DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Case in Russian Syntax Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Case in Russian Syntax Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 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. OBJECT 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. Genitive Case 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: DECLENSION 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Latin to Romance: Case Loss and Preservation in Pronominal Systems
    FLORE Repository istituzionale dell'Università degli Studi di Firenze From Latin to Romance: case loss and preservation in pronominal systems Questa è la Versione finale referata (Post print/Accepted manuscript) della seguente pubblicazione: Original Citation: From Latin to Romance: case loss and preservation in pronominal systems / Manzini, MARIA RITA; Savoia, LEONARDO MARIA. - In: PROBUS. - ISSN 1613-4079. - STAMPA. - 26, 2(2014), pp. 217-248. Availability: This version is available at: 2158/891750 since: 2016-01-20T16:23:29Z Terms of use: Open Access La pubblicazione è resa disponibile sotto le norme e i termini della licenza di deposito, secondo quanto stabilito dalla Policy per l'accesso aperto dell'Università degli Studi di Firenze (https://www.sba.unifi.it/upload/policy-oa-2016-1.pdf) Publisher copyright claim: (Article begins on next page) 27 September 2021 Probus 2014; 26(2): 217 – 248 M. Rita Manzini* and Leonardo M. Savoia From Latin to Romance: case loss and preservation in pronominal systems Abstract: The evolution from Latin into Romance is marked by the loss of case in nominal declensions. In most Romance varieties, however, pronouns, specifi- cally in the 1st/2nd person singular, keep case differentiations. In some varieties 1st/2nd singular pronouns present a three-way case split, essentially the same re- constructed for proto-Romance (De Dardel and Gaeng 1992, Zamboni 1998). We document and analyze the current situation of Romance in the first part of the article (section 1). In the second part of the article we argue that the Dative Shifted distribution of loro in modern Italian, accounted for by means of the category of weak pronoun in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), is best construed as a survival of oblique case in the 3rd person system (section 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Possessive Pronouns As Oblique Dps: Linkers and Affix Stacking
    19.3 (2018): 393-425 UDC 81’367.626.2=111 Original scientific article Received on 16.02. 2018 Accepted for publication on 05.11. 2018 M. Rita Manzini Università degli Studi di Firenze Possessive pronouns as oblique DPs: Linkers and affix stacking In many familiar European languages, e.g. German or Italian, possessive pro- nouns agree in φ-features with their head noun. We argue that they are geni- tive pronouns, endowed with an extra φ-features set. As such, they are part of a range of phenomena including case stacking and linkers unified under the historical-typological label of Suffixaufnahme. We express the formal basis for this unification as the Stacking Generalization (Section 1). We then apply our analysis to the narrower domain of facts involving possessive pronouns, specifically in Balkan and Romance languages. We further find that 1/2P pro- nouns present a richer stacking structure than their 3P counterparts (Section 2). We examine this latter fact in the context of a more general phenomenon, whereby the 1/2P vs 3P Person split not only tends to correlate with different case and agreement alignments – but seems to govern the morphological ex- pression of case and agreement itself, in terms of richer vs poorer content (Section 3). Key words: oblique case; genitive; possessives; pronouns; linkers; agree- ment; person. 1. Linkers and affix stacking This section aims at establishing the framework for the discussion of agreeing pos- sessive pronouns to be pursued in later sections. According to a well established historical-typological view (Plank 1995), modifier structures involving both free standing heads (linkers) and stacked affixation (case stacking), are to be unified on the basis of functional considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Old French and Romanian Declensions from a Word and Paradigm Perspective and the Notion of “Default Syncretism”
    OLD FRENCH AND ROMANIAN DECLENSIONS FROM A WORD AND PARADIGM PERSPECTIVE AND THE NOTION OF “DEFAULT SYNCRETISM” ALAIN KIHM1 Abstract. Old French and Romanian nominal inflections or declensions share the property of being apparently uncomplicated as their paradigms consist in only two forms at most: a base form and an inflected form. This outward simplicity, however, results from complex syncretisms. In Old French masculine nouns, the singular subject case and the plural object case are identically inflected, whereas the singular object and the plural subject cases are identical base forms; in Romanian feminine nouns, the singular genitive-dative and the two plural case forms are the same. Such syncretisms raise a descriptive and theoretical issue as they appear to be neither semantically motivated nor fully arbitrary. Drawing on the conceptual and formalizing resources of Word and Paradigm (WP) theory and Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM), the present essay attempts to solve the issue by assuming a third kind of syncretism that involves not the meaningful content of features, but their DEFAULT value. At the same time, it proposes a nearly full treatment of Old French and Romanian declensions in PFM terms. Keywords: case, default, declension, gender, number, paradigm, syncretism. 1. INTRODUCTION As is well-known, only Old French and Romanian among Romance languages kept something of the Latin rich nominal inflection for case and number or DECLENSION. The present study aims to provide a synchronic account of this phenomenon in a Word and Paradigm (WP) framework (Blevins 2006), using the formal apparatus of Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM – Stump 2001; Bonami, Stump to appear).
    [Show full text]
  • Morphosyntactic Alignment, Pattern Replication, and the Classical Armenian Periphrastic Perfect
    1 Morphosyntactic Alignment, Pattern Replication, * 2 and the Classical Armenian Periphrastic Perfect 3 ROBIN MEYER 4 University of Oxford 5 1. Introduction 6 The Classical Armenian periphrastic perfect and its unusual construction have 7 posed difficulties for historical linguists since their first detailed discussion in the 8 1903 edition of Meillet’s Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien 9 classique (see the revised edition, Meillet 1936). While the communis opinio still 10 favors an explanation proffered by Benveniste (1952), which likens the Armenian 11 pattern to the Old Persian taya manā kr̥ tam construction, this model cannot ac- 12 count for several problems in the Armenian data; a new model, informed by the 13 shortcomings of its predecessors and taking into account typological and compar- 14 ative data, is therefore necessary. 15 In this paper it will be argued that the most consistent analysis of the Arme- 16 nian perfect construction must interpret it as a synchronically tripartite alignment 17 pattern, resulting from extensive language contact with the Middle Iranian lan- 18 guages; typological irregularities and synchronically deviant patterns are manifes- 19 tations of alignment change under pressure from the non-perfect tenses. 20 After a brief exposition of the Armenian data and the issues associated with it 21 (§2), previous attempts at an explanation of the phenomenon will be summarized 22 and their weaknesses discussed (§3). The Armenian situation will then be com- 23 pared to that in Middle Iranian, especially Parthian, and their differences and 24 commonalities will be set out (§4). FinallY, a new model will detail why a tripar- 25 tite analysis of the periphrastic perfect is synchronically and typologically appro- 26 priate (§5), how far Iranian influence is the likely origin of this pattern, and what 27 other expressions of such influence can be found in Classical Armenian (§6).
    [Show full text]
  • On the Possessive Form with the Affix -Ker- in Romani*
    ASIAN AND AFRICAN STUDIES, 13 , 2004, 1, 104-113 ON THE POSSESSIVE FORM WITH THE AFFIX -KER- IN ROMANI* Anna RAcovA Institute of Oriental and African Studies, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Klemensova 19, 813 64 Bratislava, Slovakia In Romani studies literature, the form with the affix -ker- -ger- is regarded as the genitive form of nouns or as possessive adjective. On the basis of analysis of the views of various authors and analysis of Romani texts, we came to the conclusion that the given form needs to be regarded as a possessive adjective. The majority of authors mention the form with the affix -ker- in the singular and -ger- in the plural, in descriptions of the case system of Romani, whether theoretical works or textbooks and manuals of the Romani language. They usu­ ally assign it to the case system as the genitive, but they realize its exceptional position in this system, and some also attempt to explain why it belongs or does not belong to this system. For example, J. Lípa (1963) devoted appropriate at­ tention in a description of the Humenné dialect of Slovak Carpathian Romani (in his terminology Czechoslovak Romani). According to Lípa, Romani has only three cases: direct, oblique and vocative (p.45). The direct case expresses the subject and object. In the further description, some disproportion occurs, since in an attempt to approximate the “Gypsy declension for interested Czechs” he speaks, when describing the meaning of the direct case, of nomina­ tive and accusative, but has to admit that the direct case in the function of the accusative is expressed in text by a form of the oblique case.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncommon Patterns of Core Term Marking and Case Terminology
    This is the pre-final version of a paper published in Lingua 119 (2009) 445-459. Please don’t quote without checking the published version before. Uncommon patterns of core term marking and case terminology Denis Creissels Laboratoire Dynamique du Language, ISH, 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 Lyon cedex 07, France E-mail address: [email protected] Abstract Two majors patterns of core term marking are found cross-linguistically: an accusative pattern in which P is the only core syntactic role marked by a case form distinct from the quotation form of nouns or by an adposition, and an ergative pattern in which A is the only core syntactic role marked by a case form distinct from the quotation form of nouns or by an adposition. Current case terminology is adapted to the description of systems consistently following one of these two patterns, but is difficult to extend to core term marking systems characterized by alignment variations. Moreover, several minor patterns are attested, characterized by a wider use of marked case forms or adpositions, and current terminology fails to provide convenient labels for case forms or adpositions occurring in such patterns. It is argued that: (a) in languages in which nouns are inflected for case, the case form coinciding with the quotation form of nouns should be labeled in a uniform way, irrespective of the uses it may have in syntactic constructions; (b) new labels should be coined for marked case forms or adpositions used in S/A or S/P role. Keywords: Case marking; Alignment; Markedness; Nominative; Absolutive; Accusative; Ergative; Marked nominative Abbreviations: ACC, accusative; ANTIACC, antiaccusative (see Section 9.2); ANTIERG, antiergative (see Section 9.2); AOR, aorist; DEF, definite; DEM, demonstrative; DAT, dative; ERG, ergative; F, feminine; GEN, genitive; IPFV, imperfective; M, masculine; N, neuter; NEG, negation; OBL, oblique case; PFV, perfective; PL, plural; POSS, possessive; PRS, present; PST, past; SG, singular; TAM, tense-aspect-modality marker.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Case in Finnish
