THE CATEGORY OF ANMACY: A SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCWY?
by
Marija Stefanovic
A thesis submitted in confomiity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Depanment of Slavic Languages and Literatwes University of Toronto
O Copyright by Manja StefanoMc ZOO0 National Library Bibliotheque nationale 1*1 ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie SeNices servkes bibliqmphiques
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seii reproduire, prêter, distn'buer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis oor substmtial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. THE CATEGORY OF ANIMACY: A SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCHY? Ph.D. Thesis Manj a Stefanovic Depanment of Slavic Languages and Literatures University of Toronto, 2000
This dissertation focuses on variation in the accusative form in Serbian and Russian that in much of the previous research has been ascribed to marking of the category of animacy in Slavic languages that have the case system. Analysis of data fiom these two languages suggests that the accusative-genitive syncretism, which the scholars traditiondly associated with marking of the object's animacy, in fact marks its atypicality. while the accusative-nominative syncretism marks the object's typicality. Since the speaker sees him/herself as the ultimate subject and the most atypical object. every object that has features the speaker usually associates with hirnlherself can be treated as atypical. Whenever an object is animate. has a personal name, is highly referential and possesses features that are associated with a high degree of referentiality (is individuated ador definite). or is in the focus. or is supplied with a large amount of information about it, or provokes a special attitude from the speaker. than this object can acquire the accusative-genitive fom; t his case marking does not necessarily correspond to the object's real-life status and semantically appropriate marking f?om the point of view of animacy. Conversely, when the object is not to be perceived as atypical (individuated and relevant "on its own" for the speaker's particular communicational needs), it can be rnarked with the accusative-nominative form, regardless of its animacy status. The conneetion of choice of the accusative form to the speaker's perception of objects as typicd or atypical makes it possible to eliminate long lists of "exceptions" and semantically inexplicable cases of animacy marking, and to view anbcy as a part ofa more general category of atypical objects. Many factors that can influence the accusative form sometimes occur simultaneou~lyin a sentence. or can overn.de one another. which rnakes it impossible to establish a rigid hierarchy that would govem the choice of the accusative form.
iii FOREWORD
My interest in the category of animacy arose dunng rny graduate studies at the University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The first results of my research based on contemporary Russian and Serbian appeared in my M.A. thesis, written under the supervision of Professor Predrag Piper. That thesis was the starting point for furiher research, which included several studies of different aspects of the category of animacy. The present thesis is my attempt to explain the complexity of this category in a manner that would eliminate as many as possible of the exceptions traditionally ascribed to the category of animacy irregulanties. I wish to express my sincere thanks to ail mernbers of my Cornmittee: Christina E. Kramer, Joseph Schallert, Wayles Browne and Ralph Bogen. 1 am particularly grateful to my advisors Christina Kramer and Joseph Schallen for their constant support, patience and insightfùl comments during al1 phases of this project. In addition, their kindness and understanding made my balancing between work and family less stressful. My parents and in-laws have my special gratitude for their help in taking care of rny son Ivan. Finally, the complet ion of this dissertation would not be possible without my husband Sladjan's consideration and support. I dedicate this work to the memory of rny grandfather Stevan Iovifid (1 9 18- 1998). whose love and trust followed me everywhere. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. MTRODUCTION 1-21 1. 0. introduction ...... 1
1.1. The Corpus ...... 6
1.2. Rule 'and Esccpiioiis ...... 6
f .3. @o!o)typicnl Qljcct': ...... 11
1.4. Variation - S1wc.i. ;ilid ltciiiitig ...... 17
1.5. Chaptcr Oiiiliiic ...... 20
2. DEVELOPMENT OF tIY POTH ESES AND THEORLES ON TBE CATEMDRY OF ANIMACY
22-39
2.1. Gcndcr iiiid Ariiiii;iq ...... 22
2.2. Mcillci's Hgoilicsis ...... 23 th 2.3. Dcvclopriicrii al' 111c Hicon iti tlic 20 Cenhuy ...... 26
2.3.1. hlorl~lio-S!iii:iciic Approacli ...... 26
2.3.1. Som-Lirigiiisitc Approacli ...... 29
2.3.3. L;i t c.51 H! pot licscs - Compromises and New Discoveries ...... 32
2 ; ;. 1 . Hic.r;ircliics Rclated to Animacy ...... 32
2 . ; ; 1. \.. H . kys'ko's Reaiialysis of Data and Theories ...... 34
-' . 7 ; ; 'Ti 111bcrliikc's Research and the Introduction of Contextual Meaning ..... 36
2.4. Concliisioti...... 38
3. FEATURES INFLU ESClNC Tt1 E ACCUSATIVEI<;EmACCUSATIVE-NOMMA=
SYNCRETISM 40-62
3.1. Invodiictioii ...... 40
3.2. Rolc of tlic Gciiiiivc iri iiic Clioicc of the Accusative-Genitive Syncretism ...... 42
3.2.1. Verbal Rcctiuti ;ilid Sciii,ui tics ...... 12
3.2.2. Gcnitivc Objccis iii Non-Ncgated Sentences ...... 45
3.2.3. Conclusion ...... 46 3.3. Markers of Ai>.pic;ilit!...... 47
3.3.1. Iiitrodiictioii...... 47
3.3.2. Iricli\~idii;iiiori...... 50
3.3.3. Dcl?tiiiciic.ss ...... , ...... 52
3.3.4. Rclcrctii~;ilit...... 56
3.3.5. Foc.ility . Topic;ility aiid Wordûrder ...... 58
3.3.6. Coricltision ...... 61
1. DESCRIPTION OF LINGUISTIC FACTS TRADITIONAWIY RELATED TO TBE
CATEGORY OF ANIM ACU IN SEWWAND RUSSIAN 64-119
4.1. introductioii ...... 64
4.2. Variation in L's;igc Rcl;itcd ici Uriccrtninty about the Real-Lifk Statu of the Object ...... 66 4.2.1. introdtict ioii ...... 4.2.2. Microor,,"-!111sIIIS ...... 68
4.2.3. Iricoriipleicl! DC\C[OPC~Organisms ...... 70
1.2.4. Iiiiriiobilc Bciiigs ...... 70
1.2.5. LL'SSL)~K;IO\\II -\~~IIII;IIL' Bci~igs ...... 71
4.2.6.Dcad Bciirgh ...... 73
4.2.7. Fintnsiic Uciiigs ...... 74
4.2.8. Coticliisiciii ...... 75
4.3. Nouns Dcnotirig Aiiiiii;i t c. Bci~igsUscd as Inanimate Objects ...... 76
4.3.1. Inirodiict iori ...... 76
4.3.2. Noii-Pol! s~iiii~iisLL'.\CIIICS ...... 77
4.3.3. Pol! seiiioiis L~\~iiich...... 78
5.3.3.1. Noii-Xfct;ipliiiric~ilUsage of Lexemes Presented as Polysemous in Dictionaries ...... 79
4.3.? 1.1. Iiiirodiiciion ...... 79
4.3.3 1.2. Dictioiiii~Definitions and Examples hmCorpus ...... 80
4 . :. ;. 1.7. Coiicli~sion...... -85
4.3.3 .2. Mc t;ipli~iricilI-'s;ige of Polysemous bernes...... 86 4.3.3.2.1.liirrotliictioii ...... 86
4.3 3.3.2. Iii;i tii itintc Nouns Refening to Animate Objects ...... 86
4.3 -7.2.2.1.Inanimate Nouns Refcrring to Animate ûbjects - tbc Accusativc-
Notiiiii;itiireSqncretism ...... 87
4. .; . .;. 1.2.2. Inûnimate Nouns Refeming to Animate Objects - the Accusativc-
{iciiiiti\ c Syncrctism ...... 88
4 ...... ;ii~i~i.tiiSo~uis Rdcning to Inanimate Objects ...... 88
4.3.;. ; ~'uiicliisioii...... 91
4.3.4. Noii-iClcr;iplit)ri~';~I1:s;igc of Lcsernes Presented as Homonymous in Dictionaries ...... 92
4.3.5. Variiiiioii iii Fwii 11L' I lit Accuscilive in Polysemous Lexemes Used Non-Metaphoncally ...93
4.3.6. Tlic Lcscitic fiih)r ...... 95
43.7.blciapliors - C'~~iiipitiridWords ...... %
4.3.5. Coi~cliisiciii...... ,..... 96
4.4. Variation C;iiisccl Il? I)rscrcp;iticy Between the Animacy Stahis of the Roper Name and the Statu of
Its Referent ...... 97
1.4.1 Iiitrodiicr iriii ...... 97
4.4.2. Topotp 111s. -\s;rrw! 111s. etc...... 98
4.4.3. Noiilis - S;iiii~s1i~ 'rl~rts Tciu~is ...... 99
4.4.4. Noiiris - SNIWt~ \*c'sscls. Rcstams etc ...... 102
4.1.5. Noiiiis - S;iiiic\ tiir (';ir Types and Makes ...... 105
4.4.6. Noiiiis - Xiiiics iiï( )II~Objccts ...... 110
4.4.7. Noi~iis- S;iriics iibr .Anistic Crcitiom. Newspapers, lodsetc ...... 112
4.4.8. Noiiris Dctiotiiig h;irds ...... ,...... 114
44.9. Nmcs hr Piiiiclics III Riissi,~...... 115
4.4.10. Coricliisii)~i ...... ,...... ,...... ,...... ,...,...... 117
4.5. Conciusioii ...... , 118
S. TEE ACCUSATIVE FORAI 1% NOUNS DENOTING THE NEUTER GENDER AND CROUPS
OF ANIMATE BEINGS 1241-145
vii 5.1. latmduction ...... , ...... 120
5.2. Anima- M;irkiiig ;iiid flic' Sciitc'r Gender ...... 120
5.3. Nouns Dcnotiiig Ciroiips il!' .a iiiiiinte Bcings Tlut Have the Plural Form ...... 128
5.4. Collective Aniiimc Sciiiiis ...... 129
5.5. Constnictioris wiili hiitiic~ils...... 131
5.5.1. C;~rdia;rlSiiiiicr;iIs ;iiirl Aniitucy Marking ...... 13 1
* . ...! ! 1:...... 131 5.12 . ri...... 134
5.5.2. Riissi;iii C~iiistnicririiisof tiic Type "rp~aB&~M veno~e~8" ...... 136
5.5.3. Ariiiti;iq ;iiiiI ('ollccrn~cNumcrais ...... 138
5.6. Constnictioiis of ilic T! pc "uhu Y CWI~~~T~I-B cqad ...... 140
5.7. Russian Dialccr;il ('oii~ti~i~ti1)iis ol'tlic Type "noqnam =al' ...... 143
5.8. Conclusiori ...... 144 6. THE ACCUSATIVE-GEN ITIVE SYNCRETISM FOR MANIMATE OBJEClS -CASES OF
TEE RELATWE PROSOl N K0.11 IN SERBIAN FOR INANMATE ANTECEDENTS AND
ADJECTIVES W ITt1 1) t.1 1. K'I'KII SQUNS 116-162
6.1. Introdiictioii ...... 146
6.2. Categorics ;irid Fc;~tiirchKc.f.iicd to the Syncretism in Revious Research ...... 148
6.2.1. nit ~;it+up ol . 4iitiiiap ...... 198
6.2.l.I.Es.iiiiplcs ...... 149
(1 I 1.1. I Nctitcr Gendcr Nouns ...... 119
O 2 t I 2 Collcciive Inanhate Nouns ...... 149
O 2 . I . 1.3 Uoiitis Dcnoting Groups of Animate Beings ...... 150
0.2.1.2.( 'citiuliisic1ii ...... 150
6.2.2. Dcfiiiiicii c..\ 5 ...... 150
6.2.3. Tlic fbtorplio-Syit;ictic Approach ...... 152
6.2.7.1 . Kc'sol\ i 11s -Ambigu@ ...... 152
6.X.2 . 5)iit;imc Praperties of the Construction ...... 153
viii 11 2 ; 2.1. Presciice of Prepositions ami Case of the Antecedent ...... 153
c 1.2.; .2. 2. Syntsictic Role of the hiecedent ...... 154
O 7.3. 2.2. 1. Antecedent - Subject ...... 154 0.3.3.2.2.2.Antecedent - Head of Adverbial Consbuction...... 155
62.3.; . ('oticliisioii ...... 155
6.2.4. Oilicr W!.pi~1icsc.s ...... 155
s .2.1 . ! ? !? L;::!;:: Tcridcnq in Lruigugt Devclopment...... 155
6.2.4.2.5r! lisiic Rcisons ...... 156
6.3. Maning of C~ii~~niiiii)~~\\ iih tlic Accusative-Genitive Syncretism ...... 156
6.3.1.~tibjccti\c ~~\;ilii;itiliti ...... 156
6.3.2. Sliift O!' Foc113 ...... 158
6.4.The Acciis~iii\~c-Gc.~~~~~\c S? i tcrctisiti and Adjectives with Deleted Nouns ...... 159
6.5. Concliisiori ...... 163
7. CONCLUSION 1O-b 1 :il
B~LIOGRAPHY 1 7 I - r 79 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.0. Introduction
It is well known that there are languages that use morphological means to express different sernantic categories. As a rule. in al1 Slavic langua3es where the case system is preserved, the accusative singular of al1 masculine nouns ending in zero that refer to animate objects' has the €on of the genitive case (Acc=Gen) and the accusative of masculine nouns refemng to inanimate objects has the fonn of the nominative case (Acc=Nom). The accusative-genitive syncretism2for animate referents is an innovation that occurred in Slavic before the first written documents, but there is a large body of data where variation between the "old (Le. Acc=Nom) and "new" (Acc=Gen) accusatives for animates was present. Variation and semantically unpredictable marking of objects (from the point of view of marking of the category of animacy) still exist in contemporary Slavic languages.' In some of them as a result of later language-particular developrnent marking of animate objects is present in the plural. and the expansion of the accusative-genitive syncretism for animates beyond the scope of masculine singular nouns can be viewed as an innovation which did not have a uniform spread nor was caused by the same factors in
' Nouns denoting plants are as a rule excluded fiom the category of animacy in Slavic languages. However, there are certain conditions that can bring about the animate marking in such cases, and they will be discussed later. 1 Will use terms accusative-geniiive and acmsative-nominative syncretism (or abbreviations Acc=Nom, Acc=Gen) throughout this work. The standard term for the syncretism in the Western literature is 'genitive-occumtive' and 'nominative-occusative, ' in the Eastern (Slavic) tradition it is 'accusative-genitive ' (EHH.T~JIWI&- po~.~enbmirA)and 'accusatave-nominative' (BHHHTRII~H~IH-HM~H~~TM~H~IR). The scope of the category, however, is not identicaî, i.e. particular languages differ in IexicaVsemantic groups of nouns that participate in the marking of the category. CE. for example, Stechishin (1966: 15) for Ukrainian, Brooks (1975: 66-67) for Poiish and Havranek, Jedlicka ( 1963 : 1 13) for Czech. 1 Slavic languages and their dialects.' Since many researchers stress the relatively late incorporation of the plural in the system of animacy in Slavic languages, and there is a rather wide range of variation as a result of laquage-specific developments, 1 will not comment on animacy in the plural in particular languages.'
In serbiaq6 animacy is not expressed in the plural, but in Russian it is, and in the latter it includes not only masculine, but also ferninine and neuter plural nouns, which is the result of later language changes. Le. the unification of plural paradigms for al1 genders and analogy to the singular. In Serbian, the accusative plural of masculine nouns that are affiected by the category of animacy has a form which is identical neither to the nominative nor to the genitive, whiie in Russian the accusative-genitive syncretism occurs for animate referents regardless of their gender, and the accusative-nominative is typical for inanimates. This can be illustrated by nouns for 'student,' 'horse' and 'tooth.' which are of masculine gender in Serbian and Russian:
ANIMATE NOUNS:
R: Nom sg CT~J~~HT-~,KOH~-O ACCSg = Gen Sg CïyAeHT-a,KOH-Sî Nom pl CTyneHT-bi, KOH-El ACCpl = Gen PI cry~em-OB.KOH-ek
S: Nom sg 3y6-û Acc sg = Nom sg 3y6-0 Nom pl 3y6-s Acc pl =/= Nom pl =/= Gen pl 3y6-e
1 See Huntley (1980). 5 However, 1 will include some of the plural data in the chapter on the importance of the feature "individuation" for the fonn of the accusative. 6 As my data cornes primarily from Serbian sources, 1 wiU use the term "Serbian language." However, aithough data do not show any dierences between Serbian and Croatian regarding the category of animacy, Iwil note examples fiom the Croatian sources. Serbian examples will be marked S. Russian R and Croatian C. R: Nom sg 3y6-0 Acc sg = Nom sg 3y6-0 Nom pl 3~6-bl Acc pl = Nom pl 3y6-b~.
I am primarily interested in the category of animacy in Serbian (and Croatian) and Russian. but. since writers of grammars in al1 Slavic languages that have preserved the case system usually deal with the question in an identical way, it seems that "problems" with the category of animacy are dealt with sirnilady by linguists throughout the Slavic world; i.e. the general rule is aated at the beginning ("animate referents have the accusative in the genitive fonn, and inanimate ones have the accusative identical with the nominative") and then a (most oflen) unsystematized list of exceptions to the rule is given.7 The list includes many items that are the same for the majonty (if not all) of the languages, as Stankiewicz ( 1986: 129) notes:
"The range of the animate gender differs from one Slavic language to another, but in al1 of them it includes a variety of referentially inanimate objects. Moa cornmonly these are the nomes ojnurshrooms (e.g. Russ borovika 'boletus', *ika 'saff?on rnilk cap'), of playing cords (e.g. Rus. valeta 'Jack'. kozyrja 'trump', tuza 'ace'), of &es (e.g. Slovak budka 'beech'. duba 'oak', javora 'maple'), of hnca(e.g. Rus. trepaka, Pol. poloneza), of disemes (e.g. Czech vreda 'boil', Pol. raka 'cancer'), and of (Innks (e.g. Pol. szampana 'champagne', burgunda 'burgundy ') ." Occurrence or lack of the expected accusative-genitive and the accusative- nominative syncretism in other parts of speech was a reason for inclusion of forms for the 3rd person masculine pronoun, constructions with nurnerals in direct object constructions and forms of relative pronouns into the description and analysis of the category of animacy. Analysis of syntactic structures within which the accusative-genitive form occurred (or did not occur) motivated several researchers to consider word order, or the
7 This fact probably motivated Huntley to express the opinion which is shared among numerous researchers on the category of animacy : "In various of these [Russian] dialects, certain inanimate mascuüne nouns may also have genitive-accurative, at least in cenah constructions. However, thne iuinimate paitivc-accusativcs are aU &ber IesiuUy, syntrcticiPy, or atyli&diy mrrM, and a detaiid discussion would be mrinly of an empirical nature" (Huntley 1980: 191) - emphasis is mine. presence of prepositions and modifiers as relevant factors for the choice of the semanticaily irregular marking of nouns. Even verbal aspect was included occasionally in analyses of "inexplicable" cases of accusative-genitive or accusative-nominative syncretism. Atternpts to explain the unexpected fonn of the accusative sometimes resulted in incorporation of semantic andor pragmatic factors such as definiteness. salience. individuation and referentidity8into a theory that would account for many "irregularities" that were noted not only in the Slavic, but also in other languages. Mer presenting the development of the most imponant and fiuittiil ideas on the category of animacy in Slavic languages, t will show that it is possible to incorporate many of them into a, hopefully, more accuraie picture of a category traditionally called animacy. 1 will add a new factor to the already existing (or acknowledged) ones, viz. the factor of communicational need. I will try to prove that it was one of the major stimuli for the introduction of a new accusative fonn, and that it has been a main cause of many "exceptions" to the category of animacy that have been a serious probiem for researchers of all generations. I will also justifi the study of "marginal" examples as a possible means to resolving many issues in the theory on the category in question. Thus, my goal is to find deeper reasons for variation in usage of the accusative form in contemporary Serbian and Russian, and to see whether it is possible to establish a hierarchy that govems (or has govemed) the range of the accusative-genitive syncretism, which obviously extends beyond animacy. 1 will also tiy to reconcile the earlier proposed theories and hypotheses, which were thought to be contradictory, and to show that they have been equally correct in identifjmg certain semantic and syntactic factors that influence usage of the syncretism.
a CE, for example, Pencheva ( 19%): "[animacy] pervades the entire body of language and interacts with other parameters building in this way an intricate system of phenornena controlied, directly or not, by it. Thus it is closely related to definiteness, topicaiity, declension types, verbai agreement, choice of voice, numbe, semantic roles and others" (ibid., 340). Although my intention is not to offer a universal hypothesis that would account for al1 instances of the accusative-genitive or the accusative-nominative syncretism in al1
Slavic languages that use this feature (mainly) for marking animacy/inanimacy of objects.
it is possible that an analysis of language-particular application of the syncretism would justify the usage of notions "atypical" and "prototypical" objects. 1 have analysed virtually al1 types of occurrences of the accusative-nominative and the accusative-genitive syncretisms in Serbian and Russian; cornpanson of these with other Slavic languages does show a high degree of similarity for many lexical andor semantical classes, and this fact could be a possible starting point for further research into the actual meaning of different accusative forms in Slavic that were ascribed solely to the category of animacy. The dissertation is divided into five major chapters: Chapter 2 gives an overview of the earlier established hypotheses and theories on the category of animacy. Chapter 3 analyses stnictural and discourse features that can influence the choice of the accusative form, and Chapter 4 consists of analysis of data from Sehian and Russian. In Chapter 5 analysis of data is continued, but in this part of the dissertation it is the data that has been related to the investigation of the category of animacy only marginally. Existence of the same semantic pnnciple (the use of the accusative-genitive and the accusative-nominative syncretism as markers of the object's atypicality and typicality) connects this part of the material to the remaining corpus. Chapter 6 contains andysis of a Serbian phenornenon, viz. the use of the accusative-genitive syncretism for the relative pronoun kuji for inanimate antecedents and for the adjectives qualwg the underlying inanimate noun, and the conclusion is given in Chapter 7. 1.1. The Corpus The analyzed corpus from contemporary Serbian and Russian language consists of approximately 10.000 pages of both original and translated literature, rnainly fiom the second half of the 20' century, as well as many examples from newspapers and journals published in the 1990s. A very useful source for the present work were papers of other linguists, who listed many examples that agree or do not agree with their orvn theories. and 1 use them in addition to my corpus. Since writers often seem to avoid constructions which involve the "problematic areas" of the morphological marking of the category of anirna~~,~I have interviewed native speakers and used written questionnaires where I needed some additional information. By integrating the analysis of my corpus into the existing detailed descriptions of the category of animacy in Serbian and Russian (supported by material fiom other Slavic languages, as well as from the existing extensive research camied out on the diachronie level). 1 believe I have established a sufficiently broad basis for proposing a hypothesis on the relevance of the subjective factor, such as the speaker's assessrnent of objects as typical or atypical. in addition to the already recognized objective factors, both morp hological and syntactic.Io
1.2. Rule and Exceptions Since the accusative-ge~tivesyncretism has been perceived as the main marker of the category of animacy in Serbian and Russian, this syncretism stands at the center of my research. Funher, since it is generally acknowledgad t hat linguistic variation can reflect
9 The construction with the accusative is oflen avoided or a synonyrn in some other gender or number is useâ, so that the masculine accusative fonn that should have been marked as [+animate] or [-animate] would not appear at ai; cf (S) no6egm~cy 4po- bene - 'They defeated the "black and whites"'(nickname for a sports club)- instead of n06eg.~cy nap~~3aia) - 'They defeated Partizan.' 10 The morphological factors include masculine gender, zero-ending, sîngular in most Slavic languages, while word order is one of the most often mention& syntactic factors that influence the choice of the accusative for animatelinanimate objects. structural relations between competing features. it is precisely variation in the distribution of occurrence of the accusative-genitive syncretism which will concem me primarily. " The rule goveming this syncretism States that referentially animate objects have the accusative-genitive syncretism, whereas referentially inanimate objects have the accusative-nominative syncretism. However, al1 researchers have noted a large number of exampies of sernantically irregular usage and exceptions to the main rule. In this work 1 wili distinguish two classes of such exarnples. based on this degree of grammaticalization: (1) Marking of objects as animate or inanimate is obligatory, Le. it is (or has been) a pan of generally accepted grammatical rules; the accusative fonn does not necessarily depend on the real-life status of objects; (2) Marking of objects as animate or inanimate is optional, i.e. in some cases an object will be marked with the accusative-genitive syncretism and in others with the accusative-nominative syncretism. The first class consists of context-independet examples with either semantically predictable or semantically unpredictable marking. l2 Semantically predictable marking is present in examples where the accusative-genitive syncretism is used for referentially animate O bjects, and the accusative-nominative syncretism for the referentiaily hanimate ones (cf examples on p. 2 of this work). The obligatory use of the unexpected accusative- nominative form for referentially animate objects can be illustrated with exarnples for animate neuter-gender nouns:
Il CE. for example, Wierzbicka' s stated focus: "It seems likely that far from being trivial, superficial and rnisleading, morphology is in fact highly sensitive to semantic and communicative distinctions. Ifour semantic and syntactic theories fail to make sense of the morphological dues it may be more advisable to doubt the adequacy of these theories than to dismiss morphology as senseless and arbitra@' (Wierrbicka 198 1: 76). l2 if there is variation in usage, examples are on the border between "mar~inally acceptable" and ''occasionalism," as wiU be show in analysis of the corpus. S : BWAHMJ~T~.-N~~ 'Isee a chilid,' R: e~myvyflo~~rqe..\~c=~, '1 see a rnonster,' nouns denoting groups of animate objects. such as:
S: uiasbehi 6a~a/ao~~~~~,'1 am sending a battalion' R: OH nowlan OTPHflke~,,,,, 'He sent a detachment' or in idiomatic constmctions such as Russian HATH B fOffH-~, (,,il (?O go visit'). In the case of optional marking, the accusative fom depends either on extra-lexical information not contained in the noun per se, or on information contained in the context (situation). Extra-lexical information is contained in the speaker's knowledge of the object's real-life status of a (usually) polysemous word (S: eweo je Hocava-om 'he saw a porter' vs. S: euaeo je ffocav*~, 'he saw a girder'). Similar to these are ais0 examples of naming inanimate objects afler anirnate ones (S: ~ymoje @opfleû, 'he bought a Ford', vs. S: ynogsao je G~pfla-~~'he met Ford').
When variation is a result of the information contained in the context, the optional marking occurs only when there is a discrepancy between the real-life status of the object and the role it has been assigned in a concrete situation. An inanimate object can be given a more prominent role and therefore be marked as animate. or an animate object can be "demoted" because of its less important role (at a particular moment) and be marked as inanimate. The difference between extra-lexical and metaphoncal usage is that in the first instance the speaker does not use a figure of speech when he refers to the object, while in the second instance he does (and deliberately so). In the latter instance the fonn (which is not in agreement with expectations based on the first, literal meaning of 6dn~an)is used in order to stress the object's typicality or atypicaiity in a particuler situation, based on the speaker's attitude towards it. For example. here belong cases such as R: nouran~ceoero
60n~a~a~~~B uurony 'they sent their blockhead to school'. Lit. 'they sent their block to school' vs. R: cnpocn CBOB~~~06pa3e~-~, ~06poxe~em'ask your mode1 of virtue' ), as well as cases of sporadic usage of the accusative-nominative fom with animate referents in Old Russian texts (e.g. nout aura Hosroponi~~.. . noca~KoLF~om fp~rope~.~,=~,~ifp~no~lfvb~~, - example fiom Ws'ko 1994: 24) and accusative-genitive syncretism for objects ot henvise obligatory marked as inanimate (R:
MOlKHO OTKPblTb MeCïHble KOPHH HaPoRa, KOTOpOfO~Fo,C'IHTâK)T nP~~Jlb1~13
*it is possible to find the local roots of a people who have been considered immigrants.""
Examples of the animate case form for Serbian relative pronoun KO~Hwhen it refers to inanimate objects ais0 belong to this dass: TO je nnati ~ojef~~~CMO ~s~en~'that is the plan we presented'). 90th researchers and grammarians qualib the second class of examples as consisting of borderline cases, and they often express vagueness regarding their conectness (fiom the perspective of prescnptive grammarians) or acceptability (fiom the point of view of descriptive linguists). In other words, the so-called obligatory marking can be ovemdden by contextual considerations. When there is no context dependency, which is inseparable fiom the speaker's intentions to convey his message in a certain way, nouns are obligatorily marked either as animate or inanimate (see the first class above). As 1 will seek to demonstrate, this classification covers al1 examples and counter- examples that have been used in the research of animacy in Slavic languages, and it can be applied both to synchronie and diachronie analyses. The two classes, one with obligatory, the other with optionai marking of the accusative, have never been studied separately, i.e. researchers have always tried to find a single more or less rigid rule or set of niles that would account for both of them. 1 think that a more appropriate method is to distinguish between them because there are different factors that influence the choice of the accusative in independent occurrences of the accusotive-genitivehominative syncretism, and in non-independent occurrences, i.e. in instances where the concrete situation or
------l3 The relative pronoun should have the accusative-nominative form KUTOPMI, because the noun ~apo~'people' is obligatory marked as inanimate, as it denotes a group of animate objects. l4 Exarnple adapted from IckoviP (1980: 88). discourse influences the choice of the accusative form. The nature of the usage of difkrent forrns of the accusative in the latter case points toward the speaker's subjective assessrnent of typicality/atypicality of the object which is always seen in the background of the fom it has been assigned by the rules of obligatory marking. '' The "unexpected" accusative form is, therefore, to be perceived as a deliberate violation of the nom for the purpose of emp hasis.
Data I have anaiyzed suggest that examples from different periods of language developrnent where both obligatory and optionai marking were registered are equally important for the clarification of mechanisms of language choice (on the synchronie ais) and change (on the diachronie axis). because the same pnnciple of rnarking non- prototypical objects pertains to both of them, regardless of their status as "correct" or "incorrect" in any given state of the language development. Moreover, it is the second class of exarnples that provides us with significant information hidden behind "unsystematic" occurrences. I agree with Wierzbicka, who wrote about the temi for the category in question:
"If we keep talking about 'degrees of animacy' even though we know that it b not animacy that is involvecl but something else we are creating a falx impression that we know what that something else is. when in fact we do not" (Wierzbicka 198 1: 5 1, fh.#7) - emphasis is mine. [t is obvious that morphological marking of objects with the accusetive-genitive syncretism corresponds only panially with the category of animacy, as it has been understood in the vast majority of works devoted to the problem. Therefore, 1 will approach the problem of the accusative-genitive syncretism from the semantic point of view, looking for elements that are cornmon to both "regular" and "irregular" appearances of the syncretism.
-
l' t will discuss the concept of (proto)typicality in the next section. 1.3. (Proto)typic.l Objects In this section 1 will try to describe a possible mechanism for the introduction and spread of the accusative-genitive syncretism by referring to the typical or prototypical situation and object. because it seems that such situations and objects were in the epicenter of the change, or, at least. they were an important part of speakers' abductions regarding the innovative form. Since the accusative-genitive syncretism arose in the context of direct object, al1 my assurnptions will be based on the understanding of the prototypical object as a "rrlatively less active. lrss con~olli~~g,or Iess inïtia!ive argument of wo-place predicates," as Sanders defined the semantic funaion of direct objects (1984: 224-225). An inanimate object is. therefore, a "typical" (or "normal") object.16 and, according to Hopper and Thompson (1980: 252), it should be totally affected by an action in order to qualify for the "higher transitivity" status of the sentence it appears in. As the accusative- genitive syncretism was an innovation in the (pro)noMnal system of Slavic languages, 1 will argue that it was the atypicalness ofthe object that motivated the i~ovationand helped the spread of the new marker, in accordance with the cognitive approach described in Crofi ( 199 1 : 273):
"the universal Linguistic patterns support the cognitive hypothesis that human beings appear to take specific types of experience and structure their conceptualizations around them. [. . . 1 The ksr prototypical esperiences also are well entrenched and give rise to minor or peripheral eategorks and noastandard grammatical dations... The cognitive approach underiiies an important aspect of the fùnctionalist method of analysis, the relation between language and other human activities and cognitive processes" (Crofl 199 1: 273) - emphasis is mine. This is also in accord wiih Timberlake's (1996) and Timberlake and Zivov's (1 99%) understanding of language change as being caused by the speaker's need to describe an unusual situation using a limited number of existing elements.
16 Many authors see the accusative objects as lower in animacy: cf, for example, Hawkinson, Hyman ( 1974: 16 1): bba~~~~iveobjecis are usuail) inmimate." Mer having considered numerous data fiom the contemporary languages and from different histoncal penods. I concur with E. Klenin's (1983) hypothesis on the replacement of genitive objects with the genitive-accusative construction as a result of "morphologrcal reartalyss." She st ates :
"the genitive case fonn has no very particular meaning, but simply mark those direct objecb that deviate in one or another way from the esptcttd transitive relation . . . That is. the genitive case form indicates, roughly, abaormal trinsitivity. whether plus or minus. (This. of course, must be kept distinct hmthe question of a general meaning for the genitive case, which, as we have seen. is not represented by the genitive-accusative)." (Wenin 1983 : 109) - emphasis is mine. My Mew on the accusative-genitive syncretism agrees Ath Klenin's." I will seek to demonstrate that whenever an (syntactic) object was viewed as atypical. whether on the basis of its semantic. morphological or discourse properties, it tended to acguire the genitive form. The accusative-genitive syncretism for animate syntactic objects signals that their position in a two-argument structure is inferior to that of the syntactic subject, which is perceived as the most important argument in a prototypical transitive sentence. The use of the accusative-ge~tivesyncretism in such instances, therefore, signals the (syntactic) object's lesser value and in a way demoted statu fiom that which it is supposed to have, being referentially animate. The term "value" incorporates here the assessment of al1 the object ' s features that the speaker considers relevant in a situationkontext. l9 The object 's
17 Klenin's analysis. however, was based primarily on pronouns, although it contains a number of very insightful details (which are discussed bellow). '* Janda's article brings new insights on the connection between the noun's stem class and semantics, and results of my research agree with her conclusions (see Janda 1994). 19 This means that, al1 other things being equal. a noun that has more features that are considered to be relevant, will normaîîy be the subject of a sentence. Cf, for example, Crofl(1991): "the grammatical relations hierarchy, subject > object > oblique is a topicality hierarchy: subjects are more topical than objects, which are in tum more topical than obliques. The majonty of the evidence presented for the topicality hienirchy has been based on 'natural topics', that is, grammatid connraints that requin that the more value (or 'wonh') equals its atypicality, i.e. the more the object is valued, it is less prototypical and requires marking, and vice versa. Animate objects are prototypical subjects; they are not prototypical objects and the accusaiive-genitive syncretism marks this. On the other hand, inanimate objects are prototypical objects. their value compared to that of the (usually animate) subject is undoubtedly lesser. and they are not to be specially marked as atypical When there is a need for viewing a referentially inanimate object as different corn other typical objects, it will be marked as if it were animate. Le. it will acquire the accusative-genitive syncretism. This syncretism, therefore, changes the perception of the object's relative value in al1 cases: if it is animate. the accusative-genitive syncretism marks its lesser value comparing to that of the subject; if the object is inanimate, but for some reason treated as atypical, the accusative-genitive form signals that its value is different tiom what it should be, considering only the object's animacy status. The accusative-nominative syncretism in al1 cases signals the object's lesser value fiom the speaker's point of view, Le. it "degrades" it to a typical object. The accusative-genitive syncretism in Slavic laquages has never pertained to nouns belonging to certain grammatical ador lexical categones and classes, possibly because t heir referents are not perceived as "atypical objects" (or "typical animates") for diflerent reasons. The semantic reason underlying the obligatory non-matking (i.e. obligatory marking with the accusative-nominative instead of the expected accusative- genitive syncretism) of the animate neuter gender nouns con be the lack of an explicit expression for an otherwise important feature, Le. imlevance of these objects' sex tiom the speaker's point of view. This is a significant feature when animate beings are involved and deliberate withholding of such information by the speaker makes such objects stand apm from the other animates as less important. They are not to be perceived as individuai animatdmore definite NP be made an object instead of an oblique or a subject instead of an object'' (ibid., 15 1). beings that have (or are marked as having) al1 relevant charactenstics typical for animates. This makes them appear less important, or demoted, and the speaker does not mark them as atypical objects. Obligatory non-marking of animates with the accusative-genitive syncretism has also been presented in collective nouns and nouns denoting groups of animate beings. because individual. concrete membeis are not to be perceived as such, as they are irrelevant from the speaker's point of view as separate, referential entities - cf Serbian and
Russian nouns such as Hapog 'people,' nago 'herd' etc. ). The two given classes of examples in Serbian and us si an^' belong to cases of obligatory non-marking of referentially animate beings with the accusative-genitive fom. Examples of the accusative-genitive syncretism for inanimate nouns and the accusative- nominative for animate nouns belong to cases of optional marking. A combination or just one of the following features is sufficient to change the perception of an object fiom "typical" to "atypical": the object can be marked with the accusative-genitive syncretism:
( 1 ) if it has a personal name; (2) if it is modified by usage of demonstrative or possessive pronouns; (3) if its relevance for the particular speaker in a particular situation is hightened and the communicative focus falls on it, i.e. if it is foregrounded2' (cf. for exarnple, the accusative-genitive for a mushroom in Russian: OH Hawen Macmffa,-~,
P~JXMK~.~~).On the other hand. if an animate object (with othennise obligatory accusative-genitive marking, which is based on its real-life status) is in a certain situation less relevant for the speaker, it will have the accusative-nominative fonn (cf Serbian Ha
HCrH fp~~h~~~Mme CejmaTnrH Bffmep~6a 'One can catch severai fish using
20 Le. the animate neuter gender nouns and nouns denoting groups of animate beings. '' 1 will use tenns b'$~regr~tlnd(ed)"and "backgroud(+ed)"as they were defined in Hopper. Thompson ( l98O: 280): "That part of a discourse which does not immediately and cniciaily contribute to the speaker's goal, but which merely assists, amplifies, or comments on it, is referred to as background. By contrast, the material which supplies the main points of the discourse is known as foreground." the same wom.' In other words. the accusative fonn accompanies the perception of the object's relative importance (typicality) in instances where the marking is optional. In al1 such cases it is the speaker who decides whether the object is typicai (or to be perceived as typical) for its category or not; if an animate object lacks some of the most imponant features that make it stand apart fiom prototypical objects, it will be demoted and classified as inanimate (it is most oAen the case that this is detennined contextually - cf examples of metaphoncal usage of the accusative-nominative fom for humans); if an inanimate object acquires some featureslqualities that are not usually associated with prototypical objects. such as when it becomes more valued by the speaker because of his emotional attachent to it (cf for example cases where a noun denoting a car takes the accusative-genitive syncretism), or because it is in some other way unusual and stands out fiom other objects with similar features (cf examples for rare plants and mushrooms), it will be promoted and marked with the accusative-genitive syncretism. Even a relatively larger quantity of information the speaker has chosen to give about an object can assign it a higher (more salient) status in a concrete situation. For example, it has been noted that there is a high percentage of the accusative-genitive syncretism in Old Russian in syntactically cornpiex stmctures. Uenin ( 1983) wrote:
"Nevenheless, the genitive-accusative is disproportionately represented in participial coastructions even in relatively late texts, including original East Slavic texts such as the Primary Chronicle and Suzdal Chronicle of the Laurentian Manuscript. There is a similar tendency for the genitive-accusative to appear disproportionately often in various sorts of compks object coistructions. There are no completely satisfactory explanations for this distribution (Klenin. 1983: 34; see also pp. 49, 50) - emphasis is mine. Participial and complex object constructions typicaüy supply additional information about an object. The relevance of the quantity of information supplieci by the speaker can also be seen in the case of the Serbian relative pronoun KO~Hwhen it refers to inanimate objects. Occurrence of the irregular accusative-genitive syncretism in this category is also co~ectedto the arnount of idormation the speaker gives. making the object more distinct (Le. atypical). As we have seen, atypicality facilitates acquirement of the more prominent accusative-genit ive syncretism. In some categories the language cornmunity accepts the accusative-genitive syncretism as obligatory, and in others the marking depends on perception of the speaker. The perception necessarily varies, depending on the context (or situation). or otherwise there would have been no cases of optional marking. At some point, 1 presume. the accusative-genitive syncretism was accepted within the Slavic cornrnunity as the main marker of the semantic category of animacy. since the most fiequent atypical objects were the animate ~nes.'~As a result of this generalization. the accusative-genitive syncretism became a non-marked for# for referentially animate objects, while the accusative- nominative (the "old accusative") continued to be used for prototypical objects (which were predominantly referentially inanimate). The accusative-nominative syncretism is non- marked for inanimates.'' However, as we have seen, there have always existed pragmatic factors that were arong enough to ovemile the semantic factor "referentially animate/inanimate" under certain circumstances.
22 The situation in contemporary languages is similar, because it is often the case that the speakers are not sure which fonn of the accusative is to be used in situations where there is a discrepancy between the real-life status and the role of the noun in a specific situatiodcontext. An often-used tactic in such cases is to avoid the accusative construction altogether. Educated speakers of contemporaty Russian and Serbian consciously use (or, when asked, state that they aiways use) the accusative-genitive syncretism only with animates, but many examples of the accusative-genitive syncretism (collected from spoken language and literature) refer to inanimate objects, as will be shown later. Of course, there are different levels and/or perspectives for markedness. I consider the accusative-genitive syncretisrn to be the marked fon of the accusative in genetai. Cf'. Eggins (1 994): "The term unrnarked simply means "most typicallusual", while marked means "atypical, unusual". Al1 things being equal, an unmarked choice wiU be made. When a marked choice is made, the speaker/writer is signalling that al1 things are no1 equal, that something in the context requires an atypical meaning to be made" (Eggins 1994: 296). 24 It is questionable whether this symmetry was a part of the speakers' abduction or it is jua a convenient parallel constructed by linguists researching the category of animacy. If one looks at these facts from a different perspective. bearing in rnind that the unmarked fom for animates is the accusative-genitive syncretism, it becomes possible to state a rule concening the rnarking of objects: a murkedform is used to ernphasire the irrelevance of the features most typicaffor the unmarkedfonn. Here the "rnarkedness" occurs in two components of the system: morpho-syntactic and lexical. In the case where the accusative-nominative synccretis is applied to neuter gender nouns, it is important to notice that the neuter is semantically marked as the gender in which sex is not expressed. contrary to the masculine and ferninine genders, which are non-marked for this feature. If the accusative-genitive syncretism is used for inanimates. it stresses the irrelevance of the features that are associated with the non-marked accusative-nominative syncretism (such as lesser importance, belonging to the background etc.). On the other hand. if the accusative-nominative syncretism is used for animates, it stresses the irrelevance of al1 the features connected with use of the unmarked accusative-genitive fonn (since the object's referential animacy entails viewing it as inherently higher in value than the typical inanimate object). Generalization based on the semantic feature "animacy" is still predorninam in the language system, but numerous examples of optional rnarking suggest that there are other cnteria responsible for assignrnent of the inegular accusative-genitive or accusative-nominative syncretism. 1 will analyse these criteria and features in the following chapters. 1.4. Variation - Source and Meaning The most significant source for the present work is a corpus of exarnples involving variants in usage and inegular use of the accusative-genitive or accusative-nominative syncretism. Variation in the fom of the accusative has thus far been explained in the literature either as a remnant from the past date in language, when the syncretism did not include certain classes of nouns or as a reflection of the speaker's uncertainty regarding the real- life status of the object. Results of my analysis aiiow for those interpretations to some extent, but they are not central or essential for our understanding of the complex mass of irregularities, since many of them have been present in Slavic languages for several centuries, without causing speakers to "adjust" their contemporary understanding of the sumounding world to the morphological marker (which should have been the case, if one accepts the theory of gradua1 spreading of the marker from personal to human to animate).
Variants do ionf~rmto general laws of language. but it is our task to discover what exactly they are marking. 1 agree with Timberlake who wrote:
The complexity of communicational need sometimes requires usage of alternative forms or models in order to convey the meaning in the most appropriate wayS2'These alternative forrns CO-existwith the more fiequent and regular ones, and they have to share some relevant propenies in order to be used as "replacements." However, if the usage of alternative forms increases and becomes restricted to a specific shade of meaning, they become a source for the re-interpretation of a pan of the language ~ystern.~~ Tomsoh who was among the prominent investigators of the category of animacy th in Slavic languages at the beginning of the 20 century. expressed essentially the same idea almost a century ago:
"BCSK.& pao, icoraa o6biwoe cnoeo un~O~LPCHBR +opa noue~y-nn60 uey~o6~0,MM npu6erae~B pew K cxo~o~yno 3~avem cnoBy H~H+op~e, eo36ywnae~b1~no accouEaqsie no cxocrnsy. npmaeM wc npH TOM ~eo6bimoe. cnyvafi~oes~aqe~~e, R CnytuaTenb nomMaeT ux metwo B TaKou C~~W~HOM 3~aqe~u~6naroaap~ HaeonruM yuroeenhc. .. . nepesie cny.iaw yno~pe6ne~un popei~.Hanp. e "C~IHBH~HT o~bua", BWB~HHLI~ xe.rrauHeu npegynpeRmb uenopa3yme~ne.npo~3eog~n11 Ha uryuraTeenr np~6nu3menbnoTaKoe xe BnevaTneHne. K~KHa Hac Hanp. "OH wueT ceoeL urnnnsi". "*M~TI. npocnna noiiepii flaneft..", "*M~IcuoTpenH K~PTHH", HO uenb nocmranacb - wIywaTenb ~~~OUIH~O~HOïiOHHMaJï 'b~~bl(a'' KaK ïïpRMOe nOïïOnHeHie, B OTJïHYHe oT iipOH3BOnUTenH ~~~'EHR.npE¶ iïOBTOPHOM YIIoT~~~JI~HEHPOflBTeJïbHOîO B TaKou cublcne cnyiialt~oeoHareHae ero cllenanoch o6uv~bl~B Tex uroeax u rareropwax moe, s KOTO~IXw~(e Bcem 6b1m mHymemnpu6era~b K T~OR OT~H'IHOBOT HMeHHTenbHOrO 1.5. Chapter Outline The present dissertation views the accusative-genitive syncretism in Serbian and Russian as a market of atypicality of objects. and not as a marker of the catcgory of animacy, as it has been considered in much of the previous research. Data from these two languages ailow us to demonstrate that the accusative-genitive syncretism is a marker of animacy of direct objects only when they are perceived as typical animals (including humans). In ail other cases (i.e., when the object is not referentially animate), usage of t he accusative-genitive syncretism signals the object's atypicality. At the same time, there are several classes of examples where the accusative- nominative syncretism (in the previous research associated with marking of inanimate objects) signals that the objects, although referentiaily animate, have features that are not typical for animates. Possession of such features. therefore, ovemdes marking of the animacy . The dissertation is divided into tive major chapters: Chapter 2 gives an oveMew of earlier hypotheses and theories on the category of animacy, Chapter 3 analyses structural and discourse features that can influence the choice of the accusative fom and Chapter 4 consists of analysis of data fiom Serbian and Russian. In Chapter 5 anaiysis of the data is continued, but in this part of the dissertation 1 will discuss data that have been oniy marginally related to the investigation of the category of animacy. Existence of the same semantic principle (the use of the accusative-genîtive and the accusative-nominative syncretism as markers of the object's atypicality and typicality) connects this part of the material to the remaining corpus. Chapter 6 contains an dysisof a Serbian phenornenon, viz. the use of the accusative-genitive syncretism for the relative pronoun koji for inanimate antecedents and for the adjectives qualifying the underlying inanimate noun. A summaiy of results and conclusion is presented in Chapter 7. CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT OF EYPOTBESES AND TEEORiES ON THE CATEGORY OF ANIMACY 2.1. Cender and Animacy The investigation of the category of anhacy in Slavic languages cannot be separated from the research on the category of gender Nineteenth centwy linguists most ofien analyzed languages that belong to the Indo-European language family. Data fiom these languages did not allow them to propose a more general (or a more universal) theory of gender, because the exclusive approaches adopted by Indo-Europeanists fiom either morphological or semantic points of view (which usually included notions of natural gender, metaphor and personifkation as explanations) were not successful. ' In addition, it was realized that the category of anirnacy was relevant for the structure of gender at least in some languages. This complicated the picture even more, because it appeared that the category called "gender" operated simultaneously on different ~evels.~Analysis of new data gathered in studies of non-Indo-European languages helped researchen make more adequate classifications. The semantic transparency of the structure of gender in many languages of Amencan Indians was a starting point for funher research and re-analysis of the Indo-European categories of gender and animacy. 1 A review of the development of the theory of gender is given in Fodor (1959,I). Another good outline is presented in Hjelmslev (1972). 1 will use mainly these two sources for presentation of the development of research on the category of animacy before Meillet's study. Bibüographical data on this penod can be found in Hjelmslev (1972). On the basis of their most prominent characteristics, the category of gender is in contemporary grammars classified as a grammatical category, while the category of animacy is classified as a semantic category. They are connected, but nevenheless they do belong to different structural levels. Due to the semantic non-transpwency of the category of gender, it was vimially impossible to corne to a satisfactory answer ushg only a semantic or morphological approach. Meillet was among the first linguists to offer proposais which overcame many of the shortcomings of earlier studies. It is generally accepted that it was A. Meillet who contributed the most to early research on animacy, especially in Slavic languages.' Meillet's principie contributions lay in the generalization of existing hypotheses, the use of a fiesh approach and in the illustration of his own hypothesis with new available material. One of the predecessors whose work influenced MeiUet's was H. E. ~indseil.'He was amon5 the relatively mal1 number of linguists at the beginning of the 19' century who refùted the often used criterion of metaphorical generalization for the development of grammatical gender. His princi ple contribution to the theoretical development of the understanding of the category of gender was to propose a theory according to which there exist two types of linguistic systerns, viz. in some languages the animate/inanimate distinction is the most important,' whereas in others it is the opposition between masculine and feminine genders6 Thus, he succeeded in separating notions of gender and animacy,' which helped Meillet and his followen understand the mechanisms of gender assignment. 2.2. Meillet's Hypothesis As a Lrther advance fiom Bindseil's analysis, Meillet fomulated a synthesis which he presented as his hypothesis on the development of the category of gender in Indo- European languages. Hjelmslev (1972: 127) illustrates it with the following scheme: However, some of his ideas were not original, because they appeared in the work of previous linguists. 4 Bindseil H.E. AbMIungen zur allgemeinrn vergleicknden Sprachfehre . 183 8. 5 Sometimes it is the distinction "personallnon-persona1." 6 W ith the bbadditionsl"genden: muter and epicene. 7 In some works animacy is catleâ "su&-geder,"(see, for example, Ibrahim (1973). or even "gender" (see Hall, St. Clair (1954). Brooks (1975). Laskowski (1986)). This obviously does not contribute to the clearer understanding of the constituents of the category of gender, nor to the distinguishing of the category of animacy nom it. masculine animate feminine pnder inanimate neuter According to Meillet (and rnany other researchers of Indo-European languages - see, for example, Garnkrelidze. tvanov [1995: 239-2401), the primary distinction in Proto- Indo-European was between animate (active) and inanimate (inactive) abjects.' This hypothesis was supponed by the argument that the nominative and the accusative fonns for inanimate objects in Proto-Indo-European were identical. while fonns for the nominative and the accusative were different when the objects were animate. (The distinction masculine.feminineI~neurerwas introduced later. due to the influence of natural gender.)9Thus, Meillet used the syntactic criterion in addition to the earlier established semantic and rnorphological criteria, which, taken alone. were not sufficient for the accurate classification and systematization of existing data. Many languages, however, as a result of subsequent development, abolished the primary distinction (see Hjelmslev (1972: 129 R)) and further reduced the second one to the masculine/feminine opposition (cf the rnajority of Romance dialects, Celtic and Baltic languages, for example), or to the epicene vs. neuter (sorne Scandinavian languages, Hittite). Slavic languages, on the other hand, along with some others languages (Singhali, Amienian, Tokharian), re-introduced the distinction animatehanimate, and have maintained it together with the aiready existing th-gender distinction. Hjelmslev sees language development as a constant confrontation of two tendencies (one is towards preservation of the inherited system, whereas the other. opposite trend is towards motivation (i.e. semantic transparency)). A "rational system" (Le. complaely transparent from the semantical point of view) is, according to Hjelmslev (O.c.. 139), presented in Lusatian languages: personal animate masculine non-personal animat e--non-neuter inanimate gender ferninine inanimate--neuter See Fodor (1959,I:20). As is well known. Slavic languages have the accusative structure, in which the semantic agent (A) is encoded as the syntactic subject (S), whereas the patient (P) is encoded as the object: A = S =/= P; A = S = Nominative, P = Accusative. 'O Thus, the Slavic languages served as an excellent example that corroborated the hypothesis: when as a result of phonetical changes the foms of the accusative and the nominative coincided, the language system reacted by introducing a new form for the accusative, which was equal to the genitive." Meillet argued that if there are two referentially animate arguments in a two- argument structure, where one is subject, and the other is object, it is necessary for them to have different forms. because ambiguity can anse as Slavic languages do not have fixed word order (cf. cb~mnm6m o~bub).l2 Therefore, in order to distinguish cases of subject and object, Slavic languages changed the fom of the accusative in semantically marked situations when the object was animate. Since in two-argument structures the 'O See, for example, Comrie (1989: 126), Mindak (1990: 1 1- 13). "*"ln every case, when in the separate development of the daughter languages the form of the Nom. and Acc. coincided, again, the agent and the patient were discnminated either by wordsrder or by morphological means. The neo-latin languages chose the way of tixing the word-order. In the Slavonic languages, on the other hand, we are faced with a repetition, as it were, of the process that presumably had taken piace in Proto-indo- European" (Fodor (1959,I:33)). l2 Although many linguists support the hypothesis that the ambiguity caused the change of the accusative fomi (se, for example, Frink (1962: 134), Kuryîowicz (1964: 222). Mare8 (1967: 485), Van Tilburg (1988: 582-583). Wade (1992: 48) etc.), there are also a number of them who do not agree that it was the most important factor. for example Tomson (1 9O8a: 247): "gane~oHe ecerga npennoxeiure spone : "Cb~mBH~H~ OT&' Morno O~IT~~YCM~IUI~HH~IM. BO MHO~ CJI~Y~ ca~o3~aveme rnarona anr CM~CCJI npeanoxem, o6qee pa3rosapireawuprar ncmaueciroe tcanpoemïe, B~I~B~HHO~ o614eA O~CRIHOBKO~~,npeqiuecrepqeii pevbm ci np., onpeflennmi 6e3omibouii0, KTO na^. R KTO Ar. ... qano na^. onpenenmcn 6e30w6owo ~pyrrrua C~OB~MH...". CE also Klenin (1983: 80). object is most often inanimate, this is considered to be the unrnarked situatioh and therefore there was no need for introduction of a separate (markeâ) fom for inanimate objects. They kept the form identical to the nominative. As the identity of the accusative and the nominative in Slavic occurred in masculine singular nouns of the *-O declension (as well as the *-u and *-i stems - cf. *s)*> ".*gost ', for example). it is said that the category of anirnacy stems from the masculine gender, and has only subsequently spread to the ferninine gender (not in al1 Slavic languages. though), and to the plural (in some of Slavic languages), as a result of later language-particular developments. 2.3. Dcvclopmcnt of the Theory in the 20'~entur~ Meillet's hypothesis and line of argumentation were adopted and elaborated by many prominent linguists who investigated the category of animacy in Slavic and other languages (see. for example. Comrie. Hjelmslev, Huntley, Ivanov, Kedajtene, Krys'ko, Kurytowicz, Mindak, Saxmatov etc.). However. the question of the cause and order of appearance of the accusative and genitive syncretisrn has always been among the problems that separated linguists into two major groups: representatives from the one side stress morpho-syntactic factors. while the others concentrate on the socio-linguistic approach. Of course, there are also researchers who have attempted to find a compromise solution that would satisfactorily cover as many "exceptions" as possible, since so many of the latter remain if only one of the two major hypotheses is applied. 2.3.1. Morpho-Syntictic Approach Representatives of the morphosyntactic approach to the category of anirnacy usually start from Meillet's observation that the accusative-genitive syncretism in the noun in Old Church Slavonic texts occurred in cases where there was a definite article in fiont of nouns in the Greek original, while in personal and interrogative pronouns, as well as the vast majority of substantivized definite adjectives and participles, the innovation AccGen appean for animate objects. Nouns denoting inanimate objects kept the old Acc=Nom syncretism. l3 However, there have always been many exceptions where neither of the proposed factors was present, but the innovative fonn nevenheless occurred. In addition, there were cases where the old fomi of the accusative was kept for a long tirne derthe innovation was introduced into the language system. The most imporiant task for all researchers of the Slavic category of animacy was to make as complete a list as possible of rnorphological, syntactic andor IexicaYsemantic conditions that could have impeded or accelerated the process of acquisition of the new accusative for animates. Saxmatov ( 195 7: 220 ff ) noted that the most common causes for retention of the old accusative form in Slavic texts were: (a) the presence of the possessive pronoun cm that referred to the object; (b) another noun with the new fom in apposition; (c) usage before another noun that has the new form of the accusative and (d) usage fier prepositions: This list contains most of the factors usually rnentioned in works on the hinory of animacy.lSIt is considered to be a confirmation of Meillet's hypothesis on the sigruficance . - 13 See, for example, Kumecov ( 1953), Mare3 ( 1967). Kedajtene ( 1975). Huntley ( 1980). Laskowski (1 986), Kienin (1987) etc. 14 Examples from Saxrnatov, o.c., 220-22 1. IS Kumecov (1953) and Kedajtene (l982), for exampte, as an important factor also mention the verbal aspect (according to them, the perfkctive aspect preferred the AcrGen), while Klenin (1980), Krys'ko (1994) and several other researchers also add presence of participial constructions, supine, imperative etc. Keûajtene and many others note the high frequency of old accusative foms for nouns that belonged either to the old -O or -u stems. Fink (1962) and Timberlake (1996) add the possibility of the influence of word order. I will comment on aii these factors later. of the avoidance of ambiguity in cases where two anirnate referents were involved in a transitive construction; in al1 cases where there was at least one marker that showed which noun was the object, it was unnecessary to mark it with the new form.16 For researchers who accept Meillet's theory the next step in the analysis of the category of animacy is establishing the exact order of the subsequent spread of the accusative-genitive syncretism in noms. l7 It has been oenerally agreed that personal nouns (in masculine gender) were the first to receive the new accusative (researchers argue that, if there were two persona1 nouns in a transitive construction, it would have been practically impossible to distinguish subject from object, and therefore it was necessary to introduce a new form for the accusative). la Common masculine nouns followed the trend, which later (possibly by analogy and generalisation "new accusaiive = animate object") spread to other categories that were included in the process of marking animate objects. This process was not identical in al1 Slavic lang~ages.'~In the majority of them the category of animacy first inccrpcrated common nouns denoting persons, then animals, and then spread to the category of phal. Researchers tried to corroborate the theory with textual material, which accordin!; to them, demonstrated this order of development; for example Gra~es(1 984: 296) proposes the folowing chronology for Russian: "Chronologically the animacy category in nouns developed dong the following lines: (1) Proper animate masculine nouns (in the singular) - generalized already in the earliest texts ( 12- 13' century). 16 This is analogous to the marking of "definiteness" in Old Church Slavic participles, for example. l7 Meillet himself considered that pronouns had influenced the spread of the new form, but indirectly, through the category of definite adjectives (where the pronominal ending was added to the adjectival base) - see Meüiet (1 897: 121). 18 "~o6e~Hpocna~o h'pnwcna~d', ''hmwma~a .. . nocanrr .. . fla~o,d'(Manom (1986: 49-50) are constructions where it would have been diicult to distinguish S and 0, had the O not acquùeâ the new accusative fom. l9 My discussion here will focus solely on the development of the category of animacy in Russian, unless otherwise noted. (2) Masculine personal nouns in the singular - hesitation in the earliest texts ( 12- 13' century) - generalized by the beginning of the 14' century. (3) Masculine personal nouns in the plural - fiom the last third of the 14' century to the beginning of the 15" century. (4) Animal nouns in the singular - from the beginning of the 16" century. (5) Female personal nouns in the plural - Corn the second half of the 16' century. (6) Animal nouns in the plural - from the second half of the 17" century." The overview that Grames gave represents a generally accepted order of the spread of the new accusative, which can be seen in Mnually any work that deals with the problem if the author belongs to the group of Meillet's followers. 2.3.2. Socio-Linguistic Approach There has always existed another stream of research into the category of gender which has also lefi its traces in the research of the category of animacy. This other approach employs semantic criteria, combined with the theory of natural gender, and has anracted many linguists, especially at the end of the 19' and the beginning of the 2oh century, It is interesting to note that representatives of both socio-linguistic and morpho- syntactic schools have been working on a very similar, if not identical, corpus of old Slavic texts, but have amved at different solutions, often disregarding the results and methodoiogy of the other approach. Among the linguists who had a nrong influence on the development of ideas about the category of gender (and animacy) was W. Wundt. He classified genden and nominal classes on the basis of the meanings of nouns that shared some linguistic features. stating that primitive societies used value-differentiation for categorization of words. Words denoting objects of wperior value were classified separately from words denoting inferior ones; he gives the example of Iroquois, where one category includes the deities and other supematural beings, while the other consists of narnes for women, children, animals and objects." in some other languages anisnate objects are separated fiom inanimate ones, while in other ones human beings (excluding children) are separated from other concepts 20 See Fodot ( l959.I: 9- 10). etc. Relics of "higher-value" classifications are presented in a number of contemporary works on the category of animacy in Slavic languages, where they have been applied to the problem of the order of the spread of the animacy marker." Among the scholars who at least partially accept Wundt's hypothesis on the special marking of higher valued objects are Gorgkova, Xaburgaev, Huntley, Kuaiecov, Lifanov. Madojan, and some othen. Many of them apply the theory ody to the order of the spread of the new accusative in nouns. usually ignoring the same feature in pronouns. They usually single out "cornmon nouns denoting mature male persons" (Hunt ley , 1980: 196). 1953: 1 18) as the starting category for hrther development. Xaburgaev (1990: 168- 169) writes: ''~~~MM~THWCKO~o~#o~MJI~HH~ KaTeïOPHH nHUa B ]IpeBHepYCCKOM li3blKe HeCOMHeHHO HMeJiO CBOHMH HCTOKaMH neKCHKO-CHHTaKCUYeCKHe OCHOBâHHII. 06~apyweae~c~o~oB TOM, LLTOB B-P OHO cHawma oxaaTbieaeT cyir(eneuTenbubie CO onaqe~~eubbo6~e~~e~~o ~KTHBH~IX"nu4 . .. nepepacra~mo~pes~epycc~oil KaTeropui nwa B coepeMeHHym KaTeropmo onytueenemocru npefiuienaoeano pacnpocrpaHeme OMOHHMHH B-P (c~aranaB e4.q.) Ha BCe CyU(eCTBHTeJIbHb1e MrÀ<.P. CO 3HâlleHHeM JXHl(a - He3aBHCHMO OT er0 "co~UI~HO~~~KTHBHOCTH"." The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not elucidate what changes in the perception of language by speakers caused thern to start evaluating an object as "higher" if it was marked as "lower" in the previous stage. In addition, numerous examples that were convincingly explained as the result of the influence of morpho-syntactic factors by the representatives of the other group of researchers are either ignored or Iisted under CE, for example: "there is reason to suppose that the genesis of the animation concept is to be found prirnarily in the linguistic treatment of nouns denoting human animates (rather than zoological animates); it is believed that the genesis is also to be sought in the development of a process for the male rather than for the fernale, as a linguistic expression of dewperiority in a primitive patriarchai Society" (Hall, St.Clair-Sobeii (1954: 195). *'inexplicable cases."" Results of recent research that include statistical analysis also do not show connections between the social status of penons and the accusative form: While it is undoubtedly tme that the meaning of words is important. the 1exicaVsemantic criterion can not be the only or even the most important determinant in the development of a linguistic category without taking into consideration syntactic and morphoiogical factors, as well as pragmatic functions. 22 See. for example, Xaburgaev (oc, 169), who tries to sttengthen his hypothesis on the relevance of the socid status of the noun by stating that the category of animacy was a grammatical (mo rphological) category, regardless of "the speakers ' ideas about nodirional social relations.." This statement contradicts his Own definition given ody two paragraphs before. that animacy was a 1exicaVsemantical category. He even gives examples when different nouns are used for denoting the samc person, but have difEerent accusative foms, which would have been a strong enough countet-argument against his hypothesis: A cb~znocad. Ho~erop~e ke~m0fla Ha mne; Nnoura KZ nwa cbmz CBOH C~ma~a.Xaburgaev does not even mention the possibility of the influence of a purely morphological factor (the noun cmbelonged to the old *-u stem class. which was not included in the original %ope of the category of animscy). 2.3.3. Latest Bypothtses - Compromists and New Discoveria 2.3.3.1. Hierarehies Related to Animacy During the 1970s it seemed that it was vinually impossible to shed new light on the development of the category of animacy in Slavic, because representatives of the morpho- syntactic and socio-linguistic schools continued to defend their opinions, while mostly criticizing research conducted in the other framework or looked for more examples that would corroborate their own points of view. However, the resuits of research on the of Australian aboriginal languages had the same effect on Slavic linguistics as the data on hnerican native languages had on researchers of the category of gender in the 19" century - it showed a transparent structure that rnotivated Slavists and linguists such as Cornrie, Mindak and others to reanalyse existing data and to re-evaluate earlier theories and hypotheses. In addition, newly arisen interest in this field showed that the problem of animacy and special marking in general is far from being adequately resolved. Michael Silverstein' s article Hieru* ofjieatures md ergativity ( 1976) had immense inflcence on studies of linguistic typology. The moa often discussed part of the article was a proposed %ale that represents possible cutsff points for case rnarking. The scale consists of lexical classes hierarchically organized in such a way, that if. for exarnple, a language uses a special marker for animate objects, dl elements that belong to the class [+animate] and above will be rnarkeâ, and ail elements positioneâ below it will not be. At the top of his scaie are the 2" or the 1' person pronoun, which are followed by nouns with features [+proper], [+human], [+animate] (ibid., 122). The role of subject and agent in a transitive sentence is considered to be typical ("naturai") for the elements higher on the scale. while those located below the cutsff point are typical objects and patients. Whenever an element appears in "atypicai" position/role, it has to be marked rnorphologically andor syntactically. Every language has 03one cut-on point, but it can change its position in the course of language deveiopment. These basic premises inspired numerous hitful discussions that led to changes in the direction of linguistic research on different issues - agentivity. transitivity, topicality and prototypicality, among others? The greatest contribution to the development of theones on the category of animacy in Slavic was made by scolars who attempted to draw connections among 1exicaVsemantic classes. grammatical marking and syntactic fùnaions in a consistent manner Incorporation of the idea of "naturalness" as a cntenon for choice of linguistic marking opened the field to linguists who had been interested mainly in typology, pragmatics or discourse analysis, which in its tum facilitated examination of the Slavic category of animacy in a completely new light, where al1 factors that have been recognised as important can find their place. Jolanta Mindak was among the first Slavists who adopted Silverstein's hypothesis and applied it to the Slavic languages (see Mindak 1990). However. she was interested primarily in the description of the morphological marking of animacy and in mechanisms of the spread of syncretism, and did not investigate the role of context. Nonetheless, her research represents a significant contribution to Slavic studies, which often did not reflect (or incorporate) results fiom other linguistic fields. Mindak agrees with Laskowski ( 1986). who saw the development of the category of animacy (and gender) as a constant lowenng of cutsff points by the graduai inclusion (and marking with a special fom) of elements that belong to the lower positioned classes into the group of hierarchically higher ones: u CE, for example, the following opinion: "Silverstein's (1 976) hierarchy [. . .] is neither an animacy nor an agentivity hierarchy: 1 would rather consider it as the first sketch of a nominal prototypicdity hienrchy. Proper nouns are high on the "animacy" hierarchy. In relation to common nouns, they appear to be unrnarkeâ indeed.. . Proper names are the prototypicai noun (phrase). containing inherently the prototypical concepts definite, singular, countable, concrete and, mostly, human. Therefore, it is to be expected that when a split occurs, proper names are on the accusative side, while comrnon nouns are on the ergative side." (Van Langendonck 1989: 178- 179) - emphasis is mim. "The striking feature of the evolution of the category of gender in Slavic is that the same simple mechanism of declensional paradigm restructuring has been cyclically involved for more than ten centuries of the history of Slavic languages. The mechanism consists in fixing the Acc=Gen syncretism as a grammatical distinctive feature of personalitylanimacy. Each consecutive cycle consisted in hrther broadening the linguistic scope of the subcategory in question . . . In every cycle, the same successive steps have been repeated. The pattern goes as follows: the Acc=Gen innovation stms with pronominal and adjectival nominal fonns, it extends to personal names. then to personal common nouns, and. hally, to animate nouns in the direct object position; inclusion of Acc. prepositional phrases by the innovation completes a cycle." (Laskowski, 1986: 470). As we have seen, the pattern to which Laskowski and Mindak refer is the welC known (and widely recognized) order of the spread of the syncretism in Slavic languages. With Mindak's adaptations we have a picture of the category of animacy in Slavic that includes notions of pronorninality, humanness, animateness, definiteness, al1 considered as a pan of systematic linguistic marking of objects in "natural" and "non-natural" positions. Nonetheless, although the application of Silverstein's hierarchy to the development of animacy seems to agree with previously established theories bssed on the hypothesis of gradual spread of the syncretism, there still remain many unsolved problems, such as the recent discovecy of the existence of frequent variation in usage of "old" and "new" forms throughout the history of Slavic languages, regardless of the nom that was identified as predominant for a certain stage of development. 2.3.3.2. V.B. Kryr9ko's Reanalysis of Data and Tbcorica Krys'ko (1994) does not comment on theories which treat hietarchical relations within the category of animacy. Instead, he challenges both the chronology generally accepted by Meillet's followen and the socio-linguistic approach of representatives of the opposing school, asserting that conclusions tom both sides were based on too small a corpus and/or inconectly interpreted data, and that the whole theory of the gradual spread of the new accusative form is built on a fdse empuical fo~ndation.~~His conclusion, based '' Results of my own resuuch agree with many of Krys'ko's conclusions, as will be shown later. on a reanalysis of the existing Old Russian corpus and particularly the evidence of the old Novgorod dialect. is that the variation of the accusative form existed in al1 genders at al1 times. i.e. that there were practically no rules or semantic and syntactic conditions that influenced the choice of the accusative: According to Krys'ko. the new accusative form was a means for re-establishing the distinction arnong three genders in the nominative and the accusative cases. He argues that the basic difference between masculine and feminine genders on the one hand. and neuter nouns on the other in the Proto-Indo-European language was that masculine and feminine nouns (which belonged to the "active class") differentiated between the "proto- nominative" in *-s and the "proto-accusative" in *on, while neuter nouns (usually members of the "inactive class") used the *-nform as the case ending for both object and subject . As result of phonetic changes in Slavic languages, the foms for the accusative and the nominative in masculine gender coincided. a state of aff'iair which was unacceptable from the point of view of the gender structure, because the masculine gender thereby acquired a feature reserved for the neuter, Le.. the failure to distinguish the nominative from the accusative (sa Ky'ko 1994: 15 8- 15 9). Although Krys'ko denies influence of semantic and syntactic factors on the development of the category of animacy in Slavic languages, he nevertheless dlows for their role in the later organisation of the system: "hinonaraeu, un, cpem cyqemmenbnsix c omaicoem OKOHWHHnHH THIïa *pd%. *VO~E *hg% HaCyiqHP H~O~XO~~HMO~~B pa3rpamewm BBn A Mn ncnsmisanir ~onbwoTe ciacelra, Kompbre B ~~H~U@~OHWI~HO-CPM~HTHY~CKOMIUiaHe 6onee BWïO OTJiAiraJlElCb OT ??eicao,C pae~ogiIacromocTbK) yrwrpe6nll~~bB 060m naliexax, - T.e. fieHoTarnno onyureanembie c~eneirrenbwsieH coomocmqeecn c niraca acenoaaieiare *&%O" (Krys'ko 1994: 170) - emphasis is mine. It is possible that it was the desirability of the distinction between the accusative and the nominative in the masculine gender that initiated the new accusative. It is also possible that the hypothesis of the necessity of distinguishing between the same forms for the subject and the object (as a potential source for ambiguity) is incorrect, but the fact is that there existed "essential need ("~acy~mH~O~XO~~I~MOCT~'') for the new form for the "animates." Krys'ko acknowledges thiç. but does not develop the idea any funher, suggesting that both new and old fotms of the accusative. regardless of the gender and number, were in fiee variation. According to Krys'ko ( 1994: 173), usage of the genitive for the direct object for inanimates and the new accusative-genitive syncretism for Mmate direct objects resulted in "unfclvourublr syntactic homonymy" which furt her lead to destmction of the inanimate genitive direct objects in some cases (see Krys'ko 1994: 174- 184). and to the universal acceptance of the genitive case forrn for al1 accusatives in other instances (ibid., 185-19 1). Although Krys'ko's ideas are fiesh and represent a new approach which challenges many existing opinions, he still does not go further than many of his predecessors who explain evident patterns in usage of vanants and irregularities as p hraseo Io@sms or "o~a~e~ensre B~IPU~HHI. " 2.3.3.3. Timberlake's Rtsearcb and the Introduction of Contestual Meaning Alan Timberlake has devoted several recent micies to the problem of the accusative- genitive syncretism? He stresses the importance of discourse analysis and narrative context for the choice of one of the existing vanants. Timberlake's analysis of the Old Russian texts suggests that the accusative-nominative syncretism for animate objects, although dready less fkequent (i.e. lirnited) at the time the texts were written, was used when "a situation happens to involve un indivrchrai of a certain type" and in templates with "un overail exmential meuning (Hnpm rp~3H ITWH M--, CBoH~~," (Timberlake 1997a: 52.50). The innovative accusative-genitive syncretism 2s See Timberlake 1996, 1997a. 199% prevailed in situations when "the communicative faus falIs on the specrfic property perceived to hold of the object ... rather than on the fact of the existence of a cerfclinkind of entity" (ibid., 50). Timberlake is aware that there are many counter-examples to the use of the accusative-genitive and accusative-nominative syncretisms. but argues that it was the concrete situationlcontext that influenced the fom of the accusative case, marking objects as more important (or bearing "thefocal irfomation" - ibid.. 60) in one context and therefore having the innovative accusative-genitive forni, and as less important and having the old accusative-nominative fom in another. It foilows from his conclusion that individuated objects are more prone to the new accusative fonn oniy if they are relevant for the story: "the noun names individuals relevant as representatives of types. not as individuals whose stories will be of interest in their own right. The individuals are mentioned not because what happens to them is of interest, but only insofar as they are part of the situation reported to be created - of establishing contact (~WWH CBOH f70cnb1)or establishlng control (Hnma K ~e~yMbm~ma~a cana CBOH ~3 Ho~wopfla).. . . Whenever a context develops variation, one expects to see the genitive-accusative appear when the information reported by the predicate concems changes in a specific entity whose properties, over and above the propeny that defines the individual, are relevant to the discourse; the old accusative will be maintained if the predicate repons holistic situations involving an entity which repnsents a type" (Timberlake 1997% 60) - emphasis is mine. This staternent ailows for different forms of the accusative of one noun in the same text, which is very fiequent in the Old Russian texts, but also helps resolve several problems regarding the accusative fonn in contemporary Slavic languages, especially the use of the Serbian relative pronoun uoj~lr,which wili be discussed later. Although 1 agree with Timberlake's opinion that individuation of the object is relevant for the accusative muking, my hypothesis is that individuation is only one of the featuns that can make an object be perceived as atypical and marked with the accusative-genitive syncretism. 2.4. Conclusion As long the category of animacy was investigated only as a semantic category, it was impossible to find a satisfactory explanation for irregular marking of objects in numerous cases, since the system was hidden behind seemingly unrelated facts. Hjelmslev ( 1972) wrote: Although many researchers did try to establish what conditions caused the variation or irregularities, their attempts were predorninantly orient4 towards the "objective" factors, such as formal propenies of nouns, the syntactic environment in which the irregularities occur etc. Significant progress in the research was made when it was realized that variants in marking of the same objects with the accusative-genitive and accusative-nominative syncretisrn in vimially al1 lexical classes have existed since the first written documents. and when the role of the speaker became an important part of the research on animacy. The speaker's assessrnent of the object's imponance in the situationkontext is the source of examples for optional marking of objects and the marking of objects with the irregular accusative-genitive or the accusative-nominative syncretism is a result of the speaker's decision in a given concrete situation. The speaker is the one whose choice of the accusative form promotes or demotes an object, marking it as (proto)typical for its class or not. 1 presume that this can be viewed as an extention by analogy to the cases where the object is measured on the basis of its prototypicality relatively independent of the concrete situation, i.e. when the whole construction entails "oddity" of an object, as in cases where the transitive verb is negated and therefore it semantically annuls the existence of an object, mmking it essentialiy pecuüar (i.e. non- prototypical). Research on the Serbian and Russian genitive case and the category of animas, corroborates this assumption. CHAPTER 3 FEATURES CNFLUENCING THE ACCUSATIVE-GENITWE/ACCUSATIVE- NOMINATIVE SYNCRETISM 3.1. Introduction Acceptance of a framework in which the speaker has the centrai role in marking object s as non-prot otypical bv using the accusative-genitive syncretism necessarily entails the question why the genitive was chosen for that paiticular function. This has been among the issues most often addressed in the research on the category of animacy. Different ideas on the role of the genitive as a source for the new accusative have been presented in the literature, l and many ünguists agree that the main trigger for the acceptance of the new accusative form was the possibility of usage of the genitive as the direct object in negated sentences and in constructions where the direct object called for expression of partitive meaning (cf R: OH~e B~TceCrp6h (fan, 'He does not see the sister' OH~bxn~n BO^' 'He drank some water' vs. OHBWHTceMpyk (fan) 'He sees the sister;' OH~b~n~n m#yk (fml 'He drank (d)the water. '* However, it was the dserence between the two cases that was relevant for the spread of the new marker. 1 propose that the accusative was the case used for typical objects in "normal" transitive sentences that described pragrnaticaiiy unmarked situations, while the genitive direct objects (and. consequently, the form of the genitive when the accusative-genitive syncretism arose) were often used in non-typical situati~ns:~either the 1 For a review of opinions on the genitive as the source for the new accusative see Kedajtene (1982: 5- 10). 2 See, for exarnple, Kumecov (1953: 1 17- 118), Kuqdowicz (1964: 222). Ivanov (1990: 27 1-272), Mindak (1 990: 69) etc. 3 Or, as Hopper and Thompson (1980) cdit, in cases of "reduced transitivity" (1980: 263). existence of the object or the action was negatedy4or the object was only partiaüy involved in the action,' or it was ranked as "different." The genitive case form became the form reserved for atypical objects regardless of the cause for their atypicality. Analysis of my corpus and of material gathered by other researchers who have tned to explain the "irregularities" of the category of animacy using dEerent theones suggests that there are several factors that can cause marking of the object as atypical. As the most fiequent atypical objects are animate, the accusative- genitive is considered to be reserved for such nouns. However, examples of the occurrence of the accusative-genitive fonn for inanimates suggest that usage of dEerent means of isolating an inanimate object (by making it more salient, andlor definite, and/or focal and dways referential) enhances the noun's chance to acquire the accusative-genitive form. The use of the accusative-nominative form for referentially animate objects confirms the hypothesis on the genitive fom as marker of atypicality: whenever an object (regardless of its referential animacy) is not to be perceived as being atypical, it can (and ofien dl)keep the accusative-nominative fom. As it has been mentioned in the literature, inanimate definite objects cm acquire the accusative-genitive form. Since definiteness is a crypto-category in the Slavic languages, and there are no specific marken of focality in these languages, daerent possible means for expression of the mentioned categories have often been considered relevant for marking of the category of animacy (viz. word order, presence of modifiers etc.). However, none of them taken alone is sufficient to trigger the accusative-genitive 4 Which also implies a degree of reduced transitivity: "In a number of languages the object of a negated clause appears in a fonn which shows that the action of the verb is deflected and less direct." (Hopper and Thompson, 1980: 276). Le., as Moravcsik (1978: 252) wrote, the objects are not "fuliy aff'ected by the event (Le. they [do not] undergo a change of state in theù fiiU extent)." 6 In case of markhg referentially animate objecta with the accusotive-nominative syncretism, the opposite feahires have to be stresseci. syncretism in non-animate nouns, as I will try to demonstrate in this chapter. Only in an appropriate context are they capable of causing the change of the accusative, and only when the object is highly referential. 1 will give a review of arguments and data which have been presented in work of other researchers of the category of animacy, and show that the marking of objects as atypical was essential for the spread of the accusative-genitive syncretisrn. 