Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

EXTENSIONS OF THE PRIMEVAL GENITIVE A REPLY TO PESETSKY (2013) Andrew McKishnie & Paul B. Melchin University of Ottawa 9 th Annual Meeting of the Slavic.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "EXTENSIONS OF THE PRIMEVAL GENITIVE A REPLY TO PESETSKY (2013) Andrew McKishnie & Paul B. Melchin University of Ottawa 9 th Annual Meeting of the Slavic."— Presentation transcript:

1 EXTENSIONS OF THE PRIMEVAL GENITIVE A REPLY TO PESETSKY (2013) Andrew McKishnie & Paul B. Melchin University of Ottawa 9 th Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society Seattle, WA, USA Sept. 20, 2014

2 PRELIMINARIES  Pesetsky’s 2013 monograph, Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories, provides a new and interesting account of case assignment in Russian  Though we agree in principle with many of his claims, we feel that some aspects of the system he proposes can be changed to account for the facts for a wider range of data in a more uniform manner 2

3 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION  Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)  Primeval Genitive Conjecture  Russian as a Case-Stacking Language  NUMBER Head  The system in action: Depictives  An outline of our contributions to the system  Div Head  Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system  Adjective Case Mismatch  Genitive of Negation  Conclusions 3

4 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  Pesetsky proposes that different case endings are actually realizations of syntactic categories that get passed onto other constituents in certain conditions Genitive= NAccusative= V Nominative= DOblique= P  Oblique in this system includes every case except for nominative (accusative, genitive, dative, locative/prepositional and instrumental) 4

5 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  Falling out from this hypothesis is his ‘Primeval Genitive Conjecture’ which states : ‘N GEN categorizes a Russian root as a noun (in the lexicon).’ (Pesetsky 2013: 9)  This means that nouns are ‘born genitive’ so to speak- they enter the derivation with genitive morphology  Other cases are seen as the N merges with other syntactic categories (D, V, P) 5

6 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  For this system to work, one must assume that Russian is a ‘case- stacking’ language; that is, a language which allows multiple cases to be present on a single nominal  Evidence for case-stacking comes from Lardil (a Tangkic language spoken in Northern Australia) 6

7 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013) Ngada derlde marun-ngan-i wangalk-I I break boy- GEN-ACC boomerang- ACC ‘I broke the boy’s boomerang’ Ngada latha karnjin-i marun-ngan-ku maarn-ku I spear wallaby- ACC boy- GEN-INSTR spear- INSTR ‘I speared the wallaby with the boy’s spear’ 7

8 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  However, Russian never overtly shows multiple case suffixes on a single nominal  This is due to the presence of the ‘One-Suffix Rule’ in Russian: ‘Delete all but the outermost suffix’ (Pesetsky 2013)  Suppression of N GEN and D NOM by P DAT StemN GEN D NOM P DAT  Surface stol-a-ø-u  stolu‘table’ lamp-y-a-e  lampe‘lamp’ stol-ov-y-am  stolam‘tables’ lamp-ø-y-am  lampam‘lamps’ 8

9 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  Russian poses an interesting problem related to case and number when there is a paucal present (2, 3 or 4)  Number Mismatch: the noun is singular, the the modifiers and demonstrative are plural  Case Mismatch: the noun and adjective that follow the paucal show genitive case, but the paucal, along with the demonstrative and adjective that precede it, show nominative case  Previous accounts of these mismatches can be found in Franks (1995) and the references cited therein. 9

10 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013) et-i posledn-ye krasiv-ye stol-y these- PL.NOM last- PL.NOM beautiful- PL.NOM table- PL.NOM ‘these last beautiful tables’ et-i posledn-ye dva krasiv-yx stol-a these- PL.NOM last- PL.NOM two. M.NOM beautiful- PL.GEN table- SG.GEN ‘these last two beautiful tables’ 10

11 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  The number mismatch disappears when there is a non-paucal numeral present (i.e. 5 or above); however, the case mismatch remains et-i posledn-ye p’at’ krasiv-yx stol-ov these- PL.NOM last- PL.NOM five. NOM beautiful- PL.GEN table- PL.GEN ‘these last five beautiful tables’ 11

12 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  Pesetsky (2013) proposes that number is assigned in two different ways in Russian: Synthetically (singular or plural), or Periphrastically ( DUAL, TRIAL or QUADRAL )  Synthetically: N enters the syntax already bearing a number feature, NUMBER (because the N GEN nominalizer that formed in the lexicon bears NUMBER )  Periphrastically: N enters the syntax not bearing NUMBER (because the nominalizer N GEN that formed the noun does not bear NUMBER ) and immediately merges with an instance of NUMBER  In this system, the paucal ‘numerals’ themselves are realizations of the DUAL, TRIAL and QUADRAL features, and the noun bears default singular morphology in their presence 12

13 INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)  This system presents conceptual and empirical problems  Conceptually, it seems odd that number would be assigned in different ways; although the morphemes assigning number differ morphologically (free vs bound), they perform the same semantic function, and so should have the same syntactic category  Empirically, the Primeval Genitive could be used to account for the Genitive of Negation, yet Pesetsky (2013: 150) specifically states that Genitive of Negation is NOT an instance of the Primeval Genitive, but rather a Null P assigning genitive case; this does not explain with the semantic facts about Genitive of Negation, namely its non-specific reading 13

14 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION  Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)  Primeval Genitive Conjecture  Russian as a Case-Stacking Language  NUMBER Head  The system in action: Depictives  An outline of our contributions to the system  Div Head  Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system  Adjective Case Mismatch  Genitive of Negation  Conclusions 14

15 THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES  One of the proposals from Pesetsky is that all oblique cases (dative, locative/prepositional and instrumental) are a realization of P, whether P is overt or covert  One area in which this can be seen is in Russian depictive structures  Past research, such as Richardson (2001; 2006) and McKishnie (2013) (amongst many others) has noted that Russian has two distinct types of depictives: Case Agreement Depictives (CADs) and Instrumental Case Marked Depictives (ICMDs), illustrated on the next slide 15

16 THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES  CAD Structure Milicija privela ego domoj pyanogo police. NOM brought he. ACC home drunk. ACC ‘The police brought him home drunk.’  ICMD Structure Milicija privela ego domoj pyanim police. NOM brought he. ACC home drunk. INST ‘The police brought him home drunk.’ 16

17 THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES  The proposed structure for CADs in McKishnie (2013) fits perfectly with Pesetsky’s system of case assignment; the DepP is assigned Accusative case, as is the entire DP that is dominated by V 17

18 THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES  However, the proposed structure for ICMDs in McKishnie (2013) is incongruent with Pesetsky’s system; the DepP, adjoined to the VP, must receive case by default 18

19 THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES  In Pesetsky’s system, there is no case by default; the only way instrumental case can be assigned is by a P, which in this case, must be null 19

20 THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES  So, CAD-type depictives help to confirm Pesetsky’s overall case system, while ICMD-type depictives illustrate why it is necessary to have both overt and null Ps to account for the oblique cases  Next, we will discuss some shortcomings of Pesetsky’s system, and how our proposed changes can be used to account for a larger amount of data 20

21 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION  Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)  Primeval Genitive Conjecture  Russian as a Case-Stacking Language  NUMBER Head  The system in action: Depictives  An outline of our contributions to the system  Div Head  Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system  Adjective Case Mismatch  Genitive of Negation  Conclusions 21

22 OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM  The system in Pesetsky (2013) is based on a fairly simple model of the nominal extended projection.  The only categories present are DP and NP  However, much work in the last 25 years has suggested that there are other functional categories present.  We propose that Pesetsky’s system can be improved by considering a more detailed model of Noun Phrase structure, following the model of Borer (2005). 22

23 OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM  Borer (2005) proposes that there are three functional categories dominating NP in the nominal extended projection:  Div: the division head, divides the denotation of the noun, makes it a count noun. Home of plural marking and numeral classifiers.  #: the cardinality head, provides quantity. Home of numerals and many quantifiers.  D: the determiner head, provides information on specificity and referentiality. Home of definite determiners. 23

24 OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM  Borer’s (2005) model of the DP can be seen below: 24

25 OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM  Using the case assignment system of Pesetsky (2013), but the DP structure of Borer (2005), we claim that the system can account for a wider range of facts, in a more uniform way, than in Pesetsky (2013).  We claim that all number specifications are generated in Div, rather than having a divide between synthetic and periphrastic number assignment.  This has two advantages:  Number assignment is uniform, rather than split two ways.  There is no divide in number assignment between the syntax and the lexicon, following Marantz (1997) and other recent work. 25

26 OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM  As can be seen in the tree above, all numbers ( SINGULAR, DUAL, TRIAL, QUADRAL and PLURAL ) are contained in the Div head  The various mismatches result from the fact that the paucals are free morphemes, whereas the SINGULAR and PLURAL numbers are affixes, requiring the noun to move to the Div head 26

27 OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM  The presence of the Div head allows for a uniform mechanism for number assignment, which is preferred to the split mechanisms of Pesetsky  Additionally, if we assume that NOM case is absorbed by the # head, and that the presence of a numeral (paucal or non-paucal) blocks the movement of the N to that head, the presence of Genitive case on nouns following a numeral is easily explained 27

28 OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM ‘a/the table’ stol ‘two tables’ dva stola ‘five tables’ p j at j stolov  As you can see, anything below #P retains its primeval genitive, as the NOM case assigned by D is absorbed at the # head 28

29 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION  Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)  Primeval Genitive Conjecture  Russian as a Case-Stacking Language  NUMBER Head  The system in action: Depictives  An outline of our contributions to the system  Div Head  Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system  Adjective Case Mismatch  Genitive of Negation  Conclusions 29

30 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  Does the addition of a Borer-like DP improve Pesetsky’s system for case assignment?  We believe that it does. In addition to a unified system of number assignment, it also accounts for various phenomena in Russian; the different case marking we see in various types of adjective, as well as the classic and well-described ‘Genitive of Negation’  See Franks (1995) again, and references therein, for previous accounts of the Genitive of Negation 30

