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
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