The Fundamentals of Case Grammar:

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 убивать/убить 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 5: Case Frames