Cover not available
Part of
Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case
Edited by Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217] 2014
► pp. 13–60

The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicatives in Russian

Unlike ordinary adjectives, Russian sam ‘alone’ and odin ‘one’ (“semipredicatives”) are in the dative in infinitival non-obligatory control contexts but in obligatory control structures they must agree in case with their antecedents. This paper starts from the puzzle of avoiding overapplication of the mechanism for assigning dative – the standard assumption that dative arises through agreement with a PRODAT subject introduces a “look-ahead” problem. Approaches of Franks, Babby, Grebenyova, and Landau are considered, with the aim of unifying critical insights. It is argued that (i) there is no need to posit PRODAT; (ii) semipredicatives can be directly assigned dative whereas ordinary adjectives must agree; (iii) arguments have more sensitive case requirements than do adjuncts.
Published online: 14 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.02fra
References (53)
References
Babby, Leonard. 1974. Towards a formal theory of ‘part of speech’. In Slavic Transformational Syntax, Richard Brecht & Catherine Chvany (eds), 151–181. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Materials.Google Scholar
. 1998. Subject control as direct prediction. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting, Željko Bošković, Steven Franks & William Snyder (eds), 17–37. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Materials.Google Scholar
. 2009. The Syntax of Argument Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, John. 2002. Overt predicators. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10: 23–52.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri V. 2004. Non-nominative Subjects [Typological Studies in Language 60 & 61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan & Landau, Idan. 2009. Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 113–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Hornstein, Norbert. 2006. Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Icelandic control really is A-movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 111­–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna. 2013. Copular Clauses in English and Polish. Structure, Derivation and Interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.Google Scholar
. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brecht, Richard. 1974. Tense and infinitive complements in Russian, Latin and English. In Slavic Transformational Syntax, Richard Brecht & Catherine Chvany (eds), 193–218. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Materials.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, & Theo Vennemann (eds), 506-569. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move, and Labels. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1974. The second dative: A transformational approach. In Slavic Transformational Syntax, Richard Brecht & Catherine Chvany (eds), 123–150. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Materials.Google Scholar
Despić, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the Absence of Determiner Phrase. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frampton, John. 2004. Copies, traces, occurrences, and all that: Evidence frm Bulgarian multiple wh-phenomena. Ms, Northeastern University. [URL]Google Scholar
Frampton, John & Gutmann, Sam. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. Ms, Northeastern University. [URL]Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1990. Case, configuration and argumenthood: Reflections on the second dative. Russian Linguistics 14: 231–154.Google Scholar
. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 1998. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax revisited: A minimalist retrospective. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting, Željko Bošković, Steven Franks & William Snyder (eds), 134–165. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Materials.Google Scholar
. 2002. A Jakobsonian feature-based analysis of the Slavic numeric quantifier genitive. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10: 145–184.Google Scholar
. 2014. Multiattachment syntax, “movement” effects, and Spell-Out. In Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces [Language Faculty and Beyond 11], Peter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks (eds), 209–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven & Hornstein, Norbert. 1992. Secondary predication in Russian and proper government of PRO. In Control and Grammar, Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri & James Higginbotham (eds), 1–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grebenyova, Lydia. 2005. Agreement in Russian secondary predicates. In Proceedings of the 40 th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 69–81. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Gerald. 1983. Another look at the second dative and related subjects. Linguistic Analysis 11: 167–218.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Gerald & Franks, Steven. 1991. A parametric approach to dative subjects and the second dative in Russian. Slavic and East European Journal 35: 71–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kozinskij, Icxak Š. 1983. O kategorii “podležaščee” v russkom jazyke. Moscow: Institut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471– 498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 877–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laurençot, Elizabeth. 1997. On secondary predication and null case. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting, Martina Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds), 191– 206. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Materials.Google Scholar
Law, Paul. 1991. Effects of Head Movement on Theories of Subjacency and Proper Government. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Madariaga, Nerea. 2006. Why Russian semipredicative items always agree. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14: 45–78.Google Scholar
Moore, John & Perlmutter, David. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Kluwer: Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and Categories. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999. Case Assignment and the Complement/Adjunct Dichotomy. PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Richardson, Kylie. 2007. Case and Aspect in Slavic. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schein, Barry. 1982. Nonfinite complements in Russian. In Papers in Syntax: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 4, Alec Marantz & Tim Stowell (eds), 217–243. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 403–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2009. Movement, case transmission and case independence in Polish control. In Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure, Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová & Petr Biskup (eds), 235-253. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2010. On the lack of case on the subject of infinitives in Polish. Folia Linguistica 44: 179–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susan. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar