed by
DENCH/EVANS (1988) for Australian languages, and it is possible
to extend it to capture case polysemy and case alternations more
generally. Dench and Evans distinguish several syntactic
domains where case operates and corresponding types of case
function. The most familiar are the relational and the adnominal
functions, covering the uses of cases to mark semantic and
syntactic dependencies of nominals with respect to their heads.
However, the other functions of case distinguished by
DENCH/EVANS 1988, despite their not having been commonly
recognized for languages outside of Australia, are well attested
cross-linguistically. Referential case is used to link secondary
predicates to the NPs they relate to, and is as such akin to NPinternal case concord, cf. (12).
(12) Lithuanian ( Baltic < Indo-European; tekstynas.vdu.lt)
a. arlot laisvai vaiktinja po but nuoga.
Charlotte:NOM.SG freely walks about the flat naked:NOM.SG.F
b. Kok Lietuvos vyr nortumte nufotografuoti nuog?
Which Lithuanian man:ACC.SG would you like to photograph
naked:ACC.SG.M?
Modal case is related to the predicate domain and is conditioned

by the verbal or clausal features such as tense, mood or

negation (cf. the generative notion of structural case, which is
assigned by functional heads in higher clausal domains, not by
lexical verbs). Though originally proposed specifically for
phenomena of the Tangkic languages of Australia, most
famously of Kayardild (see EVANS 1995 and ROUND 2013), the
notion of modal case appears applicable to such phenomena as
tense-aspect split ergativity, cf. (13), or alternations triggered by
negation, cf. (14).
(13) Georgian (Kartvelian; own knowledge)
a. gogo da-cer-s ceril-s.
girl[NOM] PVB-write-NPST.3SG letter-DAT
The girl will write a letter.
b. gogo-m da-cer-a ceril-i.
girl-ERG PVB-write-AOR.3SG letter-NOM
The girl wrote a letter.
(14) Polish (Slavic < Indo-European; PRZEPIRKOWSKI 2000: 120)
a. Lubi Mari.
I like Mary:ACC.SG
b. Nie lubi Marii.
I dont like Mary:GEN.SG
Two further functions of case proposed by DENCH/EVANS 1988
relate to finiteness and subordination. The associating function of
case links arguments to nominalized (non-finite) verbs, as with
objects in Thalanyji, which appear in the Dative instead of the
regular Accusative (15), or with subjects and objects in Russian
(16).
(15) Thalanyji (Pama-Nyungan, Western Australia; DENCH/EVANS
1988: 31)

ngatha nhaku-nha kanyara-nha [murla-ku wurni-lkitha-nha].

1SG.NOM see-PST man-ACC meat-DAT cut-REL-ACC
I saw the man cutting meat.
(16) Russian (Slavic < Indo-European; own knowledge)
a. aljapin ispolnjaet ariju.
Shalyapin:NOM.SG is performing an aria:ACC.SG.
b. ispolnenie arii aljapinym

Shalyapins(INS.SG) performance of the aria:GEN.SG

Finally, the complementizing function of case is employed to
mark whole dependent clauses for their subordinate status, and
relates to the frequent development of subordinate verbal forms
from case-marked participles or nominalizations. This function of
case can be exemplified by the absolute participial
constructions of the classic Indo-European languages, where the
complementizing non-nominative case appears both on the
participle and on its subject, cf. ex. (17).
(17) Pali (Indo-Iranian < Indo-European; DUROISELLE 1997: 160)
[t-esu vivad-ant-esu] bodhisatt-o cintesi.
3-LOC.PL argue-PRS.PART-LOC.PL bodhisattva-NOM.SG thought
While they were disputing, the Future Buddha thought.
Given the universal taxonomy of case functions, which are
logically independent of each other, and, pertaining to distinct
syntactic domains, may be simultaneously associated with one
and the same nominal, languages differ as to which of these
functions are grammaticalized (if at all) and how they are
expressed. In most languages nominals can only bear one case
marker at a time, hence different case functions compete for
expression and normally those functions which pertain to the
narrowest syntactic domain, i.e. adnominal and relational, win
(cf. the case realization hierarchy in MARANTZ 1991). However,
in many languages there are well-defined conditions when case
functions related to higher syntactic domains get overt
expression. Since these conditions mostly affect core arguments,
they give rise to well-known alternations of case marking of
subjects and objects. However, there are languages where
nominals admit more than one case marker thus allowing several
case functions to be expressed simultaneously. The most
common situation of this type is Suffixaufnahme, i.e. stacking of
relational case over adnominal case under complete concord,
attested in many language families (PLANK ed. 1995), see (5)
above. The most exuberant systems of multiple case marking
are found in Australia, where they (modulo morphological
idiosyncrasies) obey the principle of concentric scoping

(DENCH/EVANS 1988: 67): the case affix reflecting the narrower

syntactic domain (e.g. relational) occurs closer to the stem than
the case affix reflecting the broader domain (e.g. modal or
complementizing), cf. ex. (18) from Panyjima, where all words of
the embedded clause bear the complementizing Accusative,
which stacks over the relational Allative in the NP to our
camp, which in turn attaches to the adnominal genitive on the
possessive pronoun.
Panyjima (Pama-Nyungan, Western Australia; DENCH/EVANS
1988: 35)
(18) ngatha pilanyjayi-nha [nyinku mirta-yu paka-rnu-ku
1SG.NOM frightened-PST 2SG.ACC NEG-ACC come-REL-ACC
[[ngalimpa-tharntu]GEN-karta-ku yurlu-karta]ALL-ku]ACC.
1DU.INC-GEN-ALL-ACC camp-ALL-ACC
I was frightened that you werent coming to our camp.
Returning to relational functions of case, the most crosslinguistically common cases include the nominative (S and A;
Kibrik 1991 uses this term for S/P as well), accusative (P, often
with restrictions regarding animacy and/or referentiality),
absolutive (S and P), ergative (A), dative (recipient of verbs like
give, beneficiary and often animate experiencer), instrumental
(instruments and means), comitative (accompaniment). Most
common cases with spatial functions are the locative (static
location), allative (motion towards the goal) and ablative (motion
from the goal), as well as prolative (motion through or along the
landmark). Somewhat apart stands the vocative used for
address.

Zeichen zhlen
( double click)

19914
Artikeltext prfen

(double click)

Please use only the following mark ups: SMALL CAPS (for authorss names and
semantic roles), italic (for object language), bold and underline (for accentuation),
crossed and Superscript-/ Subscript as well as the combinations italic+bold and
italic+underline.

Please link references, links as well as synonyms und antonyms and figures directly
in the editorial system!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I thank Michael Daniel for his very useful comments on the
first draft of this article.
Place for you notes, links, synonyms, antonyms, references etc.
synonym(s):
antonym(s):
link(s):
abbreviations:
1 1st person; 2 2nd person; 3 3rd person; ABL ablative; ABS absolutive;
ACC

accusative; ALL allative; AOR aorist; ART article; DAT dative; DEF

definite; DU dual; ERG ergative; INC inclusive; INS instrumental; LOC

locative; NEG negation; NOM nominative; NPST non-past; OBL oblique;
PART

participle; PL plural; PRS present; PST past; PVB preverb; REL

relativizer; SG singular.
references:
ANDERSON, S.R./ BROWN, L./ GABY, A./ LECARME, J. 2006. Life on the edge:
Theres morphology there after all! Lingue e linguaggio 5(1). 116.
ANDRZEJEWSKI, B.W. 1956. Grammatical introduction. In: GALAAL, M. H. I.

Hikmaad Soomaali. London/Cape Town. 130.

ARISTAR, A. R. 1997. Marking and hierarchy types and the grammaticalization of
case-markers. Studies in Language 21: 313368.
ARKADIEV, P.M. 2008. Differential argument marking in two-term case systems and
its implications for the general theory of case marking. In: DE SWART, P./ DE
HOOP, H. (eds.), Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht. 151171.
BABBY, L.H. 1994. Case theory. In: Carlos P. Otero, ed., Noam Chomsky: Critical

assessments. Vol. I: Linguistics: Tome II. London, New York: Routledge, 630652.
BAKKER, D./ SIEWIERSKA, A. 2009. Case and alternative strategies: Word order
and agreement marking. SPENCER, A./ MALCHUKOV, A. (eds.), The Oxford

Handbook of Case. Oxford. pp. 290303.

BICKEL, B. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In: SONG, J.J. (ed.), The Oxford

Handbook of Typology. Oxford. 399444.

BICKEL, B./NICHOLS, J. 2013. Exponence of elected inflectional formatives. In:
DRYER, M. S./ HASPELMATH, M. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures

Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

(http://wals.info/chapter/21, Accessed on 2016-05-18.)

