THE ROLE OF CASE IN RUSSIAN SYNTAX STUDIES IN NATURAL LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC THEORY Managing Editors JOAN MALING, Linguistics Program, Dept. of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254, U.S.A. LUIGI RIZZI, Linguistique Generale, Faculte des Lettres, Universite de Geneve, 3, Place de I'Universite, 1211 Geneve 4, Switzerland Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice Jane Grimshaw, Brandeis University Michael Kenstowicz, University of Illinois Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, University of Connecticut Alec Marantz, University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill John J. McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst James McCloskey, University College, Dublin CAROL NEIDLE Dept. of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures, Boston University, U.S.A. THE ROLE OF CASE IN RUSSIAN SYNTAX KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS DORDRECHT/BOSTON/LONDON Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Neidle, Carol Jan. The role of case in Russian syntax. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory ; 10) Revision of the author's thesis--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982. Includes index. 1. Russian language--Syntax. 2. Russj an language-­ Case. 1. Title. II. Series. PG2361.N45 1988 491.75 88-6789 ISBN-13 :978-94-010-7718-7 e-ISBN-13:978-94-009-2703-2 001.10.1007/978-94-009-2703-2 Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishers incorporates the publishing programmes of D. Reidel, Martinus Nijhoff, Dr W. Junk and MTP Press Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A. In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands All Rights Reserved © 1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1988 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner T ABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ix [NTRODUCTION Xl 1. Theoretical Framework Xl 2. Theory of Case Assignment and Agreement Xlll 1. OVERVIEW OF CASE IN RUSSIAN 1. Case in Russian 1 2. The Representation of Case 2 3. Assignment of Case 6 3.1. Phrase Structure Annotations 8 3.2. Case Assignment by Prepositions 12 3.3. Russian Phrase Structure Rules 12 3.4. Summary 13 4. The Case of Adjectives 13 5. Agreement 15 5.1. Features: Number, Gender, Person, and Case 15 5.2. Concord 18 5.3. Animacy 18 5.4. An Apparent Agreement Paradox 22 6. Second Predicate Modifiers 24 2. OBJECT CASE MARKING AND THE GENITIVE OF NEGATION 30 1. Lexically Governed Alternation 31 1.1. Semantic Considerations 31 1.2. Historical Evolution 32 1.3. Formal Account 32 1.3 .1. Natural Semantic Class 32 1.3.2. Alternation and Case Features 32 2. Genitive of Negation 34 2.1. Semantic Considerations 34 2.2. Historical Evolution 35 2.3. Formal Account 35 v VI TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.3.1. Scope-Marking 35 2.3.2. Scope of Negation: Interpretation 38 3. Distinct Mechanisms for Genitive Marking 41 3.1. Null Q? 41 3.2. Sources of Genitive Marking 42 3.2.1. Partitive Genitive 42 3.2.2. Genitive of Negation 43 3.2.3. Distinct Processes 46 4. Other Types of Negation 47 4.1. Net 47 4.2. Constituent Negation 53 5. Scope, Interpretation, and Distribution of [+tf 1 54 5.1. Formal Representation 54 5.2. Genitive Case Marking and Scope 54 5.3. Other Correlations with Genitive Marking 55 5.3.1. Individuation 55 5.3.2. Morphological Tendencies 57 6. Accusative/Genitive Alternation and Polarity Sensitivity 58 7. The Feature [tf] and Semantics 59 8. Summary 60 3. APPARENT GENITIVE SUBJECTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF NEGATION 65 1. Demotion 65 2. Do Genitive Subjects Exist? 66 2.1. Agreement 68 2.2. Gerund Constructions 71 2.3. Reflexives 71 2.4. Word Order 72 3. Formalization of the Rule of Demotion 73 3.1. Predictions: Transitive Verbs 74 3.2. Further Consequences of Demotion 76 3.3. Interaction with Other Lexical Redundancy Rules 78 3.3.1. Passive Forms 78 3.3.2. -sja Forms 79 3.4. Non-demoted Subjects 80 3.5. Genitive Marking and Grammatical Functions 83 3.6. Indefiniteness 84 4. NUMERAL PHRASES AND QUANTIFIER PHRASES 89 1. Numeral Phrases 89 1.1. Russian Numeral Paradigms 89 T ABLE OF CONTENTS vii 1.2. Numerals greater than 1 90 1.2.1. The Constituency of Numeral Phrases 92 1.2.2. Distribution of Numeral Phrases 98 1.3. Numerals ending in 1 102 2. Quantifier Phrases 103 2.1. Other Quantifiers 103 2.2. Those Several Strange Phrases 104 3. Disagreement about Non-agreeing Phrases 107 3.1. Subjecthood and Agreement 107 3.1.1. Agreement 107 3.1.2. Gerunds 107 3.1.3. Reflexives 108 3.1.4. Word Order 109 3.1.5. T ransi ti vi ty 109 3.2. Numeric