Advertisement

Russian Linguistics

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 221–236 | Cite as

Case marking in Russian eventive nominalizations: inherent vs. dependent case theory

  • Asya Pereltsvaig
  • Ekaterina Lyutikova
  • Anastasia Gerasimova
Article
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

In recent years, two theories have been advocated in the syntactic literature with respect to case assignment mechanisms, and this paper tests them based on new empirical material from Russian. One theory, advocated by Woolford and others, is Inherent Case Theory (ICT), which views case as an overt reflection of a relationship between a given noun phrase and a (usually functional) head. The other theory, known as Dependent Case Theory (DCT) and advocated most recently by Baker and Bobaljik, views case as a reflection of a relationship between noun phrases in a given structural domain. In this paper, we test the two theories against the findings of two experimental studies conducted by us on eventive nominalizations in Russian. In such nominalizations, transitive / agentive subjects are marked by the instrumental, whereas objects / internal arguments are marked by the genitive. We call into question whether in these types of nominalizations, an agentive subject that is not accompanied by an internal argument that needs a case is marked by the instrumental (as predicted by ICT) or the genitive (as predicted by DCT). Having tested this in two experimental studies, we argue that only one of these theories, the ICT, can account for our empirical findings in a complete and coherent way.

Падежное маркирование в русских событийных номинализациях: ингерентный или зависимый падеж

Аннотация

В этой статье на новом эмприческом материале из русского языка тестируются две теории приписывания падежа, представленные в современной синтаксической литературе. Одна теория, связанная с именами Э. Вулфорд и других исследователей,—это теория ингерентного падежа, рассматривающая падеж как экспонент синтаксической связи между именной группой и некоторой (обычно функциональной) вершиной. Другая теория—теория зависимого падежа—отстаивается в недавних работах М. Бейкера и Дж. Бобальика; в этой теории падеж отражает соотношение именных групп в некоторой структурной области. В статье мы проводим эмпирическую проверку данных теорий, используя результаты проведенных нами экспериментальных исследований русских событийных номинализаций. В таких номинализациях переходные (агентивные) подлежащие маркируются инструменталисом, а дополнения / внутренние аргументы—генитивом. Мы задаемся вопросом, какое маркирование получает агентивный внешний аргумент в номинализации, где внутренний аргумент отсутствует либо не нуждается в структурном падеже. Теория ингерентного падежа предсказывает в таком случае инструменталис, теория зависимого падежа—генитив. На основе двух экспериментов мы показываем, что только теория ингерентного падежа может последовательно объяснить эмпирические данные русского языка.

References

  1. Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional structure in nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apresjan, Ju. D. (1974). Leksičeskaja semantika. Sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka. Moskva. Google Scholar
  3. Babby, L. H. (1997). Nominalization in Russian. In W. Browne, E. Dornisch, N. Kondrashova, & D. Zec (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-4). The Cornell Meeting 1995 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 39, pp. 54–83). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  4. Bailyn, J. (2004). The case of Q. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanovic (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-12). The Ottawa Meeting 2003 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 49, pp. 1–35). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  5. Bailyn, J. F. (2012). The syntax of Russian. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M. C. (2012). On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(2), 255–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, M. (2014). Types of cross-linguistic variation in case assignment. In M. C. Picallo (Ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework (pp. 36–60). Oxford. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, M. C. (2015). Case. Its principles and its parameters (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 146). Cambridge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker, M. C., & Bobaljik, J. D. (2017). On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In J. Coon, D. Massam, & L. D. Travis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity (pp. 111–134). Oxford. Google Scholar
  10. Bobaljik, J. D., & Wurmbrand, S. (2009). Case in GB / minimalism. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 44–58). Oxford. Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. The Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  12. Engelhardt, M., & Trugman, H. (1998). D as a source of adnominal genitive in Russian. In Ž. Bošković, S. Franks, & W. Synder (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-6). The Connecticut Meeting 1997 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 43, pp. 114–133). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  13. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 18). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  14. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (1993). Nominalizations. London. Google Scholar
  15. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2013). Action nominal constructions. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Retrieved from http://wals.info/chapter/62 (19 March 2018). Google Scholar
  16. Levin, B. (1989). The Basque verbal inventory and configurationality. In L. Marácz & P. Muysken (Eds.), Configurationality. The typology of asymmetries (Studies in Generative Grammar, 34, pp. 39–62). Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  17. Lyutikova, E. (2014). Russkij genitivnyj posessor i formal’nye modeli imennoj gruppy. In E. A. Ljutikova, A. V. Zimmerling, & M. B. Konošenko (Eds.), Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov. Materialy Meždunarodnoj Konferencii ‘Tipologija Morfosintaksičeskix Parametrov 2014’ (Vol. 1, pp. 120–145). Moskva. Google Scholar
  18. Lyutikova, E. A. (2017). Formal’nye modeli padeža. Teorii i priloženija. Moskva. Google Scholar
  19. Lyutikova, E., & Pereltsvaig, A. (2015a). The Tatar DP. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 60(3), 289–325.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100026232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyutikova, E., & Pereltsvaig, A. (2015b). Struktura imennoj gruppy v bezartiklevyx jazykax: universal’nost’ i variativnost’. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 3, 52–69. Google Scholar
  21. Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In G. F. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R. Chae (Eds.), 8th Eastern States conference on linguistics (ESCOL ’91). Papers (pp. 234–253). Columbus. Google Scholar
  22. Padučeva, E. V. (2009). Posessivy i imena sposoba dejstvija. In A. E. Kibrik et al. (Eds.), Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye texnologii. Po materialam ežegodnoj Meždunarodnoj konferencii «Dialog 2009» (Vol. 8(15), pp. 365–372). Moskva. Google Scholar
  23. Pazel’skaja, A. G. (2006). Nasledovanie glagol’nyx kategorii imenami situacii: na materiale russkogo jazyka (Diss. kand. filol. nauk). Москва. Google Scholar
  24. Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language (pp. 355–426). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  25. Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2011). Case. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism (pp. 52–72). Oxford. Google Scholar
  26. Rappaport, G. C. (2000). Extraction from nominal phrases in Polish and the theory of determiners. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 8(1/2), 159–198. Google Scholar
  27. Rappaport, G. C. (2002). Numeral phrases in Russian: a minimalist approach. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10(1/2), 327–340. Google Scholar
  28. Woolford, E. (1997). Four-way case systems: ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 15(1), 181–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 111–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zaika, N. M. (2014). Lithuanian nominalizations and the case marking of their arguments. In A. Holvoet & N. Nau (Eds.), Argument realization in Baltic (Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3, pp. 523–550). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asya Pereltsvaig
    • 1
  • Ekaterina Lyutikova
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anastasia Gerasimova
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Independent scholarSanta ClaraUSA
  2. 2.Moscow State University (MSU)MoscowRussia
  3. 3.Moscow Pedagogical State University (MPSU)MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations