Verb Valency and Case Grammar

A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S FO L IA L IN G U IST IC A 36, 1997

M o n ika Todorska

V ER B V A L E N C Y A N D C A S E G R A M M A R

1. INTRODUCTION

T h e aim o f this p ap e r is to co m pare the ease grammar in its first version, presented by C harles F i l l m o r e in 1968 an d th e valcncy theory w ithin th e fram ew ork o f the dependency grammar. Since dependency gram­ mar was created by Lucien T esnière in F ra n c e an d has been d eveloping m ain ly in E u ro p e , it seemed interesting to co m p are th e th eories, o rig in atin g in different p a rts o f the w orld and stem m ing from d ifferent linguistic back g ro u n d s. It seemed to us th a t they have a lo t in co m m o n as fa r as the o rg a n iz atio n o f g ra m m a r is concerned, especially the p o sitio n occupied by th e verb. W hile giving re aso n s fo r q u e stio n in g th e d e c p -s tru c tu re division betw een subject and predicate which is assum ed to u n derlie the basic form o f all sentences in all languages, F i l l m o r e claim s in his p a p e r “ The Case f o r C ase" [1968] th a t his p o s itio n seem s to be in agreem ent w ith th a t o f T esnière w ho holds th a t th e “ su b ject/p red icate division is an im p o rta tio n in to linguistic th eo ry from fo rm al logic o f a concept w hich is n o t su p p o rted by the facts o f lan g u ag e” [ T e s n i è r e 1959]. In the first section we will try to find all sim ilarities betw een the tw o theories, in th e second - differences betw een them . T h e last p a rt deals w ith som e o f the later m odifications and uses o f the n o tio n s o f dependency, valency and case, and includes o u r conclusions an d o p in io n o n ho w sim ilar the tw o theories are.

2. SIM IL A R IT IE S

2.1. Subjcct as a surface-structure phenomenon

O ne o f th e m o st im p o rta n t elem ents the theories h ave in co m m o n is the position o f the subject notion: they both consider it as a surface-structure p h en o m en o n only. In T esn ière’s g ram m ar subject loses its p re d o m in a n t p o sitio n in a tree and becom es one o f th e th ree actants, all o f w hich are s u b o rd in a te to th e verb to the sam e degree, and are situated on th e sam e level in th e tree.

A ccording to F illm ore, the n o tio n subjcct o f has n o sem antically c o n sta n t value and th ere are no sem antically relevant relatio ns residing in th e sentence subject re latio n , which c a n n o t som ew here else be expressed by labeled relations. T h u s, in F illm o re’s deep stru ctu re th ere is n o VP, and a system o f rules is added fo r creating su rface-structu re subjects. T h e way F illm o re tre a ts the n o tio n “ subject o f ’ is co n ditio ned by his tra n s fo r­ m ative-generative background, in which the notion “ subject” can be identified as the relatio n betw een an N P (N om inal P h rase) an d an im m ediately d o m in a tin g S (Sentence); where the relation “ subject o f ’ is u n d ersto o d to hold between elem ents o f the deep structure, one speaks o f the d eep-structure subject; w here it is un d ersto o d to hold betw een elem ents o f th e surface stru c tu re , o n e sp eaks o f th e su rfa c e -stru c tu re su bject. T h is d istin c tio n ap p e ars to co rresp o n d to the tra d itio n a l one betw een “ logical su b ject” and “ gram m atical su bject” .

L et us c o m p are the base rep resen tatio n s o f sentence (1) in case g ra m m a r (3) and in valency theory (2):

(1) H e gave h er chocolates. (2) gave h e h e r chocolates S M p г V о D A К N P К N P К N P К N P

A ccording to F illm ore, the sentence in its basic s tru c tu re consists o f a verb (V) and one o r m o re n o u n phrases w hich are associated w ith the verb in a p artic u la r case relationship. E ach case relatio n sh ip occurs only once in a sim ple sentence. A tenseless set o f these relatio nships, involving verbs and nouns (and embedded sentences if there are any) form s a proposition (P ) and is separated from the m odality (M ) co n stitu en t. In 1968 F illm ore claim ed th a t there were six cases, nam ely: A gentive (A), O bjective (O), D a tiv e (D ), In stru m en tal (1), F actitiv e (F ) and L ocative (L). In (3), three cases are present: A gentive, D ative an d Locative. All o f th e case categories m ay be rew ritten as К + N P , w here К (K asus) is th e underlying elem ent, realized by prepositions, postp ositions and case affixes; e.g. in (3) prepo sitio n occu rrin g w ith D ativ e is to, w ith A gentive - by an d the n o u n p h ra se in O bjective case is n o t preceded by any preposition.

It is clear th a t in surface stru ctu re th e subject o f the sentence is he. H ow ever, in b o th the deep stru ctu res he ap p ears o n th e sam e level as the other tw o actants her and chocolates (2) and as the o ther case relationships (3).

It w as m en tio n ed earlier th a t in F illm o re ’s case grammar th ere is a system o f rules fo r creatin g subjects. F o r (3) th ere are tw o altern ativ e surface structures depending o n w hich case re la tio n sh ip is to becom e the subject. In (1) A becam e a subject. In (4), the subject is O, i. e. chocolates', in (5), the subject is D , i. e. her.

(4) C hocolates were given to her by him. (5) She was given chocolates by him .

In case g ra m m a r all three sentences, nam ely: (1), (4) and (5), com e from the sam e deep stru ctu re (3). H ow ever, if О o r D a p p e a r as subjects, this choice has to be “ registered” in the verb V, in this case give.

I he base re p resen ta tio n o f (6) in case g ra m m a r is (7) and in dependency g ra m m a r - (8).

(6) H e m u rd ered his ugly wife in the kitchen.

(7) S i---1--- . M D —IA P a st m u rd e r К К К his ugly wife in th e kitchen by he

In su rface stru c tu re (6) th e subject is he — in d eep s tru c tu re th e A gentive. T h e D ativ e could also be the subject in surface stru ctu re, b u t it w ould have to be “ registered” in the verb. T he surface stru ctu re w ould look like (8).

(8) H is ugly wife was m u rd ered in the k itch en by him .

N evertheless, w hatever the surface-stru ctu re subject, th e deep stru ctu re is the sam e an d none o f the cases occupies a priviledged positio n, as the co n cep t o f subject is n o t a deep stru ctu re concept in case gram m ar.

T h a t th e p h rase his ugly wife (6) is intepreted as th e D a tiv e by F illm ore m ay n o t be very convincing. H ow ever, this p artic u la r case assignm ent is th e result o f F illm o re’s u n d ersta n d in g o f the D ativ e case. A cco rdin g to w h a t h e claim ed in 1968, D ativ e is “ the case o f th e an im ate being affected by th e state o r actio n identified by the v erb ” , while O bjective is “ the sem an tically m o st n eu tra l case, the case o f a n y th in g re p re se n ta b le by a n o u n w hose role in the actio n or state identified by th e verb is identified by th e sem antic in te rp re ta tio n o f the verb itself; conceivably th e con cept should be lim ited to things which are affected by th e actio n o r state identified by the verb. T h e term is n o t to be confused w ith th e n o tio n o f d irect o b ject” . T h u s, in F illm o re’s in tep re ta tio n , verbs like m urder and terrorize req uire “ an im ate subject” and “ an im ate o b ject” ; the n o tio n s he uses m ay seem a bit confusing, if we have in m ind the fact th a t this “ an im ate o b ject” is the D ative, n o t O bjective case.

(9) m urdered

he wi in the kitchen

his ugly

In (9) the subject he does n o t occupy a priviledged po sitio n eith er, it is the first o f the ac tan ts. T h e p hrase in the kitchen is a circu m stan tial and is situated after all the ac ta n ts in the tree.

2.2. Central position o f the verb

R ejecting the existence o f d ee p -stru ctu re subject m ean s th e necessity to rebuild th e w hole deep structure: if there is no subject in the d eep stru ctu re , th en the basic sentence c a n n o t be com posed any longer o f subject and p re d ic ate, o r, in th e case o f C h o m sk y ’s g ra m m a r, o f n o m in a l p h ra se follow ed by verbal phrase.

In T esnière’s in tern a l o rd e r, w hich m ay be referred to as his “ deep s tru c tu re ” , th e to p m o s t elem en t govern in g a sentence is a verb. T h e elem ents indirectly su b o rd in ate to the verb are th ree ac ta n ts and circu m s­ tan tials. L et us co m p are the trees representing deep stru ctu re s acco rd in g to F illm o re (10) and according to T esniére (11).

(10)

s

О

О

О

In (10) M stan d s fo r m o d ality , P fo r p ro p o sitio n , an d С fo r case categories. In (11), I stands for verb, О fo r n o u n , an d the n u m b ers (1, 2, 3) - fo r the th ree actan ts respectively.

It is clear from diagram s (10) and (11) th a t, as fa r as the verb p ositio n in th e deep stru ctu re is concerned, the tw o theories are the sam e, placin g it in the centre: verb is the governing elem ent and th e to p m o st in the hierarch y in dependency g ra m m a r and in case g ra m m a r it is th e im m ediate co n stitu e n t o f a sentence and all possible n o u n p h rases are its im m ediate co n stitu en ts. T h e difference is the term s in which g ram m atical stru c tu re is described.

B oth the deep stru ctu res rem ain the sam e even if the tense is changed in a sentence. In case g ram m ar this is provided by th e se p a ratio n o f p ro p o sitio n from m o d a lity co n stitu e n t. A c co rd in g to T esn ière, even if a tense is changed, the tree rem ains the sam e because n o th in g actu ally changes in the sentence stru ctu re (Tesnière 1959). In such a case it m ay h ap p e n th a t a nucleus will consist o f m o re th a n one w ord, like in (12), (13) and (14).

(12) Jo h n will sing this a t the p a rty tom orrow . (13) Jo h n was singing this a t th e con cert a t 7 p.m . (14) J o h n has been singing this fo r h a lf an h ou r.

In th e ab o v e exam ples, all th e u nderlined w o rd s in o n e sen ten ce co n stitu te one nucleus. In T esnière’s m odel the w ords will, was, has and been are em pty w ords and fulfil stru ctu ra l function; in a com plex nucleus they are stru c tu ra l centres, called a u xiliaries. T h u s, w h at is m ark e d in the m o d ality co n stitu en t in case g ram m ar, in dependency g ra m m a r is m ark ed in the nucleus itself, bu t th e intern al o rd e r — o r “deep s tru c tu re ” — rem ain s the sam e.

It is also w o rth m entioning th a t, alth o u g h ap p earin g in d ifferent form an d num b er, n o u n s stan d in g by the verb in the intern al o rd e r called actants and entering different case relationships in the deep stru ctu re , can a p p e a r only once in a single clause. J u st like the first a c ta n t ca n a p p e a r only once in a clause in dependency g ram m ar, th u s an A gentive o r D a tiv e can only

a p p e a r once in a clause in case g ram m ar, to o . In (7) there is on e A gentive he an d one D ativ e his ugly wife. In (8) there are tw o actan ts: th e first one he an d the second one - wife.

2.3. Existence o f two levels o f description

E xistence o f two levels o f organization is the next fe atu re the tw o theories have in com m on. A ccording to T esnière, in lan g uag e th ere is a one-dim ensional, linear o rd e r o f speech sequence, in w hich each w ord can have only tw o neigh bours, and a m ulti-dim ensional, stru c tu ra l, in ­ tern a l o rd e r o f a sentence, w hich m ay be presen ted in a tree. I t is the task o f the stru c tu ra l syntax to discover the deeper stru c tu ra l reality, hidden behind the external form o f w ritten or spoken speech, a n d to find the hierarchical stru ctu re o f a tree behind one-dim ensional sequence o f speech.

In the reverse direction speech sequence ap p ears only because th e tree is tran sfo rm ed in to a linear form . In different languages th e lin ear o rd e r can be different, alth o u g h the internal o rd e r is identical, as in th e relatio n betw een n o u n an d adjective (15).

(15) English: white dog F rench: chien blanc, G erm an: weisser H u n d (H elbig 1973).

In ease grammar th ere arc also tw o levels o f g ra m m a r, called deep, underlying structure and surface structure; this view is in full ag reem ent w ith the transformative-generative trad itio n , w hich F illm ore aim ed to m odify. In fact, they can be said to represent w hat was referred to by T esniére as internal order and external speech sequence.

2.4. Verb classification

In T esn ière’s theory, all the verbs can be classified, on th e basis o f th eir valency, in to fo u r groups (16).

(16) 1. A v alen t verbs (zero valency). 2. M o n o v alen t verbs (one valency). 3. B ivalent verbs (tw o valcncies). 4. T riv alen t verbs (three valencies).

A c co rd in g to T esnière, triv a le n t verbs set th e lim it o n n u m b e r o f ac ta n ts, a t least in F rench. Lyons (L yons 1977) also agrees th a t m o st o f the verbs h ave a t the highest valency o f three. H e claim s, how ever, th a t

in all languages “ th e re are g ra m m a tica lly p ro d u c tiv e m ech a n ism s fo r decreasing an d augm enting w hat m igh t be referred to as the intrinsic valency o f a v erb ” , e.g. transitiv e verbs in English are intrinsically bivalent, b u t in passive they becom c m on o v alen t as in (17) an d (18).

(17) Jo h n opened the d o o r.

(18) T h e d o o r was opened (by Joh n ).

A lot o f d o u b ts and criticism have arisen in conn ectio n w ith criteria o f free elem ents bound by valency. T h e problem o f m inim u m connected w ith verb valency was discussed by G e rh ard H elbig (1973). M in im u m is the possibly sm allest gram m atically correct sentence, in d ep end en t o f th e co n tex t influence; deleting any elem ent o f this sentence w ould result in its u n g ra m ­ m a tic a lly . T h ree kinds o f elem ents were distinguished o n the basis o f stru c tu ra l m inim um :

1. O b ligatory actan ts w hich can never be reduced because a sentence w ould be u ngram m atical.

2. O p tio n a l (facu ltativ e) a c ta n ts w hich can be red u ced in defined conditions.

3. O ptional attrib u tes w hich can be reduced an d add ed in alm o st every sentence.

In this w ay H elbig presented a m odel including on the first level - in respect o f q u a n tity - a nu m b er o f p artn e rs o f a given verb, on th e second - in respect o f quality - syntactic d istrib u tio n , an d o n th e th ird - sem antic su rro u n d in g o f the verb.

H elbig also proved (1973) th a t the difference betw een o b lig ato ry and o p tio n a l actan ts on one h an d and o p tio n al a ttrib u te s o n th e o th er, is based on the syntactic deep structure, while the difference betw een o b li­ g ato ry ac ta n ts an d o p tio n al ones is the p h en o m en o n o f the surface s tru ­ cture.

L yons (1968) claim s th a t advcrbials such as in London o r to London can also fulfill valency-roles in the “ p ro p o sitio n al nuclei o f sentences” , th o u g h m o st gram m arian s claim th a t only nom inals are capab le o f fulfilling them . H e p ostulates the existence o f “ valency-roles, associated w ith nom inals o r p lace -re ferrin g ad v e rb ia ls” an d “ circ u m sta n tial-ro les, referred to by m ean s o f o p tio n al adverbs o r adverbials” .

Sawicki (1988) claim s th a t the theo ry o f valency is cap able o f elim inating difficulties in verb d e sc rip tio n resu ltin g from th e fact th a t sy n tactical b e h a v io u r o f verbs h as been tra d itio n a lly described by m ean s o f th e categ o ry o f transitivity. T h e theory o f valency does n o t divide verbs into tran sitiv e and intran sitiv e ones, bu t offers a m ore ac cu rate classification o f verbs according to the n u m b er and types o f com plem ents they are liable to occur w ith. It enables linguist to ac co u n t fo r the syntactical b eh a v io u r o f a given verb in all possible utterances.

S aw icki p ro p o se s a cla ssific a tio n o f P o lish v erb s w ith th e aid o f v alen c y -n o tatio n and claim s th a t it ca n characterize a v erb ’s b eh a v io u r m o re fully, especially w here th e difference in valency c o rre sp o n d s to a sem antic difference (19).

(19) (2) m ieć (N ) (A C C ) to have

(3) m ieć (N ) A A C za + A C C to consider sb to be

(1) przepadać (N ) to d isap p ea r

(2) przepadać za (N ) za + I N S T R to be very fo n d o f (Sawicki 1988).

In case gram m ar, on the o th er h an d , frame features in dicate th e set o f ease frames in to w hich th e given verbs m ay be inserted. T hese fram e features im pose a classification o f the verbs in th e language. In “T h e C ase fo r C ase” F illm o re provides the follow ing exam ples o f fram e features o f som e verbs (20).

(20) ru n + [A]

o p en + [ - 0 ( I ) ( A ) ] m u rd e r + [ _ D ( I ) A ] .

B oth th e classification system s are based on th e su rro u n d in g o f th e verb in a clause. In th e case o f T esnière’s gram m ar, it is the n u m b e r an d type o f relations th a t a verb form s w ith its actan ts, like in (19), w here th e valency o f som e verbs is described. F o r exam ple, in the case o f the P olish verb przepadać we find o u t th a t the verb has eith er one o r tw o valencies depending o n the m eaning. I f it is used m ean in g being fond o f som eth in g o r som ebody, it takes tw o actants: th e first is in the N o m in a ­ tive case (the n o tio n is used here to m ark a m o rp h o lo g ical case, which d en o tes an in flectio n al ca te g o ry , w hile in F illm o re ’s case g ra m m a r it d en o tes a deep case) and the second in the In stru m e n ta l an d has to be preceded by the p rep o sitio n za. It is also m ark ed w ith the help o f p a re n ­ theses th a t the a c ta n t in th e N o m in ativ e is n o t o blig ato ry in Polish. T h e verb m urder in (8) has got tw o valencies, in the exam ple realized by he an d wife.

In case g ram m ar, verbs are selected accordin g to th e case en viron m en ts the sentence provides, w h a t is referred to as the case frame. A n u m b er o f case fram es in to which a given verb m ay be inserted form its frame feature. F o r exam ple, the fram e featu re for the E nglish verb run indicates th a t it tak es an an im ate subject and it h as to be an A gent (cp. (20)). A cco rd in g to the fram e feature, the verb m urder takes th e A gentive, in (7) realized as he an d the D ativ e, in (7) realized by his ugly wife. In (7) th ere is no In stru m e n ta l, as it is n o t oblig ato ry an d th e p hrase in the kitchen is a Locative.

2.5. Syntax and semantics in grammar

A lth ough the tw o gram m atical theories discussed here claim th e prim arity o f syntax, they b o th seem to be very m uch affected by sem antic consideration. T esnière distinguishes tw o functions in his gram m ar: stru ctu ral and sem antic, the form er being directed to w ard s connections, relatio ns in a sentence, th e latter - tow ards the m eaning o f a sentence. S tructural relations are dependency relations and sentence analysis m ean s the study o f h ierarchy o f con nection s. It is th e ta sk o f syntax is deal w ith the arran g em en ts o f these con nectio ns an d to discover th e in tern al o rd e r o f the sentence and its h ierarchical stru ctu re. T h u s, syntax is stru ctu ral, dealing only w ith relatio n s, n o t w ith m eanings. It is the stru ctu ra l plan th a t is essential fo r linguistics, b u t it finds reasons fo r existence only in relatio n to sem antics. T h o u g h o n first e x a m in a tio n it a p p e a rs th a t T esnière shares th e g en erativ e view th a t g ram m atical stru ctu re is d istinct and au to n o m o u s, still it seems th a t for him , th e u ltim a te basis o f g ra m m a r; m o re specifically, th e s tru c tu ra l relatio n s th a t co n stitu te fo r T esnière the very crux o f g ra m m a r d o n o t exist independently o f the sem antic connections they express.

