The Fundamentals of Case Grammar: An Interview with Dr. J.C.

Strangelove
This interview should be required reading for Russian linguists and serious linguists in all
languages. Case Grammar provides the theoretical basis for most advanced Russian grammar
courses, including RU-202 and RU-203. In addition, Case Grammar terms and concepts are
employed throughout the RLM Grammar Review and Mailbag.
***
By Way of an Introduction
"Everything I know about grammar and syntax, I learned from Dr. J.C.
Strangelove," said the Spanish instructor.
"I didn't realize that he taught Spanish."
"He doesn't. His speciality is Case Grammar and, you know, Language
Universals."
"Language Universals?"
And so began my quest for Dr. Strangelove. I finally found him partially
hidden behind what he calls "the patina of his workplace" - the piles of
books, magazines and newspapers that cover his desk.
The following interview article represents the kernel of his teachings. The
article is somewhat lengthy and has been divided by topics into six parts to
facilitate reading:
Part 1: Surface Structure/Deep Structure
Dr.
JCS:

Where is that book? It was just here!

Sorry. You must be here for the interview?

RLM: Dr. Strangelove, I presume.

Yes, the interview. Though, I'm sure this will take more than one session.
Be that as it may, I sincerely hope that during our time together, we can
produce something that can be called the Fundamentals of Case Grammar.
Could you give us a brief preview of the subject?
Dr.
JCS:

As varied as the world's languages are, human language, as such, is capable

of expressing perhaps six basic concepts which we call Case Notions or
Deep Cases. The description of these notions and their expression is the
nucleus of Case Grammar.
Let us begin by distinguishing the two terms that are fundamental to Case
Grammar: Deep Structure and Surface Structure.
What is the difference in meaning between these English sentences?
Columbus discovered America.

America was discovered by Columbus.

RLM: There is no difference in meaning. What is different is that the first sentence
expresses the "idea" through an active construction; while the second
sentence uses a passive construction.
Dr.
JCS:

Exactly! The process of language begins on the Deep Structure level with a
non-verbal - yet conscious - "idea" or, better yet, "thought."
When we speak, we bring that "thought" up and articulate it, providing the
thought with a Surface Structure, the actual words we use.
In the two examples we're discussing, the Surface Structures, that is, the
actual verbalizations of the thought, are different. And yet, the Deep
Structure - or the "thought" itself - is the same.
Why? First of all, the lexical arguments are the same. Moreover, on a deeper
lever, the level of Case Grammar, the Case Notions are also the same:
The verb "to discover" has the same Agent, "Columbus," who is the "doer" of
the action, and the same "recipient" of the action, the Object, "America."
What is different is the mapping of these elements into the Surface
Structure.
Let's continue by translating these sentences into Russian.
Columbus discovered America.
.
America was discovered by Columbus.
.
Once more, all four sentences express the same "thought." In other words,
their Deep Structure is the same. But now we can examine the differences in
their Surface Structures to learn something about how English and Russian
express Deep Cases.
Notice that in the two active sentences the words are ordered differently:
Columbus discovered America.
.
The Case Notions, that is, the grammatical relationships between the verb
and its constituent noun-phrases, are expressed largely through affixation in
Russian. Whereas in English a strict word order is used to express Case
Notions.
Thus for the Deep Structure to remain constant, English requires that the
verb be preceeded by Agent and followed by the Object. No rigid
requirement exists in Russian because the affix usually marks the Object and
distinguishes it from the Agent.

In Russian we could just as well have said:

.
.
.
To the Russian mind the difference between these sentences is that they stress
different aspects of the same Deep Structure "thought." Be that as it may,
they are all grammatically correct and they all render the same idea, namely:
Columbus discovered America.
Now let us compare the passive sentences:
America was discovered by Columbus.
.
Once more we see that in Russian affixes express the relationship between
words. The Agent "" is now marked by the instrumental case ending
-. In English the marking of "Columbus" as the Agent is accomplished by
the addition of the preposition by.
You asked me for a brief introduction to our subject. Let me conclude by
saying that the grammar of a given language defines the rules used by that
language for the Surface Structure mappings of deeper universal
relationships called Case Notions.
In short, other than their unique lexical data bases, the only difference
between, say, Albanian and Zulu - or English and Russian, for that matter - is
the way these individual and distinct languages map essential
grammatical relationships.
RLM: Thank you. I think...
We'll return to Case Notions shortly. But first let's discuss your latest workin-progress.
Part 2: The Phantom "It" of English
RLM: We've discussed Surface Structure and Deep Structure and introduced the
concept of Deep Cases or Case Notions. Why don't we talk about what you
call "the phantom it of English?"
Dr.
Why not? Let's begin with an example.
JCS: Where is that book? It was just here!
RLM: What book?
Dr.
No, that's the example:
JCS:
Where is that book? It was just here!
Narrowing our focus to the pronoun it, we can see how pronouns function.
Semantically, pronouns replace and/or restate nouns. In our example, it

means book. We know that the pronoun it means the noun book because
book acts as an antecedent, a semantic reference point, for it.
Now let's examine a few other English sentences that contain the pronoun it:
It is cold.
It is raining.
It is getting dark.
It is clear that we disagree.
In each instance, the pronoun it has no antecedent. Why is it there? What is
the semantic function of the pronoun it? In other words, what does it "mean"
in these sentences?
RLM: Nothing, really.
Dr.
Correct! The answer is it means nothing in these sentences.
JCS:
English grammar or its Surface Structure mapping rules require that - in
order to be grammatically correct - all sentences must have a subject and a
predicate.
In the examples above, the pronoun it fulfills the grammatical requirement
that each English sentence have a subject. The linking verb is fulfills the
other requirement - that each sentence have a predicate. The linking verb tells
us that this is a present tense statement.
However - and what is important for our discussion is that - the pronoun it
carries no meaning in these sentences. Thus, the pronoun serves no semantic
function. This is what I call "the phantom it of English."
We can clearly see "the phantom it of English" when we translate the
sentence It is cold! into Russian.
In Russian, It is cold! is simply ! - a complete sentence that fulfills
all of the grammatical requirements of Russian Surface Structure. The point
is that Russian does not have the same surface mapping requirements as
English. Russian does not require a subject for a sentence to be
grammatically correct.
RLM: So "the phantom it of English" is a product of English surface mapping
requirements. Once we move into another language with different surface
mapping requirements, the phantom nature of it is revealed.
Dr.
Exactly! The sentences ! and It is cold! are semantically equivalent.
JCS: They express the same Deep Structure or meaning. What is revealed in the
translation process is that the Surface Structures, the ways this "thought" is
expressed in Russian and in English, are different.
RLM: Thank you. Let's get back to Case Notions.

Part 3: Case Notions

Dr.
As we've already learned, Case Notions are the grammatical
JCS: mappings that accrue to nouns when they're used in sentences.
Both Russian and English use prepositions (English more than
Russian), both use word order (English, again, more than Russian),
but other than in pronouns, where English still preserves certain
case-conditioned changes of form (e.g., he, his, him), only Russian
uses affixes (surface case endings) to indicate Deep Case
relationships.
But let's talk about nouns themselves. What do nouns do? They
name "persons," "places" and "things," and - if you went to a private
school - "ideas:" soldier, city, bottle, liberty. In order to use nouns to
make a sentence, we must determine their relationship to the
predicativizer - usually a verb.
When nouns occur in the context of a verb, the "things" they name
automatically acquire additional meaning - something we call Case
Notions, depending on the Case Frames of that verb.
The six "cases" of Russian grammar participate in the Surface
Structure of the language. Case Notions, the Universal Deep
Cases of all languages, are not these "cases."
RLM: Okay. Do let us go on!
Dr.
As I was saying, once nouns occur in the context of a verb, the
JCS: "things" they name take on an additional meaning:
The boy struck the snake.
The snake was struck by the boy.
The stick was used by the boy to strike the snake.
On the Surface Structure level of English, the italicized forms boy, snake, stick - variously serve as subjects of the previous
sentences.
However, on the Deep Structure level, the nouns boy, snake, stick
carry different - and yet, consistent - Case Notions in relation to the
verb "to strike:"
The boy is the Agent or "doer" of the action "to strike."
The snake is the Object, the "receiver" of the action "to
strike."
The stick is the Instrument used by the Agent to carry out
the action "to strike."
RLM: We've obviously reached the goal of our journey.
Dr.
We have reached the goal, and yet we needed to travel through all
JCS: the previous stages to get to what follows.

