THE ROLE OF CASE IN RUSSIAN SYNTAX STUDIES IN NATURAL LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC THEORY

Managing Editors JOAN MALING, Linguistics Program, Dept. of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254, U.S.A.

LUIGI RIZZI, Linguistique Generale, Faculte des Lettres, Universite de Geneve, 3, Place de I'Universite, 1211 Geneve 4, Switzerland

Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice Jane Grimshaw, Brandeis University Michael Kenstowicz, University of Illinois Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, University of Connecticut Alec Marantz, University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill John J. McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst James McCloskey, University College, Dublin CAROL NEIDLE Dept. of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures, Boston University, U.S.A.

THE ROLE OF CASE IN RUSSIAN SYNTAX

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS DORDRECHT/BOSTON/LONDON Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Neidle, Carol Jan. The role of case in Russian syntax.

(Studies in natural language and linguistic theory ; 10) Revision of the author's thesis--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982. Includes index. 1. Russian language--Syntax. 2. Russj an language-• Case. 1. Title. II. Series. PG2361.N45 1988 491.75 88-6789 ISBN-13 :978-94-010-7718-7 e-ISBN-13:978-94-009-2703-2 001.10.1007/978-94-009-2703-2

Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Kluwer Academic Publishers incorporates the publishing programmes of D. Reidel, Martinus Nijhoff, Dr W. Junk and MTP Press

Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A.

In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands

All Rights Reserved © 1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1988 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner T ABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ix

[NTRODUCTION Xl

1. Theoretical Framework Xl 2. Theory of Case Assignment and Agreement Xlll

1. OVERVIEW OF CASE IN RUSSIAN

1. Case in Russian 1 2. The Representation of Case 2 3. Assignment of Case 6 3.1. Phrase Structure Annotations 8 3.2. Case Assignment by Prepositions 12 3.3. Russian Phrase Structure Rules 12 3.4. Summary 13 4. The Case of Adjectives 13 5. Agreement 15 5.1. Features: Number, Gender, Person, and Case 15 5.2. Concord 18 5.3. Animacy 18 5.4. An Apparent Agreement Paradox 22 6. Second Predicate Modifiers 24

2. CASE MARKING AND THE GENITIVE OF NEGATION 30

1. Lexically Governed Alternation 31 1.1. Semantic Considerations 31 1.2. Historical Evolution 32 1.3. Formal Account 32 1.3 .1. Natural Semantic Class 32 1.3.2. Alternation and Case Features 32 2. Genitive of Negation 34 2.1. Semantic Considerations 34 2.2. Historical Evolution 35 2.3. Formal Account 35

v VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.3.1. Scope-Marking 35 2.3.2. Scope of Negation: Interpretation 38 3. Distinct Mechanisms for Genitive Marking 41 3.1. Null Q? 41 3.2. Sources of Genitive Marking 42 3.2.1. Partitive Genitive 42 3.2.2. Genitive of Negation 43 3.2.3. Distinct Processes 46 4. Other Types of Negation 47 4.1. Net 47 4.2. Constituent Negation 53 5. Scope, Interpretation, and Distribution of [+tf 1 54 5.1. Formal Representation 54 5.2. Marking and Scope 54 5.3. Other Correlations with Genitive Marking 55 5.3.1. Individuation 55 5.3.2. Morphological Tendencies 57 6. Accusative/Genitive Alternation and Polarity Sensitivity 58 7. The Feature [tf] and Semantics 59 8. Summary 60

3. APPARENT GENITIVE SUBJECTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF NEGATION 65

1. Demotion 65 2. Do Genitive Subjects Exist? 66 2.1. Agreement 68 2.2. Gerund Constructions 71 2.3. Reflexives 71 2.4. Word Order 72 3. Formalization of the Rule of Demotion 73 3.1. Predictions: Transitive Verbs 74 3.2. Further Consequences of Demotion 76 3.3. Interaction with Other Lexical Redundancy Rules 78 3.3.1. Passive Forms 78 3.3.2. -sja Forms 79 3.4. Non-demoted Subjects 80 3.5. Genitive Marking and Grammatical Functions 83 3.6. Indefiniteness 84

