Grammatical functions and case
The terms ‘subject’ and ‘object’ are frequent expressions in any linguist’s vocabulary. However, the status of these terms in cognitive models of language is rather different from their status in traditional and formal approaches. As we saw in Chapter 17, a subject is defined in Cognitive Grammar as a unit that corresponds to the TR of the verb, while the object is the unit that corresponds to its LM. While the prototypical subject is the ‘energy source’ and the proto typical object is the ‘energy sink’, these roles can be reversed in passive clauses to effect a marked pattern of attention, where the ‘energy sink’ occurs as the TR or focus of attention. This means that grammatical functions are defined in terms of their schematic meaning and in terms of how they provide a linguistic reflection of attention patterns. In contrast, as we saw in Chapter 14, the traditional (and formal) approach to grammatical functions is rather like the traditional (and formal) approach to word classes. Grammatical functions are defined according to morphological and distributional criteria: case, agreement, position in a sentence, or ability to undergo certain syntactic processes such as passivisation (which identifies an object) or subject-auxiliary inversion (which identifies a subject). According to the cognitive view, these grammatical features are only superficial ‘symptoms’ of the primitive semantic proper ties of the construction.
Furthermore, as we also saw in Chapter 14, case is traditionally described as the grammatical feature that ‘flags’ the grammatical function of a word or phrase within the sentence. Since the formal approach treats grammatical functions in terms of their structural features, it follows that case also receives a configurational account within the transformational generative model. This means that case is associated with position and with the locality of the case-bearing element to other ‘influential’ heads in the sentence. Consider the examples in (7).
Observe that the case of the subject of the embedded clause (bracketed) appears to be conditioned by the tense properties of the embedded clause: if the embedded verb is finite (7a), the embedded subject occurs in the nominative form (she). If the embedded verb is non-finite (7b), the embedded subject occurs in the accusative form (her). Despite this, the embedded subject stands in the same semantic relationship with the embedded verb in both examples: she (or her) is the AGENT of the verb eat. In transformational generative approaches, this interdependence is captured by assuming that finite inflection assigns nominative case to the subject of the sentence, or that case features on the subject are licensed or ‘checked’ by virtue of its local relationship with finite inflection, which, in this model, is viewed as the head of the clause. Accusative case is assigned to objects (or licensed or ‘checked’) by virtue of the NP’s local relationship with a verb or a preposition, which are therefore viewed as accusative case-assigners. Observe that in (8a) the accusative pronoun him is local to the verb, and in (8b) the accusative pronoun him is local to the preposition.
Without going into details about how the locality of a given case-bearing NP is to its case-licensing head is described, the simplified tree diagram in Figure 22.8 represents this configurational account. The pattern illustrated by the examples in (7) is accounted for in terms of the inability of non-finite inflection to assign nominative case. This means that the closest available case licensing head (the verb) case-marks the embedded subject instead, which explains why it surfaces with accusative case.
This very brief account omits a considerable amount of detail but provides a sense of one formal account of case, which is viewed in terms of a meaning less and automatic licensing process governed by position and locality to the appropriate case-licensing head. From this perspective, case features are just one of the formal mechanisms that ensure that licensed or grammatical structures are built. We elaborate this idea below in our discussion of the transformational account of passive constructions (section 22.2.6).
As this discussion illustrates, the formal approach to grammar is more concerned with accounting for grammatical details of constructions than accounting for their semantic properties. This follows from the autonomy of syntax. In contrast, the cognitive approach views grammatical features of constructions as ‘symptoms’ of their semantic properties. For example, the cognitive approach to the pattern illustrated by the examples in (7) would be to treat these as dis tinct constructions with distinct semantic properties (see Exercise 22.3).
