Properties of DAT NP + O-Predicate + Infinitive Constructions in Russian
Eric
Komar
This paper examines constructions consisting of a Dative NP + a
predicate word ending in -o + an infinitive, as
in (1). I will demonstrate that, despite their identical components,
they have distinct syntactic structures. Their disparity results from
the varying lexical properties of o-predicates, which I divide into
three general lexico-semantic groups: i) PHYS/PSYCH: words expressing
physical or psychological state; ii) WTH/ENV: words expressing the
weather or one's surrounding environment; iii) EVAL/CHAR: words which
make an evaluation or characterization:
(1) a. PHYS/PSYCH
Mne xolodno exat&soft;.
me(DAT) cold[-AGR] go(INF)
'I am too cold to go.'
[Pe&shachek;kovskij 1938:326-7]
b. WTH/ENV
Nam vetreno idti po beregu.
us(DAT) windy[-AGR] walk(INF) along seashore
'It is too windy for us to walk along the seashore.'
[Galkina-Fedoruk 1958:290]
c. EVAL/CHAR
Gosudarstvu nevygodno pokupat&soft; zerno
government(DAT) senseless[-AGR] buy(INF) grain(ACC)
'It is unprofitable for the government to buy grain.'
[Voinova 1965:154]
Both Experiencers of o-predicates and subjects of infinitives occur
in the Dative Case in Russian. When both predicate types appear in the
same sentence, as in (1), only one NP may
occur. Some strategies independently motivated in syntactic theory
which can account for this phenomenon are listed in (2):
(2)
a. Binding: The DAT Experiencer of the
o-predicate binds (controls) the PRO subject of the embedded
infinitive clause;
b. Raising: The DAT subject of the embedded
infinitive clause raises to the matrix clause, leaving a trace;
c. Extraposition: The infinitive and its DAT
subject together constitute the subject of the o-predicate. The
infinitive is then extraposed later in the derivation.
In this paper I show which strategy from (2) corresponds to each
sentence in (1), based on the lexical semantics of each type of
o-predicate. First, of the three types only PHYS/PSYCH selects an
Experiencer argument. I conclude then that sentences like (1a) must be
an instance of Binding since this strategy is the only one involving
an Experiencer argument:
(3) Mnei xolodno
[PROi exat&soft;].
The structure in (3), however, will not accommodate the other
types. WTH/ENV words can cooccur with a DAT NP
only when they are also accompanied by an
infinitive as well:
(4) Nam vetreno *(idti po beregu).
It is too windy for us (to walk along the seashore).
I argue that this is because WTH/ENV-types do not license
Experiencers. The DAT NP that occurs in sentences like (1b), then,
must be solely the subject of the infinitive clause. Therefore, the NP
apprearing sentence-initially is an instance of Raising:
(5) Nami vetreno
[ti idti po beregu].
Finally, EVAL/CHAR words are similar to WTH/ENV words with respect
to allowing a DAT NP only when a infinitive cooccurs:
(6) Gosudarstvu nevygodno *(pokupat' zerno).
It is unprofitable for the government *(to buy grain).
I propose, however, that EVAL/CHAR words are distinct from the two
previous types in that they select an external (theta-role and assign
it to a grammatical subject, namely, the infinitive clause
itself. This explains why the infinitive must be selected and overtly
realized in the syntax. The infinitive clause, functioning as the
grammatical subject, undergoes Extraposition:
(7) [Subje]k
Gosudarstvui nevygodno
[PROi pokupat&soft; zerno]k
More proof of the subjecthood of the infinitive is lent by the fact
that it can be replaced by a NP, with which the EVAL/CHAR word will
agree in gender and number:
(8) Pokupka zerna gosudarstvu
nevygodna.
purchaseNOM.F.SG
grainGEN governmentDAT
unprofitableF.SG
The purchasing of grain is unprofitable for the
government.
While the DAT NP is being selected also by the matrix o-predicate,
it is not an Experiencer, but instead some sort of benefactive
(theta-role or dative commodi. Evidence for this claim is the fact
that with most EVAL/CHAR words the DAT NP can be replaced by the PP
dlja + GEN.
References
Babby, Leonard H. (1996) Inflectional Morphology and
Theta-Role Suppression. In Jind&rhachek;ich Toman, ed.,
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The College Park
Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
— (1997) Binding and Control of Nonfinite Verbal
Categories: Evidence from Russian. Ms. Princeton
University.
— (1998) Subject Control as Direct Predication:
Evidence from Russian. In &Zhachek;eljko
Bo&shachek;ković, ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic
Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan
Slavic Publications.
Bailyn, John F. (1991) The Configurationality of Case
Assignment in Russian. Cornell Working Papers in
Linguistics 9, 57–98.
Billings, Loren F. (1998) Word Order and Argument
Structure of Russian Psych Predicates. Formal
Description of Slavic Languages 2, 1–20.
Bo&shachek;ković. &Zhachek;eljko (1996) Selection
and the Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14,
269–304.
— (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite
Complementation. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Galkina-Fedoruk, E. M. (1958) Bezli&chachek;nye
predlo&zhachek;enija v russkom jazyke. Moskva:
Izdatel&soft;stvo moskovskogo universiteta.
Grimshaw, Jane (1990) Argument Structure. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
King, Tracy Holloway (1995) Configuring Topic and Focus in
Russian. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Komar, Eric S. (1999) Dative Subjects Revisited: Are All
Datives Created Equal? In Katarzyna Dziwirek et al., eds.,
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle
Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Pe&shachek;kovskij, A. M. (1938) Russkij sintaksis v nau&chachek;nom
osve&shachek;&chachek;enii, 3-e izd. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe
pedagogi&chachek;eskoe izdatel&soft;stvo.
Voinova, E. I. (1965) Datel&soft;nyj pade&zhachek; pri
predikativnyx slovax na -o i
infinitive. Vestnik leningradskogo
universiteta, No. 2, vyp. 1, 151–8.
— (1970) Leksiko-semanti&chachek;eskie gruppy
predikativnyx slov na -o,
so&chachek;itaju&shachek;&chachek;ixsja s infinitivom.
Nekotorye voprosy leksiki i grammatiki russkogo jazyka i
metodiki ego prepodavanija inostrancam, vyp. 4, 18–:36,
Leningrad.
Zaitseva, Valentina (1990) Conditions for the Presence of
the Dative NP in Russian Impersonal Constructions.
Harvard Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 1,
215–29.