F illm o re, th o u g h he rem ains in the generative tra d itio n , p ro p o se d “ the su b stan tiv e m o d ificatio n to the th eo ry o f tra n sfo rm a tio n a l g ra m m a r (...) w hich am o u n ts to a ré in tro d u c tio n o f the “ co n cep tu al fram ew o rk ” in ter­ p re ta tio n o f case system s, b u t this tim e w ith a clear u n d e rsta n d in g o f the difference betw een deep and surface stru c tu re ” (F illm ore 1968). H e rejects the n o tio n o f syntactic deep structure o f C hom sk y as th e artificial level betw een the surface structure and semantic deep structure, w hich is em pirically d isco v erab le. T h e deep stru c tu re p ro p o se d by F illm o re is “ se m a n tic ” because it consists o f a verb plus a n u m b er o f n o u n phrases, associated w ith the verb in case relationships; these relationships, in turn, are sem antically relevant syntactic relations, w hich form a set o f universal concepts.

3. D IFFEREN CES

3.1. Origins o f the two theories

O ne o f the m ost im p o rta n t differences betw een case grammar and valency theory is th eir origin. D ependency g ra m m a r is a specific form o f s tru c tu ra l g ra m m a r, belonging to th e tren d o f classical stru c tu ra lis m , to g e th e r w ith the P rag u e school or functional school, the C o p en h ag e n school

an d m a n y o th ers. C ase g ra m m a r is a c o n tin u a tio n o f th e generative tra d itio n in linguistics, which is also one o f th e schools o f stru ctu ralism , c h a ra c te riz e d by very fo rm alized m e th o d o f d esc rip tio n . T h ese o rigin s im pose b o th th e a ttitu d e to w ard s the tasks o f linguistic th eo ry an d th e m eth o d s used in linguistic study.

D ependency gram m ar, as well as valency theo ry, created w ithin its fram ew o rk , is a descriptive school. It aim s at a precise an d ac cu rate descrip tio n o f a given language. It studies language stru ctu re as a system o f relations. T his system and the rules o f g ra m m a r sh ou ld be derived from th e c o rp u s o f a tte ste d u tte ra n c e s. T h e s tru c tu ra l lin g u ist aim s a t th e extensive p resen tatio n o f language stru ctu re, which is n o t a set o f isolated facts, b u t an integrated w hole, in which all elem ents are in terd ep en d en t. In th e case o f dependency g ram m ar, T esnière th ink s th a t stru ctu ra l relations are dependency relatio n s, an d sentence analysis m ean s th e study o f the stru ctu re , c o n stitu tin g h ierarchy o f connections.

Besides, being a fo rm al g ra m m a r, depen d en cy g ra m m a r claim s to describe th e stru ctu re o f every language on its ow n term s, and m a k in g no assu m p tio n s a b o u t the universality o f such categories as the “ p a rts o f speech” (L yons 1968).

O n the o th er h an d , C hom sky claim s th a t a clear descrip tio n o f em ­ pirically available d a ta is n o t enoug h to give a precise m odel o f lan gu age stru c tu re . In s tru c tu ra l g ra m m a r so far, g ra m m a r o f a lan g u ag e w as determ ined by the list o f language elem ents an d types o f possible c o m ­ b in atio n s am o n g them , discovered in the texts o f parole. C h o m sk y th in k s th a t this m odel is inadequate; according to him , language is a system o f rules, acquired by its users. T h is creative aspect o f the lang uag e can be described precisely in a g ra m m a r w hich is a system o f rules. T h u s, g ra m m a r is a kind o f a device to p ro d u ce o r to generate sentences o f a language. G e n erativ e g ra m m a r projects every given set o f sentences to a bigger, p o ssib ly in fin ite set o f sentences, in th is w ay re flectin g th e c re a tiv e aspect o f h u m an languages. T h e term generative im plies th a t g ram m atical ru les an d c o n d itio n s o f th e ir a p p lic a tio n are stric tly d e te rm in e d [ C h o m s k y 1965].

Besides, case g ram m ar does n o t lim it itself to the study and d escription o f on e language only. G enerative g ram m arian s a tte m p t to find lan gu age universals. F illm o re assum es th a t som e g ram m atical features fo u n d in one language show up in o th er languages as well. T hese featu res are called covcrt categories. F illm ore claim s th a t case relation ships, as described by him , are in large p a rt covert, and th a t observ atio n s m ad e a b o u t th em “ will tu rn o u t to have considerable cross-linguistic v alid ity ” [ F i l l m o r e 1968]. H e also claim s th a t his p ap e r “T h e C ase for C a se ” is a co n trib u tio n to the study o f form al syntactic universals, and he pleads th a t the gram m atical

n o tio n ease deserves a place in the basic co m p o n en t o f th e g ra m m a r o f every language [ F i l l m o r e 1968].

3.2. Dcpcndcncy vs constituency term s of description

A n o th e r im p o rta n t difference betw een th e tw o theories is th e typ e o f relatio n s w hich are assum ed to exist betw een elem ents o f sentences. In case g ra m m a r, gram m atical stru ctu re is described in constituency term s; th ere is n o dependency betw een its elem ents. In T esnière’s g ra m m a r, th e relatio ns are dependency relations, and so g ram m atical stru ctu re is described in dcpcndcncy term s. If we co m p are (10) and (11) we see clearly th a t, in case g ram m ar, verb and different case relationships rem ain o n th e sam e level in the tree; verb an d all cases are im m ediate co n stitu en ts o f p ro p o sitio n an d so cases are n o t d ep en d en t on any o th er co n stitu en t while, acco rd in g to T esnière, verb is the to p m o st elem ent in th e hierarch y an d governs its actants. In dependency gram m ar, m odifying adjective is an element subordinate to the m odified n o u n and occupies a low er p osition in the h ierarchy in th e tree, while in case g ra m m a r adjective rem ains on th e sam e level as the n o u n and the tw o elem ents are im m ediate co n stitu en ts o f the n o u n p h rase, like in (21) and (22), respectively.

(21) h u sb and

y o u r stupid

(22)

y o u r stupid husband

A lot o f criticism has arisen in connection w ith th e n o tio n o f dependency. G e n erativ e g ram m arian s claim th a t the em pirical sense o f this n o tio n has n o t yet been precisely defined [ H e l b i g 1973]. C ase g ra m m a r does n o t use the n o tio n o f dependency a t all. H ow ever, L yons [ L y o n s 1977] pays a tten tio n to the fact th a t F illm ore’s case g ram m ar depends on th e assum ption th a t government is found in all languages.