BICKEL, B./ WITZLACK-MAKAREVICH, A./ ZAKHARKO, T. 2015. Typological
evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In:
BORNKESSEL-SCHLESEWSKY, I./ MALCHUKOV, A. / RICHARDS, M. (eds.),

Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspectives. Berlin, Boston. 743

BLAKE, B.J. 2001. Case. 2nd ed. Cambridge.
COMRIE, B. 1978. Ergativity. In: LEHMANN, W.P. (ed.). Syntactic Typology. Studies

in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin, London. 329394.

COMRIE, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed. Oxford.
COMRIE, B./ POLINSKY, M. 1998. The great Dagestanian case hoax. In:
SIEWIERSKA, A./ SONG, J.J. (eds.). Case, Typology, and Grammar.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 95114.
CORBETT, G.G. 2008. Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of
case. In: CORBETT, G.G./ NOONAN, M. (eds.), Case and grammatical relations.

Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 134.

CREISSELS, D. 2009. Spatial cases. In: SPENCER, A./MALCHUKOV, A. (eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford. 609625.
DENCH, A. 1994. Martuthunira. A Language of the Pilbara Region of Western

Australia. Canberra.
DENCH, A./ EVANS, N. [1988] Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. In:
Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 147.
DE SWART, P. 2006. Case markedness. In: KULIKOV, L./ MALCHUKOV, A./ DE
SWART, P. (eds.), Case, Valency, and Transitivity. Amsterdam. 322.
DRYER, M. 2013. Position of case affixes. In: DRYER, M. S./ HASPELMATH, M.
(eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology. (http://wals.info/chapter/51, Accessed on 2016-0518.)
DUROISELLE, C. 1997. Practical Grammar of the Pli Language. 3rd ed. Buddha
Dharma Education Association.
EVANS, N. [1995] A Grammar of Kayardild. With Historical-Comparative Notes on
Tangkic. Berlin/New York.
HASPELMATH, M. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types.

Linguistic Discovery 3(1). 121.

HASPELMATH, M. 2009. Terminology of case. In: SPENCER, A./ MALCHUKOV, A.
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford. 505517.
HASPELMATH, M. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for

alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535567.

HASPELMATH, M. 2014. Arguments and adjuncts as language-particular syntactic
categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic Discovery 12(2). 311.
HAUDE, K. 2006. A Grammar of Movima. Leiden.
HOSOKAWA, K. 1991. The Yawuru Language of West Kimberley: A Meaning-Based

Description. Doctoral Dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.

HUALDE, J.I./ ORTIZ DE URBINA, J. (eds.) 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin,
New York.
IGGESEN, O. 2005. Case-Asymmetry. A world-wide typological study on lexeme-

class-dependent deviations in morphological case inventories. Mnchen, Newcastle.

IGGESEN, O. 2013. Number of cases. In: DRYER, M. S./ HASPELMATH, M. (eds.)

The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology. (http://wals.info/chapter/49, Accessed on 2016-05-18.)
KIBRIK, A. E. [1991] Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestanian
languages: Comparative and typological observations. In: PLANK, F. (ed.).
Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection. Berlin/New York. 255274.
LESTRADE, S. [2010] The Space of Case. PhD Thesis, Radboud University
Nijmegen.
MALCHUKOV, A./ DE SWART, P. 2009. Differential case marking and actancy
variations. In: MALCHUKOV, A./ SPENCER, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of

Case. Oxford. 339355.

MALCHUKOV, A./ NARROG, H. 2009. Case polysemy. In: MALCHUKOV, A./
SPENCER, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford. 518534.
MALCHUKOV, A./ SPENCER, A. (eds.). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Case.
Oxford.
MARANTZ, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In: WESTPHAL, G./ AO, B./ CHAE, H.-R.
(eds.), Proceedings of ESCOL 91. Ithaca. 234253.
NICHOLS, J. 1983. On direct and oblique cases. Proceedings of the 9th Annual

Meeting of The Berkeley Linguistics Society. 170192.

NICHOLS, J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language
62(1). 56119.
PLANK, F. (ed.) [1995] Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New
York/Oxford.
PRZEPIRKOWSKI, A. 2000. Long distance genitive of negation in Polish. Journal

of Slavic Linguistics 8. 151189.

ROUND, E. R. [2013] Kayardild Morphology and Syntax. Oxford.

SILVERSTEIN, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: DIXON, R. M. W.

(ed.). Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra. 112171
SONG, J.-J. 2001. Linguistic Typology. Morphology and Syntax. London, New York.
SPENCER, A. 2006. Syntactic vs. morphological case: Implications for
morphosyntax. In: KULIKOV, L./ MALCHUKOV, A./ DE SWART, P. (eds.), Case,

Valency, and Transitivity. Amsterdam. 322.