3.2. Role of the Genitive in the Choice of the Accusative-Genitive Syncretism 3.2.1. Verbal Rection and Semantics in attempts to discover the relevance of verbal rection for the choice of the genitive fom for the new accusative rnarker, many researchers have used a semantic approach. They have analysed constructions that could have had both the accusative and genitive arguments. As the starting point for a partial semantic analysis of the diachronic and synchronie data I will use the oveMew given in Krys'ko (1994: 163 K), who discems three types of such constructions: 1) verbs that originally govemed the genitive case and gradually acquired arguments in the accusative case; semantically, these were verbs with the meaning of prolonged perception (r.ararCO 3~a~e~~e~~n~i~erocg BOCRPHRTHH); 2) verbs that predominantly govemed the accusative case; semantically, these were verbs with a resultative action or active relation (rnaronb~CO 3~aueme~ pe3yna~a~~1~~oro A~#CTB/~R smt ammmon, o~~ouen.); 3) verbs that with equal frequency allowed both for the genitive and the accusative rection; semantically, these were verbs of physical perception (rfl~~bi@H~EW~CKOIY) BOC~~PHHT~). The most typical (and offen mentioned) verbs of the fbst class are myuaT/i; 3bpt~11;rnmeTrr, ~MC~~TH.of the second class: B~~TH,~~~IBT. m6m11, ffo6&pf~& of the third class: npxm~OOC~TMTYK Verbs of the fisi and the third classes are the most interestkg, because they either favoured the genitive object or allowed for it, although the author of the classification hirnself admits the lack of any systematic distinction between the accusative and the genitive marking of the object: Data fiom contemporary Russian diaiects coilected and andysed by Kur'rnina (1993: 32) provides us with valuable information that allows us to propose a tentative hypothesis regarding the semantic structure of verbs that more oflen have (or had) the genitive as the direct object: Here is a list of seiected examples given on pp. 32-33 : If we compare lists of verbs given above and those from Ku'rnina's work, we wili note that, for example, the verb nm6~~4which belonged to Krys'ko's second class (Le. it was among verbs that usually took the accusative direct object), is used with the genitive, and that there are also several examples with imperative forms. Verbs such as 3HaT4 iïOCMOIpeT& HCKaTb, XUeT&, XUTeTb ~d othen üsted h Kuz'mina's paper do have the features I consider relevant for the use of the genitive. In fact, it seems that in many of the examples given above and in Kuz'mina (1 993: 32-33) a combination of dserent indications (such as the postposed article -m, demonstrative pronoun P TOT, possessive pronoun MO& adjectives such as @rrrcw#) serve as formal markets of a highiy isolated, well-dehed, individuated object that is most ofien either physically present in the situation, or the speaker can refer to it without any doubt that the hearer wül be able to discem it - the object is undoubtedly referential. In addition, verbs such as nocnroTpes, rqeTb and wa~qfor example, are charactetized by the lack of dùect (physical) contact with the object. which in its tum becomes "less typical" and therefore more prone to the acquisition of the non-accusative fonn. Darinka Gortari-Prernk (197 l), who investigated the accusative constructions without prepositions in Serbo-Croatian, cornes to a similar conclusion: "Y3 HeKe rnarone, KO~H,~ajom~je pe.reHo, owasaeajy ycnocraemahe WH onpeipmabe onaxaj~o-ca3~aj~or.eMoTsBHor H~HKamor myror o~oca cy6je~~anpma o6je~~yy Hem Haponw roBopma ja~~bace A remmm nopen a~y3a~~~ay @y~nuj~ RonyHe [.. .] cem OBHM rnaronrwa saje~mmoCje] TO urro He o~easaeajyKoHwpeTHe t#asa.iwe aruaje wojma ce ~o&mwyje06je~a~, eeii npoqece ~oja~ace caMo ycnocraena offpebe~~on~oc Ca CY~~~KTOM sna ~ojsmace oapebyje OBHOC cy6jewra npema 06je~~y"(1971: 97.99) - emphasis is mine. According to Gortan-Premk (1971: 102), Old Church Slavic verbs such as took a genitive object, but the nouns usually were either animate or abstract, and only extremely rarely concrete objects (''pean~wnpeflkfe~~d').~ Grouping of animate and abstract objects together simply because they have the same fonn (genitive) in position of direct objects is, at first dance, without any semantic ground. However, a factor such as lack of physical contact with the object in verbs of observation and wishing makes it possible to treat them together as atypical objects that should be marked with the genitive 6 Cf also Tomson (l908b: 297-298). 7 Cf, for exarnple, Menin (1980: 71). 3.2.2. Genitive Objtcts in Non-Ntgatd Sentences Genitive objects in non-negated sentences are present in contemporary Serbian, although the accusative tends to replace the genitive. However, the context makes it possible to find the semantic difference between constructions where both the accusative and the genitive are possible. If the genitive in a (random) selection of Gortan-Premk's (1 97 1 : 97-99) examples from dinerent dialects: (rw~eJeTeTa; ~~corner to the accusative (r-j~e JeTe, pax..60m~ xmm, 0co6mo HeKa varmwy, LUTU TH cl;ryiww Ppy,XUHJ~) the native speaker of Serbian will agree that the use of the genitive is characterised not only by a strong feeling of the speaker's personal involvement (i.e., he is surprised by something the child has done, or he is concemed about the other person's head, or he dismisses Ruia as a reliable source of information, or he feels sorry for the children etc.), which is one of the features essential in placing ernphatic focus, but that the genitive is also used in cases where a cornparison is present (cf example with 60aer XMBOT~,i.e. 'a life better than the one he has now' vs. 60/a~ BOT 'a better üfe in general, 'which is expressed by the accusative-nominative In addition, the genitive case indicates a presumably shoner period of tirne during which the object is afliected (Le. the act of looking at the child, or of listening to Ru&, or of feeling sony for the children etc. are oniy felicitous for a very iirnited period).10 This fùnction of tht ,&ive is not unknown for other Slavic languages. It is present in ~olish,"and it is also muent in some of Russian dialects. Tomson noted that 8 Noun Arne (= ~e~e)has the plural Jqa(,qeqa), which declines as a regular ferninine noun and therefore has the accusative distinct frorn both the nominative and the genitive. 9 Cornparison is &en accompanied by emphatic stress. 10 Cf S: B- by~meo,vs. eEaH 6manyACE- in the first case it is assumed that the person in question is not necessariiy a fool, but he is acting üke one ai the moment, while in the second case the qualification is not necessarily viewed as temporary. at the beglluiing of the 20* cenhiry it was possible to hear it in the colloquial speech of educated speakers, but the genitive in this meaning is absent fiom the contemporacy Russian nom: "B coepeMeHHoM pycc~ouRSLIK~ TaKoe YepeAoBame 0608~naaexeii npmoro nononHem, B ~~BHC~UIOCTHOT y~a3-IX meH.oB~H~Y~HHR, BcrpegaeTcn Hepemo, XOTR no^ BnmeM ylleb~oitrpamanma, uniopippu(eii TaKoe yno~pe6nemepoz.n. , OHU es6erae.n~e ~3b~~e 06pa3osaworo 06qenea. MHOH)3amcami 83 "~o~aumeroR~LIK~" nwrennmemix pyccroat: nail meTgoero (ceoero) Hona, Holuaxa ( B cmicne: Ha epe~n).OH UaBan meceoero Homa (gan meHO-). 0~on;rcame ceoero nepa, ceoeft w,nanm, Raft mHe moeti ~~arrr,unmi, nom,Teoero rurama. naih~eme eaurero cahcoBapa, ceUna. Iioieonb~eme Bauaor sawe. B nwrepaType nonanawrcn npmepbi KaK: flaffre menorca, ~onopa."(Tomson 1908b: 295). Klenin (1983) notes that in concrete usage the genitive case used with verbs such as BH~~TII,3bp$~~, MOTPITH "denotes not jus2 vîdperception, but ahthe act of making an obserwtion" ( 1983 : 36) and (somewhat surprisingly) connects this with the usage of the same form with the imperative. However, there is an important semantic relationship between these two usages: physical presence (which equals direct referentiality) of the object is necessary both for the act of making an observation and for using the imperative - in order to observe something or to request that some action is performed. one has to have a well-defined, individuated, concrete object. This feature also necessarily accompanies dl occurrences of the accusative-genitive syncretism presented in this section, and this will be discussed in the foollowing section. 3.2.3. Conclusion On the basis of the matenal presented in Tomson, Krys'ko, Kuz'mina and Gortan- Premk, it is possible to state that the genitive objeas dser fiom the accusative ones by being afTected by an action incompletely, or for just a short period of tirne, which makes 11 Cf:daj mi piora 'give me a pen' (any pen, or else, a pen for a short while), potycz mi roweru 'lend me a bike' (for a little while) - Brooks (1975: 127). them less typical (cf Hopper and Thompson's [1980: 2521 assertion that an object has to be totally aEected in a sentence that has the "higher transitivity" status). In addition, the feature that is present in many cases where the genitive is used instead of the accusative is referentiaiity. This feature entails a possibüity to view the genitive object as a separate item which, if necessary, can be fùrther descnbed and made identifiable. This makes the object potentially less prototypical. The usage of the genitive case form for objects that are not only affected by the verb incompletely, or for a limited tirne, but are atypical for other reasons, spread by analogy to ail such objects, while the accusative-nominative was retained for the typical objects (or for objects that are to be perceived as typical, regardless of their real-life status). 3.3. Marken of Atypicality 3.3.1. Introduction Although linguists have attributed the phenornenon of case-syncretism to digerent featu res : definiteness (Meillet, Mindak, Kedajtene etc.), salience (Cornrie), indivichratioti (Kienin, Saxrnatov), none of these researchers has given an explicit definition for the term hdshe uses, relying presumably on the readers' intuitive understanding. Regardless of the specific feature used in individual works, the common denominator for the motivating force (feature) that linguists recognized as important for the development and present state of the category of animacy was its ability to use the accusative-genitive syncretism to mark a concrete object which the speaker (most ofien) singles out by means of direct reference (Le. by use of a persona1 or demonstrative pronoun, or by the object's proper name,'* or by modifiers). 1 view denniteness as a feature that only accompanies the use of the accusative- genitive syncretism as a marker of atypical objects, since the use of the accusative-genitive '*This pertains not only to human beings, but to animais and inanimate objects aiso. fom does not necessarily mean that the object is dehite, and the accusative-nominative syncretism does not entail indefiniteness of the object. Individuation is a feature that is present whenever an object can be viewed as a separate entity, i.e. it accompanies usage of the noun in the singular number. However, this does not preclude viewing an object which consists of a number of elements as separate fiom other sUnilar ones. as long as it can have both the singular and the plural foms (cf., for example, Serbian and Russian noun ~apo~'people'). Again, individuation is not a sufficient factor for marking of an object with the accusative-genitive syncretism, and the occurrence of the accusative-nominative syncretism does not necessarily mean that the object cm not be individuated. It is interesting that there is a feature that occurs in al1 cases where individuation and definiteness can be identified in a construction with the accusative-genitive syncretism, i .e., referentiality. This feature has been mislabeled as "defi~teness"and "individuality" in many works, and I will demonstrate this fact by giving different authors' definitions and examples, which involve referentiality of objects. Many linguists have not differentiated among these features, and Hopper and Thompson's general observation on the marking of referentiality can also be applied to Slavic languages: "in many languages what is crucial in object marking is not 'definiteness', but 'referentiality' - the property of having a specific referent, regardless of any assumption of prior familiarity. .. . Very often, then, grammatical phenornena associateâ witb definitenas of objets arc extendable to indefinite objects, prwided they are ~rcntiaî"(Hopper, Thompson 1980: 288) - emphasis is mine. Referentiality as a category has been studied more extensively in recent years. Works on linguistic and semantic reference and referentiaüty include notions of definiteness, indefiniteness, indexicais, topicality, the role of pronouns, etc. l3 As we have seen, such notions are mentioned in many works on animacy as possible causes for the semantidy .- l3 See, for example, Fretheim, Gundel(1996), Roberts (1993), Knmer (1997). "unjustified" occurrence of the accusative-nominative or the accusative-genitive syncretism, but they have never been viewed as a part of a more general, wider category such as referentiality per se. However, it is the speaker who marks an object as referential or non-nferential, and he is the one who marks it as typical or atypical. This fact is not unknown in the linguistic literature. A scheme presented in Janda' s article "Figure, Grmnd and Animucy in SIavic Declenrion" is based on the ultimate opposition se&'Jgure and odolh/grmnd, and this pnnciple can be applied to my proposition of solving problems with the semanticdy unexpected usage of the accusative fom. Namely, 1 assume that the speaker sees hinilherself as the ultimate subject14 (which makes himlher the most unlikely or the most atypical object). Such object (Le. the most atypical object) is necessarily definite (and therefore has al1 the features associated with granting of status "definite" to a noun, including presence of a modifier, for example), it is by definîtion referential, it is most often singular (or individualized), has a personal name, is frequently foregrounded, topicalùed etc. When some (or dl) of these features are applied to an inanimate object (or to an object that is obligatorily marked with the accusative-nominative fonn), it is possible to use the accusative-genitive syncretism, because these features promote the objea's status and the speaker is prone to treat such object as closer to himlherself, i.e. as a not- so-typical an object. In contexts where variation is registered, it occun in instances where the speaker's own communicational needs stress the Mewing of the object as atypical. My explanation of the fact that there are so many different (but semantically close and often intertwined) categories investigated in relation with the unexpected accusative marking is that they ali are based on the speaker's point of Mew, which sees himher as the ultimate atypical object. As soon as a typical object acquires some (or dl) of these l4See also Wierzbicka (198 1). features, it becomes eligible to change the accusative fom to the one reserved for atypical objects. 3.3.2. Individuation Arnong the first linguists who related the feature of individuation to the study of animacy was Saxrnatov, who wrote: "3~0[npommo~eme pommenbnoro naqexa Ha Meno ermri~e~~auoro]uorno HMeTb MeaO yXe B npeBHeM R3blKe B CJIyYae EH~HBE~yaJrH3aqEETor0 HnH Apyroro oTeneseHHoro rn~co6apa~enb~oro nomi. Jijxn nepBoro uiyuan npeeeny nprwep: noTBepgHxxoMa wrpa maparo, T'p. 1189-1199 (B KOIIKU 1263). 3necb omneiiemoe wp,EH~HBB~~~JXH~H~~RC~ II npmewmb K onpenenemonay MHPHOMY flOrOBOPY, iIOJiyYAn0 B BHHHTeJibHOM naReXe Hpa BMeCTO MW. m~nn moporo cnyqan yitamy Ha 06biwoe nnn Bcex PYCCMX ~OBOPOByno~pe6neioie pojpmenhHoro naaexa eMeno mmmenbHoro B ~a3~a~mxOTnenbwx parne&: 99 .. . n men rp~6a,n Hamen ûbpo~/~~a,Macnma, 6ept?30~~~a,si copean orpua .. . (Saxrnatov [1957: 222-2231; emphasis is mine). However, di of these examples (as well as those given in Kut'mina (1993) and Prernk (1 97 l), see pp. 39, 41 of this work) can be classified as cases of specific reference, because they not only denote a separate, individual object, but also require a concrete, i.e. referential object (one has to have one in order to find it, or to eat it, or to pick it - set &wnatov's examples). A modifier can help the hearerlreader identify the object (and make it also definite -- see the example with adjective in "mpacrapard' where other, "newef' peace agreements must have existed). lS Elenskij (1977: 46) also notes that as a nile, nouns denoting mushrooms and plants, which are optiondly used in the accusative-genitive fonn, never have the accusative-genitive syncretism in the plural (cf Elenskij's examples: ~ad~iirprrbaww '' Ln addition, in order to compare (as in wrpa maparo vs. wpa~o~aro)), one has to have at least two specific objects that one can refer to. "Specinc" here penains not to the quality of the referents (concrete vs. absuact), but to theu accessibility to be viewed as separate entities (cf. to haw a better idea, where presence of the comparative fom suggests that there are at leas two ideas, both of them accessible to Uispeaionkomparison by the speaker and the hearer). 6opo~r.-~,oevypm-pl,, CBlfHYXil~fco~~etc.). Although this statement can contribute to the argument that the feature "individuation" had a role in blocking animate object-marking in the plural,'6 Saxmatov's and Elenskij's exarnples belong to the class of exarnples with the non-obligatory marlang of the object with the accusative-genitive syncretism, where the speaker's role in marking an object as typical or atypicai is essential. The use of the accusative-genitive syncretism in the given exarnples actually suggests that the objects are not prototypical from the speaker's point of view, i.e. they are not only singled out as individuated, but also compared (explicitly or implicitly) with the other ones, and that therefore they are foregrounded and Mewed as dieerent frorn other possible objeas. In his well-known article on the hierarchies of the genitive of negation Timberlake (1975, 1986) gives a list of features that influence the probability of a noun to be used in the genitive in negated sentences." EdyKienin (1980) concludes that the hierarchy of the genitive of negation is a "mirror image" of the category of individuation, i.e. that features that are a positive factor in making a noun more prone to the genitive of negation marking at the same time preclude its ability to be marked with the accusative-genitive syncretism. Klenin gives a list of six "individuation hierarchies" that are shared by the genitive of negation and the accusative-genitive syncretism: propemess, animacy/personhood, definiteness, singular number, focus and modification (ibid., 7 1). suggesting that the presence of these features makes an object individuated and thus prone to acquire the accusative-genitive form. While propemess, animacy/personhood and (the l6 That is, plural nouns (both formal and semantic) tend to acquire the new accusative form less fkequently than the singular. 17 Features that govem the use of the genitive ofnegation are presented in participant hierarchies: "propemess: proper/common; abstracmess: concrete/absuact; partitivity: counthass; anirnacy: animatelianimate; number: singular/plural; dehiteness: definitdindefinite; negation: neuWemphatic negation; focus: topicalized/neutral; modification: modined/wmodifieâ" (Timberlake 1986: 3 56), the &st feature being factor not favoring the genitive of negation. possibility of having) singular nurnber are features that are inherent to objects, definiteness, focus and moditication are features that become overt only in context, where the speaker assigns them, depending on his assessrnent of the quality of the object and his concrete communicational needs. This distinction between factors that rnust influence and can influence the choice of the accusative form has never been made, and 1 believe that it is a usefûl tool in attempting to explain the category of anirnacy, since it is essential for the classification of examples. Examples that illustrate obligatory usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism most often have the features [proper], [animate/personai] and [singular], while exarnples that illustrate optional usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism have features [defite], [focal] and [modified], which cm result in the "unexpected" form of the accusative. Frorn the beginning of modem research on anirnacy, definiteness has been considered an important factor in the introduction of the new accusative form. Meillet noted that in the oldest Slavic texts definite adjectives were among the first to acquire the accusative-genitive syncretisrn, as well as nouns modified by a definite article in the Greek original. Although some researchers criticized him for drawing too general a conclusion, this idea has appealed to many other linguists, among them Kedajtene (1982), who wrote: "pacnpocrpa~eme+OPMM pomenbttoro nanexa a coxpaHeme crapoft In Old Russian exarnples with the irregular accusative marking, such as su am B~I C~IH~A~N~~01i-i~~ crape111~~~-,, KHS~~N, KOHCTAWTXH~~~~ '1 am giving you my eldest son prince Konstantin' (example from Lavrent'evskaia letopis', cited in Krys'ko 1994: 24), the object is more than sufficiently descnbed by usage of the possessive pronoun, the adjective and the personal name, which makes it easy for the hearer to identify it, but there are no accusative-genitive syncretisms, which would be expected not ody because of the noun's animacy, but also on the basis of the presence of the feature "definite," if one accepts the hypothesis on relevance of definiteness for the choice of the accusative form. In contemporary Serbian and Russian we once again find that definiteness is not a sufficient condition for the accusative marking: (1) S: flo~ec~o~aj mokN,! 'Bring that table' - the demonstrative pronoun helps identie the object, and makes it definite, without changing the accusative form; (2) S: flo~ecuÇTO.~~,! 'Bring thda table' (3) S: CTO-+~ ~o~ec~!'Bring thda table' -- it is possible to identify the object in both cases, but only if the contrastive (differentiating) stress is used. In the example (2) without the contrastive stress identification of the object would not be possible, while the non-neutral word order in example (3) entails contrastive stress and makes the object necessarily definite, without changing the reguiar accusative-nominative to the accusative- genitive syncretism. In addition, there are examples where indennite (animate) objects con have the accusative-genitive syncretism. For an example of such usage cf. Serûian Ja OM Mn,where ait hough the object is indefinite, it hm the accusative-genitive syncretism. Some researchers of the history of the category of animacy in Russian considered the first mentioning of a noun to be indefinite, and all consequent occurrences to be definite, which is sirnilar to the English use of the indefinite and the definite article. However, this approach often did not bnng the expected results: "Definiteness is supposed to be a factor favoring AG. In the often very limited contexts (notes and letters) it is sometimes difficult to assess the definiteness/indefiniteness of the animai noun in direct object position, but particularly in the big group of nouns without a modifier the number of indefinites is obviously great .. . This group with the bighst number of indefinitu also bas the bighest pereentage of AGs" (Grannes, 1984: 300), and also: "Sometimcs the AN is uscd in the same sentence botb tor an indefinite and a definite dimt object, e.g.: [. ..] hfutopocc~#c~~e~ynw BO ~~HCKBO~[indefinite, plural] ~~HHB~E~HH npoflamuuï rflmcKliMmTeneA1; Komphïe 3a Mope TMO, nmynafiymx Te BW [definite, plural]" (Grannes, 1984: 30 1) - emphasis is mine. l8 In the literature on Slavic accusative case objects, again, there are different opinions regarding the capacity of the accusative to mark definiteness. Newman (1978: 267) denies this capacity, and many other researchers, who do believe that the notion "definite" is contained in the accusative form (in contrast to the use of the genitive to express the notion "indefinite")), often admit that there is a large number of counter- examples, or that the counter-examples are the result of a previous state of the language, when the genitive prevailed in negated constructions. Linguists who have analyzed the category of definiteness in Slavic languageslg usually treat the choice berneen the genitive or the accusative after negated verbs as one of the most conspicuous examples of expressing the definitdindefinite opposition. However, word order and difrential stress are means that can easily cancel the notion of '"ames analyzes examples fiom the 18& century, when the acaisative-genitive fonn for animals in Russian was supposed to be generalized in both numbers. l9 I will concentrate primarily on works that treat Russian and Serbian material. definitenesdmdefiniteness expressed by the genitive or the accusative choice (see Wexler 1976: 43-44), making it an unreliable marker of the category. In addition, these two cases are inseparabiy comected with other categories: "In almost ail contexts examined, other categories, some of which are not related to determinedness, may be expressed concornitantly. For exarnple, as for the choice of genitive or accusative case of the direct object dernegated verbs in Russian, the speaker cannot avoid expressing such heterogeneous notions as completeness, concreteness, shape or personality, depending on the lexical context" (Wexier 19%: 62-63). Cornrie relates the problem to universal linguistic tendencies. His opinion is that, since the agentfsubject in the sentence is typicaily animate and definite, in cases where there are two NPs in one sentence that contains a transitive verb, the object NP will normally be inanimate and indennite, and if there are any deviations regarding the object's anirnacy ancüor definiteness, the object wiil be marked in order to be distinguished fiom the subject).**CE also Givon (1978): "The development of a special marker for definite accusative is of course not surprising. The accusative position is the 'most indefinite' of dl major arguments of the verb, in contnst witb tbe subject and dative whkh are overwhdmingly definite. Further, one rnay note, after Comrie (1975), that in a language with low or zero coding for definiteness (i.e. only deictic particles, for exampie), the definite-accusative marking makes great sense in terms of case-rnarking differentiation. The subject is almost uiivmdly definite by pncral m1e1 and thus needs no further specification. Indirect and oblique cases are usually adequateiy marked, and their definiteness often highly predictable in discourse. The definibaccusative marker thus leavts the unmarkcd accusative to be unambiguously iaterpreted as indefinite" (1978: 306) - emphasis is mine. Hopper and Thompson, on the other hand, relate definiteness of objects to the foregrounding, i.e. in foregrounded clauses "there is a murked tedencyfor objects to be individuaed i.e. to have properties associated with referentiality/dejiniteness ami animacy" ( 1 980: 29 1). The authors conclude that "definite/animateobjects may be rriorr, not las, nutural objects than indefinite/inanimute ones; and indeed it seems to us that the tendency to mark just definite/imimute objects reflects the puer objectness of such See Hopper, Thompson (1980: 290-291). abjects" (ibid.), however the question is whether foregrounded clauses are to be considered as "typicai clauses," and whether a "typical object" would be marked at ail, if it wen tmly typical. Referentiality is a feature that cm be applied both to definite and indefinite objects. Some researchers actuaily mention 'concreteness of the object ' as a part of their definition of definiteness (see. for example. Kedajtene's opinion aven on p.48 of this work), but concreteness actually stands for the speaker's assumption that there is an object that exists within a particular universe of discourse (i.e. that it is referential). Denniteness expresses only the speaker's assumption that such an object is "uniquely identifiable to the hearer" (see Givon 1978: 296), which looks like a feature that is understood as inherent to the objea in a real communication, ifthe object is referential. 3.3.4. Referentiality Referentiality is a pragmatic property of nominals, since it is essentiaily co~ected with the speaker and his intent to refer to a specific noun as existing within a particular situatioddis~ourse.~~My understanding of the feature is essentially the same as Givon's (1 978: 293-4): "it involves, roughiy, the puket 's intent to 'refer to ' or 'mean ' a nominal expression to have nonsnrpty refereenes - 1.r. to 'exist '- within a purticular universe of discourse ." Re-analysis of cases given as examples for either dialectal or occasional usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism for inanimates in contemporary Serbian and o us si an" shows that the form is used in reference to an object that is either undoubtedly part of shared knowledge or it is present in the immediate environment. This allows us to consider 2' 1 disagree with Givon (1978: 293), who views referentiality as a mantic propew. It is generally accepted that semantics is a relationship between language units and the world, and that pragmatics represents a relationship between language users and language units. Therefore, if the speaker's choice is involved in marking an object as referential or non- referential, and it obviously varies fiom situation to situation, it is not 'speaker- independent,' as semantics is supposai to be, but conditioned by pragmatic needs. 22 See, for example, Kuz'mina's examples (1993 : 32), given on pp. 34-35 of this work. referentiality as another feature that can cause the accusative-genitive syncretism in cases of optional marking. However, optional marking of objects is a result of the speaker's intentionai deviation from the typical assignrnent of forms for specinc syntactic roles and it entails change in the object's importance. As soon as the object is qualified as atypical, it necessarily stands out as referential, but the choice of the Vregular accusative-genitive or accusative-nominative syncretism wül depend on a combination of factors that involve the object's real-life status and the speaker's attitude towards it. This means that Za referentially animate object is marked with the accusative-nominative syncretism, it does not necessariiy entail that it is non-referential. Referentiality is a feature that is important for Our understanding of usage of the accusative-genitive syncretisrn in certain cases of irregular (optional) marking. It is a necessary component in cases of metaphoncal usage, in exarnples with Serbian adjectives quaiifjmg a deleted noun, in cases with the accusative-nominative syncretism in constructions with numerals etc., as will be demonstrated in my analysis of the corpus, but it would be superficial to state that referentiality is the feature that causes al1 irregularities co~ectedwith the syncretism - it is only one of several other features (such as definiteness and topicality), where the speaker assigns a "plus" or "minus" mark to an object, making it less or more prototypical. 3.3.5. Focality, Topicality and Word Order Linguists who have attempted to explain the category of animacy and its markers sometimes in their research include notions of focality, topicality, and word order (word order is analyzed either as a mems for expressing focality and/or topicality or as an independent factor in the accusative marking). I consider the fht two features more relevant as markers of atypicai objects. Non-neutral word order can accompany them, but it is not sufficient for markhg objects as atypical, nor even necessary. The problem of focus and topic in Slavic and non-Slavic languages hes been frequently studied in the literature. 1 will use these tems with the meanings as assigned in Siewerska (1 988): "The term btopic'will be used here in the sense of 'wbat is spoken of or 'what the utterance is primady about'. The term 'comment' wiU denote what is said about the topic. In most discussions of discourse structure, it is customary to distinguish the part of the utterance that represents the most important or salient piece of information with respect to the pngmatic information behvccn the speaker and addmsee; sucb infomation will bt refenud to as the bfocus' @ik 1978: 149). The focus is typically part of the comment, though .. . topics may be focal too. The topic, comment and focus, if defined as above, do not occupy invariant clausal locations" (Siewierska 1988: 64-65) - emphasis is mine." It has been noted that animate beings tend to be subjects and topics of sentences (see, for example, Dahl, Fraurud [1996: 59-60]) but there seem to be no restrictions regarding the animacy of objects and focus. Focus is simply the constituent which "in the gven setting presents the most salient information" @ik 1983 : 22). Nonetheless, it is very useful to divide two levels of focdity, as Hamay (1983) did: "It appears that focus function can be applied on two levels. The first level relates to information wbich ia 'new' for the addressee in the given setting (is presented as new with respect to the non-focused part of the sentence). [. . .] The second level relates to infomation which is bimpor*int' or 'salient' in that it is emphasized in the given setting. Such emphasis may again fa11 on 'new' (non-presupposed) information, but may also be umed by given information, particulady where coitrart is involvd. . .. 1 will cd1 the first level 'assertive focus', and the second level 'emphatic Cocus"' (Hannay 1983 : 2 10) - emphasis is mine. 23 CE, for example, Gergely's (1 99 1) assumption that focus is contained only in the 'new' part : "The most prominent constituent, both semanticaliy and phonologically, of the latter part of the proposition [Le. of the 'comment' or the 'new' information] is the sentence YOC~IS' which receives the primary stress of the sentence. Thus, the sentence topic is that part of the informational structure under consmiction to which the new information, encoded by the sentence focus, is to be related." (Gergely 199 1: 14). This dennition does not account for cases where the primary stress of the sentence falls on the 'old' information expressed in topic, which is typical in cases where contrast is involved . The answer to the question of the relationship between the accusative form and sentence focus in Slavic is not simple, because focus marîcing involves oflen intangible (non-dtten) parameters such as differentiating (emphatic) stress, or ambiguity of information conveyed by non-neutral word order (cf examples given on p. 56 of this work) . "When constituents which contain focal information bebive in ipccial wiys on account of their focality, these constituents will be assigned the pragmatic fiinction oc us^^. .. Cross-linguisticaily speaking, the Focus function may manifest itself through one or more of the following focalizing devices: (i) prosodic prominence: emphatic accent; (ii) special consistent order: special positions for Focus constituents in the linear order of the clause; (iii) speciai Focus markers: particles which mark off the Focus constituent from the rest of the clause; (iv) speciai constructions: constructions which int~sicdydehe a specific constituent as having the Focus function" @ik 1989: 278) - emphasis is mine. The first two factors have ofken been discussed in linguistic literature not only in relation to the category of animacy, but to the category of definiteness also. Mizeska- Tomid ( 1977: 674) notes that in the Slavic languages contrastive stress can change the focus, Le. it can detopicaiize the topic in sentences where word order is either marked or neutral. The existence of a relationship between word order and the accusative form has been noted in several works on animacy: "There seems to be a tendency for the genitive-accurative to appear when the object precds the verb, or when the subject and object are not separated by the verb (where the greatest subjedobject ambiguity is possible)." (Fink 1962: 134)? -- -- - . .. . 24 1 beiieve that choice of the accusative form in cases where the markhg is optional is "behaving in a special way on account of foçaiity." See also Timberlake (1996: 7, fn. $1) on influence of word order on the fom of the pmnoun in Old Russian. However, it would be an over-simplification to state that the form of the accusative depends on word-order, because there are at least two levels of "neutral word ordefin Slavic languages: one is syntactic, and the other is pragmatic. Cf Siewierska "Ifmatten of information structure are included in the specification of markedness, then neitbu the basic nor the domioant order WUnecessarily emerge as unmirW. Conversely, an unmarked order need not aiways correlate with the basic or dominant order. For instance, [there are sentences that are] syntacticalty marked, the basic and dominant syntactic order (with nominal as opposed to pronominal participants) being SVO,and not OVS,but pngmaticaüy unmarked due to a strong preference for maintainhg a given > ntw distribution of information in the Ianguage" (Siewierska 1988: 13). The influence of pragmatic factors is also noted in other works on Slavic word order. (cf. for example. BabiC [1990: 2561, Migeska-Tomid [1977: 676-6771). Since it is the speaker who organizes the information, it is up to hirn to determine which one of several available markers he will employ to single out the most salient, focal part of his information. It is possible to use only one (e.g non-neutral word order, or emphatic stress, or the accusative-genitive syncretism when its usage is optional), or to use a combination of different ones. It is important to note that word order as a marker of focal idonnation is cancellable. CE: 1. Neutra1 (SVO):Baba mewc~o. 'Vanya is writing a letter' 2. Non-neutrai (SOV): Baea mcm me. 3. Non-neutrd (OVS): ~ACMOme Baba. 4. Non-neutrd (OSV):~HCMO Baba me. 5. Non-nemal (VSO):ïime Baiba mc~o. 6. Non-neutrd (VOS): hmemc~o Bafia. If one accepts the opinion expressed in BabiC (1990: 256) that in syntacticdy and pragrnatically neutral South Slavic sentences (here - Serbian) the rheme (new information) follows the theme (old information), the object is nonnally focalized. In syntactidy non- neutral (non-SVO) sentences, however, S, V and O can be perceived as focaiized ifthey are positioned at the end of the sentence, and if there is no emphatic stress. Emphatic stress is a factor that can cancel focdity of the last positioned element, regardless of the "neutrality" of word order, and it can make an element focal again regardless of the word order. The accusative-genitive or accusative-nominative syncretism in examples where their usage is optional, however, is a non-cancellable marker of focus, since the speaker uses it to mark atypicality of objects. Ernphatic stress usually accompanies the accusative marking in such cases, and it serves as an additional signal that information contained in that part of sentence is relevant for establishing the speaker's attitude towards the object. 3.3.6. Conclusion The relevance of the speaker's assessrnent of the object's importance for context or situation, therefore, emerges as a common denomhator for cases where the accusative fonn is optional. Although researchers often have recognized the role of contextZ6(this pertains especially to the followers of Meillet's idea about the relevance of the distinction between agent and patient), they did not consider the possibility that context can be relevant not only in cases where ambiguity can arise, but also in cases where the speaker wants to give an object a more prominent or a less prominent role in his/her statement or story. It is interesting that in al1 earlier works (published before Timberlake's article in 1997) context was considered to be of influence only when the accusative-genitive syncretism for animates was introduced into the language, and not in cases when the accusative-nominative was used for referring to animate objects. This was seen as a mere remnant of the past state, when al1 (masculine gender) objects had the same accusative- nominative fom. However, results fiom ment research on the category of anirnacy,*' the 26 But in a different way, seehg it only as a background for disthguishing agent and patient. See Timberlake's recent works (1997% b). data 1 have anaiyzed, as well as data found in other works on anima# confirm the hypothesis that the speaker's assessrnent of the relevance of the object for the context was the main trigger for its optional marking. Optional marking of the accusative in Slavic languages is related to Hennay' s second level of focus tùnction, i.e. the emphatic focus. Since the speaker is the one who decides which part of information is most important, he also has a choice of coding it by morphological and/or non-morphological means. My assumption is that the choice of the accusative-genitive syncretism in cases where the marking of objects is optional is the only non-cancellable way of marking focus, i.e. the object in the accusative-genitive form is inherently more salient (and therefore less prototypical) than objects in the accusative- nominative form. Although it is possible to put sentence stress on the subject, the animate form of the object still has the value which is above that of an average object in the inanimate fom. CE Russian: 3~0Barn cop~anoryp4a*oav He n 'k was Vanya who picked the cucumber, not me.' where assertive focus is on the subject, but the object with the accusative-genitive form is still to be perceived as referential, individuated object in a concrete situation where it is obvious that the speaker and the hearer know which cucumber is in question, and it is in a certain way important. If the object were in the inanimate fom, the assertive focus on the subject would just suggest that there are two possible subjects (see Hannay's definition on p. 54 of this work), and dthough the referent would be the same (a concrete cucumber), the perception of it would change - it would lose its "added value" which classifies it as atypical. On the other hand, the use of the accusative-nominative form in cases where the object is referentially animate, and the accusative marking is optiona~,~~again signals the object's atypicality and attracts the hearer's attention, signalling that the object's value in '* Although the other researchers did not consider this possibility, or did not see their data in this light. r> See, for example, p. 76 of this work. the concrete situation is less than it typicaily should be. This marking of atypicaüty can also be followed by emphatic stress. Emphatic stress accompanies marking of atypicality, but its employment does not necessarily entail the accusative-genîtive syncretism. 1 have tried to demonstrate that many of the factors that have been considereâ as relevant both for the history and semantics of the category of animacy an essentiaily context-dependent. and that it is ili-advised to neglect the role of the speaker who chooses what part of the idormation he is conveying will be marked and in what way. It is also practically impossible to determine whether he is marking an object that is "only" dennite, or individuated or referential, or focalized, or al1 of the preceding taken together. The only generally applicable conclusion regarding the optionaily marked objects is that they are "different," i.e. atypical. CBAPTEIR 4 DESCRIPTION OF UNGUISTIC FACTS TRADlTIONALLY RELATED TO THE CATEGORY OF ANIlMACY IN SERBLAN AND RUSSIAN 4.1. Introduction Many grammars, monographs and articles on the category of animacy in individual contemporary Slavic languages deal with the question in a similar way: they state that animate referents have the accusative which equals the genitive, and that inanimate ones have the accusative identical with the nominative. Mer that introduction, an unsystematized list of exceptions is presented. The list includes many items that are the sarne for the majority (if not d)of the languages. The basic criterion for presentation of linguistic data in the present work will also be semantic, but in the analysis of the material 1 will try to implement other criteria that could have played a role in the choice of the accusative where variation is registered. Shce the occurrence of the accusative-ge~tiveand the accusative-nominative syncretism exhibits a generally similar distribution in Serbian and Russian, I will analyse the examples fiom these languages side by side. Animate objects are atypical objects, and they are most often marked with the accusative-genitive fom. Although 1 follow the tradition in systematization of examples related to the category of animacy, my analysis ofien offers a different explanation for "exceptions" to this category, which is a result of my perception of the category of animacy as a part of a more general category "atypicaI object." in addition, animates are the most fiequent atypical objects, and cases where the accusative marking is unexpected provide us with significant Uifonnation on conditions that cause it. I have divided exceptions to the mle into five main groups, dependig on the cause of possible confusion regarding the markllig of an object with the accusative-genitive or the accusativenorninative syncretism: 64 (1) Variation in usage is related to uncertainty about the rd-We status of the object (usually a rnicroorganism, embryo or a less familiar animal used for food); (2) Variation is caused by the possibility of use of animate referents as inanimate objects (for example, a wonn used as bah, cases of polysemy and homonymy); (3) There is a discrepancy between the animacy status of the proper name and the status of its referent (the name was originally used to denote an animate object, and now it is a narne of a referentially inanimate one, such as a journal, a newspaper, make of a car or a plane etc.); (4) The unexpected usage of the accusative fom is explained as "metaphorical usage" or it is not explained at ail; (5) The unusual fom is explained as a remnant of the past state in the system. The last two classes represent interpretations that are supplied in grammars and works on animacy, with respect to specific cited examples. The examples for metaphorical usage in this work are given under the second class (where nouns denote animate beings are used as inanimate objects). while the examples fiom the last class are analysed in Chapter Five. 1 decided to treat these two classes differently because their irregular accusative marking is based on difFerent criteria: in the fourth class it is predorninantly the context that influences choice of the accusative for polysemous lexemes, while in the fifth class the predominant criterion is morpho-syntactic. As we have shown earlier, there are two types of the accusative marking within each of these ciasses: (1) The irregular markingl is obligatory, Le. it is (or has been) a part of generally accepted (prescriptive and descriptive) grammatical rules (cf animate neuter-gender nouns, collective nouns denoting animate objects etc.) ' When 1 use the term irregular, 1 refer to the referentidy idequate usage of the accusative marker (i.e. Acc=Gen for hanhates, Acc=Nom for animates). (2) There is variation in usage, and exarnples are ohon the border between "grammatically correct" (or "acceptable") and "marginaily acceptable" (or "occasionalism") - cf. cases where the real-Me status of the referent is not clear, exarnples with Serbian relative pronoun ~ojy,etc. Although the variation is present in both types, it is significantly less frequent in the first one. Within the first four proposed classes, where the variation in the form of the accusative is caused by uncertainty about the real-life status of the object, by possibility of use of animate referents as inanimate objects, by discrepancy beween the animacy status of the proper narne and the status of its referent, and by usage of irregular fonn in metaphors, 1 will show that the subjective perception of speakers has the most important role in the choice of the accusative syncretism, since the speakers mark the objects as typical or atypical (for their class of similar objects in a specific situation). As 1 will try to demonstrate, among the factors that can influence the accusative fomi in cases of optional marking are not only the semantic, rnorphological and syntactic ones, such as the notion of singularity and the presence of modifiers, but also include situation- and discourse-related familiarity with the referent, relative importance of specific features for the speaker, intended focus of attention, etc. 4.2. Variation in Usage Relatcd to Uaccrtainty about the ReaCLiîe Status of the Object 4.2.1. Introduction 1 have divided this class hto six groups, in accordance with the meaning of lexemes: rnicroorganisms, incompletely developed organisms, immobile beings, less Terms incorrect or inqpropriate are to be understood as marked by prescriptive grammars (and grammarians) as not recommended (but nevertheless occurring in the speech of contemporary speakers). Although there are cases where the majority of speakers would prefer one form, the fact that the other one CO-existsis important for the establishment of a complete pichire of the system in change and the nom in fluctuation. known animate beings, dead beings and fantastic beings. The accusative-nominative syncretism is considered to be the stylisticaily neutral form, and the accusative-genitive is marked as a professionaiism in the first three groups, wMe the factor "singular numbet' is the cause for the stylistically neutral accusative-genitive syncretism in the fourth group. The nAh and the skth group stand somewhat apart fiom the previous four, because it is the accusative-genitive syncretism that is considered to be styiisticdy neutral, and variation is actually rare. If the cnterion "Acc=Genfor aiypcui objects, Acc=Norn for ~icalobject.3' is applied to this group of examples, one must conclude that the predominant, stylistidy neutral use of the accusative-nominative syncretism is due to the obiigatory usage of the accusative-nominative fom for typical objeas, such as those that are too smdl to be noted, or immobile, or known only as food etc., while the accusative-genitive, either as a possible optional variant (when stylistically marked as a professionaiism), or as an obligatory form (to denote fantastic beings, for exampl), characterizes objects that are atypical. Their atypicality can be the result of viewing them as separate animate beings, or may be attributable to the fact that they possess (or possessed) features associated with humans. In cases of microorganisrns in Serbian and Russian the most muent and stylistically neutral fonn is the accusative-nominative syncretism. This is probably caused by the smdness of the creatures that are not visible for an average speaker. It is possible that, when the speakers learned about the existence of the microorganisrns, they perceived them as more similar to inanimate objects than to the animate ones in many respects, and t herefore accepted the accusative-nominative fonn as normal, because other typical O bject s have similar features and the same marking. The variation that is stylistically marked exists both in Russian and Serbian. The obvious cause for this variation is professional knowledge3 about the real-life status of rnicroorganisms, which contradias popular perception of such creatures as inanimate. In some Russian grammars and handbooks on stylistics (such as Pycc~an rpaMMaTnKa AH (1 %O), or Po3e~~a.m(1968)) variants of the Russian myva~a ~~KT~PHH-~~,BHP~C~I-N, type are treated as stylistically neutral, while H3yYaTb 6a~~ep~kf'~ BH~YCOBAECI.~are marked as professionalisms. That means that the average speaker, who may or may not know the scientific faas about microorganisrns, will usually not use the accusative-genitive syncretism. In Serbian the accusative-nominative form is also more usual in such cases: S:AMCPH=IKHneKapH psp~iicy ... oncycr~oamwreena 6aur Ha BEPYC,-N~BoRem (OB'IAJRX) 60ma (n3,23.9.1988,49) 'Amencan physicians discovered ... lack of antibodies against the chicken pox vinis' It is interesthg that general nouns denoting them (MHK~OO~~~H~Min Russian, MHK~OO~~~IYH~~Min Serbian) are without exception marked as [-anim]. IckoviE's opinion is that this is caused by the second part of the compound (oprams(a)~),which is referentidy inanimate (IC~OV~E1980: 87). 3 Tenn"professional" here is intended to cover also non-professional knowledge that is presently more accesible to a larger population through education and mass-media. However, the accusative-genitive syncretism did not generally penetrate into this class of nouns because of their lack of simiianty with other "more typicai" animds. S: Po6ep~Kox o~~paoje 6aqanGccNom ~y6ep~y~xo3e @HOC, 1985,3, 1) 'Robert Koch discovered the tuberculosis bacillus.' However, there are also examples for the animate form of the accusative: S: ronmce 20 19. ~H~M~HHTH~~KT~~HOJIO~ .. . OTKPHO je .. . ~spyca~m KO~HHanana 6a~~epuje(n3,27.12.199 1, 52) 'In the year 2019 a farnous bactenologist ... discovered a vVus which attacks bactena S: Jefl~ornaHa JI$l MO~OIII CTaBHO je TeK "pobe~or"~~po6a~~ y senmy .. . nocyw AcccGcn (n3.29.12.199 1,43). 'One day Dr Moro III put a "newbom" microb into a large vessel.' It is interesting that both examples for the accusative-genitive syncretism are found in "scientific" contexts, which involve professionals who do know about the real-life status of the mi~roor~anisrns." To detedne whether the accusative-genitive syncretism in Serbian is also related to stylistic marking as a "professionalism" (because that information is not given in grammars), 1 conducted a small survey with five professional biologists, native speakers of Serbian. In a questionnaire 1 offered the context " Y BHJHOM noay ~~~poç~ona HM~M..." 'In the field of vision of my microscope I have' and provided the nouns napa~e~jy~,6ovap, BQYG MMKPO~ 6- 'pmamecium. volvox, virusl niicrob, bacillus.' Somewhat surprisingly, the subjects' first reaction was a comment that it is impossible to use the Acc sg for ~yyçmxpoband 6-, as it is impossible to isolate them corn the group because of their smallness, while it can be done with napwerÿrjjw and 6~vap.Accordingly, they used the accusative-genitive form (napa~ew,iy~a, 6~~apa)for those two organisms. In answer to the question what form they would use if it were possible to separate one of the smallest organisms, dl subjects chose the animate form for al1 organisms (except for the ~gyc).' 1 Moreover, the constructions in which they are present involve verbs typical of animate actants (to attack, to be bom), which con also be a factor in seleaing the accusative fom. Since Wuses are reaily on the border between animate and inanimate worlds, it semis that the professional knowledge of the speakers infiuenced the choice of the form. Variation related to speaker uncertainty regardhg the status of an object is presented in the lexical class of nouns denoting embryos, larvae and other incompletely developed organisms. In his analysis of this phenornenon in Russian IckoviP (op&, 87-88) does not state the stylistic marking of the accusative-nominative or the accusative-genitive foq but gives examples for both of them: R: Ca~eqoxpaHReT mpy B noq~ee~H~HHOK~ (op.cit., 87). 'The male guards the roe and later the larvae' R: iloene~m~~3 HAX ~YHHKH-N, (opcit., 88), 'They take out the lawae' R: M~BJI~K~~>T3apo~~me#~~ a nepecaxmawr Kopoeam memuei'i npoayKTHeHom (ibid.), 'They take out embryos and transplant them into the less productive cows' R: Bbino OKOJïO CûpOKa IïOIïblTOK HMnJiaHntpOBaTb TaKAe ~~~OAMUIH-~,,(ibidem). 'There were approximately 40 attempts to transplant such embryos.' Since the category of animacy in Serbian is expressed only in masculine singular nouns, there are few examples of this kind in Serbian (napea,nnma are feminine). The Serbian word ~M~~HOHOCCU~Sin rny corpus only in its accusative-nominative fond 4.2.4. Immobiie Beings As with the nouns denoting microorganisms, the stylistically neutral fonn for animate beings that cannot move (or move too slowly for their movements to be conspicuous) is the accusative-nominative syncretism. The most probable cause for such marking is viewing of the creatures as typical objects, i.e. as atypical anllnals, because they lack the attribute that is usualiy present in other animate beings. Use of the accusative-genitive syncretism is stylistically marked as a professionalism, again reflecting the speaker's knowledge of the reai-life status of the object : 6 Which, of course, does not exclude the possibility of occasionai usage of the accusative- genitive syncretism under certain conditions. R:Tpelu~im npouien no ~opmopy,~ocncb Ha .. . nropcme ~B~~JM~N, (Boho~iiu,278), 'Treshkin went through the comdor, glancing sideways at the starfish' S: Jiapee ce ee3yjy 3a DO u ceaKa espacrra y ManH noa~n-~, mmm, 9yna oreasa, 44), 'Lawae fasten to the bottom and each of them grows into a small polyp' S: Kan npeceseiiro BH~OMpexe ~anamrba(ibid., 37) 'When we cut a sponge, we see a network of srnall channels.' However. in conversations with biologists. it is clear that they regularly use the accusative-genitive fom in cases when the creatures are alive: S : flo~ajMY Tor cy~bepa~~, 'Give me that sponge' S : N'.o.uyjTe nommaAfccû, holate a polyp.' We can account for these cases as stylistically marked "professionalisms" in Serbian. 4.2.5. Lesser Known Animate Beings Variation in cases when certain animals are used for meat is present in Russian and ~erbian.'The nature of the phenornenon is the sarne in both languages: variation most often occurs when the creatures in question are unfaMliar in the countries. and most often arrive already processed. Terms for these animais have entered the language as names of exotic food. and, unlike the cases when speakers are acquainted with the real-life status of "non-exotic" Mmals used for food which are regularly marked as animate. the accusative-nominative syncretism is more fiequent. R: Kynn~bKpeBeTm-~, MOIKHO B ~ara3max(exampie fiom Po3en~anb. Kox~ee198 1: 43) 'It is possible to buy shrimp in stores' R: Bape~~biwanbMi?pb~, ~apepa~b(example 6om Ickovif, op.cit .,86) 'The boiled squid is cut' 7 Although it is not mentioned in the linguistic literature nor in grammars of Serbian. 8 It would be interesthg to see whether the linguistic feeling of inhabitants fiom the places the animais are brought fiom (from the seaside, for example) influences the form of the accusative. R: H T~I.. . eu ytztpiz~~~~~~ B ~acnwaficaahai (Cicapnem, 304)' 'You also .. . eat oysten and enjoy them' VS. R: K~KnparoTosars ~anb~apa-~?(example fiom Rozental', Kohtev 198 1 : 43) 'How is squid prepared?' R: ~~EWOTOBJIE~IOTgnsc Hem yc~pity-~iiramamcoe li +~~HOB(Yexcm, Cpem ..., 136) 'They are preparing oysters, champagne and pheasants for him' S: Ga~anap-~, Hanmsi xnaWoM BOROM na orpes~eH KyeaTlr (8a3apoee ceeTcKe K-e, Cseqa~a~pnesa, 43) 'Cover codfish with cold water and boil' S: tk~~~h-~,H cna~ah craame y qeamKy (nonmmca, 14.3.1993, 16) 'Put the whitefish and spinach into a strainer' C: Xo~enLoews y ~ojenq~ory HCTORO~HO IIO~H . . . nam~cp~, y 6ujeno~cocy (CBH~CT,8.2.199 1, 20) 'Hotel Loews where they also serve at the same time ... sole in white sauce.' Despite variation in the usage of the accusative-nominative syncretism for more exotic animais, both Russian and Serbian prescribe the accusative-genitive syncretism when one single specimen is in question: R: ecn ~pena~.rrl~=~Jeci.hTpenBHloBb~~. o~apbl~~~/o~apo~~~~ 'to eat trepangs lobsters' S: jecm ocn~h,~, .! jecm ocn~lia~~,'to eat whitefish,' but in the singular: R: TpenaHra~~oa'he ate a trepang (sea-cucumber)' . npmeaR 6o~b~~'o onrapakFornHa 6nm~e'they brought a large lobster on a plate', S: nojecr~wenor ocn~ha~~,ba~wapa~~, jam~ra*~ 'to eat a whole whitefish, codfish, lobster. ' These more exotic animals intended for food are cited in the singular number with the accusative-genitive syncretism most often in situations when it is (visually) obvious to the speaker that it is (or was) an animal. This connects these examples with the regular usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism with nouns denoting "non-exotic" beings, Le. typical animals (cf S : nojem cy uIapiwa- R: ommenil Kapnabai 'they ate a wp' 9 Russian examples from Ickovir op.Qt., 85-86; see also Rozentai' (1968: 104). and with the factor "speaker's knowledge" that is pertinent in cases ofother rarer animal species. 4.2.6. Dead Beings Nouns meaning "dead being" as a rule have the accusative-genitive fom in al1 Slavic languages. Since it is obvious that the objects are not aiive any more, their status before the death is considered to be more relevant for the choice of the accusative. R: Pacc~aobieam~eqe, YTO nawowa co6apae~BCRK~ HOU yTOnfleHHH4-h (ToïoJIb, I,63), 'They Say the young missus gathers drowned girls every night' R: Ka~aapamwa, rNe 3aw~a~b~ep~~eya~~! (M~~ToB,253), S: Ka~saje parnirita y ToMe, rAe sa~pnaniA~TBB~B-~! (npe~., 3 1 S), 'Well, if you think about that, it certainly will be an outrage to bring the dead man home Born the cemetery . ' There are some lexemes in Russian and Serbian, however, that have similar meaning, but take the accusative-nominative syncretism: R: MHe He 06n3a~enb~oBHReTb Tpyn-~, AJIR TOîO, ~~06~1CKâOâTb, Although many researchers have accepted that the spread of the marker occurred earlier within the group of personai nouns, the late acquisition of the accusative-genitive syncretism by nouns denoting animals does not seem to be relevant in this particular case and other similar examples. Namely, t hese words, including English 'corpse, ' refer only to the corporal remains after death, while nouns with meaning 'deceased person' (which are in Slavic languages marked wit h the accusative-genitive syncretism) reflect the existence of a relation with the object's pre-death state. 4.2.7. Fantastic Beings There are virtually no exceptions to the marking of irnaginary, fantastic beings as animate in both Serbian and Russian. They are apparently perceived as animate as is confirmed by their morphological fom: R: ebirirana opHoro qepTawOni ~3 nema (ïoronb, 1-36), C: je~~orasparaeû, ~njepan~n3 nawa (YK~.np., 29), 'they expelled a devil from hell' R: ToJI~KoOrOHb H3 JUOJlbKH MOXeT same% O~UPOTHIP-~(ToïoJIb, 1, 'Only fire from a pipe can set fire to a werewoü' R: xeHiqAHa, nonro6aeuraa auFena--, ReMoHahocn, gyxa*Grn (30qen~o,234), 'A woman, who falls in love with an angel, a dernon, a ghost' R: C YCmHeM HaWJi 'IHTaTb MOJiHTBbI ... , KOTOpblM HâyUM ei'0 OaHH MOHâX, BW~BW~BCIO m3Hb CBOW Be,bMw- H He YBC7'bIXflYXOB~-oni(pl) (roronb, 331), 'With effort he started reading prayers .. . which he leamed fiom a monk, who had been seeing witches and evü spirits dl his We' R: Heyxenlr esi He xme... cwem Han pe~op~oRB Hanewe, wo saM ynamcr esinemHoeoro ro~ya~~yaa~?(Eynra~oe,370), C: 3ap ~ehe~e... jemm ~aq T TOP TOM y HW Ra he saM ycnjem na 'How cm you not want ... to sit over a fetOR in the hopes that you wiii succeed in making a new homunculus?' S: Tonimo 6wxenena jemor xoAdy.'ynycabh (EKo,225)' '1 would love so much to have a homunculus' S: Xohew nir Ra B~L~UIws.ona-? (Xojn, Enam, 93)' 'Do you want to see a cyclops?' S: A ROKTOP AHTo~apmBue0 je L@~e~or~amo~a~ ~paj Hanoneo~oeorysrna~~ba (m, 30.9.1990,36), 'And Dr Antomarki saw a Red Phantom near Napoleon's bed' S: ue~~pan~ii~o~njyrepc~~ cwTeM ... marne ... HOBO~,ca~p~~~ewjer, ilpaKTHW0 Heymmor ~~60p-a~(kMp, 13.9.1991,6) 'The central cornputer system .. . sends.. . a new, more perfect, virtually indestructible cyborg .' The ody apparent anomaly with nouns denoting imagllrary beings are general common noun such as Russian 6;Oxecr~oor Serbian ~OX~HCTBO'deity;' 1 will address that issue later, in co~ectionwith neuter gender nouns. 4.2.8. Conclusion As the examples above have shown, the accusative-nominative syncretism is used more frequently for nouns denoting referentially animate beings that do not correspond to the average speaker's perception of typical animais. Minute species, such as microorganisms, or incompletely developed organisms, such as embryos, or immobile beings (startish, for example). or some "exotic" species (most often crustaceans) introduced into the language as a name for food in stylistically neutral language have the accusative-nominative form. The accusative-genitive syncretism is stylistidy marked as a professionalism in cases where the factor of professional knowledge is dominant. There is no styiistic marking for the usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism in cases where the species whose animate status frorn the point of view of an average speaker was not clear, was presented as a single specimen. This is probably the result of seeing the creature as an individuai, separate entity whose "animate origin" is more transparent and therefore should be marked as atypical objects, i.e. typical animates. in cases of dead and fantastic beings, the predominant and stylistically neutral form is the accusative-genitive form. 49. Nouns Denoting Animate Beings Used as Inanimate Objecb 4.3.1. Introduction There are two large groups of nouns in this class. The main difference between them is that one group is recognized as consisting of homonyms or polysemus le'remes, and the other is not." In this latter group it is the actual living thing that cm be used as an inanimate object (e.g. a worm as bait), whereas in the case of homonyms and polysemous lexemes it is the nounhame denoting the animate being that can be used both for the animate object and for the inanimate one that is named after it (e.g. Russian cnyTHI'tK 'cornpanion; satellite'). The inanimate object in these two groups is a common noun. Variation in this class is not caused by the speaker's uncertainty regarding the real- life aatus of the object. The specific context determines what form of the accusative is to be used.ll and in such situations the accusative marking corresponds to the animacy of the referent, i. e. the accusative-genitive syncretism is used for animate objects, and the accusative-nominative for inanimate ones. Here again, animate object equals atypical object and takes the corresponding accusative-genitive form; inanimate object equals typical object and exhibits the accusative-nominative syncretism. When variation occurs. it is caused by the speaker's choice to mark hisher attitude towards the object (greater attachment, for example, makes the object atypical and brings about the accusative- genitive form - see the example with the Serbian word nnaj on p. 93). 10 Marking of lexemes as polysemous or homonymous in existing didonaries of Serbian and Russian is not always clear nor consistent, a circumstance which is probably brought about by some unresolved problems in the lexicography. However, it is not necessary to distinguish between these two types from the point of view of the category of animacy, because they behave identicaiiy. 1 wili use the tenn "pdysemous lexed' as a covet tetm for both types, unless otherwise noted. 11 See examples of variation given on pp. 79 K 4.3.2. Non-Polyrmous Luemm When a noun denotes an animate object that somethes functions as an inanimate object, it is the speaker's perception of the animate object as inanimate that infiuences marking with the accusative-nominative syncretism. Variation in the choice of the accusative is usually semantically justined, i.e. if the speaker wants to represent beings as living things, he will use the accusative-genitive form, and if he wants to stress or mark their use as objects, he will use the accusative-nominative syncretism. IckoviP, for example, writes that if speakers of Russian have in mind leeches (IUIHBKH)as living things (i.e. objects that one cari hunt), they tend to employ the accusative-genitive form: JOBHT~~BOK~~ 'to hunt leeches.' However, if the leeches are being used for medical purposes (i.e. as a tool/medication), the fonn is usually inanimate: CTBBHT~~HRBKH-N, 'to apply leeches.'12 There are similar cases in Serbian as well: S: Cee ce oeo 'IHHH . . . na 6i ce Ha unH qperbbN, ynoemo urro ewe pn6a (a06po jwo, 1.7.1992, 52). 'This al1 is done .. . so that one cm, using the same worm, catch as many fish as possible' S: Ha go6po npmpemekior yp~~ba--~Moxe fia ce ynom P no TpHneceTaK p~6a(ibid.) l3 'Using a well-prepared worm one can catch up to thirty fish.' In the first example the word WBHA (womi) is marked as inanimate because it refers to wonn as bait, i.e. a tool, in the second one the real life status of the animal influenceci the marking as animate. 12 Op.cit., 86. 13 When changed for the purpose of testing acceptability, the inanimate form of the noun and its modifier in this example were marked as marpinally acceptable by native speakers, regardless of the referent' s tiinction as a non-living thing. Since it was unanimously accepted in the previous sentence, it seems that the presence of an adjectival modiiier inûuenced the choice of the form. 1 will discuss this case later. Ickovif stresses the instability in usage of the accusative form even when it is obvious that the objects in question are alive: R: 8~psrUHBaTbycTpm&f'~,, and shrirnps' (op.cit ., 86). He attributes the accusative-nominative syncretism here to the influence of speakers' knowledge (or certainty) that those animais are being grown for food. as well as the infiuence of already existing foms 'ec~bcapglimr-~~ KUT~OT~I~~~''to eat sardines, sprats'- cap)mpw.bl and ndnpmbl are types of canned fish. l4 In al1 these cases the objects are marked as typical objects/atypical animates. 4.3.3. Polysemous ~excrnes'~ Lexical polysemy is also a source of variation that affects animacy marking. The difference between non-polysemous lexemes (given in 4.3.2.) and lexemes from this group is that the fom of the accusative usually corresponds to the real-life status of its referent. Variation among speakers in specific contexts is rare, because each separate meaning usually assumes the semantically correct accusative fom. In the previous section we saw that in non-polysemous lexemes it is the speaker' perception in a concrete situation which is the factor that determines the fonn of the accusative. 14 However, when meat and the fùr of "non-exotic" animals are to be used in the accusative case, in both languages the accusative-genitive syncretisrn dominates: R: empaKoB-~, vs. *empa~~-~,, 'to eat crayfish' - example from Ickovic. op.cit., 85. R: nblXH~a-~LIPHHOCRT Ha ROM, rOBOPRT "cnac~60"A KnaHRioTCSi 'They bting young deer to the house, say "thank you" and bow' (BoaHoem, 239), R: Tene~~a,+-yxe npme3nil.. . oa-IO nonormy 'They have already brought the calf.. the hùid haif' Cqymee, Eeme one-I, 532), S: P~MUIHGY neTfla~cct~ca~3e4a~cr~ca 'They broiled a rooster, a rabbit.' 1s Polysemy and homonymy are cases of semantic transposition. Under the entry "~o~lÿaaq.in h~llc~vec& m~pi~onegn~ecd cno~ap (1 990: 336-3 3 7) it is said that transposition 'does not change the form of the unit which has undergone semantic reanalysis and bMgs about formation of polysemous words' ("~eMeHJpeT MaTepilamiOro 06k..anepeucmcxtawu& eBH r npmo,g~~K 06pa30~a~~m MHO~O~H~ 4.3.3.1. Non-Metaphorical Usage of Lexemes Presented as Polysemous in Dictionaries 4.3.3.1.1. Introduction In almost al1 grammars of Russian there is presented a short list of nouns that can have either form of the accusative CqyX TH^. cy6se~rrem& xapa~~ep))- see, for example, grammars published by AKa~emHay~ CCe, grammars written by Rozkova, Vinogradov etc. The list usually consists of only the above mentioned lexemes, but it lacks information whether the accusative-genitive syncretism is only a possible variant used when the word denotes an animate object, or it would be acceptable to use the accusative-nominative form also (either as a marked or unrnarked variant). Results of my analysis of polysemous lexemes from the corpus show that as a rule the accusative marking is semantically correct: the accusative-genitive syncretism is used when the noun refen to animate objects and the accusative-nominative when it refers to inanimate ones. l7 Some of the lexemes are presented as polysemous, while others are glossed as homonyrn~.~~1n both dictionaries the accusative form is almost al~a~s~~omitted. Had the l6 The tenn "metaphor" has several meanings; here it means figure of speech. I will use the meanhg "a source for lexical polysemy and homonymy" later. The basic difference between these two meanings is that in the first case there is no fixed reference, while in the second one a thing is namd after one of its most prominent features, Le. its naine becomes a common noun (cf. examples for Serbian H~BOPVS. HO 2.a. ociroeae npaaa~,TeMemHo c~ojmo,jesrpa, cmcao, ÇyüiTHHa WRi 6. Haiieno, npnwiin KO~Honpebyje Haw muneha, nocrynaba 3. pnr. ~~CMPTHH,~e~a~epWan~a, OOX~HCKA npm y tn addition, my goal was not to give a complete kt of lexemes that can have dinerent forms, but only to compare ways of treating the phenomenon in différent languages. l9 The only exception is word in in Oiegov's dictionary. *O Examples where there is no reference given are mine. Russian examples have been verified by native speaker; of Russian. R: Hano 6bino CJiOb(liTb eM#'X~N~, 3ama~m YHIGd(eHH0 non3a~b (ABTM~ToB,429)' S: TpeBano je cnome heros gyn-N,, HaTepaTH ra na ~OHH~HOnym (translation is mine, a passage fiom the page 152 is missing in the translation of the book) 'It was necessary to break his spirit, to make hhcrawl humbly' R: fi 6bin 'holp~~y~" MO^ OT~OM He6ecmi~ repe? Ryxa cmworo- (~TM~ToB,443), S: Mene je 'ho~e~~yo"~ojO~aq He6ecm KPO~flyxa CBeTora~cp~en (npee., 167)' '1 was "dropped off' by my Heavenly Father through the Holy Ghost.' S: 3MAJ - 1. npa3~.KpmaTa HeMaH, uyxoemme epeTeHacra Tena [etc.] 3. aerija rrrpawca on nannpa c penom, ~ojanemi Ha eeqy [etc.] R: Oam nnaKaT nepeuaneeam w3 6onburoti HKOHH - rxe ... reoprirft n0paxae.r ~M~JT~ S: JEX - 1.3oon. cucap ~3 noponxue mowepa, 6y6ojefia, noKpmeH no nebma u BOKOBHM~mnnqacrHM 6o~aua 2. rpab. Hanpaea sa ~a6~jakerryToea a Hacma [etc.] R: Ex - 1. ~e60JIbIUoeXRiBOTHOe C HTnaMH Ha TWie 2.060po~~~enb~oesarp~ewe B ekine c~pe~~amq~xcn Konbee mw opycbee, nepenneTeHmix ~onmqeitnpoeono~o8 S: 3a poijewa~je ~06~0 an or jexa ,-, 'He got a small hedgehog for his binhday' R: Ehcy nonapHmi Manewcoro exabm, 'He was given a small hedgehog' S: Ha rpaflmureurre cy noBemurH joui je na^ jexhNmr 'They brought another cernent breaker [a machine that looks like a roller with spikeslto the construction site R: ki 6epe~oHa B neeppy~y exxfKbo, A xoqeT wmm [np~hiyc].- ExHK-To~~~,... ~a3aq nonomTe. (~o~~HKo,54) 'And she takes into her lefl hand a brush and she wants to clean the Primus stove. - Put the brush back.' ~eby%Y Rma [etc.] 3. BO~H.o~aj KO~A ~pe6a na npy>itir 06aeecr, 06aeeurre~eO ~ertp~ja~e~c~ojeojc~(o6iwo sapo6~bem) S: Ha-n cy jom je~a~qami je381rmN,. 'They have learned another foreip language' R: Ow B wone H~~WUOTPODOB H~MK-N,, 'They study their native language at school' R: OHB~BM~IB~~ ornyuemom ma Hecroeopworo "asslra =''ce6e Ha rop6yuricy (Pac-, 31). 'He used to lift a deafened or intractable prisuner ont0 his back' S: nome Meceq AaHa, ~ohy,mmieao je npeKo Eyra fia 3apo6~ bye3~~aeo" (IIIonoxoe, 43) 'Mer one month, dunng the night, he was swirnming across the Bug to capture a prisoner. ' R: CY FbEKT - 1. e +moco+m: no3~amqdu ~eRnayroqiiliienoee y cyqemo, npomonanuee eHeumeMy mpy KaK 06'6e~~~~O~H~HIIII 2. renoeeK rcaK Hocmeab ~a~1ot-~a6y~bcsoftcre (KH~H.) 3. ~oo64eO uenoeeKe 4. B nome: npeasaeT cwem 5. B rpamame: nonnexaqee, a Tawe eoo6qe rpaMManirecKaR $opus, ebipamm~anAenrenn S: ïiomyinrre cybje~ar-~,y cnegehoj pe.rem..., 'Underline the subject in the following sentence' R: Pammam~rpa~~amvecwrdt CY~%~KT~~~. .. ; nomecniil CY~%~KT~~~,(J~HI'EHC'I'XWCK~ ~~U@~JIOII~~'I~C~ CJtOBapb, 498) 'One differentiates a grammatical subject .. . , a logical subject ' R: Tyr C~enanoeepHyncR ... s e 3epitane ... oTiIeTnmo yesgen ~a~oro-TO npamoro cy6.ae~~am.... (aynra~oe, 84-85), C: C~jonace oKpeHyo ... H y 3pqa~tyjacno je yrneaao HeKor Vmor CY@KT~~~(Ilpe~.,89) 'At that moment Stepa turned .. . and in the mirror he clearly saw a sirange character. ' S: TEHOP - 1. ~y3.a.~ajeauar MYLUKE rnac 6. nesav Tamor rnaca R: TEHOP - 1. ebiconidt hay.ac~oitronoc 2. nese4 c Ta- ~OJIOCOM S: Hamenno je RmaH ~emp-N, OR oqa. R: OH yHaCnenoeân npe~pac~dlT~BOP~N~ OT oTua. 'He inherited a beautifil tenor voice fiom his father' R: A B qemp, Ha cryn CO cmw [etc.] 3. @~r.nej. ocooebar, Hacrpafi sose.; npenpefletbart, 'He bought the latest type of that machine' R: TOT THR KOTO~O~O~~II 3anepxa~1, eau meHe eau? (A~~TOB, 463h C:Oeaj TM ~ora~mcaM 3a~pnao. je nn eau an^ si je? (npee., 188) 'That chamter, whom I have detained, is he yours or not?' 1 have found several polysemous lexemes for which the dictionaries do not register multiple meanings and the corresponding variation in forms of the accusative. These lexemes are stylisticaîly marked as professionalisms, and semanticaliy appropnate markhg of the accusative is typical: S: noc~a~pajvonramnynampe~ ca uiecr nenemi cno6one (By~o6pa~oeHh.~OKOMO~EIOHM p060 TE..., 1S3), 'Let us take a look at the manipulator with 6 degrees of movement' S : liourama~enra~~.oyna~opa~~~~(~asilayn~~~~~) y noros. ' Send the operator to the shop. ' Serbian lexemes nporpauep and cHMynaTop are not presented in Peuraau, but the fmt one has semantically appropriate marking of the accusative, depending on the real-life status of the referent: 'nominal States of the system cm be memorized ... which makes it possible to reduce the processor in this case to a programmer' S: 3anocnm~cy jour jemor nporpaMepabo, 'They have hired another programmer. ' 4.3.3.1.3. Conclusion Analysis of examples found in the corpus and cornparison with meanings given in dictionaries suggests that correlation between the real-tife status of referents and the accusative form is extremely high. As the matenai shows, however, there are many more lexemes than those listed in normative grammars where the accusative form can Vary depending on possible reference to both animate and inanhate objects. In these instances the speaker moa often chooses the accusative form that semantically agrees with the specific meaning of the word. By doing this. the speaker treats the word as polysemous, giving each meaning its correspondhg accusative form. The analysis has show that in both groups of nouns denoting animate beings used as hanimate objects semanticalîy appropriate marking of the accusative is predominant in ail cases of non-metaphorid usage of polysemous words, i.e. speakers use the accusative-nominative syncretism for typical objects, and the accusative-genitive for the atypical ones. 4.3.3.2. Metaphorical Usage of Poly~emousLcrcmes 4.3.3.2.1. Introduction The basic dserence between these lexemes and the ones given under 4.3.3.1. is that in typical metaphorical usage the referent is not fixed, i.e. although it is possible to refer to an object in a concrete situation using a noun motivated by the object's most prominent feature, it is not its %al name," and it can penain to any given object that at a specific tirne fits the description. 4.3.3.2.2. Inanimate Nouns Refemng to Aaimate Objcets There are two types of exarnples that involve inanimate nouns refemng to animate objects. in the first type the resulting form is the accusative-nominative, and in the second one it is the accusative-genitive. In almost ail of the exarnples there is either a modifier before the noun, or the noun is clearly used as a refemng expression. The difTerence in the form of the accusative is not the result of the speaker's choice to mark sorne animate objects as typical, i.e. inanimate by reducing their real-life status as bearers of al1 features typical for animates to bearers of ody one feature (since that pertains to both types). Rather it is due to avoiding marking of emotional attachent in those examples where the accusative-nominative fom is used, and in stressing such an anachment in cases where the accusative-genitive syncretism occurs. Since it is not usual to be emotionally attached to a typical object, the accusative-nominative fom is expected (and found) in examples where the speaker's neutral attitude is present. On the other band. the accusative-genitive fonn accompanies occurrence of evident negative emotional charge between the speaker and the object. 4.3.3.2.2.1. Inanimate Nouns Rcfcmng to Animate Objets - the Accuutive Nominative Syncretism Metaphor and metonyrny are basic sources for this class of examples: S: Po$e~acecrpa ~oje~aj~e ... npwa, He ~aeo~ehA#3mp-~~ 06aeeurreba CBO~HX(Cene~ilh, np~ja~emï ca Kocadeeor eewa 7,4 1), 'My mother's sister says, not revealing the source of her information' S: sa~onuora ue] Ra ra 06aeenir a~omacm nca npHcraHe na rrpofla ~aj ~parya-N, (Il3,23.4.1993, 17), 'He asked that they infotm him whether the dog's owner will agree to sel1 that jewel' C: Ocnaba~ce Ha sen- ayTopmeTAecNom,Kaga TBP~M[.. .] (Ludlum, 250). '1 am relying on a great authonty when 1 assert' R: M~aycnpocki csoft 06pase4-~~flobpofle~e~ta, He XenaeT nH oHa OTKa3aTbCSï OT CTOJib B~ICOKO~OCT~B~~KHO~flOIIXHOCM (CKâpne'IT, 409-410), 'So, ask your model ofvirtue, whether she'd like to refiise such a high-rank duty' R: Ymepwan, wo ... ece OHH go Pa@amn mcai He c@rypsi, a cenefln-~, (Toronb, 45 l-452), 'He claimed, that dl of them before Raphaei painted not figures*but hemngs' R: OHH 3âMaXHyJIACb Ha 3a~~pauiHidineHb HaYKH - Ha HâUY CMeHy, Ha ~ono~b~eYMM-N~ (Aymee, Benbie onexqsi, 25), 'They rose up threateningly against the fùture of science. against our successon, agains young minds' R: OHHYBOJIHnH Mew fïOTOMy, sT0 He XOTeJïH 6onbue EiMeTb T~KOA 6n~~e~Ib~blhrna3*~,-,,,, y ceb non HOCOU (example fiom Boguslawski, Karolak 1973: 61) 'They fired me because they no longer wanted to have such a watchful eye under their nose. ' Analysis of examples fiom this group suggests that the accusative-nominative syncretism is used in cases where the narrator's deiiberate emotional distance fkom the object is present in an attempt to appear objective. 4.3.3.2.2.2. Inanimate Nouns Refemng to Animate Objects - the Accusativc- Genitive Syncntism Al1 examples for this type are taken from Pycc~aaaqwa~ma(1980: 464): R: Hameru nreurKa 06~mym'theydeceived our clumsy clot (lit. sack)'. B îmro dy6a (nurn)mvero HeBTonqem 'it is impossible to teach that dunce anything ' (lit. 'it is impossible to beat anything into that oak (stump)'), ~~wa3mromaporo KonnaKa.,, '1 saw that old fooi' (lit. '1 saw that old cap'), mcro T~@IK~~~'[I saw] that sluggish man' (lit. 'that sack Ued with straw'). Although the situation is very similar to that in the preceding class of examples -- the animate object is referred to by the noun that stresses the object's most prominent characteristic (typical for inanimate objects), the accusative-genitive syncretism suggests a different attitude towards the object. Al1 examples that illustrate the second class involve (usually negative) emotions towards the referents. 4.3.3.2.3. Aaimate Nouns Referring to Inanimate Objects There are sirnilarities between the previous group of examples and this one. In both instances the object is presented as bearer of the most prominent feature inherent to the referent of the noun used as the base for the metaphor. When an animate noun refers to an inanimate object, however, the accusaiive-genitive form is used. I do not belive that this is a result of the "predominance" of the feature "animacy" over "inanirna~~,"~' because there are signals in al1 the examples that point to the usage of the accusative form as marking the atypicaiity of objects. Among the most often mentioned nouns in this category are names for playing cards, chess pieces, some dances, kinds of hits (blows), etc. (See, for example, Lepissier [1964: 1361; Stankiewicz [l986: 129-1301; Mindak [1990: 63-64];Klajn [1991: 1 191): R: R euen KaK TM ... ~OCTMce6e ... macoeoro ~y3a--! (ZI~XOB, Cpew..., 153), '1 saw that you took the ace ofspies' *'We have seen that it is rather the real-Me status of the object that determines the accusative fonn of the noun. R: 6bin eue B KooMHaTe ... rpo~~e~vepwig iwmqe, ~epxau@4 B npaeol nane uiamaworo KOHR- (Eynrame, 246)' 'in the room there was a huge black tomcat, which was holding in his right paw a chess knight' R: ir ecnH CJI)WHTCR yameTb 3TâK K~KO~O-HA~Y~~Y~HOBO~O KOpO4S~ (Toronb, 36). 'and if one happens to see a king of diamonds' R: a aK0 Ce ReCA fia BmTâKO HeKOï MaKOBOi' Kmé#-m (IIPeB., 48-49), 'and if it happens that 1 see a king of dzu?nondP' S: flawamoeah je ocsojiro naMy 3a Tmza~- Gopba, 25.1 1.1991. 16). 'DamljanoviC took a queen by sacrifishg his rook S: Jemo epeMe MM crpaxoBao Kan je ra~acrasso noBgawocn Ha fl (Ilofimma elcnpec, 18.1 1.1991, 2 l), '1 had my feus when Gata put his bishop on c7' but also: S: Ha ~pajybe~o 06jaeu~n H "~ro~ep-,,", KO~HMoxeTe yno~pe6~~~ (60p6a. 7.12.1992, 23) 'At the end we will print a joker that you can use.' The last example with the joker in the accusative-nominative fonn can be explained as a correctly used fonn outside the context of the card game, which is the case in my example. The animate tom is most often used during the process of playing of a garne (S: UoKepa~~,'to get a joker, ' ~36m~uoKepaAaOai 'to throw out a joker'etc. ), where the inanimate objects are perceived as having charactenstics typical of the animate ones. Some writers of grammars and handbooks on the Russian language note also the anirnate fonn for the billiard ball in the context of garne, while the inanimate fom is used elsewhere: R: nmomr~bcremoro (roapa)-Ocn B ny3~'to put the green bal1 to the biîhard-pocket' (Wade [ 1992:48]) vs. Manb Y= ~3mHOBH& mapWNam'Boy took a new ball. ' Names for folk damesn such as ~oaavoar,rona4 qpeney nrno~e.3etc. in Russian, Polish, Bielorussian and some other Slavic languagesz are considered to be included in the range of the category of animacy, but not, by contrast, in sehimu R: Ho yxe OH npoTaweean Ha uraey ~osaq~ii~ccg~ai(Toronb, 133), C: krr~OH je eeii KpacHo omnecao KO~~YOK~N,(IIpee., C~pama ocBeTa, 6), 'but he already danced kozaak beautifully. ' R: qm He AepHyn ... ~OCHKOMTpoaaKa-a, (rorom, 427), C: y~anomije, oHaKo 60c, saarpao ... Tpel;raK-~, ... (npee., C~pairma ocseTa, 16 1), 'he almost struck up a tropok barefoot.' As the examples show, the accusative-nominative syncretism is used in such cases in Croatian and in Serbian. However, there are some examples where the accusative- genitive fonn is used for some other songs and dances: S: Eehapr(ahFo, tieK HaM ce~pajy(IIe~posHii, 46) 'Let them play bedmc for us' S: CBH~~THCB~TOB~~W- (Gonan-Premk's example fiom Vuk Karadfidis Pje VHHK( 1 97 1 : 22) 'to play a wedding song. ' Mindak (1990: 42) thinks that the accusative-genitive fonn in such cases is the result of perceiving narnes for dances and songs as personai nouns: "nmwy ta&& csy gier to jakby ~woiéierotumiane imiona wlbsne, a te rhvnieiw modelu Silversteina rajmuj~wysokp pozycjg w hierarchii iywohioki." Mindak's explanation is not inconsistent with our hypothesis that the accusative-genitive syncretism is to be used when an object cm be singled out, or isolated, or contrasted with other similar ones (fkom other 22 There are also some examples of non-folk dances in the animate fonn (cf substandard Bielorussian Maprua - see Mindak 1990,64). " See Mindak (1990: 64-65), Stankiewicz (1986: 129-130). 24 Some researchers, however, consider the animate form of the accusative as being actuaiiy the genitive case: "B npacnaemcïcosa msi~epomenb~biti naex yno~pe6nmcneue npa npynix rnaronax, Hanp. Manopyc. îpa~~o ma, CK~U TpenaKa H np." (TOMCOH1908b, 298). dances, in this case), because that is exactly what a proper noun does. Since proper nouns are not typicall y given to inanimate objects (except in toponyms, etc.), the accusative- genitive fonn signals the object's atypicality. The following examples also illustrate this principle: (1) S: Y A~epwpa4H A he~apecnep, acrpoHoM ~ojaje y ceekolpy OT~HOjea~y MOH~YOJH~ crpy~~ypy, T~KO~B~HO~ Bens~or ryTa va- (Eaoap, 22.1 1.1991, 17) 'In the United States works also Allan Dressler, an astronomer who discovered a monstruous structure in space, the so-called Great Swdower' (2) S: ~onajybija~y ~oja he UITHT~C~paxapa-~ [tetrahedron] (KnapK 70) 'digging a pit which will protect the Guard.' In these exarnples the inanimate object is given a proper name based on the most prominent feature it has; since it is not typical of inanimate objects not only to have a proper narne, but also to be capable of eating or guarding, they are singled out as unusual, i.e. atypical by the use of the accusative-genitive syncretism. 4.3.3.3. Conclusion The fact that a noun that functions as the object in a sentence is used with metaphorical meaning necessanly involves a perception of the object as highly individuated and referential. It is most ofien the case that an inanimate noun is used to descnbe an animate referent, and it is marked with the accusative-genitive syncretism. However, there are also cases where the deliberate usage of the accusative-nominative form for animate objects suggests their similarity to inanimate objects by stressing the lack of emotional attachment to them. nierefore, ifa referentidy animate object is marked with the accusative-nominative syncretism in metaphorical meanin& it is to be perceived not as important by virtue of being animate, but only as a "physicaî" bearer of the f'eature, which is not enough to be conceived as "animate to the fidl extent." It seems that the speaker's choice of the accusative-nominative form for animate referents voids their usual real-life status marking in cases when hdshe wants to show their inclifference towards the object (this is characteristic for al1 "normal" typical objects, which are regularly marked with the accusative-nominative form). On the other hand, the accusative-genitive syncreiism is to be considered regular in ail cases when an object (regardless of its real-life status) takes part in metaphorical constructions, because it is necessarily singled out (and therefore marked as an "atypical object") by Wtue of taking part in cornparison. 4.3.4. Non-Metaphorîcd Usage of Lexemw Prcscnted as Homoaymous in Dictionaries The only exarnples where homonymous lexemes found in the corpus were presented as homonymous in dictionanes (although not in both languages) were Serbian and Russian pa~and Russian MypauIm (~ypal~~~a). S: PAK - 1. ooon. a. H~~HB3a paoie monmeas aeroaMeHor paopena [...] 2. Men. Temica oonecr, ~ojao6yma~a pame epcre ManHrHRx TyMopa, carcinoma, cancer [etc. ] R: PAK 1 noicpmoe nalrwipeu, npecHoeoRHoe i~n~MopcKoe XHBOTHOe C KJIelIIHIlMH H ~PK)LUKOM,Ha3blBaeMblM 06b1q~0u1eeKoB R: P AK il pog 3no~arierne~~oiionyxonn S: aeqa cy ynowna panrab*, R: flem noh~an~paKa -h, 'The children caught a crayfish' R: He 6pe~~e,rp-amni npo$eccop, - npouierrran 6yCpe~w~,- YMOJIlno - OCI'aHOBHTe pûK-~, (~~~MKoB.2w), C:He~oj~e npe3irpa~ti, rpa$aKKHe npoaecope - npouiarrrao je bciae~~~ja- Monm Bac, cnp~jewi~epahN,! (npee., 228). 'Don't be squeamish, citizen Professor, - whispered the barman, - please stop the cancer! ' R: MYPAlIIKA (npocr.) enK Ki dl aiypaeeil, a Taue ~oo6weeclotan 6y~ama R: MYPAIICKkl (en. biypauora) nym~pb~irma,noaenmupiecn Ha Koxe OT xonoqa, 03~06a R: Kmma BeCb AeHb JI0BHJIE.l M'pâfUeK~~c,~ 'The kittens were hunting insects aü day.' R: Vysmyn rrypam.-~mi(pl)B CII~IH~, +BHRHP~KTOP ~XIO~HJITPY~KY (Eynrauoe, 152). 'Feeling goosebumps on his back, the financial director hung up.' As in the case of non-metaphorical usage of polysemous lexemes, the semantically correct marking is typicd: referentially animate objects have the accusetive-genitive forni, referentidy inanimate objects have the accusative-nominative forni. 