    Structural Case in Finnish Paul Kiparsky Stanford University 1 Introduction 1.1 Morphological case and abstract case The fundamental fact that any theory of case must address is that morphological form and syntactic function do not stand in a one-to-one correspondence, yet are systematically related.1 Theories of case differ in whether they define case categories at a single structural level of representation, or at two or more levels of representation. For theories of the first type, the mismatches raise a dilemma when morphological form and syntactic function diverge. Which one should the classification be based on? Generally, such single-level approaches determine the case inventory on the basis of morphology using paradigmatic contrast as the basic criterion, and propose rules or constraints that map the resulting cases to grammatical relations. Multi-level case theories deal with the mismatch between morphological form and syntactic function by distinguishing morphological case on the basis of form and abstract case on the basis of function. Approaches that distinguish between abstract case and morphological case in this way typically envisage an interface called “spellout” that determines the relationship between them. In practice, this outlook has served to legitimize a neglect of inflectional morphol- ogy. The neglect is understandable, for syntacticians’ interest in morphological case is naturally less as a system in its own right than as a diagnostic for ab- stract case and grammatical relations. But it is not entirely benign: compare the abundance of explicit proposals about how abstract cases are assigned with the minimal attention paid to how they are morphologically realized.
    [Show full text]
  • American Russian
    &@&-: .I, , , -I : %%oph~$da~q %&Miifro&ki@$d%&fent &m-i~S$'dh iivb inpm -.ag@("1*&dpxf?lW tdb.hetei@ene"s~ *~hpkt), %&&a, they afi'beapepf'e&hti?d lyl di@edmt t$d@ktidn4 bf'~fispe&eqd[and may have difleteht. lanj$ag&iintkrna rnaniftAtat!ibk~.~Bjas'kd the &d&Mon bet%&n'\ha bo-$hpz'~mena:ItiMi~lced abk, I will distinguish between thaw semi-speakers who can be ~b~~ctt&xd a& 335getttzrd md .thm kh~c=an be "~:hb&az~;dag incomplete l&dmers (bee dsb SwoodBdth 1989; Sh&obii Striithl~dVan Bufen 1991; ~m~&-en~.~h"&wbodSmith .1.9@5; S&se 1992). \ A larimage' fiat undmgeres &.itticin for -ei&er of the ~asons. liqted above will be:d&igiraied ad red~ureedadd oppomd tls a full laxwage; i,e'., 4.k 1hpttgti~chwacteriziJd b all convention^ kx&vfei$b, @at@a4e deaqisf'theend las of language attrition, tih~ugh1i ngu&&e +death can also be Instant, duq to the phyd$cal disapp- of dl the xl~vantspeaker6 (Campbell & 'Mdl 19&%182-1%3).) 'Studies reduced Ignguages are often identified with salvage s"Qc5ie.s: a linguist kds last, terminal speakers of a CBW1&@&e an6 doatinen@W fmd s*es of that language. In mkh a ~Cerrd'y,however, %here is m baseline or control language. Different fib1 this is :the emigration -Ser=n2uia3whereby part of a large and healthy speech community mom to a dif&?ent environment, in which its language is no longer the one of economic, sadd, pofitied, or.cultura1 prestige and-where anoaer language is dominant.
    [Show full text]
  • Partitive Case in Sakha
    Rethinking Structural Case: Partitive Case in Sakha Mark Baker and Nadezhda Vinokurova Rutgers University and Institute for Humanities Research and Indigenous Studies of the North, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences Abstract: The Sakha language has a special partitive case used only on nonspecific direct objects in imperative sentences. This is neither a canonical structural case, nor a canonical inherent case. We show that its basic properties can be explained within a configurational case theory by assuming that partitive is unmarked case assigned to any NP within the VP complement of vImp, a special v head found only in the scope of imperative (Jussive) heads and a few semantical similar items. This theory is briefly contrasted with one in which partitive is assigned by agreement with a special v, and one in which partitive is the feature V copied onto a nearby NP. 1. Introduction Within the generative program, Case theory has normally gotten started by making a sharp distinction between so-called structural cases, like nominative and accusative, and inherent or semantic cases, like locative, ablative or instrumental, syntactic theory being more integrally concerned with the structural cases. However, it is not clear that this distinction is so well-defined, or that the boundaries between the two phenomena have necessarily been drawn in the right place. As a case in point, consider the so called partitive case in Sakha, exponed by the suffix –tA. A relic of the Old Turkic locative case, in Sakha this is a very specialized case, used only on some objects of verbs in imperative sentences, as in (1) (Stachowski and Menz 1998: 1 421, 429).
