A geography of case semantics : the Czech dative and the Russian instrumental

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CONTENTS
• Acknowledgements = ⅸ
• Preface = xi
• Part Ⅰ - Theory
• 0. Introduction = 3
• 1. What cognitive semantics is = 4
• 1.1 Support for cognitive semantics from other disciplines = 7
• 1.1.1. Psychology = 7
• 1.1.2. Neurobiology = 8
• 1.1.3. Artificial Intelligence = 9
• 1.1.4. Summary = 10
• 1.2. Case as a semantic entity = 10
• 1.2.1. Case lacks formal autonomy = 10
• 1.2.2. Case bears subjective as well as objective meaning = 11
• 1.2.3. Case meaning and lexical semantics = 13
• 1.2.4. Summary = 15
• 1.3. What a cognitive description of case should look like = 15
• 1.3.1. Schematic representation of case meaning = 15
• 1.3.2. Network structure = 17
• 1.3.3. A test of the cognitive model = 24
• 2. Cognitive semantics compared with other descriptions of case = 25
• 2.1. Case semantics in previous traditions = 25
• 2.1.1. Inventories of uses (Mr$$\acute a$$zek, Potebnja) = 25
• 2.1.2. Semantic features (Hjelmslev, Jakobson, van Schooneveld) = 26
• 2.1.3. Semantic metalanguage (Wierzbicka) = 27
• 2.1.4. Semantic/syntactic dichotomy (Kurylowicz, lsa$$\check c$$enko) = 27
• 2.1.5. Case as a purely syntactic phenomenon (Chomsky) = 29
• 2.1.6. Symbolic logic (Sørensen, Mel'$$\check c$$uk) = 30
• 2.1.7. "Deep" case (Fillmore) = 31
• 2.1.8. Localist theories of case (Anderson, Freidhot) = 32
• 2.2. How the cognitive model has been implied by various authors = 33
• 2.2.1. Relatedness of meanings = 33
• 2.2.2. Hierarchical relations among meanings = 36
• 2.2.3. Relational invariance = 37
• 2.3. Advantages of the cognitive approach = 37
• 2.3.1. A departure from empiricism = 38
• 2.3.2. Both diversity and unity of case meaning are accommodated = 38
• 2.3.3. Many of the best insights of various scholars are incorporated = 38
• 2.4. An ideal description of case: Skali$$\check c$$ka's challenge = 39
• Part Ⅱ - Analysis
• 3. Why the Czech dative and the Russian instrumental? = 43
• 3.0.1. Schemas in pictorial and prose notation = 43
• 3.0.2. Indirect object serves as the prototype of the Czech dative = 47
• 3.0.3. Cognitive network of the Czech dative = 52
• 3.1. Schema 1 - indirect object = 54
• 3.1.1. Schema 1 a - governed dative = 69
• 3.1.2. Schema 1 b dative in impersonal constructions = 79
• 3.2. Schema 2 and variants - free dative = 81
• 3.2.1. Schema 2 a - dative of beneficiary - transition to indirect object = 90
• 3.2.2. Schema 2 b - intransitive expressions of free dative = 91
• 3.2.3. Schema 2 c - free dative in copular sentences = 92
• 3.2.4. Further syntagmatic variants of schema 2 = 93
• 3.3. Dative network bound by syntagmatic variants of the schemas = 95
• 3.4. Reflexive uses of the dative = 97
• 3.4.1. Reflexive network = 97
• 3.4.2. Reciprocal network = 107
• 3.5. Semantic extension via mapping - pragmatic uses of the dative = 110
• 4. Comparison of cognitive networks - the Russian dative. = 113
• 4.1. Schema 1 - indirect object = 113
• 4.1.1. Schema 1 a - governed dative = 116
• 4.1.2. Schema 1 b - impersonal dative = 128
• 4.2. Schema 2 and variants - free dative = 130
• 4.3. Datitve reflexives = 134
• 5. Analysis of the Russian instrumental = 139
• 5.0.1. Overview of the network = 139
• 5.0.2. Instrumental network paradigm = 139
• 5.0.3. Summary of the instrumental's semantic role = 142
• 5.1 Conduit instrumental - schema 1 and syntagmatic variants = 143
• 5.1.1. Schema 1 a - instrumental of instrument and agent, verbal government = 150
• 5.1.2. Schema 1 b - instrumental of inexplicable force = 162
• 5.1.3. Schema 1 c - instrumental of sensation = 162
• 5.1.4. Subnetwork of schema 1 and the paradigm of disappearing participants = 164
• 5.2. Schema 2 - instrumental of setting = 164
• 5.2.1. Instrumental of space = 166
• 5.2.2. Instrumental of time = 167
• 5.2.3. Summary of the instrumental of setting = 170
• 5.3. Attributive instrumental = 170
• 5.3.1. Attributive instrumental - quantitative = 173
• 5.3.2. Attributive instrumental - qualitative = 175
• 5.3.3. Attributive instrumental - comparative = 179
• 5.3.4. Summary of the attributive instrumental = 182
• 5.4. Instrumental used with a preposition = 182
• 5.4.1. Comitative instrumental = 182
• 5.4.2. Proximate instrumental = 185
• 5.5. Instrumental network bound by paradigm of peripherality and by alliance = 188
• 6. The Czech instrumental = 191
• 6.1. Conduit instrumental = 191
• 6.2. Instrumental of setting = 195
• 6.3. Attributive instrumental = 196
• 6.4. Instrumental with a preposition = 197
• 7. Concluding remarks and possible universals = 199
• Notes = 203
• References = 218