4. NUMERAL PHRASES AND QUANTIFIER PHRASES 89

1. Numeral Phrases 89 1.1. Russian Numeral Paradigms 89 T ABLE OF CONTENTS vii

1.2. Numerals greater than 1 90 1.2.1. The Constituency of Numeral Phrases 92 1.2.2. Distribution of Numeral Phrases 98 1.3. Numerals ending in 1 102 2. Quantifier Phrases 103 2.1. Other Quantifiers 103 2.2. Those Several Strange Phrases 104 3. Disagreement about Non-agreeing Phrases 107 3.1. Subjecthood and Agreement 107 3.1.1. Agreement 107 3.1.2. Gerunds 107 3.1.3. Reflexives 108 3.1.4. Word Order 109 3.1.5. T ransi ti vi ty 109 3.2. Numeric Quantifiers and Agreement Features 110 3.2.1. Numbers Greater than 4 110 3.2.2. Small Numbers 112 3.3. Conclusion 115 4. One Million 116 5. Summary 117

5. SUBJECT CASE MARKING AND CASE AGREEMENT OF MODIFIERS 123

1. Data 123 1.1. Second Predicates 123 1.2. Odin and Sam 124 1.3. Second Predicate within Infinitival Clauses 124 1.3.1. Second Nominative with Subjective Infinitives 125 1.3.2. Second Dative with Objective Infinitives 125 1.3.3. Second Dative with Overt Complementizers 126 1.3.4. Second Dative with Passive 127 2. Adjuncts and Complements 127 2.1. Restrictions on the Distribution of Odin and Sam 127 2.2. Subjects of Non-tensed Clauses 128 3. Agreement and Control Relations 131 3.1. Grammatical Control 131 3.1 J. Agreement of Adjuncts and Grammatical Control 132 3.1.2. Object Control 134 3.2. Overt Complementizers 139 3.3. Other Cases of Control 141 3.4. Conclusions about Grammatical and Anaphoric Control 142 3.5. More Control Restrictions 144 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS

4. Comparison with Alternative Accounts 148 5. Conclusions 151

6. CONSEQUENCES FOR A THEORY OF CASE 155

1. Long-Distance Phenomena and Control Relations 155 1.1. The Genitive of Negation Reconsidered 155 1.2. Case and Control 158 2. Toward a Theory of Russian Case 158 2.1. The Direct Case Condition 159 2.2. Government vs. Concord 160 2.3. Distribution of Prepositional Phrases 160 3. LFG and the Theory of Case 165 3.1. Structural and Lexical Case Assignment 165 3.2. Direct Case and Optionality 168 4. Conclusions 169

APPENDIX I: ABBREVIATIONS AND TRANSLITERATION 173

1. List of Abbreviations for Sentence Glosses 173 2. Transliteration 174

APPENDIX II: PARADIGMS 175

APPENDIX III: LEXICAL FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR 177

1. Organization 177 2. Phrase Structure Rules 178 3. Lexical Entries 180 4. Lexical Redundancy Rules 181 5. Functional Well-Formedness 184 6. Possible Rules 186 7. Theory of Control and Complementation 186 7.1. Complements vs. Adjuncts 186 7.2. Open Complements 189 7.3. Open Adjuncts 194 7.4. Closed Complements 195 7.5. Closed Adjuncts 196 7.6. The Constituency of Complements 196

INDEX OF NAMES 208

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 210 PREFACE

This manuscript is a revision of my 1982 MIT dissertation of the same name. A previous version of sections of chapters 1 and 5 appeared as 'Case Agreement in Russian', in The Mental Representation of Gram• matical Relations, edited by Joan Bresnan, MIT Press, 1983. I am grateful to MIT Press for permission to reproduce parts of that article here. I would like to express my appreciation to Catherine V. Chvany, who has read several versions of this manuscript over the years, and provided encouragement and invaluable comments. Thanks go also to Johanna Nichols whose careful reading and useful suggestions have improved the book. I am also deeply grateful to Joan Bresnan, Ken Hale, Morris Halle, Beth Levin, and Jane Simpson for helpful discussions of the material contained herein. For sharing their native intuitions, special thanks go to Alina Israeli, Boris Katz, and Evgenij Pinsky, and to Liza Chernyak, Volodja Gitin, Victoria Koff, Larissa Levin, Victoria Schiller, and Elena Semeka-Pankra• tova. Joyce Friedman, Beth Levin, and Jane Simpson kindly provided assistance with bibliographical references and proofreading. This manuscript was prepared using the computer facilities at Boston University, and lowe a large debt of gratitude to the following people for providing access to equipment and technical assistance: William H. Henneman, Philip Budne, Barry Shein, and Paul Blanchard.

IX INTRODUCTION

The study of case, once primarily of interest to philologists, has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves from syntacticians. There are still many open questions concerning the nature of case assignment and agreement. Given the degenerate case system of English, the evidence crucial to an eventual understanding of the grammar of case should be sought elsewhere - in languages like Russian, where overt case marking plays an important role. Moreover, the implications of the study of case may go far beyond a theory of case, since the logic of case is intimately related to the other subsystems that govern syntactic representation. Since case is a reflex of structural and grammatical relations, case marking and agreement can provide evidence about the nature of such relations. Case marking provides an added dimension, in which grammatical structures and relationships may become visible from a new perspective. Thus, an understanding of case can contribute to the resolution of seemingly unrelated syntactic questions. Case functions as an intermediary between syntax and morphology. Although in the early stages of generative grammar (Chomsky, 1957) inflectional morphemes were inserted directly into the syntax, more recent principles l require that fully formed lexical items be inserted into the syntax. Thus, morphological generalizations related to inflection are cap• tured in the lexicon; and the grammatical information expressed by inflectional markers enters into syntactic processes. Any effective and enlightening theory of case must distinguish between those aspects of case that properly belong to the syntactic module, and those aspects of case for which explanation lies in the the morphological system. Slavists investi• gating case have tended to concentrate on morphological complexities, while generative grammarians have attempted to idealize them away. In this book, particular constructions involving case are considered from the perspective of syntactic and morphological regularity.

1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This book will focus on two instances of syntactic case alternation in Russian - the Nominative/Dative assignment to SUBJECT, and the Accusative/Genitive assignment to OBJECT. A theory of case assignment and case agreement is proposed, and the distribution of case marked xi Xli INTRODUCTION

phrases is explained in terms of the interaction of case mechanisms with other subsystems of the grammar. The framework chosen for exposition is that of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), a system of grammatical representation developed by John Bresnan (1977, 1979, 1982a, b), Kaplan and Bresnan (1982), and other researchers. LFG differs significantly from true transformational approaches in that the former eliminates the derivational process in favor of a functional representation which integrates the information contributed simultaneously by several components of the grammar. Theoretical details will be introduced and explained as appropriate throughout the text, but the reader is referred to Appendix III for discussion of the Lexical Functional model. A more complete introduction to LFG is contained in Sells (1985). Although LFG has been chosen for description and analysis of the facts about Russian, many of the results are theory-independent. The conclu• sions about subject and object case marking, about the numeral system, and about case agreement of modifiers are not tied to the choice of linguistic model, and could be expressed readily in other frameworks. This is not to say, however, that detailed accounts of particular phe• nomena within different theoretical frameworks are not of importance in highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the theories themselves. I believe that comparison of LFG analyses of case with approaches based on other theoretical assumptions will be useful for evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses of the theoretical models. The history of generative grammar provides a series of structural metamorphoses of grammatical models, each differing in the partitioning of the grammar into distinct but interrelated components. One of the most interesting areas of investigation into grammatical theory involves the question of the structural properties of these models, and the extent to which apparently different representations are, or are not, notational variants. Given the complexity of the systems involved, and the fact that each may be more or less elaborated and refined in different areas, it can often be quite difficult to compare and to evaluate systems. This is all the more difficult since no system is definitively established, and all are sufficiently powerful to be able to adapt themselves in light of new evidence. There are, however, substantive differences between models, in that they allow for different types of explanatory clustering of properties and phenomena, 'and often startlingly different explanations for the same facts. I believe that comparison of approaches to a single problem can be enlightening, both for an understanding of the phenomenon under study (since each analysis sheds light on different aspects of the questions involved), and for an understanding of the theoretical differences that underlie the analyses. Alternative analyses of Russian case are available: Pesetsky's (1982) analysis based on Chomsky's (1981) Government-Bind- INTRODUCTION Xlll