4.3.5. Variation in Form of the Accusative in Polysemous Lcxema Usd Non- Metaphoricaiiy Although the principle of marking an animate object with the semantically appropriate form of the accusative predominates, it does not mean that there are no exceptions. i have found several of them in my corpus: (1) R: Ta~oea6bina qpasa, c~a3amanme Ha ceaHce Cmosoft, AYXb~om KOTOpOïO HaM YfiaJiOCb Bbi3BaTb (%XOB, Cpefl~..., 180) 'That was the phrase told to me at the séance by Spinosa, whose spirit we had succeded in calling forth' The anirnate fom is usually used in this meaning; it is unclear why the author has chosen the inanimate one. (2) S: Jïau je sa~eoaoenjre Ha nocrpojy "&n~a-nna~a,"KaKo je ~amao ceor MoTopBor wajaha, (n3, 1.3.1991, 14). 'Laci was fastening screws on the body of his "Delta-plan" - that was the name of his motor kite.' The accusative-genitive fom of this noun is still frequent, possibly because the object with that name looks like the animate object to which it refers? In addition, the usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism here is similar to that which occun with names for other vehicles and vessels, towards which owners usually have strong positive feelings. However, there are also examples of semantically "more appropriate" marking of the inanimate fom (cf. &er the entry 3MAJ). It is possible that the accusative-nominative fonn is more fiequent among persons that use the objea as a flying device, but it is slül 23 3"ajis also a type of a toy, and it is usual for tors which look like animate beings to keep the accusative-genitive syncretism. not stylisticaiiy marked as a professionalism. 1 have not found the accusative-nominative forms for the Russian word weB, nor were the inte~ewednative speakers able to either c0nfh-m or reject such examples with certainty. 4.3.1988.47). 'In the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark" Indiana Jones is tryVlg to take a golden id01 from a Stone crypt.' In the meaning "a statue of a god," according to the prescriptive rules of the category of animacy, the accusative-nominative form should have been used. There are nvo possible explanations for the choice of the accusative-genitive syncretism in example (3): it is either another case where marking of an atypical object is involved, which is suggested by the narrative context (the idol is an object that is very important for the hero, it is often in the focus of action, and therefore atypical), or it is an example of analogy to the "animate part" of the meaning of a polysemous lexeme. However, this second view would mean that we have a double "(de)semantizationy'of the accusative form under the influence of the category of animacy: according to dictiondes, the first given (Le. basic) meaning is inanimate, which is confirmed by the accusative-nominative syncretism, while the second one is derived by metaphor, and has a semantically adequate form of the accusative (i. e. the accusative-genitive syncretism). (4) S: Ao6asHiiy je38~OR Ta~apa,Eau ~e3manon iuaTop RoHeTA '1 will get a Tatar prisoner, and bring him tied up to the tent.' The form of the noun is inanimate. However, the fom of the corresponding participle is animate (~e3ma,not Be-, and this suggest that the inanimate form, which is one syllable shoner than the animate one, was chosen for metric purposes (i.e., to conform to the "nece~e&' - a traditional ten-syllable metre). 4.3.6. The Leseme Robot The lexeme robot exibits variable accusative case marking, dependhg on the genre in which it appears. This is typical for both Russian and Serbian. IckoviE (1980: 90-91) has concluded that the accusative-genitive syncretism is typical of science-fiction and joumalism, explaining that robots were invented as humanoids C'qy~amweH roBopm@feveno~e~o~bbze CY;C~~CTB#), and therefore they acquired the animate form first. Later, when machines developed to replace human labour came into wider use, and when the noun ~060~becarne a technical temi, the accusative-nominative form for a specific domain (electronics, robotics, etc.) became typical and the use of this form is now marked as a professionalism. The same pertains to Serbian. AU the examples that 1 have found in science-fiction and joumalism have the accusative-genitive, and those from technical literature have the accusative-nominative forrn: (ACHMOB,291, 'Feeling helpless, Derrick let the robot go' S: 3a no~pe6esaxHor enanwior npojeu~aap Eea CHMOHCje Hanpasma pobo~a~~,COltCTBeHOC ~BD~HHK~(n3,6.3.1992, SS), 'For an important govementai project Dr E. S. made a robot - her own double' S: ~a6aem~cy je~refia-pobo~a-~ ~ojil Mpna rnaeoM ri penoM (n3, 13.9.1991,2); 'They acquired a deer-robot which moves his head and tail' S: CAHK~34 ltp~~a3yje THIIWIaH CZlBpeMeHH ~DWCT~~(~CKHPO~OT-~~ 'Picture #34 shows a typical modem industriai robot with vertical .. . contiguration' S: Ha TeMemy ROK~~HO~~a~eplijana HCK~CHH crpytmaw Hanpasanli cy @oTo-#Ju~oT-~~y6oj~~e (Kishoq 98) 'On the basis of the evidence, experienced specialists made a photo-robot of the ùiller. The Iast exmple (qbo~o-po6oflhas the accusative-nominative fom not because of the influence of professional style, but because the object it names is referentially inanimate, i.e. it is a picture. 4.3.7. Metaphon - Conpound Words Metaphors - compound wordslconstructions, that consist of one animate and one inanimate word, and refer to inanimate objects occur both in Serbian and Russian: S: Jen~oBeiie m ce TaKo mmna y ulsrrry-#a~~o~a~~pe6a sanore~upewmiqokc. (Kanop, cPoniipa~~i~,14), 'So one evening it appears to me that that phantom-book should begin with a sentence' S: Ta~aeTeKcr. nawe ... (06enem~um~e~m-yme3a~op~~ upeemou sa ycse) nocnana je 6pa~yy npar (naeilh, 50), 'So, this tea . .. (having rnarked the text-intruder with lipstick) she sent to her brother in Prague' but in Russian: R: AK~R~MHK06e4âJI IIOnâTb ... copT-!?eM.~off-~~,KOTOPLI& 6e3 CJIOB 6yae~~~pOBaTb 3â COBeTCKyK) BnâCi'b (nynme~,hlbie ORemI,427) 'The academician promissed to give a sort-champion, which will without any words propagandk the Soviet systern.' Gvozdev ( 1955 : 152) treats such cases as problematic: "wenoe~oc~a3a~b: YIIOT~~~HT~+op~y: y~~gen ropo,q-repolpbGCIl" He also suggests avoiding both inanimate forms such as Bcmoe HexeMoKpeTmecmeracynpçTBo ~em6èmo npeBpwaeTcH B rocyJapcTBo-arpeccop*~~ (Gvozdev's example). In Serbian it is also more usual for the animate noun to corne second in the compound word and it govems the accusative-genitive syncretism of the compound. 4.3.8. Conclusion On the basis of the occurrence of vacillating accusative assignment for both non- polysemous and polysemous and homonymous lexemes it is possible to conclude that the semantic factor (i.e. the real-life status of the object) prevails in neutral (non-emphatic) contexts and situations, while the accusative-genitive syncretism for inanimates and the accusative-nominative syncretism for animates is more typical for styles that more explicitely reflect the speaker's involvement and attitude towards the object (cf examples for metaphor and metonymy). The accusative-nominative form suggests the lack of emotional attachent to the object in a particular situation, and the accusative-genitive form suggests hidher more engaged attitude towards it (which is not chmcteristic for typical objects). In addition, there are no difrences in the choice of the accusative form for words iisted as homonyms or polysemous lexemes, because the semantically correct marking in non-emphatic, stylisticaily neutral texts is predominant. Ln cases of professionalisms, it is the narrowed semantic range of the noun in such a context that reinforces the correct marking of the noun with the accusative-nominative form. 4.4. Variation Caused by Discrepancy Between the Animacy Status of the Proper Name and the Status of Its Refereot 4.4.1 Introduction The third class of exceptions to the general rule of marking a referentially animate and inanimate object with the corresponding form of the accusative involves problems caused by a discrepancy between the animacy status of the proper narne and the status of its referent, such as when the name originally was used to denote an animate object, but now it is the name of a referentially inanimate one. Therefore, it is quite different fiom the first class of problems, as variation is not caused by uncertainty regarding the real-life status of the objea, but it is similar to the second class, where variation was the result of the existence of nouns that could refer both to the animate and hanimate objects. However, in the latter class al1 exarnples were cornmon nouns, while in this class it is proper nouns that are in question. This necesdy involves the notion of atypicality of objects since name-giving is the ultimate means of distinguishing an object fiom other similar ones. At the same time this is also an act of foregrounding, since referentially inanimate (i.e. typical) objects are usually not referred to by a personal narne. According to the hypothesis on the marking of non-prototypical objects with the accusative-genitive syncretism, nouns that belong to this class of exarnples should have that fom. Contrary to the usuai effect of the dore mentioned factors, however, the expected accusative-genitive form is muent only in cases where the noun is used to denote a referentidy inanimate object that is not widely recognised as su~h.~~ As the analysis of the corpus shows, the more aware the language comrnunity is of the real-life status of the object, the more readily they apply the semantically appropriate accusative form, regardless of the animacy status of the "original bearer." 4.4.2. Toponyms, Astronyms, etc. Older Russian grammars mention the possibility of the accusative-genitive syncretism of names for stars. planets etc. (see Vinogradov [1947: 901). More recent grammars as well as data fiom my corpus tell us that the accusative-nominative form is more usual (in fact, it is the only one that is being used in the contemporary language). There is also no variation in the form of the accusative in cases of astronyrns and toponyms in Serbian: it is a rule to use the accusative-nominative syncretism regardless of the origin of the name," for exarnple: Ncxpe~ce6e BHAHMO 3pe~ia~~~~~~Jamy T~~i/lii~~,,K~~~~HWHHK-~~, BBT~~~~~,CB~TB CT~@~H*~~ etc. 'III front of us we see Zrenjanin, Ma Tomid, Krajihik, Vitez, Sveti Stefan.' The lack of irregularities (i.e. the accusative-genitive marking) in this class is most probably related to the frequency of usage and speakers's certainty regarding the inanimate aatus of the object. 26 And the majority of the language community does not have the information on the real- life status of the object. " A sumame, a fûll narne, two comrnon nouns denoting humans, a saint's name (in that order). 4.4.3. Nouas - Names for Sports Teams Judging by the number of references. it seems that one of the most conspicuous and reoccumng problems for both linguists who describe and prescribe language usage in Serbian is the problem of the accusative form of names for sports teams. It is mentioned in virtually every gramrnar that includes a description of the category of animacy, and many articles on correct language usage are devoted to this subject, always in comection with the mimacy marking. Nevertheless, it is rather difficult to find examples with the name of a team in the accusative, especially h written fonn; when it is necessary to employ that construction, the journalistslreporters most often use nicknames of the tearn (in plural), apparently avoiding the problem with the choice of the accusative fonn. However, I found several examples with the accusative-genitive syncretism: S: Y npeoM Kony ... Bojeoma je caanaxana A~aflewa~~(3p., 8.11.1991, 24) 'In the first round . . . VojvodiM defeated Akademac' S: Oeor nyTa no6e~put~cy ~afff~ff.a-~(AH~B.,25.11.1991.22) 'This time they defeated MaJnac' S: Py~o~e~arn~qenpone~epa . . . cy caanaxane flo~akerPa,qmr~a~~ (3p.. 8.1 1.1991, 24). Fieldball players for Proleter . .. defeated the home team Ra&k' S: H~cyycnem na saycraee . .. Xeme3~svapa~~~3 HOBO~ Cana (ibid., 23) 'They did not succeed in stopping . . . Zrljzrniiair from Novi Sad. It is a fact that difXerent reference books and grammars do note the coexistence of two accusative forms, but recommend (implicitly or expücitly) only one of thern, often without an explanation. Dudid (198 1: 86), as well as Badet al. (1979: 7 1-72), for example, fim list cases with Acc=Gen (H~B~~M3a nap~ma~a~, Xaj/l~~a--, 6:0pqa~~'1 roof for Partizan, Hajduk, Borac') and only ater that Stevanovif ( 198 1: 19 1) does the opposite. Since there are two contradictory sides, representatives of which are recognised as erninent ünguists and descnptionists/prescnptionistsof the language, is it the case that we have 6ee distribution? More detailed research suggests three possible factors for the choice of accusative. Some scholars include the presence of a preposition as a criterion for the selection of the fom (see Klajn [199 1: 1 181, Karadb-Gari6 [1979: 293]), asserting that the accusative-nominative syncretism is more ofien used after prepositions,28while both foms are ailowed without a preposition. However, Karadh-Garid is more exclusive in her conclusion that if there is a preposition before an originally animate noun, the accusative always equals nominative, without exception. Nevertheless, only a few lines separate this statement fiom an example found in a journal, that she cites herself "na ve6a Ra pa.ryea Ha Xerne3~svapa~~~~~H nap~ma~a-~" Accm 'that he has to count on Seljezniear and Partiran' (Mane Hoetme, 25.2.1974) (KaradZa-Ga& 1979: 293). Klajn (op.cit., 1 18) stresses the importance of the semantic factor (i.e. the knowledge of the real-life status of the object after which the club was named) as the main criterion for the ch~ice,~and this can be relevant in some cases, but not in di. There are a large number of tearns in Serbia (and in countries which were republics in former Yugoslavia) that are named after human beings. However, some of them were named der lesser known penons or lesser known toponyms. That is, people from one part of the country do know that Leotar and VeieZ are mountains, and Maribor is a city, or some people do know that Spartak was a human being, but not necessarily al1 language users do. This could, perhaps, be a factor in explaining of cases such as: S: upiio-6en~cy carmafiam Cnap~ax--~, (Ilon.e~.,18.1 1.199 1,24), 'The '7Blackund-~httes"defeated Sparak (= person)' S : 3eesaa no~eaeBenemrak-, a Omkcwja Mapi6opawGen (P-o- Capajeeo, 5.9.1973) (example from Karad&&arid 1979: 294) 'Zvesda is awaiting Velel (= mountain), and OIïmpija Maribor (=city)' 28 See also pp. 101-2 of the present paper for the apposition explanation, which can also pertain to this. 29 He also uses this explanation for variations in names of car makes (ibidem). S: Bojeonmia je jpe noBema I7en~mepa~~ca 1:O (AH~B., 25.1 i.i99i, 24) 'Vojvodina defeat ed Pelister (=mountain) yest erday ' etc. On the other hand, the accusative constructions where such names are used, in the majority of cases not only involve nouns marked as animate, but also are composed of a limited number of transitive verbs whose arguments are usuaîiy animate: S: nobe~, nopa3m~,Ha,g.IpaTTY. H~~~TII3a 'to wh, defeat, outpîay, root for.' The analogy with constructions with both animate arguments could serve as an explanation for the unexpected usage of constmctions such as: S: nâp~Si3a~n06~jem0 /yrak, 113 ~Y~POBHRK~(OUI., 24.7.1973) (example €tom Karad&-Gari6 1979: 294). 'Partizar~defeated Jug (=South) from Dubrovnik' S: Casnananii cy nameeawcor ,@ma~a-~, 'They defeated Dinamo (=Dynamo) from Paneevo,' where the inanimate status of the noun cannot be a relevant factor in the choice of the accusative-genitive syncretism. However, there are quite a large number of examples where the accusative- nominative fonn is used for a name originally denoting a human being: S : Haa~rpamicy P~~HHK~~,~3 XIII,IH~(Ocn., 23.9.1973) (example from KaradZa-Gari6 1979: 293), 'They outplayed Rahik (=Worker) fiom HadMi' S: Mnanii ~anyui~ajyMop~ap-~, (Besepisii niicr, 3. H 4.1 1.1973) (ibid.), 'Young playen are leaving Momar (=Sailor)' S: carnanana je R&~TH~~H*-~,(Be.rep%e HoeuHe, 29.3.1974) (ibid.), 'defeat ed Purtizan (=Partisan)' S: nopa3m~cy npone~ep~~,(TB flHeBHHK, Capajeeo, 7.4.1972) (ibid.) S: J~AHHCTBOje carnanano 3a,ipyrapkN,,,,,(3p., 7.2.1992,22). 'Jedinstvo defeated Zadnrgar (=rnember of a cooperative). The choice of the accusative-nominative form is rnost probably motivated by the existence of an underlying const niction "@~A~~~cKH/o~~~o~K~Lc~YcI/~ourap~- etc. my6... " 'a soccer/volleybail/basketbaîi team', where the name of the team is in apposition, and not the object. Therefore, the real-life status of the noun is irrelevant, because ody nouns that are objects are marked as animate or inanimate. This could be an explmation not only for these forms, but also for cases with prepositions, which are classified as a separate group in some of the grammars. The authors most often have in mind constructions of the Hmq*a~3a . . . 'I cheer for' type, which can easily be transfomed (and understood as) "Hww3a 9y776ancm /O~K~LOKH/~oruap~arr~~w my6... ," '1 root for a soccer/volleybalybasketbaU team' where the name is also in apposition. Furthemiore, in a survey conducted with 40 younger native speakers of sehian,'' al1 of them chose the accusative-nominative form for the Ha!~ja.M3a ... constmction, regardless of the real-life status of the noun picked for the sports team narne (+pers, +anim, -anim). In addition, in a discussion &et the survey, some of them stated that they would mark the accusative-genitive form as stylisticdy les acceptable or less prestigious. Since grammars, which were written a couple of decades ago, give both vanants, and the younger generation (including rnyself) tends not to use the accusative-genitive syncretism in these cases, it is possible that in this context variation is being eliminated. 4.4.4. Nouns - Names for Vessels, Restaurants etc. A similar situation occun in cases when other inanimate objects are named after animate ones (often persans). Serbian grammars give the accusative-genitive syncretism as the only possible form when a ship bears a person's name: S : Ha np &ïnaHnmTyCMO RoseKanA "Bn~~~rrrpaHa30paAfpoen" (Dudid. op.cit.. 86), 'On the pier we greeted "Vlarimir Nc1zor"' S: Morn~me BHfleTH "E~T~M~PK~~~"KaKO iüIOBr! y npaiw jyra (Stevanovid, op.&., 19 1), 'You could see the "BisnarK' sailing to the south,' 30 There were twenty-two high-school students from Zrenjanin and eighteen lu and 2* year snidents at the Department of Slavic laquages at the University of Novi Sad. while RoZkova (1987: 43) in a Russian grammar gives as possible both forms of the accusative: R: O6mene~anocanKa Ha "~OT~MKIIH-~,99 'Boarding on to the "Poternkin" was announced' 91 R: Bcrpe~an~B iiOpTy "C~JOB~~~ 'They met the "Sedov" in the harbour.' In my corpus fiom literary texts I have found an example of the accusative-genitive fonn in Russian, but the accusative-nominative in Croatian translation: R: Bca-, BXOHRU.@ B ~~H~u~~~oB~~~(E~M~KoB,58) 'Everyone entering "Griboedov" ' R: BCR& noceTnTen 6... , nonae B rpi6oe~o~a~~;,(ibid., 59) 'Each visitor .. . finding himself in "Griboedov"' vs: C: TKO614 ywao y rprrboje~o~~,. .. (Eynrarcoe, 59-60) 'Whoever would enter "Griboedov"' C: Csaa nocje~ruiaq. .. , flocnjeeuul y rpirboje~o~-~~(ibid., 60) 'Each visitor . . . having entered "ûriboedov."' These data and my wish to check the contemporary tendency in usage of the accusative form in such cases led to another survey with another group of students." This time 1 offered the construction Y- CMO BWMH 'In the harbour we saw'and a choice of both accusative forms for BJI~HMJ~JHamp, iTe~apBWHKH and rme6'Vladimir Nazor, Peter the Great and Sea gul1'- two personal and one animate noun - and asked the students to mark with " 1" the more preferred form, and with "2" the less preferred one. The second task was to give only the most preferred form for a transitive constr~ction~~with names of popular restaurants and cafës, marked as [+personal] (*Y, Pycxu gap, Kap&op& 'Plowman, Russian Tsar, Karadjordje') and [+animate] (3~aj IXLB~'Dragon, Rooster'). The results showed that there was virtualiy no dinetence in the accusative rnarking between names for these two classes of animate objects namely " They were the sarne ln and 2"6 year students âom the Department of Slavic languages (18), and 16 high-school audents from Zrenjanin (total is 34). " me construction was fec~n~vy~/'vyna ~aje m~ymro ... 'Have you heard that NN has bought .. . ?' personai and anhate. However, an interesting pattern emerged - the majonty of subjects used the accusative-genitive form for both ships and restaurants (18 for ships, 17 for restaurants), but in 16 cases (10 for restaurants, 6 for ships) they added the word "restaurant" or "ship" in front of the name and than used the latter in the nominative case; in the case with narnes of restaurants, 4 subjects used the accusative-nominative syncretism, and 8 did the same for the narne of ship. Two subjects did make a distinction between [+pers] and [-pers] nouns for the name of a ship, and marked the former with the accusative-genitive, and the latter with the accusative-nominative syncretism." Three persons used both fonns for the name of a restaurant without any obvious discrimination. Comparison of the results gives us an interesting picture; viz. although the majority of subjects did use the accusative-genitive form, almost the same number chose some other means when there was a contlict between the status of the object and its name (1 8: 16 for the name of a ship, 17: 17 for the name of a restaurant). This can be cortfïnned also by the fact that in situations when they are not being tested on the problem (which can be a factor that increases "hypercorrectness"), speakers tend to use the genitive construction with the preposition 40, which has the same rnear~ing,'~but avoids the "problematic" accusative marking. Compared to the examples where nouns usually denoting animate beings were used to refer to widely recognized inanimate objects, such as cities, toms, planets etc., and where there was virtually no variation, in nouns denoting relativelly less weU-known inanimate objects that are named after the animate ones (such as restaurants and vessels, for example) variation is more frequent. Although the a*. of naming itself should cause treating of objects as atypicai, the analysed material shows signs of an increased tendency towards marking of inanimate objects with the accusative-nominative syncretism. The fact 33 Regardless of the [+dm]marking of the noun. 34 Cf Stevanovid (1969, II, 280). Examples: kine~ono "B'a,"no "Opaw," 40 "3na~~6opa"'Let's get to (lit. up to) "Vuk," "Orai!," "Zlatihr.'" that it is most often the case that speakers avoid the accusative construction altogether suggests the possibility that speakers do not want to use the accusative-genitive syncretism in situations when it is obvious that the object is inanimate. 4.4.5. Nouns - Names For Car Typa and Makts Another class of exarnples that is mentioned not only in Serbian and Russian, but also in grammar and reference books on many other Slavic languages, is the class of names of car types and makes. The accusative-genitive syncretism is most ofien marked as colloquial, and is very fiequent in informa1 style.)' Dozens of exarnples for the accusative- genitive form in Serbian can be found in virtually every newspaper in the "Buy and Selr' section. This form predominates in the spoken language as well. The problem with this group of nouns, fiom the point of view of the category of animacy, is that there is very often a [-anim]/[-anim] correspondence between the status of the name and the referential status of the object, but the accusative nevertheless has the accusative-genitive fom. The semantic adequacy of the accusative-nominative form motivated Karadfa-Gari6 to label as "incorrect" al1 cases of different marking (see Karad&-Gand [ 1 979: 294]), and bot h she and Klajn tned to explain it as speakers's uncertainty regarding the real-life status of the name. However. this does not seem to be a satisfactory interpretation. Some of the car types and makes are indeed names or sumames of people (S: onen, op^, cmpoeH, nupwe 'Opel, Ford, Citroen, Porche'- examples from Klajn, op.cit., 1 18). but that is irrelevant in the case of Serbian, at least, because speakers most ofien are not aware of the 3 5 1 have found only one example ofthis type in my Russian corpus: Bb16eran MOCKBHY<~-TO.--? (lla~oea,119) 'Did you manage to get a Moskvif?'Russian reference books also mention the same name ofthe car type (OHnp~o6pen aM~~~~*Noc4"'He acquired a ''Moskvi~"' Cocem ~ymui~"Moc~~~va-" 'The neighboun bought a "Moskwit;'"- Rozkova, opcit., 42). Mindak (1 990: 64) gives the same example for Bielonissian. Lack of the examples in seconâary sources. however, made it impossible for me to see if they behave the same way (or similady) as their Serbian counterparts. names' origins (see Klajn, ibid.). Furthermore, there are some cases when an animate form is used for an abbreviation or a cornpound foreign word: S: npo~aje~. .. xay6y sa MY7-a-Gai (HH~B.,27.9.1992,26) 'For sale . .. hood for "GTL"' S: npo~aje~"n.x-anawm" (HH~B.,27.9.1992,25), 'For sale a '@pick-up,"' or, simüar to the cases with sports teams, for an obviously inanimate noun: S: ïïponaje~Jyra 45-Gm (Expo OrnacHHK, 12, November 199 1) 'For sale "Jugo 45"' =(/srgo is a south wind; it also could be interpreted as an abbreviation for "Yugoslav.") S: Ynyna~yMaTy 3a r~&a-~(non.e~.. 1 B. 1.199 1, 20) '1 waive payment for a GO&' Sometimes both foms are used in the same text, even in the sarne advertisement : ilponajeu "pe~o4 Tfl-Nom'' . .. xay6y sa rT/I-a&,, (AH~B.,27.9.1992, 26 ), 'For sale a "Renaul~4 TL" . .. hood for GTL.' and it is not a rare case that a speaker switches between them dunng a conversation. Since the explanation that included uncenainty regarding the animacy status of narnes for these objects does not seem to be correct, 1 sought other signals either on the syntactic or the pragmatic levels that would motivate the animate fom. The accusative- genitive fonn is admittedly colloquial, and it is often used when there is a nuance of emotional attachrnent to the carJ6 On the basis of my written corpus, transcribed dialogues and discussion with native speakers, 1 conclude that speakers are more prone to use the accusative-genitive syncretism when they are talking about a specinc car (most often, their own) and when 36 This is not so unusual, cf English persond pronoun skfor ships and cars. they single out one car for a special reason (ofien when they admire it). " The accusative- genitive syncretism occurs also in situations when the speaker compares a car with another one. The presence of modifiers, which serve to more narrowly describe a necessarily referential object, also seems to influence the speakers's choice of the accusative form. Ail these conditions point towards atypicality of objects as the main motivating force for the accusative-genitive syncretism and towards referentiality as the accompanying feature. Data fiom my corpus justie this: (1) S: EHTOHHnap~c .. . epno noHocHo HaM je nora3ii~aocmr "6e&~op/1a-~"(PZ, 30.8.1991, 14) 'Anthony Parks showed us very proudly his "Bedford" (2) S: Eeponcui ~maw3amy6mn cy ce y "najepa-,; (n3,s.1.1990, 17) European dnvers fa11 in love with "Puillero"' (3) S: Kmorm-aACCeGcn BO~H! (fiom a conversation; expression of admiration). 'What a BWhe drives!' (4) S: Hajs~luece, HapaeHo, Kpally 6omu ay~o~o6m~:"ron@oe~", "onend', ''~ep~e~ec~.""r~n@a~~" je ~ajname yKpanH (HMH, 7.8.1992, 33) 'Most often, of course, bener cars are stolen: Golf; Opel, Mercedes. tt is easiest to aeal a Golf (5) S: Kpos Rsa RaHa OBKX neT ay~o~o6~na.. . ~pe6a Ra cpyure H~~O~~/IHBO~"~opiweaACFOrn" . .. , a He ~pe6a3860~38~~~ HH "Mep~e#echNm"(n3, 10.6.1988, 16) 'In two days these five cars . .. have to overthrow the invincible "Porche,"and one should not forget about "Mercedes" either.' (6) C: rnepaj~ena nmeTe o~ornna~or~~~~a~a--~"!(Kishon, 19) 'Do your best to catch up to that blue "Fiat"' (7) S: BHR~THH~KO~" ~mrepa-~" npaea je nomm (n3,1 1.S. 1990, 8). 'It is a real accomplishment to see a "Tucker."' . - 37 Emotional attachent seems to be a factor in the choice of the accusative-genitive syncretisrn even for a radio (note that Kmajis name of a mountain): Oua ao6m( a cmpor Kocuajabso .. .3a nffmy yno~pe6y(Kanop, Xej .. . 13) 'Then 1 received also the old Kosnaj for my personal use.' The first three examples contain lexemes that explicitly express the presence of emotional attachent to the car. ln (4) it is comparison with other cars that singles out one specinc type, while in (5) there are two factors that could have infiuenced the accusative-genitive syncretism: the object is compared with ot her cars, and the adjective shows that there is a non-neutral attitude towards it. Since there is another type of car mentioned in the sentence, and it is also being compared, but it has the accusative- nominative form (Mepqe~eg.my assumption is that the accusative-genitive syncretism for the first object is a result of the speaker's subjective feelings towards that specific type, while the accusative-nominative for the second object signds his "more objective" attitude. In (6) there is no emotional attachent to the car it is foregrounded from al1 other cars present in the situation by the use of a demonstrative pronoun and an adjective, in addition to the make of the car; it is undoubtedly referential The use of the accusative- genitive syncretism in (7) is caused by the implicitly present comparison with al1 other car types that are not as rare as this one. In addition, the presence of indefinite pronoun H~KH confirms that it is not the referentiality of a specific car that caused the accusative-genitive Use of the accusative-genitive syncretism in cases when objects are compared is not rare. Cf. the following examples where there are no specific names of car types, but there are nouns refering to the most general types: in example (8) below it is the "regular fuei" engine which is compared to the new one. and in the example (9) it is a two-wheel vehicle (bicycle) that is compared to al1 "not-two-wheelers:" (8) S: 3a~oje H ~Rje~~ynasecr na je (10) S: Ta~asapcenan y3 Hamer LbOpnaAcrGai"6140 je - ~e~ae~.(n3, 5.8.1988, 14) 'Such an arsenal near our "Orao" (=Eagle) was unseen' (1 1) S: na^ ~acmje,nmeh ca UOHOMrpaj~epo~, o6op~0 je "anba~poca~&'(n3.27.4.1990, 16). 'One day later, while flying with John Gridet, he shot dom an "Albatrosd" ( 12) S: 3~amna he Ra WH "Jaryapa,rm?' (nom a conversation) 'Do you know that he will buy a "Jaguar?"' It is interesthg that a change of the accusative form in the sentence (10) would result in dubious acceptability: S: 7Tauae apcettan y3 Haiu "OpaobNm9' 6iio je - ~eetdjetr. even if we add the words "~BHOHTH&' in front of "Opao," so that "Opad' is in apposition (cf examples with nouns for sports teams, where the "inanimate" form, i.e., the nominative, is preferred), the resulting sentence it is still felt as being somewhat This is probably a result of the [+emotionai] marking of the whoie sentence, which is expressed by a persona1 pronoun and the choice of the adjective. Speakers "fd7that the accusative-genitive form is more appropriate in such a situation. Similar reasoning can be applied to the third sentence. Since the whole conversation was in an informal tone, the accusative-nominative fom (with or without the word "ay~o(~o6m)")would be felt as hypercorrectness for this style and therefore somewhat inappropriate. On the other hand, the same test would not give the same muking [+emotional] for the second sentence, where we also had a narne for a bird used to denote a plane: S: fla~~acmje, neTeh Ca UOHOMrpaj~epo~. o6opiio je b b an6a~poc-~,." (n3,27.4.1990, 16) 'One day later, while flying with John Grider, he shot down an "Alktrosd" S: na~~acmje, ne~eîw ca UOHOMi'paj~epo~, o6op~o je amoH (THII~) "an6a~poc." The accusative-genitive in the sentence (1 1) @. 109) is a result of an impiicitly present cornparison (it was "an6a7poq" and not some other type of plane). The non- markedness of the accusative-nominative fom (when the accusative-genitive is changed) is to be explained here as due to the influence of the more matter-of-fact tone of the sentence. 4.4.6. Nouns - Names of Other Objects Authors of grammars usually distinguish two classes of examples when other objects (i.e. not cars. vessels, restaurants and sports teams) are named afier a living thing. The first class consists of inanimate objects that bear a person's narne (usually the inventor's name). if it has become a common noun as a result of common and fiequent usage, it always has the accusative-nominative form. In such cases the fdiliarity with the object's real-life status contributes to the adequate marking of the accusative, which was a dominant factor in rnarking of referentially animate beings also: ( 1 ) S: Kym~Cy PeffAreHh~,, 'They bought an X-ray machine' (2) S: Biixena cy qenenrM--~, (example from StanojEif et al., 1989: 73) 'They saw a zepplin.' If the word (name) for an object is not in fiequent use, there are alterations between foms, as is seen in the second class of examples: (3) S: BmRa hy m Mopam no~a3amLLne~n~n~a~". .. . ïipa~e npaeuam ayToMaTcim mom.(Kpacr~, 166), 'I see that 1'11 have to show you a Leopold .. . A real automatic pistol', (4) S: craelba Ha amy "Me~flenco~a~'~(Stradivarius's viobn) (n3. 8.3.1991, 40), 'he puts on auction a Mendefson' (5) R: B nea saca @enopMsa~osa~ nocran a3 ma@aceoero "copa ff3pc~~~''- nm6~~lb1fi cnopmm~b~tl I[BRaCa'IoK (Aymee, Eenaie onewm, w, 'At two o'clock Fedor Ivanovich took from the closet his Sir Percey - his favorite sports jacket' (6) R: C yTpa ~HTPLI~~Ane KC~~BH~ Hagen "#YH,~To~~~" - TâK ~aabieanOH CBO~~HOB~I~ qepmiR ~oçno~(~yJpï~ee, He xne6om eRHHbIM, 391), 'In the morning Drnitn Alexeevich put on Fudztor - as he called his new black suity but: (7) S: K~~HK~T~~Hc~Hnpwa3yjy llagepeec~or KaKo . . . ce omy.ryje 3a - 4 b me~~ej-~,,,,,"(n3, 8.9.1989, 43), 'Cartoonists show Paderewski choosing a Steinwqy' (8) S: M~KCUMwsy~eo "B~~epc~~," (n3,8.9.1992,64), 'Maxim invented " Vickers"' (9) S: Hawo~anmnpeeo3~~ Opa~wc~e, mnafuije, He~ar~eH CKaHflHHaBCKMX 3eMâJba . . . OCHOBâJIH Cy AM~W~'C-~,,a G~UT~HU~~, National camen fiom France, Spain, Germany and Scandinavian countries . . . founded Amadeus, and Bntain, Italy, Holland and Switzerland .. . a system which they named Galileo.' Similar to the examples with toponyms. nouns denoting exotic animals etc., here again variation is less fiequent when the speakers are certain whether the object is animate or inanimate. This can be another illustration of the general tendency for the system to move towards more obvious semantic transparency that includes adequate accusative The usage of the accusative-genitive in examples 3 -6 is followed by explanations that the objects are actuaily inanimate, and these explanations are present either in the sarne sentence (cf examples 5,6), or elsewhere in the context (examples 3'4). It is interesting that the same principle is used in examples 7-9,where again the speaker felt it necessary to explain that the objects are referentially inanimate. Bearing in mind that typical objects do not have proper names, which by definition foreground them. their marking with the accusative-genitive syncretism is expected; the use of the accusative- nominative syncretism for nouns (names) typical of humans is marking of the objects' less- then-human status, but it also had to be specified in the context (i.e. the atypical accusative-nominative syncretism signals that we do not have the referent with typical or expected characteristics). 4.4.7. Nouns - Names for Artistic Creations, Newspapm, Journais etc. Al1 Russian and Serbian grarnrnars state that aniinate names used in titles for artistic creations, newspapers etc. can have either the accusative-genitive or the accusative-nominative syncretism. In some Serbian grammars, however, a rule for the use of the accusative form in titles of nespapers and joumals was proposed. According to this de, a [-Pers] noun can have both forms, while a [+Pers] one can have only the accusative-nominative form (%T~M JexaAcoO, /JexbNom'1 read Jet (=Hedgehog);'npenncraea~3~aja~~ I3~aj~~~ 'l'm flipping through Znraj (=Dragon)' vs. npe~nnahe~cand Ha C~?~~M~HHK-~,'1 subscribe to Smmenik (=~ontern~orary)').~*Usage of the accusative-genitive form in cases where variation exias is becoming restricted to less forma1 situations, and the usage of the accusative- nominative predominates elsewhere. However, the fact that the tendency for the usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism is much stronger in constructions where a [+Pers] noun is used for the narnes of books, plays, operas, movies etc. than in constructions where titles of magazines and joumals are involved can be explained as the result of the existence of one specific referent &er which the book, opera, movie etc. is named, while in the case of naming a journal or 38 See, for example, Dudif, op.cit., 86. a newspaper this is usually not the case (cf Giedmn OcaAcccGaina shzbenorn putu 'I'm watching "menFather is Away on a Business Tri@" vs. Eitm Student-Nm 'I'm reading "7he student'' ') . 3g ln the case of titles for artistic creations, however, the accusative-nominative form irnplies that it is an apposition. In speech there is always a shon pause before the titie of the book or the movie. and in writing it is dways p~tedin a difFerent font or with quotation marks. Therefore, such examples are not a good illustration for the behaviour of the animacy markers (since the noun is a part of the underlying apposition, and not the object itself. where the animacy marker is supposed to appear). (1) S: CH mi rnenao O4a Ha c=ny~r6em~ny~p 'Have you seen ' When Father is Awuy on a Btcsiness Trip?' (2) S: Jecw na rnenao O~aqHa CXJYX~~HOMny~p = Jec~ nH rnenao o~a4Ha MYX~~HOMRYT~) 'Have you seen ' Whrn Father is Away on a BusinessTrip?' = 'Have you seen the movie 'When Futher is Away on a Business Trip?' (3) S: 4n~aoMM AOKTO~meara. '1 have read "Doctor Zhivago"' (4) S: ~HT~OCaM ~OKTOP ~I'o = %T~O CâM POMâH IOKTOP~YY;(B~Po, '1 have read "Doetor Zhivugo" = '1 have read the novel "Doctor Zhivugo" (5) S: npowi~aocaM focmapa npcTeHoBa. '1 have read "Lord of the Rings"' (6) S: ~I~OWT~OcaM focmap opmeHoBa. = npormao caM poMaH rocmap npmeoria. '1 have read "Lord of the Rings" = '1 have read the novei "Lord of the Rings."' In cases of magazines and journais, again, the recent inclination is towards the "referentially appropriate" marking, i.e. the accusative-nominative syncretism (see du di^, op.cit., 86, Stevanovid, op.&., 19 1, StanojEif et al. 1989: 73, RoZkova, op.&., 43). It is probabie that the language community's wide-spread knowledge about the real-Me status of the actual object (a newspaper, a journal) plays a predominant role in deciding what fonn of the accusative to employ: -- - 39 This solution was suggested to me by Prof Wayles Brome. cynpo~crae&ie paqmoeoncrBeHe go~a3e(Bop6a, 5.8.1992.9)' 'They will give counter-evidence based on their figures against the city's argument that it invested money in bbPant?evac"' (8) S: Ilo3ap~acy~o6a bel y xenH Caee3a cryneHaTa Eeorpana .. . Aa nog CBO~OMKOHTPOJIOM HMâjy '' CTY-T-~~'' (aopba, 22.4.1993,28), 'At the base of the conflia is the wish of the Students' union in Belgrade ... to have "Student' under their supervision' (9) S: Daj~eMH "3pe~ia~~~-~,,"MOAAM Bac, 'Give me "Zrenjanin," please' (10)S: Map~mce 3a~a~o~ornnopa3~~ilrmabe~ KaKo he hqce 3e~ H3HeHaRHTH . .. KaA OTBOPH ~CTP~EB~yaGcEtOea(~o~oH, 72), 'Martin was pleased thinking how his son-in-law would be surprised when he opens the "Explorer."' (1 1) R: BOTTonbKo uHorna nowraeuib "CHHo~evem~a~~," (îoronb, 1911, (12) C: Ca~orRjeuaa npogmaur "Cmo~e~em~a-'' (prev., 30), 'You can only sometimes read "Syn otefesnb' "Son of the Fatherland."' Note that both translations from Gogol' and London (in exarnples (10) and (12)) were published 35-40 years ago (London in 1956, Gogol' in 1965)' and these examples represent an earlier tendency in the accusative usage. In Russian the accusative-nominative form seems to predominate (cf. example (1 1) and Kymi~bKpo~oflif'n~~, 'to buy "Krokodii" (the only form Knikova [1966: 1781 gives as the accusative for names of journals, newspapers etc.). 4.4.8. Nouns Denoting Awards These nouns in Serbian stand apart from the preceding class because they tend to retain the accusative-genitive syncretism (although there are some counterexamples): S: Map~aKenep ao6~naje " +en~~~ca~~~."" @en~~ca~~"sa ci(e~orpat$~jy~06~0 je ... Mme~ Krna~oeAh WH, 4.12.1991, 13), 'Marta Keler won "Felix." "Felix" for the scenography was awarded to Miljen Kljakovid' S: naeh npewoxen sa "H06ena~~"(Eop6a, 13.8.1992, 18), 'Pavic has been nominated for the Nobel prize' S: Hoea npaema 3a "lder~rna~~~"(Henem~a Bop6a 3-4.10.1992, IO), 'New rules for the "Njegd" C: Meby~apom-a floRHjenar he .. . 3m~mnaea- jemohce on @imo~ay yxdesoj ~omypewja(Cesje~, 7.9.1990, 5 I), 'The international jury will award the "Zlatni lav" (=Golden lion) to one of the movies in the official competition' R: Bbl odnarae~ecbBO @pawyonapy, HaqennneTe Ha urem C~a~mza~a-~ecnH ~a~oeoti y eac wreeTcn (qexoe, Cpem... ,243), 'You put on your tailcoat, fasten on your 'bStmisiav," if you have it' but: S: Ha~oje Oc~ap~~,~06~0"cam" 3a opm~an~yvmy a sajdomy necMy ... (n3,15.1 1.1993, 12) 'Although it won an Oscar "only" for original music and the best score .. .' Further, in the same text, agreement points out that it is the accusative-nominative form that the writer consistently uses: S: Ma~omje ~06~0~aj~~,, eeh ,q')yra ma Oc~apa. . . (ibid.) 'Although it was not awarded that om,but two other Oscms.' A possible explanation for the accusative-genitive syncretism for the referentially inanimate objects, such as prizes, can be that they are not only singled out by having a name, but also represent one specific prize (i.e. one won an Oscar, not a Felix), or, perhaps, due to emotional impact of receiving. In either case, they are perceived as atypical objects and are correspondingly marked. On the other hand, the accusative- nominative syncretism, which also occurs, is to be explained as semantically justified marking of an inanimate object with the accusative-nominative syncretism. 4.4.9. Names for Punchea in Russian Nouns denoting names of punches, blows etc. stand apart fkom all other lexical groups not only for the virtual lack of variation in the form ofthe accusative (it is always in the accusative-genitive form), but also because of their significance for theoretical explanations concerning the category of animacy. They have been treated by scholars in connection with the semantics of the genitive case, and some researchers in fact consider them to be in the genitive case (see, for example Tomson [1908b: 2961). However, since I have found an irrefûtable accusative form in the same construction, I will treat ail of them as the accusative: R: RâJi 661 H ~Y~OT~IYHHY~(f,)II ~0~3aThMbHH..â-~~ (romllh, 293) 'he would give both a sock on the juw and a clip on the buck of the head.' The number of such nouns is quite large in Russian. In Serbian, however, sirnilar nouns are usually in the ferninine gender ( wpm,byuc~a etc.), and therefore do not participate in the opposition accusative-genitive syncretism vs. accusative-nominative syncretism. Some of the Russian exarnples ûom the corpus are: R: AiCâKHfi AK~KH~BHY'IYBCTBOBâII TOJIbKO, KBK ... flâna eMy RilHKab~~ KOJRHOM (roïoJIb, 490)' ' Akakij AkakieviE felt only that he got a kzck with a knee' R: A ~e6e,Ba~b~a, npocro n>nuKaAcoSoa,B sa~bino~ uieAyeT (Yexoe, Pacc~awH no~em,171), 'And as for you, Van'ka, you should simply get a wack to the back of the head' R: RâJl OH eMy JIeCOHbKOH, PyKOIO C7''CaUû-~ai B 3âTbInOK (roroJIb, SI), ' he gave him a light hir to the back of the head' R: OIIHTb eMy ~OJI~LIIHMllNIbQeM qenv~a-, (Toïonb, 424) 'he gave him again a hvack with his thumb.' As we have already seen, researchers that investigate numerous meanings of the genitive (sometimes in relation with the accusative) stress delimitations of time or the degree of the direct contact with the object as an imponant factor in the description of the ger~hive.~'Tomson exphcitly cites exampies of the JaTb Toaraa type in comection with the "incomplete contact with the object:" JO Cf. the ükrainian parallel where "the actiot~ifself becomes more pronounced and shows "quick movement and exenrtion" - (Shevelov [ 1963 :1681). cmicne MO~Onomam BO~HBKHOB~HH~: ''mm po30r: namK VMX. mm. q~u-~axy>' a np. (Tomson (19086: 294,296). It is also possible that the influence of the genitive constructions with the verb ~a~4~'which exist both in standard and substandard Russian, dso played a role: 'TIPHrnaronax. KaK 'fta~b","~3m", "nprmem", '%epna~b",'kymm", "nocna~b","cem", ''~ocra~b"H np. pon. n. yno~pe6nmcn... KorAa cavo fieiicrsse npeacrasnnnocb B ywasa~~ovwme cubicne K~K-HE~~R~ orpamuemmc ",@ .rne6a9',"ja#~oxma",cp. ",q& .met?', '',qiiH HO&. (Tomson [19086: 2971- emphasis is mine. See also Kuz'mina [1993: 311). Darinka Gortan-Premk, who studied accusative constructions without prepositions in Serbian., also stresses the limited quantity andor quality of the contact as a factor in the choice of the genitive in cases where both accusative and genitive fonns are possible: "inrne~~ana cy 6au ocraapmatbe ~@~HYKO~KowraKTa H 06paheeocr o6je~~ay Uenw 6mir penenamm eneMeHTa 3a HeKaRama, npacnoeeHcm ceuaHTwKH caapxaj a~y3a~liaa,H na ce cee mo o~omje y @R~H~ 4.4.10. Conclusion Summarising this part of the corpus (which includes cases of optional marking when there is a discrepancy between the animacy natus of the proper narne and the statu of its referent), we can conclude that the accusative-nominative syncretism is spreading without being labeiled as incorrect ifit is semanticaily justified, except for the names of plays, titles of books and some other artistic creations and in exarnples of personikation. JI Nouns such as ~oavoynqipa~binmmetc. do occur most often with that verb. When personification is involved, it entails viewing of inanimate objects as necessarily atypical (because they are given narnes, or they are perceived as having some other characteristics typical of animates, or they are singled out as a part of a cornparison or contrast), which causes the expected marking of such atypical objects with the accusative-genitive syncretism. In these cases the accusative-genitive syncretism is stylistically neutral. However, the accusative-nominative syncretism, which appears as a variant in the exarnples with nouns of plays, books, etc., can be explained as an underlying apposition, i.e., only the second part (which is a specific oarne) is present on the sudace, while the common noun is omitted. This is also the case with nouns for sports clubs. Therefore, many examples of the irregular usage of the "originally" animate nouns that are given in descriptions of the category of animacy are, in fact, misinterpretations, because the nouns are not direct objects, but appositions (cf exarnples such as 3~e3,gaje no6emma ~ap~mmf~~~,'Zvezh defeated Partirar,' = 3. je noberna @yfl6anc~my6 nap~ma~'Zvezda defeated the soccer team P artizan' or vmao ca~C~apaq II Mope 'I've read " Thr OId Man and the Sec= maoaupo~ai C~apaq H nrope 'I've read the novel" Thr Old Mm and the Sed"). 4.5. Conclusion In this chapter we have investigated examples where objects can be optionally marked with the accusative-genitive or the accusative-nominative syncretism. Analysis of data 6om contemporary Serbian and Russian shows that in cases where polysemous lemmes are involved the semantically appropriate fom of the accusative actually predominates. Whenever there is no doubt as to the real-life statu of the object, the speaker will tend to use the semantically justified form of the accusative. This observation is correct insofir as the context is non-emphatic (i.e. there is no evident presence of the speaker's emotional attachent to the object), and the objects are not involved in figures of speech. When these two conditions are present, however, there is a possibility that the expected accusative form will not occur. The accusative-genitive syncretism dominates in ail cases where the object is to be perceived as atypical, regardless of the underlying cause for variable accusative marking. Features that enhance perception of the atypicality of objects and promote the accusative- genitive form are: the objectysacnial animacy, existence and usage of the objectyspersona1 name (regardless of its real-We statu), and the object's participation in explicit or implicit cornparison. The first two factors have undisputed infiuence on the choice of the accusative-genitive form. in cases when two (or more) inanimate objects are being compared, the choice of the accusative-genitive form is apparently motivated by hightened referentiality . The accusative-nominative form, usually reserved for typical objects, is used for referentially animate objects only in special situations, i.e. when the animacy status is not widely known in the language cornmunity (and when these objects actually resemble typical inanimates in many respects), or when the speaker subjectively assesses the object as very close to other typical objects, i.e. inanimate. CHiW'IXR 5 TBE ACCUSATM FORM IN THE NEUTER GENDER AND IN NOUNS DENOTING GROüPS OF AMMATE BEINGS 5.1. Introduction Many cases that involve obligatory marking of groups of animate behgs with the accusative-nominative form are usually classified (and explained) as remnants of a past aate of the category of animacy, since the hypothesis on the gradua1 spread of the accusative-genitive syncretism has been predominant in linguistic literature. It is also thought that irregular marking is a result of non-operating (or a later inception) of the animacy marker in certain categories, such as neuter and ferninine gender, collective nouns, adverbialired phrases etc. This is explicitly stated in al1 contemporary grammars and many works on animacy in Slavic languages. Analysis of examples considered to be outside the scope of the semantically justified accusative assignment in the category of animacy, however, suggests that there exist reasons for such marking. I will divide examples with semantically irregular marking of animate referents that have traditionaily been described as "remnants of the past" into different groups, depending on their form and semantics. It is interesthg that variation in these groups is not fiequent. but when it is registered, the accusative-ge~tiveform is resewed for atypical objects, and the accusative-nominative for the typical ones. 5.2. Animacy Markhg and the Neuter Gtader Neuter gender nouns belong to the class of nouns with the obligatory accusative- nominative matking in Serbian and Russian. However, then are several exarnples where the expected fonn does not occur. A bnef analysis of the semantic features co~ectedwith the neuter gender in the andysed languages cm contribute to our understanding of the reasons why some of the referentially animate nouns are not appropriately marked. Jakobson wrote: 120 "The neuter signals a lack of sex reference. niese asexual nouns are either inanimates or the widest generic designations of animite beings, as cyuemB0 'being', xmomoe 'animal', HaceKome 'insect', MneKomaEo~ee'mammal', syAoeriwe 'rnonster' (Jakobson 197 1: 184) - emphasis is mine. That is, it is Vrelevant what spdcsex of animate being is in question, and there is no need in viewing (and marhg) it as it might be required in descnbing an individual specimen. which due to its animacy would have to be marked as an atypical abject. Lack of information regarding the beings' sex makes them more like typical objects and entails the use of the accusative-nominative syncretism. We have seen that it is possible to use optional (irregular) marking in cases where other factors, such as having a personal narne, for example, contribute to "raising" the status of an object to that of "atypical object." This is similar to the he/she/iir distinction in the English pronominal system: "It is . . . impossible to draw a hard and fast line of demarcation in English between an animate gender, represented by he or she, and an inanimate gender, represented by it. For it may be used in speaking of a small child or an animal ifits sex is unknown to the speaker or if his interest in the child or animal is not great: the grtater persona! interest one takes in the child or animal, the less inclined one wül be to use iP' (Jespersen 1958: 235) - emphasis is mine, or: "The pronoun [if] may be used with inanimate referents or may be used with animate reicrcnts to provide a sense of impenonalness or objectifiation, dccmphasizing the importance of the humanness of the rtfurnt: It was Shakespeare who said.. ., If's a girl [boy]! By contrast, the forrns he and she are marked for higher animacy: they attribute personhood to their referents" (BattisteUa 1990: 86) - emphasis is mine.' It is known that the neuter gender in Proto-Indo-European was associated with the so-called inactive class of nouns, which rarely included animate beings (see Garnkrelidze, Ivanov 1995: 245). Many of the modem Indo-European languages also employ a similar principle in the classification of nouns, which includes a group of animate nouns of "lesser importance" in the neuter gender. There are dEerent semantic reasons for this. Corbett (1 99 1) has also noted that in many Indo-European languages young animals are classified as having neuter gender, because they are treated as "not yet sex- ' Cf'. also the use of the English pronoun she for wsand ships, for example. dEerentiable9'(ibid.. 227-228). Serbian is one of those languages. Nouns such as AeTe 'child,' Tane 'calf,' we6e'colt, ' janse 'lamb,' xyve 'young do&' Ma ve 'kitten' etc. are neuter. However, it has been observed that these nouns are used only when the sex of the young beings is not important for the speaker; when it is relevant. however, the appropriate gender noun is used. Matijaltevif (198 1: 199-200) gives such examples for Serbian: (m) ~pe6~'colt'- (f) aïqpe6~qa'filly,' (m) gevw 'boy' - (f) ~eeoju~qa 'girl,' but she also adds: "oso [ce ] 06~~0WH Kaaa ce 03~avaeanapaje yspan manex 6sha. HaKo He H HCK~~LIHBO,HCII. CP~CKOXPB. no~p.jarfi& 'lamb' (male) - jwmap 'larnb' (fernale)"* (ibid.) - emphasis is mine. The same cnterion (irrelevance of the naturai gender, which is expressed by usage of grammatical neuter) has been applied to Serbian nouns which denote a mature animal or even a person: ve/aa#e 'person,' roeeve 'head of cattle,' mBmre 'animal.' rr~jepe 'beaa,' KpMe 'pig,' ncem 'dog' etc. Only when it becomes important, is the sedgender expressed. The semantic reason for the accusative-nominative syncretism in neuter gender nouns is the treatment of objects that are referred to as atypical, i.e. the use of the neuter gender is a means of not expressing a feature that is an inalienable property for ail living beings -- their sex. In addition, as we have seen, the list of neuter gender nouns in Russian and Serbian consists mostly of very general ternis for animate beings. This precludes viewing of individual entities as separate and important by virtue of their relevant features, and makes them semantically closer to the collective nouns and other typical objects. Data fiom Russian also cohthis. According to contemporary noms in this language, neuter gender nouns which denote animate beings have the accusative- 'The last example confinns my assumption regarding the usage of gender-ked fonns when it is important, Le. relevant for the speaker. In this case, to the already existing "young being" base both the diminutive sufiand the appropriate gender ending are added (zero-ending for a male, -a for a fernale). nominative syncretism in the singular' (see P)cc~aa~rpahfMa~~a1980: 463). The list of such nouns is relatively short and it includes the nouns g~rn'child,' nmo 'person,' cywecmo 'being, ', wruomoe 'animal, ' ~OX~CTBO'deity, 'HYY~X~CTBO 'nonentity, a nobody'(when it pertains to a human being), and names for mological classes, such as npecMbrKaio~eec~'rep tiie, ' 6ecno3~0~0ruroe'invertebrat e, ' MIeKomqee 'mammal,' ~~MHOBOAHO~'amphibia' etc. (ibid., 466). The fact that writers of Russian grammars and reference books have to warn against the irregular accusative-genitive syncretism in neuter gender singuiar nouns suggests that the influence of the semantic factor in the choice of the accusative fom is strong. As Pen'kovskij notes, in many Russian dialects the neuter gender took part in the marking of referentially animate "K~KCBHfleTeJIbCïByK>T MHOrOYHCReHHbIe HaHHbie, B K[a~eropm]O [~yuieene~~orn]H[~O~~UI~~~HHO~] 6bin~soeneseabi B pRne roeopoe naxe cyuemmenbsbie cpenHero poaa. Cp. oTpaxewe 3~oroB rsaire ceeepHopyccmx ~~IJIHH:XBamna oHa maTKa,4ccsm3a 6enbie eonoca, Yui~6na oHa JHTHTK~~,O c~pp O 3ewm . . . " (Pen'kovskij [1975: 16 11).~ Ro2kova (1 987: 45) illustrates cases of the sosalled incorrect usage with the following examples: 'He saw a huge monster' (2) ~oTo~~~~H~oB~~He3HâKOMOïO HûCeKOMOfO~~, 'They took a picture of an unknown insect' and IckoviC (op.cit., 88) gives the following ones: (3) nnaBaeT WIH non3ae~BO mue c e~mcTBeHHblucTpeunemeM mecTb K~KOMI-HH~YDpa~006pa3uoro~~ WHHaCeKOMOrO~, 'it swims or crawls in the dark aspiring only to eat a crustacean or an inswt' (4) A HeT flPyïOrO ~OTHOfU,KOTOPOfO-a 6b1 TaK IIOJ~~O~HO HCWieAOBWIIr, - - 3 Referentiiaiîy animate neuter gender nouns have the accusative-genitive syncretism in the plural. 4 The nominative is "~HT~TKU." 'there is no other animal which would be studied in such detail' (5) np ~naewK XY~~OXHEIC~ aoAMacTepbsbw @HIIHMOH~ 'he appointed apprentice Filimon to the artist to look after Km.' Ickovif claims that the main tendency is to use the accusative-genitive syncretism in such cases? If that is correct, there could be two possible explanations for this choice: either speakers lean towards semantically more appropriate marking of the elements that should be marked as al1 other atypical (i.e. animate) objects by the category ofanimacy rules, or they select the unexpected form in order to emphasise some other relevant features, which again causes viewing of the object as atypical. Variations in the accusative marking of Russian neuter gender nouns such as cyuecTBo 'being,', co3gm~e'creature,' which Ickovif and Roaova give, can be explained as optional marking of an atypical referential object: in al1 given examples there are either modifiers used (adjectives in (1), (2), pronouns in (3),(4)), or there is a persona1 noun (9,or it is obvious that the speaker knows that the object exists (or should exist - see example (3)). CE also Ickovif 's exarnples (op.&., 89): (6)TPYmO ~006pa3u~b6onee KOBapHbIe H CKPbITHbIe C'llfeCTBa-~~ 'it is difficult to imagine beings more insidious and reticent' vs. (7) npeRnaBbTe ce6e nm6oft 3a~~yTblhMHP H n(HB)U&ïX B HeM ~yUle43'~~~ni, 'imagine any closed world and the beings living in it' (8) npamenbwi MornH eeIb n yne.reTb... He cowr nione8 sa pa3y~~blx Cy4e~j9~cr-h 'aiiens could have flown away not regarding people as beings possessing reason.' It is possible that the meaning of the whole construction in example (6) ('it is dtncult to imagine.. .' ) influenced the choice of the accusative-nominative syncretism for the noun cyu(ec~~oas non-referential, and that the imperative Uiauenced marking of the object as necessarily referential in the example (7), but it is also possible that the semantic factor (animate beings) plays a predominant role in many cases of the accusative marking He does not provide any statistics, but examples that he gives show a relatively even distribution of the forms: for the word cyulecmo animate: inanimate ratio is 4:2; co3~ame:1:2; mqo: 1:2; nepcorax 25; Are-: 3:3; ~HWOCT~:2:l. in animate neuter nouns, making these nouns sirnilar to those denoting inanimate beings named after the animate ones. The same reasoning can be applied to cases of optional marking in the plural fom for the neuter-gender Russian noun fl.40'person' which is semantically close to the following nouns with different genders: nllwoc~a'personality' (feminine), nepc0Ha.x 'penonage'(masculine). xepma 'victim' (feminine) (opcit., 88-89). These nouns denote anirnate beings taken in a very general sense and when used in the plural, semantically they resemble collective nouns. (9) B~MBIBRT~noRnmHble ~elimpwiena~a-~~ (pl), 'to display genuine characters' vs. (10) mmowa~3 CBOW PR~OBa~~rnapT1Ifhlblx, pacKonbmecm flH4wcen(PI); 'expelled from theu ranks anti-party, schismatic persm' (11) euin amop xoseT eeem3~a~emle ~BYHOCT~~~N,(~~). aumume Ha cauou Aene.. . 'if the author wants to introduce famous people, who actually existed' vs. (12) w306paxae~OTfleJibHbIX H~~C~O~WB~IX,~one6mupacn H He3peflbIX YHOCT~H~~(pl) 'ponrays separate unstable, hesitant and immature characters;' (13) BCKOpe ... ha^^ p~3JIH.iaTbB IiIYMHOM BO~O~LKHOM~a6ope OTneJibHblX b b nil~~oc~e#-~(pi),'7 'he soon started to discem separate 'indivihuls' in a noisy band of sparrows' ( 14) XepTBM-,, QI),fl0CMBJISUllr B I'py3OBEKaX, 'victims were brought in in trucks' (15) TaK Ha3bIBâJICR Kpyï, Ha KOTOPOM HHKBH3lfTOPbI BCT83aJlH CBOH XepTBM-~orn (pl), 'this is how they called the circle on which inquisitors tortured their victims' vs. (16) ne cnenyeT coRepxam eMene .. . xmqmmoe a HX X~PTB- @lb 'predatory birds and their prey should not be kept together' (17) To~ac6y~sâJIb~0 TeppOpA3ApOBaJI CBOAx XepTBbh 'Tomas literdy terrorized his victims. ' in cases where the accusative-nominative syncretism is used, the object can be perceived as a non-individuated group of animate objects (simiiar to collective nouns), whiie the accusative-genitive syncretism Unplies viewing of objects as more individuated referential beings, which is closer to meaning of the regular plural.6 Nouns that denote living thgs in the broadest sense are neuter in Serbian as well: 61de 'being, ' creopefie 'creature, ' vygosmme 'monster, ' 6oxanm~o'deity ' etc. Although 1 have not found any examples where the accusative-genitive fom was used for such nouns, I have noted a semanticai affuiity between the neuter gender nouns and the plural number. This af£inity is expressed in the use of the marked fom for objects that are considered as not having importance "on theû own," which could translate to "typical objects," or, perhaps more correctly, "les atypical objects."' It is interesting that some of Serbian lexemes denoting animate beings in the neuter gender have "pairs" which are semantically very close to them, but are mascuiine gender and differ fiom them in the feature "more specitic." That is, the neuter nouns are less specific and more broadly defined; the masculine ones refer to concrete objects that are more readily understood as being individualized, which is illustrated by the lexicographer's need to distinguish among their (most often) numerous meanings. cf. the following entries fiorn the Matica qska six-volume Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian literary language: EOXAHCTBO - 'DEITY' 60r; 6Hhe 60xa~c~enpepone; (Pnr.npeWeT 06oxaea~a''god; a being of divine nature; fig. object of admiration' EOr - 'GOD' 1. pnr. a. KO~jewo6oxaqa: TBopau ua~ep~jan~orH Womor caeTa 'for monotheists: the creator of matenal and spiritual world' 6. KO~~~oro60xaua: rocnoflap jemor fiena npapole H ceeTa 'for polytheists: der of one segment of nature and world' -- - 6 Note also coincidental use of the sarne adjective in examples (4) and (5). 7 The plural is the marked part of the opposition singular:plural, and the neuter is marked in the system sexed un-sexed. Note that the Russian word 6bxem~o'deity' is also marked as [-animate], because it has neuter gender. 2. a. ~ajeehacBeTarsa, won; ayTopmeT, ~ohanmocr; ap6map 'the most sacred thing, idol; authority, a powerful person' 6. ~ajsehacma; Bnacr 'the ultimate power, power' 3. ~aj~pame,o6oxa~a~o nwe mii ~ajnpaxameap 'the dearest, admireci person or the most precious thing;' CTBOPEBE - 'CREATURE' 1. [etc.] 2. npoaseorr msapaba, creop (1,2) 'a result of creation, creature' CTBOP - 'CREATURE' 1. a. XHBO 6&e, OCO~~,YoBeK 'a living thing, person, man' 6. XHBOTW~ 'animal' B. 3ao ReMoH [etc.] 'evil spirit, demon' As we have seen, each of the meanings in the masculine nouns denotes a specific segment of the real world, while the neuter counterparts, although being very close in definition, have more general meanings, and, accordingly, tend not to be polysemantic. Similar to this. nouns denoting most general classes of living beings as presented in the Marica srpsh Dictionary are given only in the plural:9 cf entnes for names of zoological classes, orders etc., which are neuter gender in Russian: CHM~~CH~W 'marnmals, ' r.apWrnofla~p'rodents,' 6ec~y~et6aq~'invertebrata, ' ~~~BOHOUI~~~~BOMO~H'cephalopoda' etc.'' This seems to be more than a coincidence. The plural form implies that the single specimen as bearer of characteristics typical of the whole group (class) is not in the focus of interest of the speakedreader (at least for the purposes of a dictionary entry), Le. is to be "demoted as communicatively less important, which is similar to the meanuig of the neuter, where an otherwise relevant feature, such as 9 The singular foms are given in brackets and they do not exist as separate entries. 10 In a random check of this lexical category 1 have found only one lexeme which does have NO separate entries: one for the plural (r~13a~w'reptiles'), and one for the singular (rm3a~aq(r~a3) 'reptile'). 1 think that this is caused by the rather fiequent usage of the siigular form in metaphoncal meaning ('sneak, groveling person'), which is also marked in the dictionary (@m.,norp/). sex, is not to be expressed, because in the center of attention in such nouns is not the feature typical of one referent. Thus the use of a semanticaiiy (andor fonnally) rnarked form (i.e. plural vs. singular, neuter vs. masculine/feminine) to stress the irrelevance of the most important features associated with the non-marked form cm "demote" the object, which is referred to by one of these forrns, as not as important as it would have been had the speaker used the other form. This is similar to the deliberate usage of the accusative-nominative syncretism in cases of metaphorical usage, when the referentially animate being is not to be perceived as having al1 the relevant characteristics that would entitle it to the regular accusative-genitive form, and to the accusative-nominative form in constructions of the type ''H~H~COC~~~T~/H~THBcm,ga~bi,"'to becorne a soldier,' as I will show in 5.6. 5.3. Nouns Denoting Croups of Aoimate Beings Tbat Bave the Plurd Form As a rule nouns denoting groups of animate beùigs that have the plural form are not to be marked with the accusative-genitive fom in Serbian or in Russian: e.g. the accusative-nominative for the Serbian TILH'team, ' 6a~2m0~'battalion,' omea 'detachment,' poj 'swarm' or Russian o7pm 'detachment,' men 'flock, ' ~ap~'people' etc. However, there are some examples where the obligatoiy marking of such nouns is not applied. Al1 of them are context-dependent and are considered to be on the border of acceptability. Ickovic (1980: 88) gives examples of the occasional usage of the accusative- genitive syncretisrn with nouns that in literary standard Russian language never have this form: R: Mbl ttapeanncb Ha oa~pyne#-~~ 'We ran into paoh' R: pa306naw-r ~atbyomacm Koirrperam, coo6~ema.. . cmnlumoro, ~06biOKa3blBâTb RâBJIeHBe Ha BJI~cT~#~-. 'he will expose the secret power of Congregation, an association established to put pressure on the acrihoriiies' R: Awrpononormec~aHaJïH3 MOXeT OTKPblTb aBTOXTOHHOCTb, HeCWbIe KOPHH Hapoga, KOTO~O~O-GrnCZEB~WT np~ll[nb~~ 'Anthropoiogical analysis can discover the autochthonous ongin, the local roots of apeople who have been considered immigrants.' Although these examples can be explained as an illustration of penetration of the regular semantic marking of referentiaiiy animate objects by analogy, which is Ickovif's explanation, my assurnption is that marking of the commu~cativelymore important part is the main factor for the choice of the accusative-genitive syncretism. Ifwe take a closer look at the exarnples Ickoviii gave, we see not only referential objects, but also theù great subjective importance for the speaker. Thus, in the Brst example the speaker is obviously talking about the presence of concrete enernies in his surroundings; in the second one, about a powerful organisation w hich can (unexpectedly) infiuence even the authorities. In the third exarnple it is a surprising truth that one of many peoples living in an area may in fact be indigenous. Therefore, the choice of the accusative-genitive form is a reflection of the significant importance of the object for the speaker, who wishes to mark its atypicality by using the irreguiar accusative form. The atypicaiity of the object is only temporary and context-bound, or we would have had more examples of such type in non-emphatically stressed situations. These speakers would certainly use the grammatically appropriate accusative-nominative form in neutral contexts, so their choice is not caused by ignorance of language rules, but is an exampie of usage of a language means for marking of the object 's atypicality. 5.4. Collective Animate Nouns Collective animate nouns do not express animacy in Serbian or in Russian. They do not have the plural and usually, but not necessady, are derived by specific suees, such as Russian -ae (colloquial crapiluae 'old people,' 6a6ae 'women') and - CTBO (~ynevemo 'the merchants, ' ,~BO~RHCTTBO'nobility, yHHoBHcIveffBo 'officials')," or Serôian -ma (um~ma'youthY ), -a~v~yyw 'grandchildren,' npaw 'piglets', naçropvw 'stepchildren') etc. Although such nouns lack forma1 conditions for the expression of animacy (theoretically, the prerequisites for markhg of animacy in Serbian are masculine gender, singular, zero-ending), an additional factor could have played a role in the use of the accusative-nominative syncretism.I2This factor is their classification as typical objects. According to the definition given (for Russian) in Jliwr~~m~vecwf.. 3~~kxonefl~vec&cnoBapb ( 1WO), under the entry "cu6~pa~e~rb~oocr ~a~eropN."we find: Therefore, animate objects that occur in groups to which the speakers refer with collective nouns, are not to be perceived as separate entities, since they are not important as individuals. This is also in congruence with Milka Ivid's definition of coUectives (1983: 26-28). She stresses the lack of the notion of individuality for the entities that are refemd to with the collective noun. Therefore, it is possible to assume that collective nouns denoting animate beings do not mark their anirnacy because the objects are not to be viewed as atypical (i.e. having al1 relevant propenies of animates), but shply as an undiffenntiated mass, similar to coiiective inanimate nouns wtiich are typical objects. " Examples are taken fiom Vinogradov (1947: 156-1 57), who gives a complete üst of such sufies. l2 We have seen that there are cases of optional accusotive-genitive syncretism in Russian neuter gender nouns, but 1 have not found any examples of optional acaisativegenitive fom for collective nouns. S.S. Constructions with Numerals 5.5.1. Cardinal Numerah and Animacy Marking S.S. 1.1. Russian The accusative-nominative syncretism in nouns that denote a group of living things is not unique: it appears in some constructions with numerals also. Animacy is regularly expressed in Russian only with the cardinal numerals o~m,,g~a, veTbpe 'one, two, three, four' (Pycc~aanrpawa~rua [ 1980: 5 751)' although ogm is classitied there as a numerical-pronominal adjective (cre~m-M~CTOHM~HHO~np.uara~~b~oe). Two, three and four are numerals that, as a result of laquage development, requue the genitive singular case of the noun both in Serbian and Russian. The construction 'numeral plus noun in the genitive case' is to be taken as a whole - it actually stands for the subject/norninative, while in oblique cases the noun takes plural endings (cf R ma cTonaG, CTO~TB cepemHe KowaTar 'Two tables stand in the middle of the room;' OHHno,oun~ K~B~M monahf D~~pi 'They approached two tables'or Ha wyx mnaxh p~nexamf~~r~'B~~k~were lying on two tables.' 1 wiil continue to use the abbreviation Acc=Nom for the subject even if it is obvious that the noun in such constructions is in the genitive case fonn. Variation in usage in standard Russian occurs when the numeral is rnodifjhg a ferninine non-personal noun, as well as the neuter gender noun cywecTBo 'being' l3 1n such cases it is possible to use both the accusative-nominative and the accusative-genitive syncretism: R: noi~anTP~I-N~ RTHYKH hpexeOl. nTxqeK 'He caught three birh' R: y3en CBH3bIBâeT flBâ-~- nbIXCY4eCTBB /#BYX- CYqeCTB 'a knot ties iwo living beings' (examples are fiom Pycc~anrpa~~a~ma ( 1980: 5 75). 13 Elenskij (1977) includes also neuter nouns of the YyAoBme type (op.&, 50). Grannes (1986: 1 Il) writes that the accusative-nominative form for masculine animates is also sornetimes presented in "educated usage" (in coiioquial speech) and gives examples such as OH ~ylurnTPH~N~~ KOHR 'He bought three hors es,'^ cw~m veTl;lpe-,, canmTa '1 counted four soldiers '(ibid.). However, Zan animate neuter gender noun is idected as an adjective, according to prescriptive grammars the accusative should have the form of the genitive: R: HapHCoBaTb d~yxXHBOT~X~~en 'to draw two animals, ' /IOMOB~~X-- 'house-sprites, ' nemeo, 'wood-goblins'(Elenskij's examples. op.cit., 50). '' Use of the nominative fom in wch cases is, according to Rozental' (1968: 105) and Roikova (1987: 44), typical of colloquial speech. There are two possible explanations for this: either it is a result of the influence of constructions with complex numerals that end in AB^, I~H.veTbIpe, which, according to the contemporary noms, have the accusative-nominative form regardless of the referent's real-life status," or it is another example of the accusative-nominative form for typical objects that are non-referential. Nameiy, in the well-known verse from Gnboedov's "fope UT y~a""Ha HHX OH ebimeiriin 6op3b1e TPH-N~ c06m' 'He exchanged three borrois for them' as weu as in examples of the type ''K~~IHT~4Be~sr~~ KOPOBH 'to buy two cows,' nogcTpenm TPMyTKHb+," 'to wound three hcks' (examples from Rozkova, op.cit.), the most important piece of information is the number of objects, which, obviously, can be (or are) referential, individuated and animate. l4 Examples for Russian constructions with numerals will be taken from Elenskij's work, unless otherwise noted. 1s Preceding and many of the following examples pertaining to the category of animacy in constructions with numerals seem to justify Grannes's conclusion that "in contemporary usage there seems to be a tendency toward un ana&ticai developrnent whereby the nu- becornes an indeclinable quanti^@# (op.cit., 116; emphasis is mine), i.e. the semantic of the numeral itseif is the strongest factor in the choice of the fonn for both the numeral and the animatefinanimate referent. Grannes (op-cit., 1 10) cites Mayer's findings that ten percent of his thirty educated native speakers of Russian, regardless of the normative grammars's dserentiation between possible accusative-nominative marking of non-human referents and unacceptable accusative-nominative marking of human ones, actudy preferred the accusative- nominative in constructions with human referents (npo@eccopxopmo 3me~ ~pex,d~~T~A~HTOB / TPH~,~, Wema'the professor knows three &dents weil). He also notes the occasional usage of the accusative-nominative fom even in contemporary literature: the title of a Snegirev's story is POLIHMH~TPH-N, w.d' 'Give birth to my three sons' (op.&., 1 10). Writing about the vacillation in the accusative usage with nouns denoting animals used for food, Grannes States: "While both ' HB~Hno~?..an ~~yxpb16' and ha^ nodww~epbi6b1' 'han caught two fishes' are possible, it is our contention that only ' NB~Hn~#~epb16bl' 'Ivan ate two fishes' is possible. The use of the AG here would seem ludicrous, possibly suggesting that the fishes were eaten dive!" (op.cit., 1 13). Here again, it can be argued that information regarding the animacy of fish in the description of eating would be (pragrnatically) supertluous, since they are perceived as food, and their main function/purpose, fiom the point of view of the speaker, is to be eaten, while in the description of fishing the accusative-nominative syncretism suggests that it is the number of fish that is more important in the utterance (perhaps the use of the accusative-genitive syncretism as a marker of an atypicd objea would attract the hearer's attention and therefore make the number of objects less important, which is not the speaker's communicative goal.). On the other hand, the accusative-genitive form would suggest that fish are perceived as separate, necessarily referential entities with al1 the featu res t hat characterize animate beings. l6 16 It is interesting that some researchen who have tried to estabtish "a hierarchy of animacy within the animal category" (see Grannes 1986: 11 1) give examples of inanimate markhg of constructions with numerals when referents are insects (fleas and iice, for 5.5.l.2. Serbian In contempor&y Serùian cardinal numerals do not undergo declension, except for 4Ba Cgee) 'two (tworm)', 7p'th.' YeTqxdfour,' and even they do not mark npqa~eraao,'1 see two, ~hree,fourfien&' and BmxiiuABa-~,,,,, (~pir-~,,,,,, Y~TB~E-~~)mon& '1 see Iwo, three, four tables.' The numerid jeflm'one' is supposed to mark the animacy by rules of agreement (B- je,qa~~~~cro-~,,,,, '1 see one table' vs. BHHBM je~~or~~np~ki~efia-~'1 see one frend. '. However, there are also cases when this does not happen. In the corpus 1 have found: S: M 6ma cy nea "rimn~a,"... Moiionnatta ca cacegemM Kpmma [.. -1. [...] jefl~ora-~je nonorno Byj~h,a flpyrora- Depo~o.(Aepo~o, 66). 'And there were two "Penguins," . .. monoplanes with cut wings. One was broken by Vujid, the other by Deroko. ' Forms jq~oraand Apyrora are incorrect from the point of view of the marking of the category of animacy. However, if we replace them by the "correct" ones, the emphasis is lost, since the previous sentence gives us a description of the aeroplanes, and puts them in the focus of attention. The author also puts forms of numerals/pron~uns~~ before the subject in the following sentence, disregarding the "naturai" position of subjects at the beginning. In the modified sentence '>e/~a~~~,je o6op~o B'd, a fl'YfBb-~~Aepo~d' the reader's focus is shifted to the naturally more salient example), even when the animate fonn is preferred when the numerals are not involved. Grannes (op&., 1 12) cornments: "many Russians say with equal ease: o~pa3~a~~npima 'he crushed three bugs' and o~y6~~'lp~MF 'he killed three flies' and perceive the AG ' qpex mono^ ' and ' rpex ~yx'as hypercorrect and even ludicrous: 'too ceremonious for such smail creatures', as one informant put it"' (Grannes, op.cit., 1 12). 1 would argue that the size of referent is not the predominant factor in the choice of the inanimate fom (cf regular animate marking in constructions with the sarne nouns without numerals), but the number of creatures is, which is similar to cases with other anirnate beings. l7 These numerals are often used as pronouns, similar to this example. They are supposed to show the animatehanimate distinction (see StevanoviC [198 1: 3 13-3 161). (important) arguments, which are animate subjects, and that is not what the writer wanted to achieve." His choice of the accusative-genitive syncretism keeps Our attention on the objects that he considers being more important for his story, and therefore atypical. Grannes (op.cit., 1 14) has also noted the existence of a Russian accusative-genitive form for inanimate referents: "Definitely non standard, but long rttestd, is the occasional use in the contemporaiy language of the AG with inanimate, e.g. o~npa~m~~yx'~pmpo~ - 'he sent two tract ors' (Jazovickij l964:4 1). Compare a similar example from 17 10: x~yx CBOHXCW~~XJ~~U~HXK~~~~~#coilKTnw 'they bunt two of their best ships' (Bogudawski 1966: 202)"- emphasis is mine. The latter example is sidar to the preceding Serbian one with regard to the emphasized importance of the referent (the superlative form of the adjective), and it is also interesting because it stresses connections among word order, lg communicative goal and marked forrns. This is typical for al1 Slavic languages. MiSeska-Tomid (1977: 675) writes: 'kordorder J.entiution in the Slmic languages is an instrument of communicative sentence cuialyss." Since communicatively basic sentences place the old information (theme) in the first position, and the new information (rheme) after it, any deviation fiom this or from the SV0 word order leads to a comrnunicatively contrastive sentence (see also Babid [ 1 990: 2561, MiJeska-Tomid, op.cit., 67 1, 673). In conclusion, the "unexpected accusative-genitive form again seems to be a part of a linguistic mechanism for marking objects that are atypical because they are subjectively assessed as more valued (important) for the story, regardless of their real-üfe status. When the number (quantity) of objects is in the center of attention, it is possible to disregard the animacy marking of objects, thus making them less central for the purposes of communication. 18 The same effect is achieved by the use of a passive structure in Engiish. 19 OV instead of the neutral VO order. 5.5.2. Russian constructions of the type "rpyooa B ~eno~e~iP In Russian there are constructions such as maBABa-Na. (&?ebNom, Tpdl-~~ve~~pe~-~~) YenoreKa (VA~HT~. ge~ymetc.) 'a group of wo (twof,, three, four) persons (students, girls etc.),' ~IBTO~C~KanneKmu? B Tpil-~~ YenoBeKa 'a group consisting of three authors,' cewB ve.rslpe-~- vnwa 'a family of four (mernbers),' ynpR;IKKa B vemfpew~, KOHR(CO~~KI~;onemetc.) 'a team of four horses (dogs, reindeer),' as well as those such as muep Ha flBa-~, (TPH~.~~~e~upe~~~) qenoBeKa 'a room for two (three, four) (persons),' o6e~ ~a gBa-~, ~e~~pe-~~)wwoBeKa, 'a lunch for two (three, four) (per so ns) .' Frorn the semantic point of view, such constructions are similar to the preccding ones: it is the number of entities which is important, ovenuling the appropriate animacy rnarking, or, perhaps more correctly, the appropriate rnarking of referentiality or atypicality of objects. In al1 given constructions numerals express a number of non- referential animate beings taken in the most generai sense. However, when a modifier (such as an adjective) is added, it (i.e., the modifier) obligatonly expresses animacy; cf 60flb~~eHa veTwpe*pl, MO~X-~(*~~floflb~e-~~) YenOBeKa 'four yout hs more' (example from Mel'cuk 1980: 806, footnote HO). Addition of the adjective decreases the number of potential matches for referents, making them more easily accessible to identification, and more referential. Another indication that in numerical constructions without modifiers animate beings are not to be perceived as referential is the fact that these constructions can be replaced by similar constructions with collective numerals: HoMep ~a ~~orrx(~p0~ ve~~epax),06e~ cra JBOHX, nuTep.& etc. (animacy is here fonnally expressed, but the collective meaning is semanticdy predominant). Lack of referentiality of objects is also present in examples such as nomno YenoBeKa c T',H-N~ 'approxhately three people went' or Ui constructions with the preposition no that have distributive meaning: no #'BB-N~ (T~H-N~, ve~~pe-~~)ManbilaIca 'two (three' four) boys,' no flJ!?e-~~(TPH-N,,,,,) neeyiruca 'two (three) girls,' as well as with the preposition vep,but also only in the distributive meaning2*Yepes qeeTSrHpe-~~SenoBeKa Moro paccrpenmam '&er every four the mh was shot,' vepe3 KwieTPH-N, iremepym oTnpaBnrvia B rep~a~aro'after eveiy three, the fourth woman was sent to Germany,' where the accusative-nominative syncretism is used for non-referential persons who serve only as background for the foregrounded (also animate) "nn~ord'or " ue~~epryld'(note the incorrectness of the * ~epe3Y~TH~X YMOB~K nn~oro paccllpw.~~). Elenskij's examples for nominal constructions that have corresponding verbal construction^^^ (and where the accusative-genitive form predominates) can be a good illustration for marking refereniality: in the rnajority of them there is either a modifier present, or the verb requires a necessarily referential object: Hanesmm ~a CBOHX flByX-~ ( TpeX-ocn Y~TM~~x~~)TOB~~HU@R(BOCITHTBHHHKOB, nap~es, MOPRKOB, leeyuey npbiry~~ii)'to rely on his two (three, four) fnends (pupils, fellows, sailors, girls, jumpers); Hananb cpa3y Ha ~BYXW~(~pex-~ ~e~~pex-~) urpo~oe(epaxecwx con na^) 'to attack at once two (three, four) players (enerny soldiers),' sanna~nm(pa6o~am,6opo~bcn) 3a ~~yx-~ (~pe.r~=~~ ve~slpex-~)~osapmqeti (cry~e~~oe, ~~~RBHTOK) 'to pay (work, fight) for two (three, four) fiiends (students, fernale students);' Haflema sra ~THXJB~X~~ (~pen-b ve~srpex~~)Hamnap~eB (~e~pelu; BOC~HT~HHEI~~) 'counting on these two, three, four) our fellows (girls, pupils).' There are also phrases with the inanimate form of the numeral, such as R: om~a ogrn-~~'face to face,' 3a OA/UI-N, 'as one,' flme Ha gBoe*~, 'two on two,' ER T~J~HO6~~70 cmammbcg omrar ara O~HH~N~c BBCIIIH~M 'It was dicult to *O CC non-distributive meaning in: R0cTaBm.b merve~~~yx(zpex) qpepv. 21 Op.cit., 52. her to be alone with Vasilij;' C-qwe~xe, c 6pa~o~6y~a 3a 0flE.H~~~'With Dmitnj, your brother, be as one;' yvac~~yarr &~c~yccmf ~a TeMy: KaK cblpaK,TgBoe Ha Ame-~, Y~me~oc ~U~CT~~H~B~IM npo~ii~PIIB~~H r @~~TTH) 'participate in discussions on the theme how &lenko and Sestemev will play two-on-two against Rivera and Faketti.' These constructions are adverbialised, and animate objects are not presented as referential, individuated, well-defined entities; it is the quality of the situation that is important, and the (animate) objects are just elements in its description, which makes them very similar to typical objects. 5.5.3. Animacy and Collective Numenls Collective numerals in Russian reflect the animacy status of referents: they are among the very few classes that actually express the [+pers masc] feature (see Mindak 1990: 96; Russkaja grarnmatika 1980: 575). Vinogradov wrote that this fact is a remnant of an earlier period in the development of Russian when "the category of animacy was not established, and the category of person only included nouns referring to persons of masculine gender" C~a~eropmufly1ueweHHocTH e4e He cnom~ac4a KaTeroplln nwa omaTbn;UIa H~~B~HHHnwTO~KO MpKoro nona" - Vinogradov [ 1947: 3 1O]). Collective numerals in contemporary Russian language are used with animate nouns in masculine gender, with epicene nouns, nouns denoting young beings, nouns such as Aemi 'children,' pe6m 'children,' n~'people,'nwa 'persons,' with adjectives in nominal fùnction, participles, personal pronouns ATM 'us,' BH 'you (pl),' OHM 'they.' Only plt~ruiiatcmtum and some other nouns denoting objects ("nap~blenpe~~e~bi') are inanimate members of the group that can take collective numerals in Russian (see Russkaju grmmutika 1980: 575). Although the nom allows use of collective numerals only with the masculine gender, wamings that are present in grammers confimi that they are used also with the ferninine gender: ~~oe~e~ove~'two girls,' veTBepo XeH- 'four women,'m~ep CryAemuK'five fernale students' etc. In the corpus 1 have found: R: fle~ove~xm 4ecnTepo 6y~,ax neme eocmrran, geM omoro uanbnau~y(na~oea, 76), 'Even if you had fen girls, it would be easier to bring them up than one boy' R: Ce= opo os ~oupntmena cenrepsrx KO~OBTYYHMXH He CT~JIHTywee (Ayme~,He xne6ou e-m, 646), 'Seven skinny cows ate sewnfa? cows and they did not becorne faner.' However, usage of collective numerals with [+Pers Masc] is not obligatory in Russian. Cardinal numerals are used Frequently instead of collective ones (cf example (1) with the collective numeral in Russian and exarnple (3) with the cardinal numeral: 'three comicts were nding in a carriage' (3) R: H COJïRaTbl ... B RyuIe npOKnHHaJiH TP~X~B~~O#H~~KOB (8YA~~KOB, 17n 'and soldiers in their souls were cursing the three robbers' (4) S: w BO~HHW cy ... y WH npommana ~pojiqypa36oj~~~a ((ripes., 187) 'and soldiers in their souls were cursing the three robbers.' As the Serbian examples (2) and (4) show, the numerative noun ("bpoj~a HM~HH~~')can be used in Serbian when either a collective or a cardinal numeral is used in Russian. Actually, the numerative noun in Serbian has a lot of similuities with the Russian collective numeral. There are no exarnples of feminine nouns with numerative nouns in Serbian, and, unlike the Russian situation, where feminine nouns can occur in spoken language, but are marked as substandard, similar constructions do not exist in any style in Serbian. Aithough there are examples of the numerative noun used with names of animals in older literature, contemporary speakers of Serbian do not perceive them as standard, and reject constructions such as YeTBopma BOmBa 'four oxen' (see Dalewska-Gren', Feleszko 1984: 33). This categorizes the numerative noun as a class that can express the feature [+Pers Masc] f~rein Serbian also. Just as in Russian, a cardinal numeral can be used instead of the numerative noun (in Russian - collective numeral), and the range of nouns that can express numeric quantity is considerably broadened by that change (i.e., ferninine nouns can be included as well). There are collective numerals in Serbian also, but they are used for quantincation of groups of mlved gender (ve~mpomeHam 'four students'), of coflective animate nouns with the plural formed fiom a different base (Aeqa 'children,' 6pda 'brothers,' m~~irmA~'chickens:' qpoje me'three children,' neTopo 6pde 'five brothers,' oc~opon~n~&z..n~ha 'eight chickens'), or when the gender of objects is irrelevant (LTO 3a memopo 'a table for six')? In some works there are exarnples of the ~~oje, veTmpo, oc~opoKcma 'two, three, eight horses' type (Dalewska-Gren', Feleszko [ 1984: 33]), but fiom the point of view of the modem speaker they are ody marginally acceptable.* Collective numerals in Serbian do not express the animatdinanimate distinction, which can be a result of redundancy of the information: it is only animate referents that can be quantified by this type of numeral. For the pluralfa tuntum inanimate object numeric adjectives (" 6poj~ffnp~,e~H") are being used : jefl~eMao vape, veTBopa BpaTa etc. (see Popovid [ 1979: 181). 5.6. Constructions OC the Type "~hry coa,qa~el HJ/TII B con~a~~'' Russian construction of the "B + ACC~= Nompr'' type for animate objects is usudly treated as a remnant of a past state in language, when only some lexical and grammatical categories were within the scope of the category of animacy. However, difrent reasons for the origin of the p henornenon are given. Bragina (1 98 1 : 70) thinks that the semantic This is sirnilar to Russian examples of the prepositton + numeral type. " In an inte~ewwith a relatively small number of native Serbian informants (10) the results were interesting: the older informants (5) with a iow level of education, who were (or have been) involved in raising of animals7usually use constructions with the coUective numerals, although they also allow usage of cardinal numeral constructions. On the other hand, younger speakers, with high school and university diplornas, use exclusively constructions with cardinal numerals, and are not sure if they would ever use the collective numeral in that context. feature "active person" was relevant for marking with the new accusative form (which is identical with the genitive), while examples such as P: BH~TIIBJIN)AH-N,(~O, 'to rise 'to become a donor' in her opinion, exhibit lack of "active-ne~s."~~ Goritkova and Xaburgaev (198 1: 21 8) explain the accusative-nominative syncretism in such cases as an expression of considering referents as members of a group (a profession, a class): "B TO Bpew KaK CO~CTB~HHOJIH'IH~IM 3~aqerne~Te xe CyIqecTBwrenbmIe eiu~~ovrn~crrB napanHrmamecme PR~Iceqa - (B) ce-Y; co.qga~- (8) co~flal.4nmAw - (B) nm,qe& ~TOO O~~CJIOBJIAB~~T npoHaKHoeeHae e ~a~p ~o~crpy~qmono~a3a~enn @OPM~I B-P ogyureenewcoro cyx.qemmenbHoro (cp.: Can/a~b~WMnnir B 6ecopya~~~1xflK?~e8)." This explanation is consistent with my assumption that the inanimate fonn is used when features of an individual are not important, when it is being perceived as just one of many sirnilar objects, Le. as a typical object. Examples fiom the corpus also confirm this: R: Tonb~oKamica sacraenma ee ... npegnaram ce6n B P~~OTE?H~~/~,~~ (PLI (Pacnym~,20), 'Only Kat'ka made her offer her services as a worrker' R: C~IH... peeTcR B rycaps-~,~,, (Sexoe, Pacc~a~H noBem, 141). 'The son is bursting to become a hussm' R: MH~npolirrne B ffeb)emH~~~(pl) Baey M.(~o~~HKo, 125) '1 was intended to marry Vava M.' There is a construction in Serbian which is identical with the previously given Russian one: S: OH3~a OMO [.. .] Ra he nq Khn uopam y"6o~e~((ne~poedi, IO), 'He only knows ... that his daughter will have to become a govemess' S: Paue ~pe6an36a- ~3 ... ssa~~ja.HeKa *y y nonoBe& ,l (ibidem, 57), Serbs should be thrown out fiom governrnent posts, let them becomepriests' S: MHnAh ... ce sp6yje y BO~HHK~~~~(Cened, 62) 'Milie volunteered as a soldigr' -- - 24 G.A. Zolotova (1984-85: 258) has a different opinion on the 'cactive-ness'' in such cases. S: ~ajhe y aTomxe ~mreffiepe~,~.[.. .] Hiera hy ja y apxa~e~~e~,I, y rpaHaTemeh ,l (Ca~apa,43) 'He'll become an atomic engineer ... 1'11 send him to become an mchitect, a builder.' Such formal and semantic equivalence in two languages is quite rare. The same meaning in both languages cm be expressed by some other constmctions with nouns in the singular (R: pa60~a~b~o~ape~(instmmentd) 'to work as a lathe operator,'S: 6m2i neKap (nominative) 'to be a physician' etc.), but usage of the plural form neutralises possible selection of an individual, i.e. the plural (although it is not in the range of the category of animacy in Serbian) is again a means of marking irrelevance of al1 features related to the singular fom. Animacy as a semantic feature does not play a role in such constructions. Some Russian Academy grammars (cf 1960, 1980) stress the meaning of collective-ness ("omo~CO~H~~T~W~HOCT!') which is implicitiy present in these constmctions, and this is in accordance with the expression of non-referentiality. 1 have found some similu examples with the preposition Ha: R: Aylua ee [. . .] npocmacb rra nEo,qrrhp(,,~,,HO ~TO-TOyaepxmano (Pacn., 156) 'Her sou1 asked for Company, but something held her back' R: A oHa BOT cei~acnoft~e~ ~a nm,q~~~~~(~~) (ibid., 158) 'And she will now go into society. ' The accusative-nominative here again is a means by which the meaning "lesser relevance of the individuai entity" is very efficiently expressed. This also pertains to names for some games where animate nouns are involved in Russian: R: B LuamHrSr.--~, Bce KIT (Hy~mueee,Eenbie ode(e>KRbi,291)' 'They al1 are playing spies' R: R He XOVY ül'piirpaTb B KyKflaIw~~(roI'OJIb, 448), '1 do not want to play with dolls' 91 R: AHTOH~POKO+~BH'I ... IIIpaeT HOPR~OB ''~ypan~~~(pl) H "AWJ~HIIKH~-~~(romb, 371), 'Anton Prokof evic plays toletably "jfool and "miilers"' but: R: OXOTHO HrpaeT c maBO woyromo: .. . B nritmï4soaepo~~~,.1 (na~ora,44) 'he plays with them anything they want: cops and robbers. ' Arguments such as Bragina's "lack of active-ness" are obviously not acceptable in such constructions. Pyccxaa rpilAIMaTma (1 980) explains examples such as "Mpa~bB wn~qxfo~epod''to play policemen' by stresshg that ''~~n-o~epsl"is not a special (i.e. traditional) name for the game, as it is in cases with "~ypaKd''fools' or "KOLCCK~~- MHLLIKH" 'cat-and-mouse,' for instance, and that is the cause of the "regular" accusative- genitive form. The example "B uurio~bl,"'spies' and perhaps some other "new" names of games, on the other hand, may be motivated by analogy, but can also be analysed as usage of the inanimate form for expressing irrelevance of an individual. Moreover, when the name of the game is in the singular, the regular animate form occurs, and i have not found a single exception for this in the literature nor in my corpus: Raeail~eB BopoHakh (roronb, 79) 'Let's play raven.' 5.7. Russian Diakctal Constructions of the Type Yff~~~~d?~b~ypH" Kuz'rnina ( 1993) investigated constructions of the type no~yna~aKYP~I-N~ and she does not agree with the established opinion that it is a relic of an earlier stage of the development of the category of animacy, when feminine plural nouns did not participate in the marking of animacy. Kw'mina States that there is no difference in the fiequency of the usage of feminine and masculine nouns with this construction (one would expea more feminine nouns, as they have, according to many linguists, acquired the new form later), and the fiequency of the construction with a preposition is very low (it is usually said that the presence of a preposition helped preserve the old f~rm).~She also 25 She co~ectsthe structure with the construction of the "HWO ~pb~~~~~~ /k-jpAcrr=bi, " type ('there is need of hens'), which exists not only in North Russian dialects but also in the central and southem parts, and with the famous "infuitive + nominative" Norther Russian (and central Russian) construction of the aïr rra ~pd~ak~,/~pfi~yh type 'to mow gras' (see op.&., 27). notes "O Y~BH~npeoûka~ame MeII; mm~c~H~~B~HMRMHI~KZLBOT~~~IK" (op-cit.,26). This could also be explained as the infiuence of the semantic factor (by which is in some hierarchies of the category of anhacy the speaker ranks animals as less important). Furthemore, it is possible to link these cases with the "HW ~ypsi' constructions, as Kuz'rnina has done, and to explain them as bearing the communicative stress on the "~a,qu"paq where the noun is given in its basic form, which does not add any "u~ecessary"feature to the idonnation. Following this line of reasoning, it is possible to connect such examples with constructions with numerals of the type no~c~pm~~aTPH~TKH, where the focal information is contained in the numeral, and any other marking would be superfiuous fiom the communicational point of view. 5.8. Conclusion In this chapter we have shown that nouns which do not mark the animacy of objects regularly and which were classified as "remnants of a past state of the system of animacy" in earlier research most often are either neuter gender or denote groups of animate beings. The main underlying semantic feature that connects such cases is the lack of need for marking referentially animate objects as atypical. The neuter gender animate nouns are Mewed as semantically (and therefore formaliy marked as) close to the inanimate ones because they do not provide information on the gendedsex of the objects; this information is relevant in nouns denoting typical animates (Le. atypical objects). Variation in this class occurs in Russian. It is a result of the semantic influence fiom other nouns denoting animates, Le. there exist a tendency to mark dl animates with the accusative-genitive syncret ism. Closely related to this group are nouns which are either most often used in the plural number (cf Serbian nouns denoting classes of animals, for example), or which denote groups of animates. When the accusative-nominative syncretism, which is not justified fiom the point of view of the category of animacy, occurs in such cases, it usudy means that the object is not to be perceived as atypical. in other words, the speaker's perception that the object is "oniy a member of the group" ovemdes its "right" to be marked as atypical on the base of its referentid animacy. Such objects are either a part of constructions with numerals, which convey information valued as more important fiom the communicative point of view than the information on the animacy of obje~ts,'~or they are collective animate nouns, which again entails viewing of individual entities as non-essential as such or they are a piut of constructions such as Russian WTHB cwaTbi, where again the real-life status of a typicai object is less important than the notion "group of similar non-referential objects." The accusative-nominative syncretism in rnany cases is accompanied by the lack of referentiality, since the speaker refers to a group, without committing himself to the existence of a specific animate being that should be viewed as an individual entity foregrounded fiom other similar beings and marked correspondingly as an atypical object with the accusative-genitive fom. Regardless of the prescriptive noms, the accusative- genitive syncretism is used for objects that are to be perceived as atypical because of theu greater importance in certain contexts (cf, for example, cases with the accusative-genitive fom for nouns that denote groups of animate beings and have the plural - see p. 128). 26 Note that animacy is nevertheless present in the root of words that participate in wch constructions, and additionai formal marking ofthis feanire wuld u~ecessarilyshift the focus from the numerai, which is intended to be perceived as more important. CHAPTER 6 THE ACCUSATIVE-GENITIVE SYNCRETISM FOR INANIMATE OBJECI'S - CASES OF TBE RELATlVE PRONOUN KOJHIN SERBIAN FOR INANIlMATE ANTECEDENTS AND ADSECTIVES WITB DELETED NOUNS 6.1. Introduction The accusative-genitive syncretism for inanimate objects is not limited to the masculine singular nouns only: it occurs also across clausal boundary in Serbian. It has been noted that the syncretism sometimes appears when the relative pronoun ~ojilfoliows an inanimate noun and when the adjective qualifies an inanimate deleted noun or an inanimate noun represented by the 3" person pronoun OH.' Data from both dialectal and literary spoken Serbian (and Croatian) coniïrm this.* It is interesting that this phenomenon is found with the Russian pronoun KOTOPMI dso, but it has not been investigated yet.' It is necessary to note that al! analyzed cases of the accusative-genitive syncretism belong to the class of optional marking. Researcherddescribers of Serbian and Croatian most ofken limit themselves to citing examples and stating that, from the point of view of prescriptive grammar, the accusative-genitive syncretism in the relative pronoun ~Ojjlor in adjectives refemng to inanimate objects is "wrong" or "illiterate." This can be seen in almost every gramrnar or handbook that addresses the issue." 1 In the enclitic accusative fom ra, which is equal genitive regardless of the noun's animacy status. 2 Extensive research on the dialectal Serbian and Croatian data has been done by Van Tilburg (1988). The only example 1 have is given in lckovir (1980) - see the example on p.8 - but the phenomenon has never even been mentioned in grammars nor other works on relative pronouns and animacy. 4 See, for example, the following statements: In works that deal with the question in a more detailed way the irregular syncretism has been connected to the category of anirnacy at least to a certain degreees Moreover, the same hypotheses that were applied in attempts to describe mechanisms of the category ofanimacy, such as the accusative-genitive syncretism as the marker of definitenesdindefuiiteness of objects or the accusative-genitive syncretism as the marker of inanimate objects in potentially ambiguous two-argument transitive structures with arguments that have the same real-life status, were applied to the examples of unexpected syncretism in cases with the relative pronoun ~oj~andadjectives with deleted nouns (see, for example, Gortan-Premk [197 1: 14-1 51). In addition to those hypotheses, another explanation that has been offered most ofien is that the animate form is iduenced by the fonn of explicitly or implicitly present 3" person pronoun.6 However, reanalysis of examples given in other works and fiom my corpus points to the accusative-genitive syncretism as marker of atypicality of objects. Atypicality is here again caused by the - .- .- - - - -. ''Mna~ce oso [~ojerforinanimate antecedent of the relative pronoun - M.S.]He MOXe CMaTpâTH O~JIRKOMKlbEXOBHOr je3Id~a,H C ïJieflHlllTa m-mxeetiojes~~~eHopMe y CBHM HaBenetcm H CRII'MHM apaje~ma3a~e~~~(a KO~H,KaRa ce He O~HOCHHa xma 6~ha,Hero Ha apyro WTO - y a~y3a~myjea~. M. poaa mopa eMam o6nsr HOMEH~TUB~"- (Stevanovid 198 1 : 3 16)- emphasis is mine; "Tpe6a O~P~THTHnmy Ha TO Ra sa~e~in(a~ojhy a~y3a~my Mymcor poda ~~RHHH~ma nea 06nwa. AKOce ORHOCH Ha HeKo 6he, rnacu: ~ojer(a), mra, a aKo ce o~~ocnHa Hewro Hexmo, rnac.: ~ojY."' - (Mrazovid, Vukadinovid: 1990: 3 18). These authors absolutely unjustifiably state that "Y sana~~ojsapaja~~a [Le. in Croatian - M.S.]ce u y3 mte Heser Heliureor seno ~opircrno6nm ~ojer(a) (wo je cra~aapn~o)"(ibidem; emphasis is mine). There are many examples of the accusative-genitive syncretism for the relative pronoun mj~in the eastem variant (i.e. Serbian) too. 1 wiii not discuss the problem of possible substitution of clauses with ~oj~andclauses with mu, which is frequently co~ectedwith the relative pronoun ~oj'in the literature - see, for exarnple, Gallis ( 1%6), Browne (1 986) and bibiiographies given there. Browne (1986: 145) writes: "The relativler bji agrees with a pronoun like ga (which does not show up on the surface, but is present until a certain stage in the derivation)." object 's referentiality ador the speaker's assessrnent of the object 's greater relevance for the context/situation, which connects this class of examples with nouns. The phenomenon of the animate form ~ojeflfor inanimate antecedents has been studied more frequently than that of the animate adjectives for inanimate nouns, but I wiil show that the same factors and conditions that infiuenced choice of the accusative- nominative form also apply to cases where adjectives quali& deleted nouns. I dl give an oveMew of the most frequently expressed opinions on the cause for the syncretism and argue that the "irregular" behaviour of the relative pronoun KO~H(and the adjective with deleted noun) is, just as it was the case with nouns, a reflex of language rnarking of atypical objects. The animate form here again "promotes" the object and gives it a more prominent role than it would have had with the accusative-nominative syncretism. 6.2. Citegories and Featum Rclated to the Syncretism in Previous Rcsearch 6.2.1. The Category of Animacy The question of the accusative-genitive form of the relative pronoun KO~Hwhich replaces inanimate object of the main clause has attracted attention of several researchers of Serbian and Croatian. Attempts to conne* the phenomenon of the irregular accusative marking with marking of animacy did not help elucidate its character. The range of examples with the accusative-genitive syncretism for inanimate antecedents differs significantly ûom that of nouns. As we have seen, not only obligatory. but also optional marking in neuter gender nouns, nouns denoting a group of animate objects or collective nouns is virtually nonexistent in Serbian, which is not the case with the accusative-genitive syncretism in the relative pronoun KO~Hthat follows such nouns. General conditions for the optional marking of nouns with the accusative-genitive syncretism pertain also to cases with the irregular syncretism in the relative pronoun: when the object is atypical, i.e. -- 'The accusative-genitive form can be ~ojer,~ojera, or Kora. Since the particular form of the pronoun does not seem to bring any change to the meaning, 1 will use ~ojeras the "cover term" for al1 three forrns. referential, well-defined ador subjectively valued as more important in the concrete situationkontext, it can acquire the animate form. As it was the case with obligatory accusative marking in nouns, the accusative-genitive syncretism is not present in the 6.2.1.1.1. Neuter Gender Nouns (1) MHUHOje Ha ... nogeTaK HcKonaeaba, Ha nremy Korabaje X~H~~HCK~~pa~~l@ija... 03~arma Kao nocneflioe 6ojiurre 6ora ci Ca~a~e (llewh, Bec~~no,49), 'He was thinking about ... the beginNng of the excavation, at the place which the Christian tradition . .. has marked as the last battlefield between God and Satan' (2) O~aahe~o nonani MneKo, ~ojer~.~CMO npeTxonHo npoKyeanH (from a TV show), 'Then we will add some milk, which we have boiled earlier,' (3) To je o~roeopira jyriepauribe ~HCMO,xor-~ CMO ~o6m~npeKo Kpweilaua (exarnple from Van Tilburg, 1988: 569), 'That is the answer to yesterday's letter which we got through Kritevci.' 6.2.1.1.2. Collective Inanimate Nouns (4) P~HHKCcy MY cana Mebann ceaKHx nemaecr RaHa. ocrao je 6e3 ~ene~mopaH ~ene@o~a, a O ceexeM r(~ehy,~ojer*~ je 3a~maocsaKor natta y ~a3u, je 6moHH ro~opa!(Ca~npa, 198), 'Now they changed his towels every fifteen days, he was lefi without the TV set and the telephone, not to mention freshflowers, which he used to find every day in a vase. ' CE Van Tilburg (1988): "it must be re embered that the absence of an animate-inanimate opposition exists r in the plural of the 3 a' p. persona1 pronoun ~rx'them', too. Why, then, did not sentences like mime rrrro rn ww'the books that/which 1 am reading' bring about instances of a *wre~ojkx vmaM- type? The latter type has not ben attested" (Van Tilburg, 1988: 54 1) - emphasis is mine. 6.2.1.1.3. Nouns Denoting Croups of Animite Beings (5) Pake~orPanemiha ompamo je y 6onm4y waeEynyp~jror BO,^ woraeocn cy Tauo cnanii panil nojasaha ('Eiomrh. nponoy 625), 'Wounded Radekif was accompanied to the hospital by the whole bpurdija's platoon, which was sent there as reinforcement,' (6)C: Heo6pamsa~a [...] 6ma je ee-a naluera HaPo,&?, ~ojera-m TO tmje np~jeuwroRa ce 6oprr 3a senme meanen (B~CCHAK,25.6.1953) (example from MuliC 1954: 86) 'Majority of our people was uneducated, but it did not prevent them for fighting for great ideals. ' 6.2.1.2, Conclusion Corpus shows that there are cases of the accusaiive-genitive syncretism in the relative pronoun KO~Hin sentences where the antecedent is a neuter gender noun, a collective noun and a noun denoting a group of living beings. Nouns with the mentioned features not only do not mark animacy obligatonly, but there are also no examples of optional marking in the mention classes. Relative pronoun that refers to a neuter gender noun, a collective noun and a noun denoting a group of living beings, however, can acquire the accusative-genitive fom9The accusative-genitive syncretism in ail given examples is a means of attracting additional attention to the cornmunicatively important information contained in the subordinate clause. This point will be discussed in more detail later. 6.2.2. Definiteness Several authors have mentioned the feanire definiteness as a potential source for the accusative-genitive syncretism. However, the information needed for the antecedent to be more easily identified is in the part of the dependent relative sentence that follows the noun, and therefore it would be untenable to state that the accusative-genitive syncretism marks a definite noun. CE Van Tilburg ( 1988): 9 As 1 have shown, there are several examples of such nouns in my Russian corpus (see, for example, p. 123). "Whenever the roman koga dtam-type contains a restrictive adnominal clause, which is nearly always or always the case, the definitmess of the antecdent starts with koga and develops with the rest of the adnominal dause" (Van Tilburg, 1988: 586) - emphasis is mine. Although it is true that the relative clause which is introduced by the pronoun KO~H helps the hearer identiQ the referent, i.e. it provides him with some additional information about the antecedent, the antecedent is not necessarüy unknown to him. The usage of ~ojerinstead of KO~Ntherefore in many cases where the accusative-genitive syncretism appears would superfluously label as [+dennite] a form which is previously marked as such in the context (Le. in the sentence or in the discourse). Examples of this type are: (7) M~Hnpaeo K oHoMe pacTy Koera~m~oflaanen ewmu (Zeta-Lov~en dialect) - example from Van Tilburg ( 1988: %O), 'Go straight to that wk thrit you cm sec Rom here,' (8) Kpaj OBe npHW HaJïa3HMO y TOM HCTOM A- Hmy.KOMMeT 3a 1 8% ~ORHH~,~ojera~~~~ je peflmno smao rocnoRw 6e~efle~(KHUI. E~iu~nonefl~jaVTBHX, l%), 'The end of this story we find in that very sarne Aradi Nqfo,collection for the year 1858, which Mr. Benedek regularly read. ' The antecedents in cited examples are sufficiently marked as definite either by demonstrative pronouns or contextually so that there is no communicative need to employ additional linguistic means to signalise that they are unique and easily identifiable in the situation, Le. that they are definite. In addition, the critenon 'first lime mentioned - indejnite, the nexr time mentioned - definite' does not explain the 'definite' (animate) fonn of the relative pronoun which appears at the absolute beginning of a chapter, in the first sentence (see the example #5). All these reasons exclude possibüity that the irregular fonn for the pronouns is a marker of defhiteness. 6.2.3. The Morpho-Syntactic Approach 6.2.3.1. Resolving Am biy ity Following Meillet's hypothesis on importance of a formal distinction behveen two objects with the same real-üfe status in two-argument structures, many researchers tned to connect cases of the irregular accusative-genitive syncretism with this role. Gortan-Premk (1 971) and KordiC (1993) see the accusative-genitive syncretism in the relative pronoun ~ojrrasa means for disambiguation: "CB~K~KOje Ha H~M~HY a~y3a~m~e @op~e, ~oja je o6nau~~jewara HOMHH~T~CKO~,cy6je~a~c~oj, Fmana Texfia sa jac~sjs~anauaioev o6je~a~c.e@y~~~aje penaTssHe sa~e~aqeKO~E, a maMe a sa pa3je~~a~asatbendbene @op~eOR ~O~MCcy6je~~a." (Gortari-Premk, 1971: 14- 1 5)- emphasis is mine; "Tako je upravo radi ostvarivanja potrebe za razlikovanjem objekta od subjekta "Zrhrovana" razlika izmedu akuzativa i genitiva. ... Poveiemo li ovo sa upotrebom kojeg(u) umjesto koji, iizlazi da je navedena upotreba prirnjer Sirenja morfolodike nzlike izmedu objekta i subjekta i na muski rod za nerivo" (Kordié, 1993: 105) - emphasis is mine. Examples of this kind are more frequently found in technical literature, where it is essential to distinguish between subject and object:'O (9) C: Stnifni korisnici u ovom dokumentu takoder mogu nadi zanimljive referentne informacije, ukljufujudi . .. detalje O hardveni kojeg pod-va Debianov instalacijski sustav (source: htt~:llwww.debian.ora/releases/stabldi386/install. hr. txt) 'Professional usen can also find interesting references in this document, inciuding . . . details on hardware which is supported by Debian's installation systern' (10) C: Regulami izrazi su slogen, di prokîeto mdan nafin za opefacije trafenja teksta. Na primjer, Aa[Aa-m]X(4,}txtS odgovara redu koji pofinje s a, hjeg slijedi bilo koji uiak imiedu a i m, kujeg stijedi 4 E vije X, a zavrgava na "txt." (source: -la. linux. hr./DOS-Win-na-Lux-O 12. htmi) 'Regular expressions are a cornplex, but an awfùlly powefil way for seerching for a text. For exarnple, Aa[Aa-m]X(4,) txtS corresponds to the line which starts with a, which 'O The foUowing examples 1 got fkom Prof Wayles Browne, to whom 1 am gratefbl. is foUowed by any symbol between a and m, which is foliowed by 4 or more X, and ends with "txt."' However, some authors find that the nurnber of such occurrences is insigniûcant in cornparison with other cases of the accusative-genitive syncretism for inanimate referents. For example, Babid (1 993 : 109) states that "u jeziznoj pr& nerna dvomaEnosti jer kontekst iskQu&je jeciho od zna~en~*a"(ibid. ). 6.2.3.2. Syntrctic Propertits of the Construction Analysed material shows no comection between case of the antecedent, presence of prepositions, syntactic role of the preceding noun and the accusative-genitive fonn of the relative pronoun ~Ojjl,as it was suggested as a possible factor Muencing the irregular form. This fact points towards the semanticlcontextual features that are responsible for the accusative-genitive syncretism, as it is the case with nouns. 6.2.3.2.1. Preseilce of Pnpositions and Case of the Antecedent Sometimes it is assumed that the presence of a preposition or the case (most ofien genitive) of the antecedent influences the choice of the relative pronoun's fom. However, examples fiom the corpus do not confirm that: (1 1) uiecr nmaha [ucnese~~x]no# caveMtutHa KOra~~mje 3r-p~~~ xap ca OrbHUITZL (Kanop, Y ~a,1 16- 1 1y), 'six chickens [roasted] under the ironpan ont0 which the live coals were put €tom the heart h' (12) Y xaocy~,~ora~h ~yroHAKO ~ehe MO^ na cmp~,Kacrop he ce ~PO~HTHBO Py~a(k~Hh. ~XHJIO, 27), 'In the chaos, which no one will be able to calm down for a long time, Kastor will make his way through to the uss si ans.'^' Although it is tnie that there is a high number of exarnples where the antecedent is in the genitive case, which could have been the trigger for the accusative-genitive syncretism of the immediately following relative pronoun, the preceding sentences with II See also example ( 1). prepositions ~a,nud and y, and antecedents in the locative and instrumental cases show that it is not necessary. 6.2.33.2. Syntactic Rok of the Antecedent In order to see if there are any syntactic reasondrestrains for the use of ~ojer instead of KO~H,1 have classified examples hodifferent groups, according to syntactic role of the antecedent noun. Mer having analyzed syntactic environment in which ~ojer appears instead of KO~H,1 mus conclude that the "odd" behaviour of the relative pronoun cannot be explained as a result of special syntactic conditions. Kojer does not appear only when the preceding noun is a direct object; it can appear when the preceding noun is a subject or it is a head of an adverbial clause: 6.2.3.2.2.1. Antecedent - Subject: (13) ~IO~OPHUIHH~p6m ~ojer&- CMO KY~By Hem 6euie mynica cnpasiiua on cnoHoeage H~HHeKe heHe sarac~~e~mawje (Iled. Xoqoraurhe Apce~~jaberoea~a, 50)' 'The opera glasses lhat we bought in Budapest were a nice gadget made of ivory or of its darker imitation.' (1 4) C: dolazi Mijeme kad se mora preuzeti n'u'k kojeghoni najradije ne bih preuzeo (Ludlum, 504). 'There cornes a tirne when one has to take the ris&one would rather not take' (15) Herne y Tepmanma KO~Hcy ce 6y~w-1~143 ~ohe ne~aprrije rn~ Ha npocropy ~3~ebyMX, ~ana3n0ce oyp-0~0~no Koraho, je Roula0 (ne&, Eecmo, 34)' 'Somewhere in temiinais that were starting to wake £kom their nocturnal lethargy or in the space between them was the answer he came to get.' 6.2.3.2.2.2. Antecedent - Becid of Adverbial Construction: (16) C: Kao da pokultava profitati stranicu telefonskog irnenika dok sjedi u uutombilu, kojegAcCeoaije promet zaustavio u Lincolnovu tuneiu (Ludlum, Akvitanska zavjera, 443), 'Like he was trying to read a page from a phone book sitting in a car stopped in traffic in Luicoin's tunnel,' (17) C: PoZteni Ijudi, koji se zbog ovog ili onog razloga naiaze u svÿrnc kojeg~~~~jerojatno me, nikad ne majudi u koga vjerovati, izrnisiiili su rifh (ibid., 504), 'Honest people, who for one reason or another find themselves in the world they probably hate, never knowing whom to trust, invented cipher'12 6.2.3.3. Conclusion Al1 preceding exampies confimi that there are no syntactic constraints on the usage of ~ojerinstead of KO~M 6.2.4. Otber Eypotheses 6.2.4.1. A Regular Tendency in Language Development Wayles Browne (1986) approaches the problem from the framework of Transformational Generative Gramar, and concludes that the accusative-genitive syncretism for the relative pronoun koji (which he calls ''naver, slrbstun>cIard system") is a result of "a generaf regufarity in the evolution of languages, [.. -1, the lendency for the grummar IO change so as to mmirnize the applicability ojindividuuI rules, so aî to "gei the most work" out of rnch (Browne 1986: 49.') The only potential problem with this analysis is that there are many examples of the accusative-genitive syncretism form the pronoun ~ojnthat date from as early as the 12'h century (see Van Tilburg [1988: 550]), without causing any significant movement towards the accusative-genitive syncretism in al1 cases with inanimate antecedents. l2 Set also examples (1), (1 I), (12). l3 The niles he refers to are rules of (1) assigning feanire [+anhate] to all 3rd person pronouns, (2) joining ofga with the relative efement, and (3) syncretization of the accusative with the genitive in cases of singular animate (nouns) (ibidem, 44), with another possible ordering: (1), (3), (2). 6.2.4.2. Stylistic Rcasons Sometimes language users employ the syncretism in order to avoid accumulation of the sarne word-foms in adjacent constructions. Had the regular inanimate marking for the preceding inanimate noun been applied, we would have three koji fominstead of two in the folowing example: (18) C: zaielio je da na zedji postoji nekakav bh[...] kojiLcx, bi mu oprao ruke i otistio onaj dio dune RojiGecNmnije prodao na aukciji - kojeg-h je katastrofalno dugo driao u boci bourbona (Ludlum, 358), ' he wished that there existed on the earth some sort of balm, which would wash his hands and cieanse that part of his sou1 which he didn't auction off - the part which he had kept in a bottle of bourbon for a catastrophically long the', but cases like this are quite rare. 6.3. Meaning of Constructions with the Accusative-Genitive Syncretism It is important to notice when the speaker chooses to use the irregular fonn. The fact is that in every case of such usage the rpeaker (or the writer) can use the regular form, but he selects the irregular one. If the speaker used the expected KO~Hforni. he would certainly be understood (and that would be correct from the prescriptivists' point of view), but the emphasis ofhis message would be dif'ferent, or there would be no emphasis at dl. As we have seen, there are no syntactic or morphological reasons for usage of the irregular form. My conclusion is that the speaker's choice is motivated by the communicationai need, which demands marking of atypical abjects. 6.3.1. Subjective Evaluation The speaker's choice of the accusative-genitive syncretism can be triggered by different factors, such as hidher assessrnent of information conceming the inanimate object which is contained in the subordinate clause as being of relatively higher importance, or hidher ranking of the object's features as unusual (atypical). The usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism in a way promotes not only the prding noun, but ais0 attracts more attention to the, by dennition, less important (i-e. subordinate) clause by giving its tirst constituent a more prominent fonn. The fact that ~ojeroccuneven when the preceding noun is the subject does not contradict our hypothesis, because the information about the subject, contained in the xojeFclause, is at least as important as the subject itself from the communicative aspect. In the example (19) Ha nocneniaoj crpamwama cnome ce WeTm MOTEB ~ojer~~je KeH oTaq cnmcao y nocnewoj +am ceor noTa(Henxah, Rama KHUl B pycica WH~~BHOCT,153), 'A floral mot& which her father painted in the last phase of his life, is mentioned on the last page of the article.' the additional remark about the subject (MOTHB) is extremely important For the understanding of the sentence (and of the whole story). (20) Xen~~oRa eaM notiynmo [...] ~~ejy@opwrpaba 6enor epTa, oHor Korak-oni he Kpacm caMo 6en~~~~HCHH u,BeToBB (Ana, 106, October 1996, p. 69) 'We want to suggest to you [.. .] the idea of creating a white garden, one which will be embellished only by white fiagrant flowen.' Explanation for the irregular fonn in the preceding example is in the fact that a white garden is atypical, being quite different fiom the usual multi-coloured gardens which were rnentioned at the beginning of the article. All examples of the irregular form given in the section 6.2.1.1. (p. 149) contain very important information in the subordinate clause, and it is the speaker's evaluation that allows the relative pronoun to acquire the more prominent fon. 6.3.2. Shift of Fucus The unexpected kojeg form as a vehicle that the speaker can use for change of focus is present in the following dialog, where the singer retums to the interviewer's (malicious) question by using the ~oje~form.l4 lJThe joumalist mentioned an event that aikgedly occurred aimost ten years before the interview. (2 1) -Y epeue 6eorpaac~orcamTa Hecepcram I988., ynyhem TepRe, 6ma cre Haporno sa~a~mu~uïma@ijy? -Hu~anay AOIBOT~HAC~M Bwena raaaauja, mcaM mana gacr na ra ynos~a~,HHTH ca~maRa neeana Ha ~e~ojnpspex6~ rRe je 6uo ï'wa '-During the summit of nonaligned nations held in Belgrade in 1988, according to reliable sources, was Qadhafi especialy interested in you? 4've never seen Qadhafi in my life, I've never had the honour to mat him, and I've never Sung at a concert that Qadhafi attended, and in '88, during the summit you mentioned I was in Paris with my daughter Jelena.' The irregular form stresses the intention to shift the hearer's attention from the first part of her response (where she actually answered the question by denying any relationship to Qadhafi) to the part of the statement which contains kojeg. in this second part she refers to the sumrnit mentioned in the interviewer's question, (which is only background information for the malevolent assumption) and by switching focus to it with the usage of kojeg, she adds the formal response to the answer already given in the first part of her reply. Shift of focus is also present in the following exarnple,15 where both accusative- nominative and accusative-genitive syncretisms concerning an inanimate object are present : " This example and suggestion to analyse shifl of fonns were given to me by Prof Wayles Browne. He located the excerpt of text in The Oslo Corpus of Bosnian Texts at the web site of the Text Laboratory at the Faculty of Arts, University of Oslo, Norway: htt~://www.textlab.uio.no/Bosnian~Co~us.htrnl. The excerpt is from the sarnple labeled B/HYPG/94 Pisac: Horozovi Han Naslov: Prognani grad Godina izdanja: Zagreb 1994 Izdava: Aktant d.o.0. lzdanja Antibarbarus (Bibhoteka Electa) Broj rijeEi: 14224. (22) Srkudem ponekad iz onog kmjavog fildha koji si ti najvige voljela, koji je bio tvoj. Na njemu je neki crtet na kojeg dosad nisam obratio psfnju. Kao neki egzotifni vrt i u njemu tri rene oko malog stola. Jedna je okrenuta ledima. Tmsipping sometimes from that chipped coffee cup which you üked the most, which was yours. On it, there is a picnire that 1 haven't paid attention to before. Like some son of exotic garden with three women around a small table. One has her back tumed. ' The change of the first occurrence of koji into kojeg, and of lkojeg into koji would not be acceptable here, because it would suggest that the focus is moving towards the cup itself. which is not the case. It is the picture on the cup which is more important (Le. corning into focus), and this is expressed by the accusative-genitive syncretism. 6.4. The Accusative-Genitive Syncretism and Adjectives with Deletcd Nouiis Lalevid (1935) was one of the first linguists who tried to explain the accusative- genitive fon of adjectives in Serbian constructions where the personal pronoun OH stands for the inanimate noun. His conclusion is that the accusative-genitive syncretism is caused by proxirnity of the 3rd person pronoun which has the accusative-genitive fonn ra! As we have shown in cases with the accusative-genitive syncretism for the relative pronoun KO~H. neamess of the fom with the accusative-genitive fom is not a necessary (nor a sufficient) condition for the accusative-genitive forrn of another word. Moreover, LaleviC's exarnples are not perceived as the only possible or acceptable variants for contemporary speakers of Serbian. He gives three sentences and comrnents: "1. Buneme H3BPMyT ~TO,l'ta ra OHaKO H3B'TaH OCTâBKiiie. ''ihey saw an overturned table, and left it that way (wvertumed).' 16 Cf: "ATPH~~T[. . .] 1y6~ sey c npaeHM O~~~KTOM~ojaje ~asa~y npeoM Beny herosa ra, aTO je 06nm je ma^ remmy [...] Ta~o~eo6~sa~ o6nm [~a-e~ je] rrp~pomm~H JIO~~KKM nyTeM cnzuKytiH ce y naaexy c ~aj6n- O~~~KTOM, 2. B~neeuisnparalr ~o~ao,onaame ra oHaKo nperm. 'Having seen an empty kettle, they left it that way (=ernpfy).' 3. Haboure o60pe~xpaff, na ra oHaico o6opexa HceKoure. 'They found afiallen O& and they chopped it (faIIen).' O'~~KRB~H~HCMO,Rame, na 6y~e:Bmeuie H~BW CM,na ra oHaKo H~BPH~TH OrnaBrne, Beaeeuoi npawKmao, ocraeaure ra oHaKo pa3arr, Haijouie o6ope~xpacr. na ra oHaKo o6ope~~ce~ouie. Ann omax ocehauo Ra HeuiTo ~ejey pefly. jep ce jessqro ocehabe 6y~anpoTae Tawse ~o~c~py~qaje"(Lalevid 1935: 53-4) - emphasis is mine. The "linguistic feeling" of contemporary Serbian speakers is not the same as Lalevid's. Adjectives used in his examples are indefinite, a form which is becoming increasingly rare in the modem language (definite fonns would be H.BPH~TO~,npa3~or, o6uperror).l7 In addition, it looks like Lalevid's constructions are not taken from wrinen sources, nor corn the spoken language, i.e. they are most probably just invented in order to iliustrate the phenomenon. However, the "feeling" that the constructions are les than perfect can be attributed to the repetition (accumulation) of the same fonns close to each other: a more "natural" way of giving the same (stylistically neutral, non-emphatic) information would be without any repetition of the adjective: Bwenie Y~B~H~TCTO,na ra O.H~KOH OÇT~NLCI~.if repetition is necessary because of the communicative importance of the adjective, it is possible to use both the accusative-nominative and accusative-genitive syncretism. The accusative-genitive syncretism, however, conveys a nuance of surprise, and/or peculiarity of the quality expressed by the adjective. " Compare, for example, Gortan-Premk and Brome's examples with al1 definite adjectives. The accusative-genitive syncretism with definite adjectives occun in contemporary Serbian (and Croatian) not only with masculine, but also with neuter gender nouns: C: Konaeno, nikada pnje nisarn vidio to legendarno oknigje .. . pa me mogudnost da ga vidii devasiiranog i osahdemg nije osobito pnvlgila (Vefemji Est, 29.8. 1992.) 'Mer dl, I have never seen before that legendary place .. . so the possibility of seeing it devastated and crippled did not appeal to me.' This example was given to me by Prof Wayles Browne. Examples with the accusative-genitive fonn for adjectives qualwg deleted inanimate nouns often include expression of contrast between objects (as a more objective cause for the unexpected fom) and emphasis (as a subjective factor)." Both of them are related to atypicality of the referent; in the former case a necessmily referential object is comparedfcontrasted with other ones and as a result of that singled out, and in the latter it is the speaker's subjective assessrnent of the referent's atypicality that causes foregrounding and appropriate marking with the accusative-genitive syncretism. It is difficult to descnbe the objective and the subjective factors separately, because sometimes both of them are present at the same tirne, and sometirnes it is only one of them that influences the choice. Van Tilburg' s example from the southern kaj kavijan dialect of Trebarjevo involves contrast : (1) "testa, kulike hoee: te hore ~eliki-~~koW, zeme ga celu prgiRu, a Ze malogaAcpG,, onda zeme male v ruke." 'some dough, as much as one wants: if one wants a big cake. one takes a whole handful of it, and if one wants a small one, then one takes a littie in one's hand.' (Van Tilburg, 1988: 570). l9 Explicit contrast is expressed also in examples Corn my corpus of spoken Serbian: (2) Q:Koj~ hem ~HI~HKJIRa ymteur? 'Which bicycle are you going to take?' A: .Ta hy 3ene~or~-~,TM y3m wpBemib~,. '1'11 take the green one, you take the red one.' The previous dialog took place in a situation where there were two bicycles available, and the second speaker expressed his preference with the accusative-genitive syncretism. However, it is not necessady that the preference is marked in such way. It is equally possible to have 'Ja I?y3ene~il~~,,a ~~y~~~e~or~fcc~rn' '1'1 take the green one, and you takc the red one,' which suggests that it is actually the possibility of -- - 18 Emphasis is conveyed by expiicit or emplicit expression of the speaker's surprise. l9 This appears to be the same phenornenon as in Slovenian, where the genitive ending is obiigatory. choice (or existence of any two referential objects) that can trigger the accuaative-genitive syncretism when the noun is de~eted.~'Use of the expected (Le. regular) accusative- nominative syncretism is also fiequent in such situations: Ja hy 3enem-~,,,,, , a Ta y3m ~~B~HE-N, '1'1 take the green one, you take the red one.' The second example from spoken language (with implicitly expressed contmt) involves a possessive pronoun21standing for a car (ay~o~o6m): (3) DITO or*^, HICH onpaeao? 'Why didn't you fix mine?' It is obviously assumed that the mechanic fixed someone else's car, not the speaker's, and it is also possible that some emotional charge is present in the situation. Nevertheless, we have seen that notion of surprise (emphasis), although a possible trigger for the irregular fonn, is not necessarily present in al1 situations where it occurs. It is interesting that Gortan-Prernk ( 197 1: 14- 15) illustrates the phenomenon of the irregular accusative-genitive syncretism with two exarnples fiom the spoken language, both of which contain lexems for explicit expression of surprise: (4) ''~H~MoRa CMO opMaH npe nunacica ocraemuir ~~TBO~~H-N,,na Hac 93 je 3a vy~~noKan CMO ra ~~T~KSIHoTBopemr+kFh 'We know that we lefi the closet closect before we went out, so we were amazed when we found it open,' (5) "Kan je ott npe mime on 30 roniiita orlauao ~3 aewbe, Eeorpaa je 6130 6an~a~c~ananama; cari je 6ao He Mano Y~H~H@~HKa4 ra je smeo oeaKo O nenorbocn H ~3rpabe~or~~~ 'When he lefi the country more than 30 years ago, Belgrade was a small Balkan town; now he was very surprised when he saw it so beautifhl and big.' 20 Note that it is impossible to use the accusative-genitive syncretism for the deleted noun (6- 'bycicle'). *'The irreplar fonn for a possessive pronoun in Serbian has never ken mention4 in the literature. Contrast is also present in both Gortan-Premk's examples. In the fourth example antonyms serve as a means for expressing it, and in the fifth there are no explicit lexical units, but it is the meaning of the first sentence that conveys idea of a "non-beautifUr' and "non-big" town, as opposed to the explicit description given in the second sentence. 6.5. Conclusion Al1 examples that illustrate use of the irregular form of the relative pronoun KOJH and adjective qualifjing a deleted animate noun in Serbian belong to the class of optional marking. There are also exarnples of possessive pronouns acquiring the irregular fom when comparison is involved. Analysis of different feahires and conditions that were related to these cases in previous research has proven that it is neither animacy nor defi~tenessthat are being expressed, and that there are no syntactic restrictions on the usage of the irregular forrn. Subjective evaluation of nouns that are antecedents of relative clauses containing ~ojerformas being more important and relevant for the story is evident, but the factor "importance" is not a necessary feature that influences choice of the irregular form in adjectives qualifjmg a deleted noun when contrasting is uivolved. It seems that the accusative-genitive form here again marks possibility of viewing an object as singled out for different reasons: either the subject (speaker/writer) is surprised and expresses it. or there is obviously more than one object involved in the situation and the accusative-genitive syncretism suggests existence of explicit or implicit comparison or shift of focus (which again points to compulsory referentiality of objects). Thus, it is possible to propose that atypicality of referents is the most general condition for the accusative-genitive syncretism in non-nouns also, since foregrounding of referential objects is present both in cases where they are contrasted and when the speaker expresses his/her emotions andor attitude towards an object. CBAPTER 7 CONCLUSION Our analysis of data that traditionaly have been connected with marking of the category of animacy in Serbian and Russian suggests that the accusative-genitive syncretism, which has been identified as a marker of animacy in these languages, serves as a marker of atypical objects. while the accusative-nominative fonn marks typical objects. Contrary to the expected formal marking of referentially animate objects with the accusative-genitive form, the distribution of this form is not identical with the semantic range of animacy. Likewise, the accusative-nominative fonn is used not only for inanimates, but for animates also. The division of data into instances where the marking of objects with the accusative-genitive or the accusative-nominative syncretism was obligatory and cases where this marking was optional enabled us to look for common semantic, morphological and pragmatic properties in examples where the syncretism occurs. The dEerence between these groups lies in the quality and quantity of variation: in the first group it is rare, the examples are often on the verge of acceptability (except when constructions with numerals are involved), while in the second group variation is very fiequent and if usage of a form is stylistically marked at al], it is either "professionalism" or "colloquial." There are different factors that can influence speakers' perception ofobjects as typical or atypical. The semantics (and fom) of the genitive case, which could be used for direct object in cases ofb'atypicaltransitivity," spread by analogy to ail objects that were atypicai - hstof al1 to the animate ones, since fiom the cognitive point of Mew anhates are typical subjects, and not objects. Atypicality of the animate's syntactic role was marked morphologically with the accusative-genitive syncretism. As the majority of atypical objects were animate, the accusative-genitive form was perceived as marking animacy, while the accusative-nominative as the systematic counterpart was generalised and accepted as the marker of inanimacy (i.e. the typicality of objects). Therefore, referentially animate objects are prototypes for atypical objects, and features commonly associated with animates, when pertain to inanimates, improve their chance of being gramrnatically treated as "special," i.e. atypical. This allows us to position the semantic category of anirnacy, with the accusative-genitive syncretism for animates and the accusative-nominative for inanimates, as the core of the wider category of atypicaiity of objects. As the accusative-genitive fonn is generalised as a marker for atypicai objects, i.e. typical animates, examples where it has been used for obvious inanimates help us to establish a list of features that are equivdent with the atypicality of objects, i.e. typicality of animates. Data show t hat the most fiequent usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism occurs when the inanimate object is given a name.' Narnes are typical for animates, most typically for humans in the first place. By naming an object the speaker necessarily singles it out, "pulling" it towards himself and other participants in communication and marks it the same way he/she would mark them, i.e. the participants: as atypical objects. Furthemore, by narning something, the speaker makes this referent necessanly foregrounded and marked as having higher value than al1 other mernbers of the same semantic class that are unnarned. When inanimates are not given a personai name, but are for other reasons singled out as important for the speaker, or as carriers of important information which is contained in the adjacent parts of the sentence, they also can acquire the accusative- genitive form. Cases in point are the Old Russian participial and complex constructions that fkequently accompany the accusative-genitive syncretism, and occurrence of the - 1 As we have seen, it is inelevant whether the noun used to name the inanimate object is typical for animates or hanimates. irregular accusative-genitive syncretism in the Serbian relative pronoun K@ when it refers to inanimate objects. In both instances it is the amount of information the speaker gives about the object that makes it more distinct, i.e. atypi~ai).~In ali of these exarnples the objects are necessarüy definite, individuated and referential, which are features that also accompany the occurrence of the syncretism in cases when "irregularly markeâ" adjectives quale a deleted inanimate noun in Serbian. On the other hand, the accusative-nominative form for animates is registered not only in Old Russian texts (in periods when the new accusative-genitive fonn was already predominant for animates) in situations when the animate, oflen human being with a personal name was considered to be not as important for the speaker as it should be, considering its real-lifie status, but also in contemporary laquages in metaphoncal constructions, when the object is to be seen only as a bearer of one significant feature, and not as a "complete" being. This is anaiogous to the obligatory marking of the neuter gender nouns with the accusative-nominative syncretism. My interpretation of the data suggests that there is no semantic hierarchy related to the category traditionally called "animacy" that would successfùlly predict the accusative fonn if the factor of subjective interpretation of objects as typical or atypical in a concrete situation is not involved. This is confirmed not only by the analysis of nouns, which have been at the centre of research on the category of animacy, but also by analysis of the unexpected accusative-genitive form in Serbian relative pronoun KO~Hfor inanimate antecedents and in cases where adjectives qualifl a deleted inanimate noun. As the corpus 2 Cf also: "The more we know about an entity, or - metaphorically speaking - the more 'weight' it has in Our memory, the more individuated it dlbe. Consequentiy, as our knowledge of a cenain entity increases, it gradually becomes more and more individuated in our minds. This evidently takes place in discourse, as more and more is said about a referent. Something that is initially described and conceived of as an Instance of a Functional may thus, in the course of the deveioping discourse, graduaüy 'grow into' an Individuai" (Fraurud 1996: 79-80). has shown, there are vinually no masculine singular nouns ending in zero in either Serbian or Russian that under some circumstances cannot acquire the accusative-genitive syncretism. In some cases they will be stylistically marked, or the usage will be on the border between occasionalism and a construction with dubious acceptabüity, but still the examples exist. Examples that in much previous research were labelled as "remnants of the past state of the system of the category of anirnacy" belong to the class with obügatoiy usage of a specific accusative forni.) In the vast majority of cases they do not allow variation, Le. they keep the "old accusative form, which is equal to the nominative. Semantic analysis of such examples indicates that the objects are perceived as not important as individual entities. The neuter gender nouns lack Uiforrnation on their sex, collective nouns by definition stress higher relevance of the notion "group" than that of an individual (member of the group), and the sarne pertains to other nouns denoting groups of animates. Variation in the use of the accusative-genitive syncretism is more frequent in the second class of examples, which is characterisec! by the possibility of usage of both accusative-genitive and accusative-nominative syncretism for one lexeme. In cases where the semantic criterion for classification of nouns into a separate group was the speakers' uncertainty regarding the real-life status of the object (animate or inanimate), the underlying cause for vacillation was the dissimilarity of such objects to typical animates. In the second class of examples, where mainly polysemous lexemes are inv~lved,~ semantically correct marking of the accusative prevails. Variation in this class is actuaiiy rare and most exarnples are found in metaphorical usage of nouns. Conflict between the real-life status of inanimate objects and the fact that they are given a narne, which is not 3 Nouns denoting typical animates in stylistically neutrai contextdsituation are the second large group with the obligatory marking (Acc-Gen). 4 Regardless of their listing as mono- or polysernous in dictionaries. characteristic for inanimates and, accordingly, makes them atypical, is the cause of variation in the third class of examples. 1 have tried to demonstrate that factors that were considered relevant for the choice of the accusative form in previous research on the category of animacy (definiteness of objects, salience, presence of difFerent modiners, individuation, referentiatity. amount of idormation given on an object) are important insofar as they influence the speakers' perception of objects as atypical, regardless of the objects' animacy status. They accompany the usage of the accusative-genitive syncretism, but their presence does not guarantee that this syncretism will be applied. They also occur when the accusative-nominative form is used in reference to animate objects, but in this situation deliberate usage of this fonn signals the objects' lesser importance or lower status fiom the speaker's point of view. The answer to the seemingly haphazard distribution of the accusative-genitive and accusative-nominative syncretisms may lie in the speaker's perception of typicai markers for (a)typical objects. Since the accusative-genitive is the typical form for atypical objects, i.e., (typical) animates, deliberate usage of it when it is not justified from the point of view of the category of animacy signals that the object is not to be perceived as typical; likewise, the accusative-nominative form is typical for inanimates (Le., typical objects), and deliberate (unexpected) usage of this syncretism indicates that the object lacks some features associated with animates. The speaker's intentional deviation fiom typical assignment of forms for specific syntactic roles entails a change in the object's importance fiom his point of view. Any intentional usage of a marked fom (for typical objects the marked form is the accusative-genitive, and for atypical objects - the accusative-nominative syncretism) signals atypicality of the noun. Atypicality can be based on the semantic properties of the noun, on the syntactic role it has in a construction, or on idiosyncratic factors such as the speaker's subjective assessrnent of the object as atypical or not, dependmg on his communicational needs (cf also Winter's [1989: 104-1051) opinion on the necessity of viewing "markedness" or "degree of normalcy, or degree ofnaturalness," as she cdsit, as not being the property of a form, but of a form when used under specific circumstances). Summarising my research on the category of enimacy in contemporary Serbian and Russian, I conclude that results of an analysis of data suggest that a (proto)typical object (or at least for speakers of these two languages) is not necessady inanimate (although most often it is). Compared with the subject, a prototypical object is (at least perceived as) less active and it is most often un-diflerentiated (i.e. perceived as an insignifïcant part of a mass or a gioup). It is non-salient and it is non-individuated. As a rule, it is not singled out by the use of demonstrative or possessive pronoms, by personal narne or other means of marking definiteness, and usually it is not supplied with additional descriptive idor~nation.~Or, from the speaker's point of view, the less the object resembles the speaker himself, the more typical it is. The analysed data do not permit establishment of a ngid hierarchy that would govem the choice of the accusative form in Serbian and Russian (and perhaps some other Slavic and, possibly, non-Slavic languages), since there are several features that most ofien occur in a sentence simultaneously. The object can (and it often does) acquire the accusative-genitive syncretisrn as a marker of its atypicality if it: 1. is referentially animate; 2. has a personai name; 3. is individuated; 4. is referential; 5. is in focus; 6. provokes a special attitude frorn the subject; 5 This agrees with Cornrie's view of "nod(Le. typicd) objects as it was presented in Hopper, Thompson (1980: 29 1). 7. is supplied with a large amount of information- However. the speaker's assessment of the abject's typicality or atypicality (and therefore hidher marking of it with the appropriate accusative fom) in a particular situation cm ovemle the possible influence of al1 the listeci features an- still mark the object with the accusative-nominative or the accusative-genitive form. Therefore, the speaker's communicative need in a concrete simation is the ultimate cause for the choice of a given accusative fonn. The list of features associated in previous research with marking of the category of animacy is actually the inventory of features that qualw atypical abjects. Acceptance of this hypothesis makes the long lists of "exceptions" associated Ath the category of animacy unnecessary, since dl of these "irreel&ies" are in fact results of the speaker's assessment of the object's proxirnity to bis own of himself as the ultimate atypical object. Assigrnent of the accusative-genitive fomi to the objea that (even temporady) has the sarne or similar features as himself. equals the object's semantic "promotion" to a more noticeable unit, whiie assignment of the accusative-nominative syncretism signals the object's typicality or lesser similarity to the subject. The category of animacy can be viewed as a part of the categoiy of atypical abjects, whik the features most comrnonly associated with the categoty of animacy can change a usually typical or atypical object into its opposite, using the fom of the accusative. This expianation lads to a semantically justified co~ectionof numerous ucounter-examples7'for marking of the category of animacy to appropriate marking of (a)wicâl objects. regardless of their rd- life status. Akademija nauk SSSR. Institut russkogo jazyka. Russkaja grammarika I. Moskva, Nauka, 1980 Allan, Keith. "Hierarchies and the choice of lefi conjuncts (with particular attention to English)." Journal of Linguistics, 23, 1987, 5 1-77 AN Ukriiaskoj SSR. Institut jazykovedenija im. A.A. Potebni. Ukrainskaja grammatih Kiev, Naukova dumka, 1986 AndrejEtva, N. L "O xronologii razvitija kat egorii odu~evlennostiv russkom jazyke." Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 9. Filologija, 1989, 2, 74-77 Babid, Stjepan. "O redu rij&i u ju~oslavenskimjezicima." In: Hrvatska jezikoslovna citanka. Globus, Zagreb, 1990 -mu-IUI "Rarmisljanja ut koji-kojega." Sezik, 40, i 993, 109- 1 1 1 Barid, E. et al. Prirufnagramutika hrvufskogaknjifevnog jezzka. Zagreb, Skolska knjiga, 1979 Bartsch, Renate. Nmsof language. Longman, LondonMew York, 1987 Battistella, Edwin L. Mmkeahess: the evaiuative superstructure of lmguage. State University of New York Press, 1990 Bogusîawski, A., Karolak, S. Gramatyka rosyjska w ujpiufinkcjonafnym. Warszawa, 1973 Bondarko, A. V. "K interpretacii odu#evlennosti-neoduSevlennosti,raajadov pola i kategorii roda (na materiale msskogo jazyka)." In: Slavjanskoe i baikanskoe jazykomanie. Problemy morfologii sovremennyx slavjanskix i balkanskix jaykov. Nauka, Moskva, 1976. Bragina, A.A. "Nabljudenija nad kategoriej roda v russkom jazyke." Voprosy jazykomanija, 5, 198 1.68-78 Brooks, Maria Zagorska. Polish reference grmmar. Mouton, The HagdParis, 1975 Browne, Wayles. Relative clauses in Serbo-Croatim in cornparison with English. Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb, 1986 Chare, Wallace L. "Givenness, contrastiveness, Jefiniteness, subjects and topics." in: Subject and topic (ed. by Charles N. Li). Academic Press, Inc. New York, San Francisco, London, 1975, 27-55 Comrie, Bernard. "Genitive-Accusatives in Slavic: The Rules and Theu Motivation." International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 3, 1-2, 1978 ---HI.H-Lunguuge uniwrsals cd linguistic lyp~loogy.2nd edition. The University of Chicago Press, 1989 --- "Markedness, grarnmar, people and the world." In: Markedness. Edited by Fred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik and Jessica R. Wlrth. Plenum Press, New YorklLondon, 1983, 85- 106 Corbett, Greville. "Animacy in Russian and Other Slavic Languages: Where Syntax and Semantics Fail to Match." In: Morphosyntax in Slavic (eds. Chvany, Brecht), Slavica, Columbus, 1980. ------Gender. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, 199 1 -----CI--- "Naturalness and Markedness in Morphological Rules: the Problem of Animacy in Russian." Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 6, 1980. Crolt, William. Syntactic categories and grammutical relations: the cognitive orgmiirarion of infifion.The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, 199 1 Dahl, Osten, Fraurud, Kari. "Animacy in grammar and discourse." In: Reference and referent accessibility. Edited by Thorstein Fretheim, Jeanette K. Gundel. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdaflhiladelphia, 1996,474 Da hl, Osien. Topic aiid conznre~i:a au@ in Russian and generd transformational gramrnar. Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis, Goteborg, 1969 Dalewska-G ren,' EL, Felcako, K. "Mesto brojeva u odrcdivanju grarnatif kog roda i broja u srpskolwatskom i poljskom jeziku." Naufni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane. Referati i saopltenja, 13/1, Beograd, 1984 DeLancey, Seo tt. "Transitivity in gramrnar and cognition." In: Coherence and grounding in discourse. Ed. by Russel S. Tomlin. John Benjamins Publishing Company, AmsterdamPhiladelphia, 1987, 53-69 Dik, Simon C. (ed.). Advances infuncfionafgrmmar. Fons Publications, Dordrecht, Holland/Ci~aminson,USA, 1983 LI--III-- "Basic pnnciples of fùnctional gramrnar." In: Advances in fùnctional grammar, ed. by Dik, S.C., 1-28 ------Ftmctional grammar. Nort h-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 1978 ---HI-- The theory offinctionai grammm. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Fons Publications, Dordrecht, HoUandlProvidence RI - USA, 1989 Dimitrova, Stefann Iskljufnija v vnrkomjazyke. Slavica Publishers, Inc. Columbus, Ohio, 1994 Dudié, Kosta. Srpskohwatki/hwatskosrpsh jezik sa osnovama opzte fingvistike za III rmed srednjeg obrazovar~a- I godinu pozivnmsmerenog obrazovanja i va.spitanja srednjeg st~qmjaprevdiIa~ke sîruke. Sremski Karlovci, Novi Sad, 1981 Egg ins, Suun ne. An introduction to wemicfunctional finguistics. Pinter Publishers, London, 1994 Eleaskij, Jordan. "O kategorii oduJevle~ostiv nisskorn jazyke." Bolgarskaja rusiaika, 6, 1977,4 1-54 Fodor, 1. "The ongin of grammatical gender 1, II." Lingua, Wl,Z, 1959 Fnurud, Ka ri. ''Cognitive ontology and NP form." In: Reference and referent accessibility. Edited by Thorstein Fretheim, Jeanette K. Gundel. John Benjamins Publishing Company, AmsterdamlPhiladelphia, 1996,65-87 Fretheim, Thontein and Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.). Reference cad refirent accessibdi~.Io hn Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphi4 1996 Friedman, Victor. "South SlaMc." In: The Chicago Which Hunt. Papers fiom the Relative Clause Festival (ed. by Peranteau P.M. et al.). Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, 1972,42 Frink, Omn. "Genitive-Accusative in the Laurentian Pnmary Chronicle." SEEJ, 6,2,1962, 133-137 Funell, E., Sheridan, J. "Catego ries of Knowledge? Unfarniliar Aspects of Living and Nonliving Things." Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9, 2, 1992 Gallis, Arne. The Sjmtax ofRelutive Clauses in Serbo-Crmtim yiewed on a Historical Bmis, Oslo, 1 kommisjon hos H. Aschehoug, 1956 Gaikrelidze, Thomas V., Ivanov, VjaZcslav V. Indo-Europan and the In& Europeans 1. Mouton de Gniyter, Herlin, New York, 1995 Gergely, Gyorgy. Free word order and discourse interpretation. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 199 1 Givtin, Tdmy. "Beyond foreground and background." In: Coherence and grounding in discourse. Ed. by Russel S. Tornlin. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1987, 175- 189 --a --a "Definiteness and referentiality." In: : Universals of Human Language. Ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg. Volume 4: Syntax. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1978, 292-3 30 ------Min4 code and context: essays in pragmatics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jerseykondon, 1989 ---__--II "Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement." in: Subject and topic (edited by Charles N. Li). Academic Press, Inc. New York, San Francisco, London, 1975, 149-188 Godkova, K.V., Haburgaev, C.A. Istori~eskajagmmatika russkogojuzyka. Moskva, 1981 Gort an- Premk, Darinka. Akuzativne sintape ber predloga u srpskohnatskom jezih. Institut ta srpskohrvatski je& Beograd, 197 1 -HI--- "O evolutivnim tendencijarna akuzativnih sintagrni bupredloga u srpskohrvatskom jeziku." Juinoslovenski füolog XXX/ 1,2, 1973, 28 1-295 Grannes, AIf. "Impersonal animacy in 18th century Russian." Russian Linguistics, 8, 3, 1984, 295-3 1 1 --.-W.--- "Rodi mne tri syna: animacy in Russian numerals - nom and usage." In: Festschrift fbr Wolfgang Gesemann. B.3. Hieronymus, Munchen, 1986, 10% 1 17 Hall, G. L., St. Clair-Sobell, J. 'Animate gender in Slavonic and Romance languages." Lingua, 4, 2, 1954, 194-206 Earkins, W.E. A modem Czech grammar. King's Crown Press, Columbia University, New York, 1953 Havranek, Bohuslav, JedliZka, Alois. ceska mluvnice. Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi, Praha, 1963 Hawkinson, Annie K., Eyman, La y M. "Hierarchies of naturd topic in Shona." Studies in African linguistics, 5.2, 1974, 147-169 Bjelmslev, L. "O kategonjax lifnosti - nehosti i odurevle~osti- neodubevlemosti" (translation fkom: L. Hjelmslev. Animé et inanimé, personnel et nonpersonnel. Travaux de l'institut de linguistique, vol. 1, Paris, 1956). In: Principy tipologif eskogo analiza jazykov razhogo stroja. Moskva, Nauka, 1972 Hopper, Paul J., Thompaon Sandra A. "Transitivity in grammar and discourse." Langage. 56,2, 1980,25 1-299 Huntley, David. "The evolution of genitive-accusative animate and personal nouns in Slavic dialects." In: Historical rnorphology. Ed. by J. Fisiak. The Hague, 1980, 189-2 12 Ibrahim, Muhammad Hwan. Grumrnatica~gender, 1t.s origin and development. Mouton, The Hague, Pans, 1973 ickoviE, V.A. "SusEestvitel' nye odu6evle~yei neoduHevle~yev sovremennom russkom jazyke (noma i tendencija)." Voprosy jasykomanija, 4, 1980 Ivanov, VaV. IstoriEeskaja grammatika msskogo jazyka. Moskva, 1990 Ivik, Milka. "Gender and Number in Serbocroatian Substantives." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poeticq VI, 1963 UUU__- "lzbrojivost onoga #O imenica inaiava kao gramati6ki problem." In: Lingvistidci ogledi. Prosveta, Beograd, 1983 Jakobson, Roman. "The gender pattern of Russian." In: Selected Writings U, The HagueiParis, 197 1 Janda, Laura. "Figure, Ground, and Anhacy in Slavic Declension." SEEJ, 40, 2, 1996, 325-355 Jespersen, Otto. The philosophy of grammur. London, 1958 Karadh-Carie, Mevlida. "Kupiti Bat ili fiata?' In: Nai! jezik u praksi. Institut za jezik i knjiievnost u Sarajevu, Odjeljenje za jezik Sarajevo, 1979, 292-294 Kedaj tene, E. 1. Kutegorija ohu~evlennostiv rusîkom jazyke (stanovlenie i rdtie). Universitet dru tby narodov, Moskva, 1982 ---_-- "Vitu brata, on kupil stol." Russkaja re', 5, 1975, 154- 157 Klajn, Ivan. "O sklopu reenice." In: Pavle Ivid et al. Jezifki prinifnik. RTB, Beograd, 199 1 Klenin, E mily. Animacy in Russian. A new interpretation. Slavica Publishers, Inc. Columbus, Ohio, 1983. -O----O--- "Individuation: an historical case study." In: Morphosyntax in Slavic. Ed. by C. V. Chvany and R. Brecht. Slavica, Columbus, Ohio, 1980,62078 -----O-- "Morphological coding, syntactic change, and the modes of historical attestation: the genitive-accusative in Old Church Slavonic and medieval East Slavic." SEEJ, 3 1,3, 1987,4040419 Kordii, Snj-na. "Koji i kojega." lezik, 40, 1993, 103-108 --O--CII- "Genitiv/Akkwativ-Synkretismusbeim kroatisch-serbishen Relativpronomen." Zeitschrift fur Slawistik, 49/2, 1995, 202-21 3 KovaPevik, Milog. "Pobrkani abtivi." In: Na jezik u praksi. Institut za jezik i knji5evnoa u Sarajevu, Odjeljenje ui jezik, Sarajevo, 1979, 290-292 Kremer, Marion. Persson reference and gender in transhtion. A contrastive investigation of Engiish. Gunt er Narr Verlag Tu bingen, 1997 Krakova, Helena. "PervyEnye i vtoiEnye tiinkcü i t.naz. transpozicija fonn." Travaux linguistiques de Prague, 2, 1966. Academia, Editions de L'Académie Tchécoslovaque des Sciences, Prague Krys'ko, V. B. "Nelif naja odu~eviemost'v drevnerusskom jayke." Voprosy jazykomanija, 4, 1992 Kuylonicz, Jeny. "Personal and animate genders in Slavic." Lingua, 1 1, 1962, 249-255 ------ïhe infectional cutegories of Indo-European. Car1 W inter Universitatsverlag, Heidelberg, 1964 Kunon, Dennia. "The theme in text cohesion." In: The Prague school and its legacy in linguistics, literature, semiotics, folklore, and the arts. Ed. by Yishai Tobin. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Arnsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988 Kuz'mina C.B. SintaArsis msskix govorov v hgvogeogrofi~eskomqkte. Nauka, Moskva, 1993 Kuznecov, P. S. IsroriEeskaja grammatika russogo jazyh. MorfoIogittu. Moskva, 1953 Lakoff, George. Women.fire md dmtgeroics things. The UNversity of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, 1987 Lalevie, Miodrag S. "Jedna napomena povodom akuzativa." Nali jezik N, 2, 1935, 53-55 Laskowski, Roman. "The development of the category of gender in the SIavic languages." In: Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, vol. 1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics. Edited by D. Kastowsky, A. Smedek. Berlin, 1986, 459- 472 Lazard G. "Actance variations and categories of the object." In: Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. Ed. by Frans Plank. Academic Press, London/Orlando/San Diego... 1984, 269-292 Lépissier, Jacques. "Du ghitif-accusatif inanimé en vieux slave." Revue des études slaves, 40, 1964, 1 26- 1 3 7 LiTanov, K.V. "Xarakter kategorii oduSevlennosti v slovackom jazyke (v sopostavlenii s russkim)." Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 9. Filologija. 1983, 3, 4 1-49 Madojan, V. V. "Istorija kategorii odu#evie~ostiv russkom jazyke." FilologiEeskie nauki, 1, 1986 Mar& F. V. "The histonc development of the Slavic noun declension 1 (the system of categories)." Slavia, 36, 4, 1967, 485-506 MatijeJevii, Jelka. "Struktumo-semantiEka komponenta kategorije rod imenica koje oznaeavaju dada bida - u niskom i srpskohwatskorn jeziku (sa tipoloskog aspekta)." Naufni sadanak slavista u Vukove dane. Referati i saopjtenja. Beograd, 198 1, 74 199- 21 1 McGinn, R "The Animacy Hierarchy and Western Austronesian Languages." In: Proceedings - Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 6, 1989 Mel'Zuk Igor A. "Animacy in Russian cardinal numerals and adjectives as an inflectional categoty." Language, 56,4, 1980,797-8 1 1 Mindak, Jolanta. f$zykowa kategoria @wobroSciw poLszczjknie i s#owidtl'szczyh.iena tle innych jpykoows'wata nob. ujgia tpulogrèmego. Wydawnictwo polskiej Akademii nauk. Wrodaw, Warszawa, MW,1990 Mi3cska-'ïomié, Olga. "Towards a unifieci treatment of topicalization transformations." In: Papers tiom the 13th regional meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1977, 669-678 Cortan-Prcmù, Dannùa. Ahzativne sinlagrne bez predloga u srpskohrvatskotn jeziku. Institut za srpskohatski jezik, Beograd, 197 1 --II- "û evolutivnim tendencijarna akuuitivnih sintagrni ber predloga u srpskohwatskom jeziku." Jutnoslovenski filolog XXXI 1,2, 1973,28 1-295 Granres, Alf. "Impersonal animacy in 18th century Russian." Russian Linguistics, 8, 3, 1984,295-3 1 1 ---- 'Rodi mne tri syna: animacy in Russian numerals - nom and usage." In: Festschrifl fur Wolfgang Gesemann. B.3. Hieronymus, Munchen, 1986, 109-1 17 Hall, G. L, St. Clair-Sobell, Je "Animate gender in Slavonic and Romance languages." Lingua, 4,2, 1954, 194-206 Harkins, W.E. A modern Crech grammu. King's Crown Press, Columbia University, New York, 1953 Havranek, Bo b udav, JdiiNu, Alois. Ceska mluvnice. Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi, Praha, 1963 Hawkinson, Annie K., Hyman, Larry M. 'Wierarchies of natural topic in Shona." Studies in African Iinguistics, 5, 2, 1974, 147- 169 Bjdmslev, Lm'U kategorijax lit nosti - nelif nosti i od~evlennosti- neodu!ievlennosti" (translation fiom: L. Hjelmslev. Animé et inanimé, personnel et nonpersonnel. Travaux de l'institut de linguistique, vol. 1, Paris, 1956). In: Principy tipologifeskogo anal iza jazy kov razlif nogo stroja. Moskva, Nauka, 1972 Hopper, Paul J., Thonpsoa Sandn A. 'Transitivity in gramrnar and discoune." Language, 56,2, 198O,25 1-299 Huntley, David 'The evolution of genitive-accusative animate and personal nouns in Slavic dialects." In: Historical morphology. Ed. by J. Fisiak. The Hague, 1980, 189-212 Ibrahim, Muhammad Hasan. Grammatical gehr, ifsorigin and cdevefopment. Mouton, The Hague, Paris, 1973 Ickovi8. VA. "Su%estvitel' nye odugevlennye i neodu revlenny e v sowemennom msskom jazyke (nom i tendencija)." Voprosy jazykomanija, 4, 1980 Ivanov, V. V. Istori&skaja grammafika nissbgo jazyka. Moskva, 1990 Ivid, Milka. "Gender and Number in Serbocroatian Substantives." International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, VI, 1963 -.-.Mm "lzbrojivost onoga Sto imenica inaiava kao gramatitki problem." In: Lingvistif ki ogledi. Prosveta, Beograd, 1983 Jakobson, Roman. "The gender pattern of Russian." In: Selected Writings 11, The Hague/Paris, 1971 Janda, Laun. 'Tigure, Ground, and Animacy in Slavic Declension." SEEJ, 40, 2, 1996,325-355 Japencn, Otto. The philosophy of grummm. London, 1958 Kandfr-Gari& Mevlida. "Kupiti fiat ili fiata?" In: Nd jezik u praksi. Institut za jezik i knji~evnostu Sarajevu, Odjeljenje za jezik, Sarajevo, 1979,292-294 Keàajtene, E. 1. Kategorija tnhfevlennosti v ruskomjazyke (stanovfenie i mzvitie). Universit et dnitby narodov, Moskva, 1982 -III 'Yi& brata, on kupil stol." Russkaja re&, 5, 1975, 1541 57 KJajn, Ivan. 'Y3 sklopu refenice." In: Pavle IviC et al. Jezifki prinrènik. RTB, Beograd, 1991 Kknin, Emily. Animacy in Rumian. A new interpretation. Slavica Pu blis hers, Inc. Columbus, Ohio, 1983. ------"Individuation: an historical case study." In: Morphosyntax in Slavic. Ed. by C. V. Chvany and R. Brecht. Slavica, Columbus, Ohio, 1 980,62-78 ----- "Morphological coding, syntactic change, and the modes of histoncal attestation: the genitive-accusative in Old Church SIavonic and medieval East Slavic." SEEJ, 31,3, 1987,404-419 Kordid, Snjdiaa. "Koji i kojega." Jezik, 40, 1993, 103- 108 --- "Genitiv/Akkuzativ-Synkretismus beim kroatisch-serbishen Relativpronomen." Zeitschrift fur Slawistik, 4912, 1995, 202-2 13 Kova&vi& Mila "Pobrkani akuzativi." In: N@ jezik u praksi. Institut za jezik i knjiLevnost u Sarajevu, Odjeljenje za jezik, Sarajevo, 1979,290-292 Knmcr, Marion. Person reference anù gender in transhtio~~.A conmastivw i~ivestigationof Enghsh. Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen, 1997 Krifkova, Adena. 'Tewyfnye i vtorifnye funkcii i t. naz. transpozicija fonn." Travaux linguistiques de Prague, 2, 1966. Academia, Editions de l'Académie Tchécoslovaque des Sciences, Prague Kys'ko, V. B. 'Welielifnaja oduJevlennoa' v drevnerusskom jazyke." Voprosy jazykomanija, 4, 1992 Kurytowia, Jemy. 'Tersonal and animate genders in Slavic." Lingua, 11, 1962, 249-25 5 ------n>e iflecrional cutegories of Indo-Europerm. Car1 W inter Universitatsverlag, Heidelberg, 1964 Kunon, ûennis. 'The theme in text cohesion." In: The Prague school and its legacy in linguistics, literature, semiotics, folklore, and the arts. Ed. by Y ishai Tobin. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988 Kuz' miaa L B. Sii~taksismsskix govorov v hgvogzogra$c'eskorn qmk. Nauka, Moskva, 1993 Knzntcov, P.S. Istori&skaju grammutika russogojayka. Morfolgju. Moskva, 1953 LakoC George. Women,flre and dangerms things. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, 1987 Lalevid, Miodrag S. "Jeûna napomena povodom akuzativa." Najezik IV, 2, 1935, 53-55 Laskowski, Roman. 'The development of the category of gender in the Slavic languages." In: Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, vol. 1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics. Edited by D. Kastowsky, A. Szwedek. Berlin, 1986,459472 Lazad G. "Actance variations and categories of the object." In: Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. Ed. by Frans Plank. Academic Press, London/Orlando/San Diego.. . 1984,269-292 Lépissiet, Jacques. mu génitif-accusatif inanimé en vieux slave." Revue des études slaves, 40, 1964, 126-137 Lifinov, IdV. "Xarakter kategorii odUevlemosti v slovackom jazyke (v sopostavlenii s msskim)." Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Sa.9. Filologija. 1983,3, 4 1-49 Madojan, V. V. "Istonja kategorii odu5evle~ostiv russkom jazyke." FilologiEeskie nauki, 1, 1986 Ma* FeV. 'The historic development of the Slavic noun declension I (the system of categones)." Slavia, 36,4, 1967,485-506 Matijaikvih Jelka. "Stnikturno-semantifka komponenta kategorije rod imenica koje onafavaju mlada bih- u ruskom i srpskohrvatskom jeziku (sa tipoloskog aspekta)." NauPni sastanak siavista u Vukove dane. Referati i saoptenja. Beograd, 198 1, 7/I, 199-31 1 McGinn, R "The Animacy Hierarchy and Western Austronesian Languages." In: Proceedings -- Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 6, 1989 Mtl'éuk lgor A. "Animacy in Russian cardinal numerals and adjectives as an inflectional category." Language, 56,4, 1980,797-8 1 1 Miodak, Joliinta. fwkowa Aaregoria ~otaos'ciw po~szczyhiei dowim'szyhie IW rlr innychjwkuw iwiata Mba ujpia typoiogicznegu. Wydawnictwo polskiej Akademii nauk. Wrouîaw, Warszawa, Krakow, 1990 Mikdu-Tomi6, Olga. "Towards a unified treatment of topicalization transformations." in: Papers From the 13th regional meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1977,669-678 Moravcsik, Editb A "Case marking of abjects." In: Univetsals of Human Language. Ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg. Volume 4: Syntax. Stanford University Press- Stanford, California, 1978,250-289 MrwvM, P., Vukadiiiovi~2. Gramutika srpskohrvatskogjeziku za sîrance. Sremski Karlovci, Novi Sad, 1990 MuZaik, 1. P. 'ategorija roda i ee diev sowemennom russkom literatumom jazyke." In: Razvitie sowemennogo russkogo jazyka. Izd. AN SSSR, 1963 Mulié, Malik. "Akwativ singulara mufkog roda odnosne zamjenice 'koji"'. Jeziiq II, 3, 1954,86087 Mjulen bah, K. "Ob upotrebleni i roditel'nogo padeia vmesto vinitel'nogo v slavjanskih jazykah." Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti lmperatorskoj Akadernii nauk. 3.4, St. Peterburg, 1899 Newman, Lawrence W. 'The accusative case in Russian." Folia Slavica, 1978, 2, 1-3,256-272 Palmer, Frank Robert. Grammutical rolcs and wlulions. Cambridge University Press, 1994 Pen'kovskij, A.B. "Zametki O kategorii odu8evlennosti v russki h govorah." In: Akademija nauk SSSR. MA.Russkie govory. K izufeniju fonetiki, grammatiki, leksiki. Nauka, Moskva, 1975 Ptocbevr, Maya. "Semantic 'oppositions': (Animacy)." In: Current advances in semantic theory (ed. by Maxim Starnenov). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992, 339-345 Plaak, Frans. '?ntroduction: Ces obscurs objets du desu." In: Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. Ed. by Frans Plank. Academic Press, London/Orlando/San Diego. .. 1984, 1-9 Poldauf, Ivan, Sprunk, ffirel. testimjmyk cki. Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi, Praha, 1968 Poiinsky, Maria. "Non-terms in compiex predicates: fiom incorporation to reanalysis." In: Grammatical relations. Theoretical approaches to empirical questions. Ed. by C.S. Burgess, K. Dziwirek, D. Gerdts. CSLl Publications, Stanford, California, 1996 Popovié, Lj. "Upotreba kardinainih brojeva u srpskohrvatskom jeziku." Jugoslovenski seminar za strane slaviste, 30, 1979 Roberts, Lawrenct D. How reference works. F~xplatiatoryrnodels for indexiculs, descriptions, and andpcity. State University of New York Press, 1993 Rozental', De,Koxtcv, N. Jayk reklanrnyh teksrov. VySaja skola, Moskva, 1981 Rozental' , DeE. Pruhteskaja stilistih msskogo jayka. Vy Saja skola, Moskva, 1968 Roikova, G.I. Oterki prukti~eskojgrammatiki russkogo jayka. Izdanie vtoroe, ispravlennoe. Moskva, Vysjaja Skola, 1987 Sanders, Ga"Adverbials and objects." In: Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. Ed. by Frans Plank. Acadernic Press, LondonlOrlandoISan Diego. .. 1984,22 1-24 1 Syll, Petr. "Focus and contextual boundness." In: Topic and comment, contextual boundness and focus. Ed. by Osten Dahl. Helmut Buske Verlag, Hamburg, 1974 Shevelov, George Y. nie syntax of modem literary Ukrainian. Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1963 Siewierska, Anna. Wurd order rules. Croom Helm, London, New York, Sydney, 1988 Süié, Josip. "Nekoliko misli O noni." In: Jezik u savremenoj komunikaciji. Tribina. Centar za marksizam Univemteta u Beogradu, 1983 Silvcntcia, Michacl. YHierarchyof features and ergativity." In: Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon. Humanities Press Inc., New Jersey, 1976, 1 12- 17 1 Stankiewicz, Edward. "Grammatical neutralization in Slavic expressive forrns." Word, 17, 1961, 128-145 -_---"The distribution of morphemic variants in the declension of Polish substantives." Word, 1 1,4, 1955,5540574 ---- "The grammatical genders of the Slavic languages." In: The Slavic languages. Unity in diversity. Mouton de Gmyter, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, 1986 StanojZif, 2. et al. Savremeni srpskohrvatshjezik i hhraizrafavanja. Beograd, Novi Sad, 1989. Stechishin, J.W. Ukra»im Grmmar. Trident Press Ltd. Winnipeg, 1966 Stein, Dieter. 'Markedness and linguistic change." In: Markedness in synchrony and diachrony. Edited by Olga MiSeska-Tomid. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1989,67-85 Stevinovid, Mihiilo. Slrvremeni srpskoh~tskijezik (grmatitki sistemi i k??jiCe~nojen'~hmma) I. Beograd, Naufna knjiga, 198 1 'O problernu nonne knjiLevnog jezika." In: Jezik u savremenoj komunikacij i. Tribina. Centar za marksim Univedeta u Beogradu, 1983 Stevovid, Igrutin. "Akuzativ jednine muskog roda koji-kojega (koga)." Naje&, n.s., 1, 3-4, 1950, 163-165 Szober, Stan islaw. Gramatykajwka piskiego. 5 th edition. Panstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. Warszawa, 1959 &mmatov, A. A. ~stori~eskajamw/ologija russkogo jmh. Gosudarstvennoe u~ebno-pedagogifeskoeirdatel'stvo ministerstva prosvwenija RSFSR Moskva, 1957 Siph, Milan. Jezi~kisavjentiik. Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975 Timbtrlrke, Alan. 'Wierarchies in the genitive of negation."' In: Case in Slavic. Ed., by Richard D. Brecht and James S. Levine. Slavica Publishers, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1986, 338-360 '"Vkusit ' ot dreva ponüuiija i ubojat 'sja: variat ivnost ' v razvitii vinitel'nogo-roditel' nogo padeia." Voprosy jazykomanija, 5, 1996, 7- 19 --- (1997a) "fernu esi slepil" brat" woi. Templates and the Development of Animacy." Russian Linguistics, 2 1, 1997,49-62 Tomlin, Russel S. 'Zinguistic reflection of cognitive events." In: Coherence and grounding in discourse. Ed. by Russel S. Tomlin. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdarn/Philadelphia, 1987,455481 Tonson, A.I. (1908a) 'Rditel'nyj - vinitel'nyj pades pn nazvanijah fvyh susfestv v slavjanskih jazy kah." Izvestija ûtdelenija russkogo jazy ka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk. Sankt Peterburg, 13,2,232-264 ' Tbe same &de was pibüshed in ibe SlPnc andEast Europan Joumi, 19,1975,123439. ---- (1 908b) 'X voprosu O vomiknovenii rod. - vin. p. v slav. jazykah. Pnglagol'nyj rod. p. v praslav. jazyke." Izvestija ûtdeienija msskogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk. Sankt Peterburg, 13,3,28 1-302 Van Langendonck, WUly. 'Brgativity, markedness and prototypes." In: Universals of language. Ed. by Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera (Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 4, l989), 1989, 173- 183 Van Tilburg, Jm"Inanimate genitive-accusative in Serbo-Croatian (especially in adnominai relative clauses)." Dutch Contributions to the lûth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, Linguistics (=Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 1 I), RODOPI, Amsterdam, 1988, 53 5-620 Vinogradov, V.V. R~sskijjqk. Grammatihska ufente o slow. Moskva, Leningrad, 1947. Wade, Terence. A conrprehensive Russian grmnrar. Blackwell, Oxford WCambridge USA, 1992 Werler, Paul. "ûn the non-lexical expression of determinedness (with special reference to Russian and Finnish)." Studia Linguistica XXX/I, 1976, 34-67 Wienbicka, Anna. "Case marking and human nature." Austraiian Joumal of Linguistics, 1, 198 1,43080 Winter, Wemer. "Markedness and naturalness 1." in: Markedness in synchrony and diachrony. Edited by Oiga Mileska-Tomif. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinMew York, 1989,103-109 Xabuvgaev, Q A. Oterki iston'&s&oj mo~oIogiimsskogo jayka. Imem. Izdatel' stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Moskva, 1990 Zaliznjak, A. A. 'U voprosu O grarnmatifeskix kategorijax roda i odu8evlennosti v sovremennom russkom jazyke." Voprosy jazykornanija, 4, 1964 Zolotova GA. "EW O osskoj konstrukcii idti v sol&rty (ee sintagmatika i paradigmatika)." Zbomik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, XXVII-XXWI, 1984- 85 Zwicky, A. M. 'The Slovenian Orphan Accusative, Component lntertàces, and Coven Grammatical Categories." In: Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 35, 1987 tivov, V., Timberlake, A. (1997b) "Rasstavajas' so strukturalizmom (tezisy dlja diskusii)." Voprosy jazykomanija, 3, 1997,3- 14 CORPUS: Ajtm. = ~TM~TOB,q. Eypa~~blft nonynaHoK. haxa. Mocma, n@~3~a~,1989 Prev. = Ajt matov, C. 1 Ajtmatov, C. Gubiiiste. Prev. D. JakJid. Gomji Milanovac, Deje novine, 1987 Asimov = 1. Asimov's Robot City, 1, M.K.Mekdauel. Opovo, Simbol, 1988 Bulg. = Bynra~os,M.A. Ms6piwioe. PQM~H"Macrep a Maprapma." Pacc~a3br. Mocma, Xygoxecraema~mTepaypa, 1988 Prev. = Bulgakov, M. Pripovetl Bulgakov, M. Majstor i Margarita. Prev. V. Fiaker. Zagreb, SNL, 1988 Cehov = qexoe, A.n. Cpex~~unblx MOCKB~~I~C~. Moc~ea, npaena, 1988 Gogol' = ïoroJIb, H.B. kl36pa~~b1ecowelaur e RBYX TOMâX. Mocma, Xy~oxecree~~annmepaTypa, 1984 Prev. = Gogolj, N. Novele. Prev. 1. Velikanovid, R. Sovari. Zagreb, Nakladni zavod HMitske, 1947; Gogolj, N. Portret. Fantastifne pripovetke. Prev. M. Cehova. Beograd, Nolit, 1957; Gogolj, N. Strsna osveta. Prev. M. Cehova. Sarajevo, DZepna knjiga, 1959; Gogolj, N. Ukrajinske pripovake. Prev. R. Sovari. Zagreb, Driavno izdavGko preduzede Hrvatske, 1950 Delid = Delid, J. 'Danilo Kir i ruska knjiËevnost." In: Pnlozi prouCavanju srpsko-niskih knjiiievnih veza X-XX v. Novi Sad, Matica srpska, 1993 Deroko = Deroko, A. Mangupluci oko Kalimegdana. Beograd, M. Dimid, M. Dramifanin, 1987 Dizni = Ditni, V. hdaokeana. Prev. A. Spasif. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 1974 Dud. Bel. od. = Aym~uee,B.A. Eenbie onembr. Mocma, hmmannanaTa, 1988 Dud. Ne hlebom = mgmqee, B.,& He xne6ou egmum. Mocma, Xygoxememian nmpaypa, 1968 Eko = Eko, U. Fukoovo klatno. Prev. S. Zdravkovid. Beograd, Beletra, 1989 Hojl, Eliot = Hojl, F., Eliot, . A kao Andromeda. Prev. Lj. Stanid. Beograd, lugoslavija, 1976 Kapor. Hej = Kapor, M. Hej, nisam ti to pntala. Nove beleke jedne Ane. Zagreb, Znanje, 1975 Kishon = Kishon, E. NiPta tu Abraham ne m&e. Zagreb, Znanje, 1990 Klark = Klark, A. izgubljeni svetovi 2001. Rev. 2. Zivkovid. Beograd, Prosveta, 1988 Krstajic? = Krstajid, B. Chi Writer. Beogd, TehniCka knjiga, 1989 Ludlum = Ludlum, R. Trevejn. Prev. P. Urokvid. Beograd, Dereta, 1991 London = London, Dt. Martin Idn. Prev. 2. Sirnid. Novi Sad, izd. preduzede 'Bratstvo- jedinstvo," 1956 Pavid = Pavie, M. Unutrahja strana vetra. 3. izd. Beograd, Prosveta, 1992 Panova = naaoea, B. Cepexa. Mocma, PyccmI HO~IK,1979 Petrovit = Petrovid, V. Bunia. Povest ioveka bez korena. Sala3ar. In: Antologija srpske proze tl. Beograd, Nolit, 1955 Selenif = Selenid, S. Prijatelji sa KosanZidevog venca 7. 3. izd. Beograd, BIGZ, 1987 Selenid TM = SekniC. S. Timor mortis. Sarajevo, Sjetlost, 1990 SO~O~OV= Solohov. M. Tihi Don. hv.M. Moskovljwid. Beograd, Moskva, Nulit, Radup, 1983 Vojn. = BoCL~oern,B. Xoriy 661% SecTHbmf. noeecm. Mocma. Moc~oecmft pa6ow1. 1989 Vukobratovid, M. Dinarnika robota. Beograd, Institut M. Pupin, 1977 Vukobratovif, M. Lokomocioni roboti i antropomorfhi rnehanizmi i dinamika aktivnih mehanizama. Beograd, Centar za multidisciplinane studije Univerziteta u Beogradu, 1974 Nouspapers and Joumals: Ana Borba Demo kratija Dnev. = Dnevnik PZ = Politikin zabavnik Politika Svijet TVN = TV novosti Zr. = Zrenjanin