Quantifiers and Agreement Features 110 3.2.1. Numbers Greater than 4 110 3.2.2. Small Numbers 112 3.3. Conclusion 115 4. One Million 116 5. Summary 117 5. SUBJECT CASE MARKING AND CASE AGREEMENT OF MODIFIERS 123 1. Data 123 1.1. Second Predicates 123 1.2. Odin and Sam 124 1.3. Second Predicate within Infinitival Clauses 124 1.3.1. Second Nominative with Subjective Infinitives 125 1.3.2. Second Dative with Objective Infinitives 125 1.3.3. Second Dative with Overt Complementizers 126 1.3.4. Second Dative with Passive 127 2. Adjuncts and Complements 127 2.1. Restrictions on the Distribution of Odin and Sam 127 2.2. Subjects of Non-tensed Clauses 128 3. Agreement and Control Relations 131 3.1. Grammatical Control 131 3.1 J. Agreement of Adjuncts and Grammatical Control 132 3.1.2. Object Control 134 3.2. Overt Complementizers 139 3.3. Other Cases of Control 141 3.4. Conclusions about Grammatical and Anaphoric Control 142 3.5. More Control Restrictions 144 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. Comparison with Alternative Accounts 148 5. Conclusions 151 6. CONSEQUENCES FOR A THEORY OF CASE 155 1. Long-Distance Phenomena and Control Relations 155 1.1. The Genitive of Negation Reconsidered 155 1.2. Case and Control 158 2. Toward a Theory of Russian Case 158 2.1. The Direct Case Condition 159 2.2. Government vs. Concord 160 2.3. Distribution of Prepositional Phrases 160 3. LFG and the Theory of Case 165 3.1. Structural and Lexical Case Assignment 165 3.2. Direct Case and Optionality 168 4. Conclusions 169 APPENDIX I: ABBREVIATIONS AND TRANSLITERATION 173 1. List of Abbreviations for Sentence Glosses 173 2. Transliteration 174 APPENDIX II: DECLENSION PARADIGMS 175 APPENDIX III: LEXICAL FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR 177 1. Organization 177 2. Phrase Structure Rules 178 3. Lexical Entries 180 4. Lexical Redundancy Rules 181 5. Functional Well-Formedness 184 6. Possible Rules 186 7. Theory of Control and Complementation 186 7.1. Complements vs. Adjuncts 186 7.2. Open Complements 189 7.3. Open Adjuncts 194 7.4. Closed Complements 195 7.5. Closed Adjuncts 196 7.6. The Constituency of Complements 196 INDEX OF NAMES 208 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 210 PREFACE This manuscript is a revision of my 1982 MIT dissertation of the same name. A previous version of sections of chapters 1 and 5 appeared as 'Case Agreement in Russian', in The Mental Representation of Gram­ matical Relations, edited by Joan Bresnan, MIT Press, 1983. I am grateful to MIT Press for permission to reproduce parts of that article here. I would like to express my appreciation to Catherine V. Chvany, who has read several versions of this manuscript over the years, and provided encouragement and invaluable comments. Thanks go also to Johanna Nichols whose careful reading and useful suggestions have improved the book. I am also deeply grateful to Joan Bresnan, Ken Hale, Morris Halle, Beth Levin, and Jane Simpson for helpful discussions of the material contained herein. For sharing their native intuitions, special thanks go to Alina Israeli, Boris Katz, and Evgenij Pinsky, and to Liza Chernyak, Volodja Gitin, Victoria Koff, Larissa Levin, Victoria Schiller, and Elena Semeka-Pankra­ tova. Joyce Friedman, Beth Levin, and Jane Simpson kindly provided assistance with bibliographical references and proofreading. This manuscript was prepared using the computer facilities at Boston University, and lowe a large debt of gratitude to the following people for providing access to equipment and technical assistance: William H. Henneman, Philip Budne, Barry Shein, and Paul Blanchard. IX INTRODUCTION The study of case, once primarily of interest to philologists, has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves from syntacticians. There are still many open questions concerning the nature of case assignment and agreement. Given the degenerate case system of English, the evidence crucial to an eventual understanding of the grammar of case should be sought elsewhere - in languages like Russian, where overt case marking plays an important role. Moreover, the implications of the study of case may go far beyond a theory of case, since the logic of case is intimately related to the other subsystems that govern syntactic representation. Since case is a reflex of structural and grammatical relations, case marking and agreement can provide evidence about the nature of such relations. Case marking provides an added dimension, in which grammatical structures and relationships may become visible from a new perspective. Thus, an understanding of case can contribute to the resolution of seemingly unrelated syntactic questions.