ing theory, and Babby's work (1980a, b, 1984, 1986), also within the Chomskyan framework, are discussed briefly. While comparison of analyses of a single phenomenon does not in itself constitute a basis for a choice between theories, it may at least serve to clarify the points of contention between theories.

2. THEORY OF CASE ASSIGNMENT AND AGREEMENT

In chapter 1, a theory of cases and of case assignment is formulated. The claim is that instances of syntactic case alternation may be accounted for in terms of feature decomposition of case. I argue that there are natural classes of case that (i) alternate under syntactically determined conditions, and (ii) share morphological forms. This extends the morphological feature decomposition proposed for Russian in Jakobson (1958) to the realm of syntax. Assignment of case feature matrices, rather than distinct and integral cases, allows the case alternation to be expressed as the difference in a single case feature; and the value of that case feature is determined by syntactic and/or semantic factors. The case feature matrices are assigned in Phrase Structure expansions along with GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS such as SUBJECT, OBJECT, and COMPLEMENT. This type of case assignment accounts for the stability of case marking under word order changes that leave grammatical functions invariant, and thus allows conditions on case marking and constraints on word order to be stated independently. In subsequent chapters, I will demonstrate that certain generalizations about Russian syntax are best stated in terms of grammatical functions, while others are related to morphological expres• sions of case. I argue that such distinctions simplify the account of the distribution of numeral phrases, quantifier phrases, and the Genitive of Negation. In chapter 2, the case marking of objects is considered. While objects of affirmative sentences normally appear in the , objects of negative sentences may bear Genitive case. The Genitive of Negation may then be attributed to the difference in the value of the case feature that distinguishes the Accusative and Genitive cases, the feature referred to by Jakobson (1958) as "quantifying", while the other two case features shared by both cases constitute the case bundle assigned to all objects. The positive value of the "quantifying" feature may be triggered when the object is within the scope of negation, but the value of that feature may be determined in other ways as well. Chapter 3 is devoted to sentences which appear to contain Genitive marking of the subject within the scope of negation, analogous to those instances of Genitive marking of objects. The apparent Genitive marking of subjects is, however, much more restricted than that of objects, and XIV INTRODUCTION investigation of the data demonstrates that all occurrences of Genitive of Negation involve grammatical objects: the Genitive phrases are shown to fail all tests for subjecthood. It is argued that these objects are related to their Nominative subject counterparts by a productive lexical redundancy rule of demotion which produces Russian constructions that are strikingly parallel to constructions found in languages such as French and English. Thus, all instances of Genitive of Negation are accounted for by the regular case assignment mechanism for objects. The reason that only a subclass of Nominative subjects of affirmative sentences may appear in the Genitive case in similar negative sentences is simply that a restricted class of subject arguments may be expressed as objects (i.e., may undergo the lexical rule of demotion). The interaction of lexical rules and case assignment is shown to provide a simple account of the Genitive of Negation. In addition, the interaction of case assignment and the systems of control and complementation provides an account of the case marking of objects within clauses embedded beneath the negative operator, as is shown in chapter 6. In chapter 4, Russian numeral phrases are discussed. Two different types of numeral phrases are considered, one in which the numeral governs the Genitive case on the following NP, and the other which exhibits case, number, and gender agreement between the numeral and the following NP. The distribution of these two kinds of phrases is examined. Verb agreement with numeral phrases, which has traditionally been described as optional, is shown to correlate with the grammatical function of the numeral phrase. Subjects trigger verb agreement, while objects - productively related to subjects in the same way as the Genitive phrases under negation, by the lexical rule of demotion - do not. Chapter 5 is devoted to the case marking of subjects and modifiers. Given the mechanisms of case assignment and the systems of control and complementation, the case borne by certain detached 'second predicates' can be explained quite simply: the case of the modifier is identical with that of its antecedent. Case agreement of these modifiers follows almost automatically from the representation of the control relations. Various constructions involving control relations are examined in detail in order to explain otherwise puzzling case marking of modifiers. Chapter 6 considers the bearing of the results of chapters 2-5 on generalizations that have been put forward by other linguists to account for Russian case marking. In particular, the "Direct Case Condition," proposed by Babby and assumed by Pesetsky and others, is challenged. Babby's Direct Case Condition attempts to unify the distribution of three types of phrases - which are claimed to occur in both subject and object positions, and in no other positions: (a) Prepositional Quantifier Phrases such as: INTRODUCTION xv