Part 4: The Deep Cases

Dr. JCS: In Case Grammar there are a handful of Deep Cases.
The two primary Deep Cases are Agent and Object. We've already described the Agent as the
"doer of the action." Recall the sentences:
Columbus discovered America.
America was discovered by Columbus.
In both instances, Columbus acts as the Agent. With the obvious exceptions of robots, forces
of nature, "Mother Russia" and other anthropomorphisms, Agents are always animate.
Some additional example sentences [with the Agent italicized]:
The eagle has landed.
What hath God wrought?
Nero fiddled.
"Waiting for Godot" was composed by Samuel Beckett.
.
.
? (An anthropomorphism!)
.
Let's first look at the English examples. Note that syntactically the Agent can appear before or
after the verb. However, in non-passive constructions the Agent is always the subject of the
verb - the verb agrees with it. In English passive constructions the Agent is marked with the
preposition by.
In Russian non-passive constructions, the Agent occupies the nominative case. In passive
constructions, the Agent is in instrumental case.
RLM: Fine. Let's move on to the other primary Deep Case - the Object.
Dr. JCS: The Object is the "recipient of the action." It can be animate or inanimate. Some
example sentences [with the Object italicized]:
Who shot Kennedy?
Our house burned down.
The code was broken by the Nazis.
.
.
.
Note that deep Objects can be surface subjects, both in English and in Russian. Thus, house
and code are Objects, the passive "recipients of the action" of the verbs "to burn" and "to
break." Likewise, the nominative and are also, in Case Grammar terms, both
Objects, the passive "recipients of the actions" and .
RLM: You call the Agent and the Object the two "primary" Deep Cases. What do you mean
by that?

Dr. JCS: What I mean by "primary" Deep Cases is that they are the ones most often
expressed in the favorite sentence type of both English and Russian, SVO Subject/Verb/Object; however, the actual Deep Cases employed in a given sentence are
defined by the Case Frames of the verb used, Case Frames being the Deep Cases
permissible or required with a particular verb for a particular meaning.
For instance, the verbs "to write" ~ and "to read" ~ permit both an Agent and
an Object. Both are permitted but, at minimum, one or the other is required:
Ester (Agent) wrote this letter (Object) yesterday.
Ester (Agent) wrote all day.
The letter (Object) was written on a typewriter.
The judge (Agent) read his sentence (Object).
The judge (Agent) read quietly.
The sentence (Object) was read aloud.

(Agent) (Object) .
(Agent) .
o (Object) .
(Agent) (Object) .
(Agent) .
(Object) .

To sum up, the semantics or meaning of the verbs in question, "to write" ~ and "to
read" ~ , suggest or, better yet, "trigger" specific Deep Cases: those of Agent and/or
Object.
With the exception of imperatives, these verbs cannot be used without one or the other or
both cases being articulated. Indeed, even when only one case is articulated, the other remains
understood.
After all, in the sentence - "The judge read quietly." - it is understood that the judge read
something. And when we say - "The sentence was read aloud." - it is understood that
someone read the sentence.
The same holds true for the imperative mood: "Write!" ~ ! "Read!" ~ ! The
unnamed addressee is the Agent and there is something, an Object, to be written or to be
read. Otherwise, the commands would make no sense!
RLM: Very good. Let's see what other Deep Cases are "triggered" by other verbs.
Dr. JCS: Let's talk about the Experiencer case which is usually filled by an animate noun.
The Experiencer is "the person or other animate affected or experiencing a state expressed
by the verb without doing and/or acting out the action."
The Experiencer can appear in Surface Structure in a number of different ways. Here are
some examples [with the Experiencer italicized]:
Mr. Loman needed a drink.
Samantha was chilled by the night.
The sharks smelled blood.
.