    [Show full text]
  • Case and Agreement with Genitive of Quantification in Russian.Pdf
    Case and Agreement with Genitive of Quantification in Russian* Željko Boškovi University of Connecticut Abstract: The paper examines case and agreement with Russian genitive of quantification, which is assigned within numeral NPs. I show that the central properties of Russian numeral NPs in which genitive of quantification is assigned (GQ NPs), including the optionality of agreement with GQ subjects and the impossibility of agreement with GQ subjects involving approximative inversion, can be accounted for while keeping the categorial status of GQ NPs constant, contrary to the standard analysis, where agreeing and non- agreeing GQ subjects are assumed to differ in their categorial status. The source of the optionality of agreement with GQ subjects is located in the numeral’s case properties. I also show that several rather complex case and agreement paradigms in Russian can be accounted for while maintaining the hypotheses that Russian morphological case is a direct reflection of abstract Case and that Russian morphological agreement is a direct reflection of abstract agree(ment), which provides evidence for these hypotheses. Keywords: abstract Case, agree(ment), acyclic adjunction, Burzio’s generalization, defective intervention, morphological case 1. Introduction The paper examines one of the thorniest issues of Russian morphosyntax, namely case and agreement with genitive of quantification (GQ). GQ is the term used to refer to the genitive case higher numerals in Russian assign to the noun that follows it in structural case contexts, GQ assignment being blocked in inherent case contexts. Example (1) illustrates GQ. The example illustrates another interesting property of Russian GQ NPs: when they function as subjects, they only optionally agree with the verb.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition of Agreement and Morphological Features
    Acquisition of Agreement and Morphological Features Within the Noun Phrase in Russian Oksana Vladimirovna Tarasenkova, Ph.D. University of Connecticut, 2010 This dissertation is dedicated to the study of acquisition of morphological features of number, gender and case within the noun phrase in Russian. I investigated several factors influencing the ordering effects of the acquisition of these morphological features derived from different accounts depending on their take on the agreement features being derived from meaning or form. Such factors are semantic grounds, canonicity, and feature specificity. I also took a closer look at the acquisition of gender in Russian nouns to compare competing accounts of gender and declension class representation in Russian. The dissertation is based on the data from two experimental studies performed with Russian monolingual children between the ages 2;5 and 5 years old. Both studies were set up as elicited production. The first study focuses on the ordering effects in the acquisition of agreement features of number, gender and case within the noun phrase. The second study focuses on the debate between two competing accounts of the representation of gender in Russian. These accounts differently answer the question of whether gender in Russian is derived from declension class, or if, on the contrary, declension class is derived from gender. Oksana Vladimirovna Tarasenkova - University of Connecticut, 2010 Acquisition of Agreement and Morphological Features Within the Noun Phrase in Russian Oksana Vladimirovna Tarasenkova B.A., Kostroma State University named after N.A. Nekrassov, 1996 M.A., University of Connecticut, 2008 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Connecticut 2010 UMI Number: 3451400 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • If We Assume a Uniform Structural Architecture for Transitive And
    If we assume a uniform structural architecture for transitive and unaccusative clauses, putting aside possible differences between flavors or types of little v heads, unaccusative vPs – and any vP lacking an external argument – would be headed by a v that might or might not Agree with an object but would not project a specifier as external argument. By what has become known as Burzio’s Generalization, vPs without external arguments will not assign or license structural accusative case on their objects. An object in an unaccusative clause will generally move to a position outside the vP, e.g., to spec of TP position, or receive nominative case and agree with a tensed verb in situ. Clearly, if unaccusative vP is a phase, then an object in an unaccusative vP must move to the edge of the vP if it is to move higher, to spec TP, and such an object must Agree with the v, if it is to trigger agreement on a higher T while remaining in situ with the vP. If unaccusative vP were not a phase, then movement to spec of TP could occur directly, and there would not need to be any agreement between little v and the moved or in situ object within unaccusative vPs. The general predictions of the unaccusative vP as phase hypothesis seem supported by the literature. Legate (2003) argues that an object undergoing A-movement from a passive or unaccusative vP does in fact show evidence of passing through a spec of vP position on its way up. The strongest prediction of this hypothesis is also supported by the literature on well-studied languages.
    [Show full text]