Chapter 7 deals with the relation between the case of the nominal (or adjectival) predicate and semantics. First, we consider instrumental predicates in such Slavic languages as Russian and Polish (and the instrumental/nominative alternation), essive predicates in Uralic languages and translative case in Finnish. This contrast has been linked to the distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates, but also to additional semantic oppositions, e.g. between predicational and identity readings of predicate nominal sentences. Further, we consider the approach according to which this case alternation results from the existence of two types of small clauses, one of which is deficient in some sense. The chapter then turns to the essive case in Uralic languages. Like the Slavic predicate instrumental, it is associated with stage-level readings and with additional types of relativization, e.g. relativization to a facet/role of the argument or to a specific possible world. Finally, translative predicates are investigated. These predicates are strongly associated with the notion of change, but their compatibility with such verbs as jäädä ‘remain’ and jättää ‘leave’ challenges this link. An alternative analysis is described, formulated within a force-theoretic framework. Under this analysis, a translative predicate signals force exertion, rather than change.

Chapter 4 is devoted to the intricate relation between case-marking and aspect. The first section deals with the partitive/accusative alternation on direct objects in Finnic languages. Typically, partitive objects correlate with a bounded reading of the VP, and accusative objects with an unbounded one. But this analysis is challenged by a group of Finnish stative predicates which require accusative complements, such as omistaa ‘own’ and sisältää ‘contain’. The chapter introduces the analyses that have been proposed to account for this fact. Section 4.2 turns to the topic of accusative adjuncts. Cross-linguistically, accusative case tends to be assigned to adjuncts that function as event delimiters, e.g. by measuring out an event along a time or path scale. It is shown that in several languages, event-delimiting adjuncts undergo the same alternations as direct objects, and evidence is provided that they receive structural accusative case. Both syntactic and semantic analyses of accusative objects and adjuncts are discussed. Finally, Section 4.3 considers accusative case-assignment to complements of goal prepositions in German, Russian and Ancient Greek, asking whether this phenomenon is related to the aspectual function of accusative case.

Chapter 8 is devoted to generalizations and conclusions based on the data and analyses discussed in the previous chapters. A (non-exhaustive) list of relations that hold between various cases and semantic concepts is provided. It is proposed that case can be related to at least three broad semantic areas: tense and aspect; individuation; thematic roles and related concepts. Each of these types is illustrated. Further, it is pointed out that the relation between case and meaning is often indirect; moreover, defining the nature of this relation is, in many instances, subject to theory-internal considerations. The meaning component intuitively associated with a particular case can be contributed by four types of source: a lexical head (e.g. V), a functional head (e.g. Appl(icative)), the object DP and the case-marker. Only in the last instance is the relation between case and meaning direct.