T h e relatio n o f governm ent h as been used b o th trad itio n ally an d w ithin m odels o f generative gram m ar to describe or explain a num ber o f gram m atical p h enom ena. A ccording to L yons g overn m ent is found in a lan gu age if it fu nction s as the m ain elem ent o f predicates, unlike in the case o f ag reem ent (con co rd ), w hen verb tends to show agreem ent w ith subject o r ob ject, in n u m b er, gender, person, etc. H ow ever, L yons claim s, “ if g o v ern m en t covers

n o t only th e selection o f p a rtic u la r cases in th e trad itio n a l sense o f the term “case” , bu t also the selection o f particular prepositions (o r postpositions) an d p a rtic u la r kinds o f su b o rd in ate clauses, it is clear th a t g o vern m en t (th o u g h n o t concord) is found in all languages” [ L y o n s 1977].

A stan d ard definition o f “ g o v ern m en t” [ A o u n and S p o r t i c h e 1982] is the following:

(23) a governs ß : E very m axim al projectio n d o m in atin g a d o m in ates b an d conversely.

M ax im al p rojections are categories such as V[erb] Pfhrase], N [oun] P[hrase], A[djective] Pfhrase], P re p o sitio n a l] P[hrase] and S en ten ce ]'. T h e basic stru ctu re o f an English sentence is, by hy po thesis, as follow s (24); (24) [S N P INFL VP],

H ere IN F L fection] co n tain s tense and A G R [eem ent] in a finite clause, a n d it is to in a n o n-finite clause. It is stipulated th a t V, N , A , P and finite IN F L , b u t n o t non-fin ite IN F L , are G O V E R N O R S . H ow ever, IN F L is included in the description o f a sentential structure only when it is relevant.

T h e re la tio n o f g overnm ent plays an im p o rta n t role in the th eo ry o f C ho m sk y 1981 in the follow ing subsystem s: T h eta -th eo ry , C ase th eo ry , B inding th eo ry and G o v ern m en t theory. In T h eta -th eo ry , th e ta -m a rk in g itself is possible only under governm ent. G overn m ent is a necessary condition fo r ab stra c t C ase assignm ent. I he basic case o f g o vernm en t is th a t o f a com plem ent being governed by a head, e.g. the case o f a verb governing its com plem ent. H ow ever, fu rth e r research on syntactic re la tio n s n a tu ra lly leads to new hypotheses on the definition o f g ov ern m en t an d its role in syn tactic theory.

3.3. Links between the two levels o f description

In b o th the theories there are tw o levels o f description: in case g ra m m a r, deep stru c tu re and surface stru ctu re , and in dependency g ra m m a r, extern al speech sequence and internal order. T h e difference is the way the tw o levels are linked. In case g ram m ar, as it is considered to belong to tra n s fo r­ m a tio n a l-g e n e ra tiv e tra d itio n , d eep stru c tu re is co n v erted in to surface re p resen ta tio n w ith the help o f tran sfo rm atio n s.

In the case o f T esnière’s theory, the link betw een the tw o levels has n o t been precisely specified. T esnière claim s th a t it is the task o f syntax to discover the in tern al o rd e r and to present it in the h ierarchical stru ctu re o f a tree, and th a t speech sequence ap p ears because the tree is tran sfo rm ed in to a linear form , b u t he does n o t give any solu tio n as to ho w they arc actually transformed in to one an o th er.

4. D EV E LO PM E N T O F T H E TW O T H E O R IE S

V alency g ra m m a r holds a ra th e r stro n g positio n in general linguistics. In G e rm an y it is now regarded as m ore or less “ classical” a p p ro a c h , an d has been researched there by a g ro u p o f linguists including H elbig, Schenkel, S chum acher, T ra u tz , B rinker and others. Elsew here, how ever, it has been m o re o r less ignored, a t least until the 1980s an d w o rk s by L e e c h 1981; M a t t h e w s 1981; A l l e r t o n 1982 [ S o m e r s 1987].

O n the o th e r h a n d , a g ro u p o f linguists including H ay s, G a ifm a n , R obinson have w orked on dependency theory, describing the form al properties o f d ep en d en cy re la tio n s and the d epen d en cy trees w hich a re used to re p resen t them . In the case o f G aifm an and R o b in so n , th e d ependency m odel is co m p ared w ith p h rase stru ctu re g ra m m a r a p p ro a c h o f tra n s fo r­ m a tio n a l generative g ra m m a r [ S o m e r s 1987].

It seems th a t som e elem ents o f b o th the theories h ave been d eveloping in tw o directions. D ependencies are o f p a rtic u la r im p o rtan ce in several recent g ram m atical theories, e. g. d au g hter-dep cn den cy gram m ar. O n th e o th e r h an d , valency has been researched in m an y aspects, such as sem antic valency versus stru c tu ra l valency, extension o f valency o n to classes o th er th a n verb, o r use o f valency in g ra m m a rs d iffe ren t fro m d ep e n d en cy g ram m ar.

4.1. Daughter-dcpendency grammar

It is th e a p p ro a c h based o n a system o f sy n tactic re p re s e n ta tio n , tra n sfo rm a tio n s n o t being required. In a D D G th ere are n o tra n sfo rm a tio n s and n o surface filters. Instead, “ the syntactic rules directly generate all and only th e g ram m atical sentences o f the language, assigning to each sentence gen e rated a stru c tu re w hich, from th e p o in t o f view o f T G , ca n be described as an enriched surface s tru c tu re ” (S chachter 1980). T h is surface stru c tu re m ay c o n ta in types o f in fo rm atio n th a t a T G show s in n o n su rfa ce re p resen ta tio n s o f sentences, as well as in fo rm atio n th a t a T G d oes n o t show a t all.

T h e “ v ertical” constituency relation s betw een nodes are referred to in term s o f daughtcr-dependency; the “ h o riz o n ta l” d ependency re la tio n s (o f subject-verb, etc.) are referred to in term s o f sister-depcndency. All nodes in this a p p ro a c h are com plexes o f binary features (as oppo sed to the u n itary categories o f earlier m odels o f tra n sfo rm a tio n a l g ra m m a r). C las­ sification rules define th e perm issible co m b in atio n s o f features to c o n stru c t

categories; dependency rules specify the stru ctu res in w hich these categories a p p e a r. A ll c o n stitu e n ts are defined in term s o f a n o tio n o f re la tiv e peripherality; given an y tw o constitu en ts, one will be m o re p erip h e ral th a n the other. A n o tio n o f syntactic fu nction is assigned to n odes, w hose m ain fu n c tio n is to d eterm ine surface-stru ctu re w ord o rd er.

4.2. Extension to classes other than verbs

Som e linguists, like T esnière, consider valency to be ch a rac te ristic o f verbs only. O thers, like Soviet linguists (A dm oni, L o m tev, L ejkina) and som e o th ers (Leech), a ttrib u te this p ro p e rty to all p a rts o f speech. Still o th ers - again, Soviet linguists - refer the n o tio n o f valency n o t only to th e verb and o th e r p a rts o f speech, b u t also to all lan gu age elem ents on d ifferent levels [H e l b i g 1973].

T h e n o tio n th a t adjectives an d n o u n s m ay e n te r in to d ep e n d en cy relatio n sh ip s as governors is recognised by early valency g ra m m a rian s and som e m o re co n tem p o rary as well, e.g. Leech suggests happy as m o n o v a le n t while glad, a lth o u g h sim ilar in m eaning to happy, requires tw o elem ents to com plete its m eaning: A is glad at/about В [ S o m e r s 1987]. H ow ever, the extension o f this n o tio n for non-p red icate adjectives and n o u n s in th e w ay th a t it is extended for verbs, w ith syntactic form an d sem antic restrictio n s o f com plem ents described, is largely n o t tak en up.

4.3. Valency in other grammatical theories

T h e n o tio n o f valency ap p e ars n o t only in g ram m ars co nn ected w ith dependency theory. L a n g a c k e r [1988] tries to answ er th e q u estio n w h a t th e n a tu re o f g ram m atical valency is, b u t this q uestio n is ap p ro a c h e d in th e co n tex t o f space g ram m ar. T h is theory claim s th a t g ra m m a r - b o th m o rp h o lo g y an d syntax - is sym bolic in n atu re an d form s a co n tin u u m w ith lexicon. C onsider this H o p i sentence (25).

(25) ta a q u a m o o s-a t tiw a “T h e m an found the c a t” .

T h e H o p i verb “tiw a ” is an instance o f tw o-place p redicate, in sta n d a rd p re d ic ate-a rg u m en t term s, since it designates a re la tio n betw een tw o salient entities, a searcher and the object sought. F ig u re (24) is a typical p re d ic a ­ te-argum ent dependency tree representation between (F IN D ) and its argum ents (M A N ) an d (C A T).

(26) F IN D / \ M A N C A T

L an g ack er claim s th a t figure (26) is inexplicit on m an y crucial points; n o th in g o f substance is indicated ab o t the internal stru ctu re o f any o f th e th ree predicates, n o th in g show s th a t (M A N ) and (C A T ) have d ifferent roles w ith respect to (F IN D ), an d , how (M A N ) and (C A T ) connect to (F IN D ) an d w h at perm its this co m b in atio n , are left unspecified.

In T esn ière’s dependency g ra m m a r the verb f i n d has tw o valencies; m an an d cat are o b lig a to ry ac ta n ts w hich c a n n o t be redu ced b ecau se th e sentence w ould be ungram m atical. M a n is th e first a c ta n t fulfilling th e fu n c tio n o f th e subject and cat - the second a c ta n t and fulfills th e fu n ctio n o f the direct object. I n case g ram m ar the case fram e fo r fin d looks like (27). (27) find + [ _ O A ]

M a n is an A gent - an an im ate in stig ato r o f the actio n an d cat is in D a tiv e case.

T h e space g ra m m a r conceptio n o f grammatical valency can be regarded as an a tte m p t to be explicit on all these poin ts. L an g ack er goes o n to ch aracterize th e internal stru ctu re o f the predicates in detail. H e claim s th a t (F IN D ) is conceptually dep en d en t because it presupposes, as an in h ere n t p a rt o f ots ow n in tern al stru ctu re, tw o things p artic ip a tin g in the co rre s­ pondences, while (M A N ) and (C A T ) are conceptually a u to n o m o u s, because they d o n o t sim ilarly presuppose a salient external relation ship . T h e tw o objects in (F IN D ) function as its trajector and landmark, and define its profile (trajector and landmark are nam es given to entities in every relatio n al p red icatio n , landmark functioning as a p o in t o f reference fo r specifying the lo catio n o f th e trajector). T h e d ep en d en t stru ctu re can be eq u a te d w ith the p redicate, an d the au to n o m o u s stuctures w ith its argum ents.

T h e essential aspects o f a canonical valency relatio n are sum m arized in figure (28).

(28) Dependent structure Autonomous atrucure

О

о

I t is a bin ary relatio n betw een tw o predicates, one o f w hich is a u to n o m o u s and the o th e r d ependent. T h e dep en d en t stru ctu re is re la tio n a l an d includes w ithin its profile an entity, specifically a thing, which co rresp o n d s to the profile o f th e a u to n o m o u s stru ctu re. T his entity, only schem atically specified w ithin the d ep en d en t stru ctu re itself, functions as an claboration-sitc (e-site). I t can be said th a t the dep en d en t predicate organizes th e scene, settin g up a re la tio n betw een schem atically specified objects, and th e a u to n o m o u s

p redicates fit in to the scene an d e lab o rate p artic u la r su b stru ctu re s (elabo- ration-sites). T h e e-site bears a relatio n o f schem aticity to th e a u to n o m o u s stru ctu re , schem aticity being the relation betw een su p ero rd in ate and su b ­ o rd in a te nodes in a tax o n o m ic hierarchy (e. g. th e co n cep t (T R E E ) is schem atic relativ e to m o re highly elab o rated concepts such as (O A K ) and (P IN E )). F inally, the depen d en t stru ctu re is the p rofile d e te rm in a n t and hence im poses its relational profile on th e com posite stru ctu re.

This is the basic type o f valency re la tio n generally assum ed in predica- te-a rg u m en t acco u n ts o f sem antics, b u t th ere are ways in w hich valency re la tio n s com m only deviate from the p ro to ty p e, nam ely: a valency relatio n need n o t be binary, it is n o t necessary th a t th ere be a clear assym etry betw een an au to n o m o u s and a dep en d en t stru ctu re, e-site o f th e d ep e n d en t stru c tu re does n o t have to be a thing included in th e profile: it can be a relatio n ra th e r th a n a thing.

4.4. Fillmore’s modißcadons: “The Case for Case Reopened”

In 1977, nine years afte r the p u b licatio n o f “T h e C ase fo r C a se ” , C harles F illm ore published a n o th e r article, “T h e C ase fo r C ase R e o p e n e d ” , in w hich he reviewed a few o f the basic assu m p tio n s o f case th eo ry , discussed som e o f the m o st im p o rta n t challenges to the th eo ry a n d , finally, he pro p o sed a new in te rp re ta tio n o f the role o f cases in a th eo ry o f g ra m m a r. T his new in te rp re ta tio n could be associated w ith this slogan: M eanings are relativized to scenes.

F illm o re claim s th a t it becom es necessary to recog nize a level o f gram m atical stru ctu re w hich m akes use o f underlying g ram m atical relation s, a lth o u g h he th o u g h t it should be rejected. H ow ever, he believes, th a t a level o f case o r role analysis is also needed, as a p a rt o f a general analysis o f th e scenes th a t get com m unicated w ith speech, an d th a t these tw o stru ctu re s are united by the n o tio n o f perspective. A cco rd in g to F illm o re, th e stud y o f sem antics is “ the study o f th e cognitive scenes th a t are created o r activated by utteran ces” [ F i l l m o r e 1977]. W e recognize scenes o r situ atio ns an d th e function s o f various p a rtic ip a n ts in them . W e bring in to perspective som e q u ite sm all p o rtio n o f such a scene. O f th e elem ents w hich are fo reg ro u n d ed , one o f them gets assigned the subject role - in u n derlying o r logical stru c tu re - and one o f them - if we fo reg ro u n d tw o th in gs — gets assigned the d irect object role in the clause. S om ething like a saliency hierarchy determ ines w hat gets foreg ro u n d ed , an d so m ething like a case hierarchy determ ines how the foregrounded nom inals are assigned gram m atical functions.

H e p oints o u t th a t the re p erto ry o f cases is not identical to th e full set o f n o tio n s th a t w ould be needed to m ak e an analysis o f any state o r event. O ne o f the cases he proposed was the agent, identifying th e ro le o f an active p a rtic ip a n t in som e event; yet events are n o t restricted in th e n u m b e r o f active p artic ip a n ts they can have. F o r exam ple, in th e com m ercial event, tw o different individuals are agentively involved an d th e action s o f each o f th e tw o are p a rt o f o u r u n d erstan d in g o f any o f th e lexical item s th a t can be used fo r describing this kind o f event o r any o f its aspects. T h e p o in t is th a t a case fram e need n o t com prise a descrip tion o f all th e relev an t aspects o f a situ atio n , b u t only a p a rtic u la r piece o r section o f a situ atio n .

In (6) there are tw o particip an ts: he w ho is an A gent an d his ugly wife w ho is a P atien t. T h e A gent is in the subject p ositio n and P a tie n t fulfills the role o f direct object. H ow ever, it is possible to leave th e A g en t o u t o f perspective an d to p u t the place w here the event takes place in perspective as in (29).

(29) H is wife w as m urd ered in the kitchen.

A lth o u g h the tw o elem ents he and his ugly wife are nu clear elem ents [ F i l l m o r e 1977], they are n o t o bligatory an d so (29) is gram m atical, leaving the A gent o u t o f perspective.

4.5. Other modifications o f case grammar

F illm o re’s research on the n o tio n s o f case and role analysis w as used by C hom sky [ C h o m s k y 1980] w ho in co rp o rated it in to his latest m odel o f g ra m m a r o rg a n izatio n , nam ely, the Government-Binding m od el. T h e theta-theory m o d u le o f G B fram ew o rk assigns p ro p e r theta-roles to th eir com plem en ts accord ing to theta-critcrion, w hich requires th a t each arg u m e n t b ear one an d only one th eta-ro le, an d each th eta-ro le is assigned to one an d only one argum ent, th eta-ro le being a sem antic arg u m e n t o f a p redicate (A gent, T h em e, P atien t, Source, G oal). A typical re p resen ta tio n o f lexical in fo rm a tio n is p rovided by the thcta-grid, w hich is a list o f the arg u m en ts th a t a pred icate requires. T h e exam ple o f theta-grid fo r p u t loo ks like: (30) p u t [A gent, T hem e, L ocation]

J o h n p u t the b o o k on the shelf. [ J a c k e n d o f f 1972]

T hem atic roles used by researchers originate from earlier w orks, especially tho se used by F illm o re and G ru b e r. T hey include Agent, Patient (o r Theme) and Goal. G ru b e r proposed a set o f th em atic relatio n s, based on the verbs o f m o tio n [ G r u b e r 1976]. T h e system was developed by Ja c k e n d o ff [ J a c k e n d o f f 1972], an d in c o rp o rated by C hom sk y in to the th e ta -th e o ry

m o d u le o f G B fram ew ork. T h ere is no general agreem ent as to how m an y them atic roles are required for the description o f predicate/argum ent structure.

W e think, however, th a t C hom sky treated F illm ore’s research in a m arginal w ay an d th a t it was F illm o re’s theories prop o sed in “T h e C ase fo r C ase R e o p e n e d ” th a t gained m o re atte n tio n , nam ely the studies on the role o f cases dep endin g on given contexts. It seems th a t the w hole Scencs-Framcs Semantics h as stem m ed from F illm o re’s theories an d h as been flourishing, explicating the contextualized uses o f cases and sem antic roles [ F i l l m o r e

1982].

5. C O N C LU SIO N S

A fte r a m o re detailed co m p ariso n o f various aspects o f case g ra m m a r in its first version, presented by F illm o re in 1968, and d ependency g ra m m a r an d valency th eo ry as they w ere presented by T esnière in 1957, it seems th at, altho ugh having a lot in com m on, there are also considerable differences d istin g u ish in g them . A s fa r as th eir o rig in s a re co n c ern e d , th ey h av e differen t b ack g ro u n d s and are su p p o rted by differen t a ttitu d e s to w ard s n a tu re o f languages, language universals and task s an d aim s o f th e linguistic th eo ry . Besides, they o p erate various n o tio n s in d escrip tio n o f lan g uag e gram m ar: dependency term s in T esnière’s theory an d co nstituen cy term s in F illm o re ’s th eory. It im plies an entirely different a ttitu d e to w ard s lan gu age stru ctu re and language system . In case g ra m m a r th e tree rep resen ts relatio ns betw een c o n stitu e n ts and in d ep e n d en cy g ra m m a r th e tree re p re se n ts hierarchical stru ctu re o f a one-dim ensional sequence o f speech.

H ow ever, the tw o theories are sim ilar as far as the stru c tu ra l cen tre o f the sentence is concerned: it is the verb. In this respect b o th valency and case-like theories o f g ra m m a r differ from co n tem p o rary views o f g ra m m a r - c o m p are th e early C h o m sk y ’s n o tio n o f kernel sentence co nsisting o f subject plus predicate. In this respect the tw o theories are q u ite sim ilar.

It seemed to us th a t the g ro u n d s on which b o th th e theories developed an d p hilosophies concerning the n a tu re o f linguistic task s an d aim s, and a ttitu d e s to w ard s the n a tu re o f languages, are so differen t th a t they c a n n o t be considered as sim ilar, b u t only as having a lot in co m m o n , nam ely: the po sitio n o f th e verb.

H ow ever, should we try to discuss the n o tio n s o f valency and case alto g eth er, it tu rn s o u t th a t the tw o m ay be com p lem entary to one a n o th er. L y o n s [1977] claim s th a t “ case g ram m ar h as a ttem p ted to a c co u n t fo r valency o f verbs” . C ases, d e n o tin g such sem antic roles as th o se o f agent, p atien t, cause, effect, source an d goal, are called valency-rolcs by him . H e

also presents w hat he called valency schemata while classifying verbs in to gro u p s (31).

(31) 1. A ffect (agent, p atien t) o perativ e verbs. 2. P ro d u ce (cause, effect) factitive verbs.

3. Produce (agent, effect) operative-factitive verbs. 3a. P roduce (agent, (m ove (entity, source, goal))).

3b. P ro d u ce (agent, (m ove (entity, goal))). 3c. P ro d u ce (agent, (m ove (entity, source))).

I f we tak e into co n sid eratio n th e verb kill, it m ay be eith er an o perativ e verb, because killing is an action th a t is p erform ed u p o n , and affects, a p atien t, and th u s belongs to g ro u p 1, b u t also it m ay be a factitive verb, because it denotes a process o r event w hereby a cause p rod uces an effect, an d th u s belongs to g ro u p 2. V erbs like remove, bring, take, b elong to g ro u p 3c, as they den o te a m o v em en t o f certain entity, from certain source to certain goal, perform ed by an agent [ L y o n s 1977].

A very interesting synthesis o f the tw o n o tio n s has been p ro p o sed by C h arle J. F illm ore in his frame semantics. H e claim s th a t “ each lexical item , o r idiom atized p h rase, can be associated w ith w h a t can be called valence description, a d e sc rip tio n th a t specifies, in b o th sem an tic an d syntactic term s, w h at th e expression requires o f its c o n stitu en ts an d its co n tex t, an d w h a t it co n trib u tes to the stru ctu res th a t c o n ta in it ” [ F i l ­ l m o r e a nd A t k i n s 1992]. Let us com e back to the exam ple o f the “ com m ercial event” p ro p o sed by F illm ore in 1977. “ C om m ercial tra n sa c ­ tio n fra m e ” ca n be characterized by co n stru c tin g a scenario o f a n ex c h an ­ ge o f goods fo r m oney. T h e categories derivable from th e com m ercial tra n sa c tio n fram e are in the first place Buyer, Seller, Goods an d M oney. L et us have a look a t the sem antic and syntactic valence o f verbs from this fram e (32).

Buyer Seller Goods M o n e y

B U Y Subj (from ) D -O bj (for)

S E L L (to) Subj D -O bj (for)

S P E N D Subj N U L L fo r/o n D -O bj

C O S T (I-O bj) N U L L Subj D -O bj

[ F i l l m o r e a nd A t k i n s 1992]

In this p ap e r we have tried to co m p are th e tw o linguistic theories: the dependency g ra m m a r an d case gram m ar. W e have p o in ted o u t th a t th o u g h th e c a n n o t be considered as sim ilar, the n o tio n s o f case an d valency have been widely used in a variety o f linguistic theories and g ra m m a r m odels. It seems th a t the can be b o th used very widely especially in lexicography. It is o u r conviction th a t th e m od el o f valency descrip tio n p ro p o se d by

F illm o re and A tkins will lead to research o n valency o f differen t p a rts o f speech, n o t only verbs. T h o u g h “ fram e-b ased ” d iction aries, p ro p o sed by F illm ore and A tk in s, are still “ a d ista n t fu tu re ” [ F i l l m o r e a nd A t k i n s 1992], it seems th a t this altern ativ e m a n n e r o f describing lexical item s m ay advance in the d irection o f a tta in in g ex p lan a to ry pow er and c a p tu rin g all th e in fo rm a tio n th a t sp eak ers possess a b o u t th e w o rd s in th eir language.

REFEREN CES

A o u n , J. and S p o r t i c h e , D. (1982) “ On the form al theory o f governm ent” . Linguistic

Review 2: 211-236.

C h o m s k y , N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: M outon.

C h o m s k y , N. (1965) Aspects o f the Theory o f Syntax. C ambridge, M ass.: M J .T . Press. C h o m s k y , N. (1977) “ O n W H-movement. Form al syntax” . P. С u l i c o v e r et al . (eds)

New Y ork: Academic Press, 71-132.

C h o m s k y , N. (1980) “ O n binding” . LI 11: 1-46.

F i l l m o r e , C. J. (1968) ‘T h e Case for Case” . In E. B a c h and R. H a r m s , (eds) Universals

in Linguistic Theory. New Y ork: H olt, R inehart and W inston, 1-88.

F i l l m o r e , C. J. (1977) “T he Case for Case R eopened". In P. C o l e and J. M. S a d o c k , (eds) In Syntax and Semantics 8. New Y ork: Academic Press, 59-81

F i l l m o r e , C. J. (1982) “ Fram e Semantics” . In Linguistic Society o f K orea (ed.) Linguistics

in the Morning Calm. Soeul: H anskin, 11-38.

F i l l m o r e , C. J. and A t k i n s , В. T. (1992) “ Tow ard a Fram e-Based Lexicon: The Semantics o f RISK and its N eighbours” . In E. K i t t a y and A. L e h r e r (eds) Frames,

fields and contrast: New essays in semantics and lexical organization. Hillsdale, N J:Erlbaum .

G r u b e r , J. (1976) Lexical Structures in Syn ta x and Semantics. A m sterdam : N orth H olland. H e l b i g , G . (1973) Geschikte der neueren Sprachwissenschaft. VEB Bibliographisches Institut.

Leipzig. Trans, by C. Schatte and D. Morciniec. Dzieje językoznaw stw a nowożytnego. W roclaw: Ossolineum 1982.

J a c k e n d o f f , R. (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge M IT Press. L a n g a c k e r , R. (1988) “The nature o f gram m atical valence” . In R u d z k a - O s t y n (ed.)

Topics in cognitive linguistics. Diss.

L y o n s , J. (1968) Introduction to Theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. L y o n s , J. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.

S a w i c k i , L. (1988) Verh-Valency in Contemporary Polish. Tubingen: G unter N arr Verlag Tübingen.

S c h ä c h t e r , P. (1980) “D aughter-dependency gram m ar” . In M o r a v c s i k and W i r t h (eds) Syntax and Semantics 13. O rlando: Academic Press, 267-298.

S o m e r s , H. L. (1987) Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

M o n ika Todorska

W A LEN CJA C ZA SO W NIK A A G R A M A T Y K A PR ZY PA D K A

W artykule zaw arto porów nanie teorii gram atyki przypadka, przedstawionej przez C harlesa Fillm ore’a w 1968 r. i gram atyki zależności Luciena Tesnière’a. O m ów iono pochodzenie obu teorii, rozwój koncepcji od gram atyki przypadka d o sem antyki ram owej, ja k też pojęcie Walencji w różnych teoriach językoznawczych. Także poddano analizie podobieństw a i różnice pom iędzy dwiema teoriam i n a podstawie analizy zdań.