Editing Case role (section)

==Multiple case roles==

There is a theory that multiple case roles can be assigned to noun phrases.<ref name=Bhat>{{cite journal|last=Bhat|first=D. N. S.|title=Multiple case roles|journal=Lingua|year=1997|volume=42|issue=4|pages=365–377|doi=10.1016/0024-3841(77)90105-X}}</ref> The reasons for having more than one case role is due to the differences in the sentences’ semantic effects.<ref name="Bhat"/> Bhat (1997) proposed that the speaker of a language would have the option of assigning any single case role out of the multiple case role alternations available in a given context.<ref name="Bhat"/> This is not done by a [[transformational grammar|transformational rule]], but due to the [[transformational grammar|deep structure representations]] (the core semantic relations of the sentence).<ref name="Bhat"/>

    Examples
   (1a) || ''John sprayed the wall with paint.''
   (1b) || ''John sprayed paint on the wall.''

In comparing sentences (1a) and (1b), it demonstrates that the [[transformational grammar|surface structure representation]] for each sentence (the structure following the [[Phonology|phonological]] form of the sentence) is different.<ref name="Bhat"/> However, in order to account for the meaning distinctions that exist in (1a) and (1b), it has been demonstrated that these distinctions are due to the differences in the deep structures of each sentence and can be resolved by assigning a ''different'' case role to the NP. With 'paint' acting as an instrument, and 'the wall' being the location, sentence (1a) might infer that all the paint was used, but that not necessarily all the wall was covered. Sentence (1b) might imply that the whole wall is covered, but that John did not use all the paint he had available to him.<ref name="Bhat"/>

=== Fillmore's alternative theory ===
Conversely, Fillmore (1968) suggested that in the case of sentences following the structure of the above examples, the noun phrases are not assigned multiple case roles, but instead retain the same case roles in both sentences (instrument for 'paint', and location for 'wall'). The difference in meaning is attributed to a transformation that takes both identical deep structures and chooses the direct object as it appears in the surface form.<ref name="Fillmore 1968">{{cite journal |last=Fillmore |first=Charles, J. |year=1968 |title=The case for case |journal=Universals in Linguistic Theory |pages=1–88}}</ref>

=== Examples in Kannada ===
[[Kannada Language|Kannada]] (a language spoken in [[India]] with overt usage of case in its suffixes) affords some good evidence of how multiple case roles can be assigned to NPs in the following two examples: (1) how NPs can be assigned either [[Object (grammar)|Object]] or [[Locative case|Location]] case roles, and (2) how NPs can be assigned either [[Agent (grammar)|Agent]] or [[Thematic relation|Experiencer]] case roles.<ref name="Bhat"/>

Evidence for multiple case roles demonstrated in Kannada:<ref name=Bhat/> NPs can be assigned either ''object'' or ''location'' case roles. Evidence is found from the meaning distinctions of exhaustiveness:

{{interlinear|lang=kn|number=(2a)
| bekku maravannu hattitu
| cat(NOM) tree(ACC) climbed
| "The cat climbed the tree."}}

{{interlinear|lang=kn|number=(2b)
| bekku marakke hattitu
| cat(NOM) tree(DAT) climbed
| "The cat climbed to the tree."}}

(2a) implies that the cat climbed the tree from the ground itself, whereas (2b) has no such implication. The common feature of these two uses is that whenever an element occurs as the ''object'' case role, it gets the added meaning of being exhaustively affected by the action denoted by the [[verb]] as seen in (2a) (like climbing up the tree completely from the ground upwards). No such additional meaning is observed in sentences in which the element has been used as a ''Location'' case role (as in 2b).

How NPs can be assigned either ''agent'' or ''experiencer'' case roles: Evidence found from the meaning distinctions of [[Volition (psychology)|volition]].

{{interlinear|lang=kn|number=(3a)
| ra:ju pa:thavannu maretidda:ne
| Raju(NOM) lesson(ACC) has-forgotten
| "Raju has forgotten the lesson."}}

{{interlinear|lang=kn|number=(3b)
| ra:juvige pa:tha maretide
| Raju(DAT) lesson(NOM) forgotten
| "The lesson has been forgotten by Raju."}}

Although both sentences indicate the same event, the meaning difference is due to the fact that in (3a) Raju, as the ''agent'', is considered to have acted volitionally (not making any special effort to retain the lesson in his memory), and is hence held responsible for that event, whereas in (3b) he, being an ''experiencer'', is involved in that event only non-volitionally, and hence one does not hold him responsible for it.