31 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  We now return to one of the puzzling pieces of data from the beginning of the presentation: et-i posledn-ye dva krasiv-yx stol-a these- PL.NOM last- PL.NOM two. M.NOM beautiful- PL.GEN table- SG.GEN ‘these last two beautiful tables’ 31

32 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  There is a case mismatch between the adjective ‘last’, which appears in Nominative case (like the determiner ‘these’ and the paucal ‘two’), and the adjective ‘beautiful’, which appears in Genitive case, like the noun ‘table’  This can be explained by proposing that different classes of adjectives adjoin at different points in the structure  Adjectives like ‘last’, or ‘Ordinal Adjectives’, adjoin to the #P, whereas most other adjectives adjoin at the NP level 32

33 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  This improves Pesetsky’s system, which postulated that case assignment had to do with timing of movements with respect to satisfying selectional features, and that Ordinal Adjectives adjoined at a different time than other adjectives  The presence of the #P and its nominative- absorbing property explains the case mismatch (as well as the linear order relative to the numeral) between the two types of adjectives  This is an instance of locality – the probe agrees with the nearest case features. 33

34 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  Now, let us consider the Genitive of Negation:  In the Genitive of Negation, internal arguments can appear in genitive case (as opposed to accusative or nominative) with a negated verb.  Nouns bearing the Genitive of Negation are interpreted as having a narrow scope with respect to negation and are non-referential 34

35 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM Ja ne čital knig-i I. NOM NEG read book- PL.ACC ‘I didn’t read the books’ Ja ne čital knig-ø I. NOM NEG read book- PL.GEN ‘I didn’t read any books’ 35

36 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM Pismi ne prišli letter. PL.NOM NEG arrived.PL ‘The letters did not arrive’ Pisem ne prišlo letter. PL.GEN NEG arrived.SG.NEUT ‘No letters arrived’ 36

37 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  We propose that the non-specific/non-referential properties of these nouns is due to the lack of a DP projection in the structure  This also accounts for the presence of genitive case; since there is no D, V cannot assign its Accusative case, due to its selectional requirements, thus the N retains its primeval genitive case 37

38 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  The idea of having the option of reduced structure for non-specific internal arguments is not new; similar proposals have been made for structures in Turkish, French, and other languages:  In Turkish, specific (or definite, or referential) objects receive accusative marking, while non-specific objects are bare (Öztürk 2009: 335): Ali kitap okudu Ali kitab-ı okudu Ali book read Ali book- ACC read ‘Ali did book reading’ ‘Ali read the book’  Öztürk analyzes this as an NP without accompanying functional material (D, Num, etc.) 38

39 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM  A similar construction occurs in French, where a noun phrase can appear with the particle de and no article, getting a non-specific, indefinite reading, which is analyzed by Mathieu (2012) as lacking the DP projection: J’ ai lu de bon-s roman-s. I have read DE good- PL novel- PL ‘I read good novels.’ 39

40 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION  Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)  Primeval Genitive Conjecture  Russian as a Case-Stacking Language  NUMBER Head  The system in action: Depictives  An outline of our contributions to the system  Div Head  Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system  Adjective Case Mismatch  Genitive of Negation  Conclusions 40

41 CONCLUSIONS  Although we agree with the core principles of Pesetsky’s analysis, we have shown that many aspects of it can be reworked and extended to account for a larger range of phenomena, including:  Tweaking NUMBER to provide a unified account of number assignment through the introduction of a Div head to provide a single syntactic location for all number features  The introduction of a # head to provide a place for the merging point of non-paucal numerals and the absorption point of NOM  Extending the Primeval Genitive to the Genitive of Negation structure 41

42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  We would like to thank various people for their helpful comments and insights into this research, including Robert Truswell, Éric Mathieu, Maria Luisa Rivero, Kyumin Kim, Brandon Fry, Nova Starr, Vesela Simeonova, Kate Riccomini, Daiho Kitaoka, Bethany McKishnie and all the students from LIN 7912A 42

43 SELECTED REFERENCES Borer, H Structuring Sense, Vol. I: In Name Only. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. Carlson, G Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, UMass Amherst. Franks, S Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marantz, A No Escape from Syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), Mathieu, E Licensing by modification: The case of French de nominals. Journal of Linguistics. 48, 2: McKishnie, A Depictives in East Slavic: Two Cases, How Many Structures? Paper presented at Международная Конференция « Типология Морфосинтаксических Параметров 2013» (International “Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters” Conference). Moscow, Russia. October 17, Öztürk, B Incorporating Agents. Lingua, 119 (2), Pesetsky, D Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Richardson, K What Secondary Predicates in Russian Tell Us About the Link Between Tense, Aspect and Case. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 26, Richardson, K Case and Aspect in Ukrainian Depictive Secondary Predicates. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28: 1-4,

44 THE END/ КОНЕЦ Thank you for your attention! Спасибо за внимание !! We welcome all questions and comments! For further information please contact: Paul: Andrew: 44


Download ppt "EXTENSIONS OF THE PRIMEVAL GENITIVE A REPLY TO PESETSKY (2013) Andrew McKishnie & Paul B. Melchin University of Ottawa 9 th Annual Meeting of the Slavic."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google