OKOJIO nSiTH KHHf okolo pjati knig near }lve!GEN} books!GEN} almost five books (b) Numeral Phrases that govern the Genitive case, such as: nSlTb KHHf pjat' knig five books!GEN} five books and (c) Genitive phrases in negative sentences, as in the examples (2) and (4). (See Appendix I for an explanation of the abbreviations used in glosses.) (1) OH qHTaJI KHHfH. on cital knigi he!NoM] read!PAsT] books! ACC]

(2) OH He qHTaJI KHHf. on ne cital knig he!NoM] !NEG] read{PAsT} books{GEN}

(3) TaKHe cTpaHbI cYIIIecTBYIOT. takie strany suscestvujut SUCh!NOM} countries! NOM] exist!PL}

(4) TaKHx cTpaH He cYIIIeCTByeT. takix stran ne suscestvuet SUCh!GEN} countries! GEN} !NEG} exist!sG} Investigation of the data shows that these three types of phrases do not, in fact, have the same distribution. Prepositional quantifier phrases do occur in subject and object position, and are restricted to those positions. However, as argued in chapter 3, the Genitive of Negation is more restricted; this case marking is found only on objects. In chapter 4, numeral phrases that govern the Genitive case are shown to occur only in positions that require (morphological) Nominative or Accusative case. They occur in subject and object position - but only where the position is marked with Nominative or Accusative case. They also appear with prepositions that govern Accusative case - in oblique positions where Accusative is assigned by a lexical item rather than by Direct Case Assignment to subject and object positions. Such oblique Accusative phrases do not show the Accusative/Genitive alternation in negative sentences that is found with objects. It is argued in chapter 6 that the system of case assignment, case XVI INTRODUCTION

government, and case agreement mechanisms put forth in chapters 1-4 suffice, in interaction with productive lexical processes and principles of control and complementation, to produce the distribution and case marking of quantifier phrases, prepositional phrases, and Genitive phrases under negation. A few long-distance phenomena are considered. In particular, the facts about control relations that emerge from the preceding chapters are exploited as the Genitive of Negation is reconsidered. The consequences of control relations for case marking and case agreement are summarized. Several phenomena in Russian are explained in terms of case assign• ment of feature bundles to structural position by allowing the values of particular features to depend on syntactic and/or semantic conditions. Case assignment may also be associated with specific grammatical func• tions. Case agreement is accomplished by allowing case information to be transmitted straightforwardly along with other features whose identity is assured by control relations. Interaction of case assignment and agreement with lexical redundancy rules and systems of control and complementation provides a natural account of the distribution of case marked phrases in Russian.

NOTE

I See Appendix III for discussion of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, which arose from Chomsky (1970).