, .
.

RLM: The verb determines the Case Notions of the nouns, that is, whether a noun might be
an Experiencer, an Object or an Agent.
Dr. JCS: Exactly! For example, verbs that express notions like "to be cold, hot, hungry, tired,
sad" and the like, all require associated animate nouns to be an Experiencer.
RLM: Let's go on to the Benefactive Case, which also involves animate nouns.
Dr. JCS: The Benefactive Case obviously involves a "beneficiary", that is, "a person or
other animate noun that "benefits," the one to whom or for whom, the action of the verb is
performed."
A Benefactive is not the same as an Object, as the following examples illustrate [with
Benefactive italicized]:
He presented her with a rose.
Doctor Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize.
We mailed mother the letter last week.
.
.
.
RLM: On the level of Surface Structure we see that the English indirect object can act as
the Benefactive. In Russian, the dative case is often used.
But then there's the Dr. Einstein was awarded... sentence and the genitive phrase ...
.

Dr. JCS: Passives (Einstein) and prepositions that add nuance ( , "on somebody's
behalf" versus "as a gift") are mere surface syntax.
However, verbs are the centers of sentences!
The suns around which noun phrases orbit!
RLM: Four Deep Cases down... a couple more?
In the sentence we discussed earlier The boy struck the snake with a stick, you noted one of
these remaining Deep Cases - the Instrument.
Dr. JCS: Yes, the Instrument is "an inanimate object or force which facilitates the action." In
our earlier sentence, the stick fulfilled that function. Some additional examples [with the
Instrument italicized]:
They arrived by ship from England.
The storm felled the tree.
She hears music.
.

.
.

Obviously, in Russian the instrumental case marks the Instrument. However, notice that in
our second sentence , which is in the prepositional case, is used to express the
Instrument of the action.
In addition, "verbs of the senses" have special objects, not acted upon but serving as the
Instruments of the experience.
RLM: Again, we have to distinguish the Surface Structure, how something is said, from the
Deep Structure, what it means.
The interesting sentence for me is:
The storm felled the tree.
On the Surface Structure level of English, the noun storm is the subject of the sentence. Yet,
it can't be the Agent because it is not animate; rather, it's that "unvolitional" inanimate
"force" that you described in your definition of the Instrument.
Dr. JCS: Exactly! Take another sentence:
Guns kill people.
The noun guns is the subject on the Surface Structure level. But on the Deep Structure
level the noun guns is the Instrument which carries out the action "to kill."
RLM: So the National Rifle Association is right when it says:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Dr. JCS: From the perspective of Deep Case Grammar, the NRA is correct. Compare the
sentences:

.
He was killed by a rifle.

He was killed by a policeman.

In the first pair, both in Russian and in English, the "rifle" is the Instrument of the verb "to
kill." Whereas in the second pair, in both instances, the "policeman" is the Agent.
The NRA is right! Guns are Instruments not Agents! An excellent example of Case
Grammar meets Madison Avenue!
RLM: Speaking of Madison Avenue...
Dr. JCS: Yes! Speaking of Madison Avenue, the only Deep Case that we haven't discussed is
the Locative. This case "identifies the location or spatial orientation of the state or action
identified by the verb.

Some examples [with Locative italicized]:

We met at the beach last summer.
Hawaii is warm.
Saturday, in the park, seems just like the 4th of July.
.
.
.
As we can see from these examples, prepositions are used to express the Locative Case both
in English and in Russian. - "in, at, on" ~ ", , " etc.
In addition, in English - but not in Russian - a Locative can act as an inanimate subject:

International Falls recorded a temperature of -36 degrees yesterday.

RLM: Why can't an Locative function as an inanimate subject in Russian?

Dr. JCS: Theoretically, it can. However, while English speakers oftentimes personify places
and institutions, Russians usually don't use such personifications - at least not for their own
places and institutions. Rather, Russians tend to use the prepositional case plus the 3rd
person plural indefinite form of the verb for such constructions. Some examples:
The White House will probably veto the bill.
, .

The Maryland MVA requires you to renew your driver's license every five years.

.

RLM: Similar sentences with the Russian employing prepositional case phrases, in Deep
Case Grammar terms, Locatives, in place of the English personifications. But then, from the
perspective of Deep Case Grammar, both "White House" and "Maryland MVA" are also
Locatives.
Dr. JCS: Precisely, my young protege! Precisely! As inanimates, they cannot be Agents!
RLM: Why don't we take a well deserved break and then return tomorrow to verbs and Case
Frames.
Part 5: Case Frames
RLM: Good morning! What are Case Frames?
Dr. JCS: Where is that book? It was just here!
Oh, you're back! Case Frames? Give me a second to gather my thoughts...
The meaning of a lexical verb unit, that is, the nature of the action or state expressed by the
verb, requires a particular set or array of Case Notions and will not permit any other array!
This is called the Case Frames of that verb.

To put it another way, the Case Frames indicate the cases permissible or required with a
particular verb for a particular meaning.
One can classify verbs in terms of Case Frames. If one knows all the possible cases which
surround a central verb, predictions can be made in particular contexts.
Consider the three English verbs "to die," "to kill" and "to murder." In each instance some
animate noun "experiences death" but the Case Frames are different.
The verb "to die" has the simplest Case Frame. The lexical meaning of this verb prescribes
only an animate subject, the Experiencer. The lexical meaning of "to die" is mutually
exclusive with an Object or an Agent. The inclusion of an Instrument, the cause of death, is
optional.

The soldier died bravely.

"soldier" - Experiencer;
no Object, Agent or Instrument.

The prisoners died from hunger.

"prisoners" - Experiencers; "hunger" - Instrument;
no Object or Agent.

The lexical meaning of the verb "to kill" requires the presence of an animate Experiencer.
Instrument and Agent are optional - I stress "optional," because the notion of "killing" can
be either by Instrument or Agent. If neither is expressed, the "cause" of death could remain
ambiguous. To illustrate:

The private was killed in action.

"private" - Experiencer;
no Agent or Instrument noted.

The spy killed the bodyguard first.

"spy" - Agent;
"bodyguard" - Experiencer
The driver was killed by a falling tree.
"driver" - Experiencer;
"tree" - Instrument;
no Agent.

The verb "to murder" is different from the verbs "to die" and "to kill" in that its lexical
meaning requires an animate Agent. Even if an Agent is not expressed, one is always
understood. For example:
It was obvious the victim had been murdered.
"victim" - Experiencer;
Agent - unknown but understood.

The point is that all three verbs require an Experiencer.

"To kill" and "to murder," but not "to die," require a "cause," either an Instrument or an
Agent - articulated or understood.
"To murder", but not "to kill," requires an Agent - also articulated or understood.
RLM: And "to assassinate?"
Dr. JCS: Ah, yes, my clever young protege! That's "murder" with a particularly notorious
Experiencer!
RLM: Russian only has the one verbal pair / which means, depending on the
context, "to kill," "to murder" or "to assassinate."
Dr. JCS: I do assure you that in the course of Russian history more people have been "killed"
and "murdered" than in whole of the history of the English-speaking world. However, the
latter has a richer history of "Law and Laws," and so a more precise "legal language."
Remember, "to murder" triggers thoughts of a Deep Case Agent; "to kill" - Agent and/or
Instrument.
Thus, there is no question but that "to murder" is criminal!
On the other hand, "to kill" leaves the question of criminality open!
Part 6: "Final Oral Exam"
Dr. JCS: Now let's see how well you've grasped the notion of Case Frames. I'll give you
some verbs and you define their Case Frame.
RLM: Well, if you don't mind my saying, I'm here to interview you, not to be tested.
Dr. JCS: Silence! "Begin!"
RLM: Well, you haven't given me a verb yet!
Dr. JCS: No, that's it - "to begin!" That's the verb!
RLM: Oh, the verb is "to begin!" Let's see:
The play begins at eight.
The author began his novel in Paris.
Let the games begin!