Slot: 28C-5 Dec.
28, 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Panel: Syntax
Chair: Robert Channon, Purdue University
Title: Reflexive Verbs in Russian: Dative
Subject Reflexives
Author: Olga S. Eremina, Michigan State
University
Verb reflexive markers (VRMs) have many
uses across languages. In this paper I argue that Lidz 2001 analysis of VRMs
and Dative markers in Kannada can account for “classical” reflexives (умывался), unaccusatives (разбился), reciprocals (обнялись), passives (строится) , but not Dative experiencer subject
cases (DS) in Russian (1). I propose an alternative analysis (based on Kallulli
2005) providing a unified account of all the VRM cases in Russian.
(1) a. Им
(хорошо) работалось
(b)
Они (хорошо) работали
Lidz 2001
assumes that verbal predicates not only have an argument structure
representation (that interfaces with the syntax) but also an aspectual
representation. VRM or Dative case appears to signal a mismatch/misalignment
between the two representations, resulting in an argument unlinked in the
syntax:
(2) Он
разбил вазу. MATCH:
разбить [[1 ACT-ON2] CAUSE
[3CHANGE]];
(x(y)) x = “agent”,
y = “theme”
(x (y)) thematic
[1
ACT-ON 2] CAUSE [3 CHANGE] aspectual
decomposition
(3) Ваза
разбилась. MISMATCH:
(y)) thematic
[1 ACT-ON 2] CAUSE [3 CHANGE] aspectual
decomposition
The two
strategies are alternative ways to resolve the mismatch and predicted not to
co-occur, contrary to fact (1).
We modify Lidz
aspectual representations as in Kalluli 2005 and we argue that co-occurrence of
VRM and DS (1) is a morphological indication of two mismatches (XX).
Thus,
we account for cases of “DS + VRM” (1) and “DS – VRM” (4):
(4) (a) Ему дуло (в спину)
(b) Ветер дул ему в спину.
Representation
of (1) is given in (5), representation of (4) is given in (6).
(5) (a) (x)
[+intend], [+act] работали
[1
action]: [+intend], [+act]
(b) (x) [+intend], [+act] работалось
1 2
[1
state]: [+intend], [+act]
Two
mismatches, DS + VRM
(6) (a) (x)
[+act] дул
[1
state]: [+act]
(b) (x)Theme:
[+act] дуло
1
[1
state]: [+act]
One
mismatch, DS
The analysis
accounts for the complexity of the VRM occurrence in Russian, and the modality
in VRM+DS.
References
Dalina Kallulli. 2005.
"Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: A unified
account." To appear in W. Abraham, D. Hole and A. Meinunger (eds.) Datives
and Similar Cases.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. "The Argument
Structure of Verbal Reflexives." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19: 311–353.
Title: Deriving Discontinuity
Author: Steven Franks, Indiana University
The talk compares mechanisms for
generating discontinuous nominal expressions. Slavic exhibits several such
expressions, suggesting various derivational routes. Consider Serbian (1), from
Progovac 2006:
(1) Vukina
odlazi ćerka. ‘It is VUKA’s
daughter who is leaving.’
There are at least four credible approaches countenanced by
recent linguistic theory (with movement expressed using the Copy-and-Delete
system):
(2) a. [AP Vukina] odlazi [NP
Vukina ćerka] b. [AP/DP/KP
Vukina ćerka] odlazi [NP ćerka].
c. [NP Vukina ćerka]
odlazi [NP Vukina ćerka].
d. [AP Vukina] odlazi [NP ćerka].
(2a) is the traditional LBE analysis; (2b) is a remnant
movement analysis; (2c) employs distributed deletion (cf. Fanselow&Ćavar
2002); (2d) reflects an approach to scrambling in which the A and N are base
generated independently (cf. Bošković in press).
The LBE account distinguishes languages that project DP from
those which do not, hence Bulgarian (3):
(3) *Vukinata
si otiva dâšterja. (cf. Vukinata dâšterja si otiva.)
Movement targets syntactic constituents, yet in Croatian (4)
neither piece is one:
(4) U
izuzetno sam veliku sobu ušao.
‘It was an EXCEPTIONALLY large room that
I entered.’
My proposal
exploits focus features and distributed deletion:
(5) [u izuzetno veliku sobu [sam [u izuzetno
veliku sobu [ušao ...
[+Foc]
A phrase
containing a element moves to SpecFP/CP. The operative principle is that there
can be no focus to the right of the [+Foc] element. All material following it
within SpecFP/CP bears “flat” intonation and is subsequently deleted. This results
in pronunciation of the next highest copy; crucially, neither side of the [+Foc]
element need be a constituent.
References
Bošković, Željko. in press. "Left
branch extraction, structure of NP, and scrambling." In Sabel&Saito,
eds. Scrambling.
Fanselow,
Gisbert & Damir Ćavar.
2002. "Distributed deletion." In Alexiadou, ed. Theoretical
approaches to universals.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2006. A syntax of
Serbian. Bloomington,
Ind: Slavica.
Title: Constituent Order in Subordinate Clauses in
Russian
Author: Sarah Turner, Oxford University
Syntactic studies of complex sentences in
Russian generally focus on the conjunction used and on the placement of
subordinate clauses relative to main clauses. The order of constituents within
subordinate clauses is discussed rarely, and normally only in connection with
indirect yes-no questions. The matter is similarly overlooked in studies
devoted specifically to word order, which either draw their material
exclusively from main clauses, or assume that the same principles of
organization operate in main and subordinate clauses.
In this paper
the order of major constituents within subordinate clauses is considered with
reference to aktual′noe členenie predloženija (for convenience: FSP). The material is
classified into three groups: clauses in which the subordinating conjunction
arguably forms the theme; clauses in which it forms the rheme; and clauses
whose conjunctions cannot be described straightforwardly in pragmatic terms.
Though not without its difficulties, this classification provides a
starting-point for investigation into an area in which the FSP model lacks
descriptive power: since FSP analysis typically divides the clause into no more
than two discourse units, the internal organization of these units when they
contain more than one syntactic constituent remains problematic. The first two
sub-sets of data are examined in this connection.
The paper is
concerned primarily with Contemporary Standard Russian. The main set of data is
drawn from samples of academic, creative and journalistic writing composed
since 1970. This chronological limit allows for comparison with material on
colloquial Russian collected since that time. The organization of subordinate
clauses in the colloquial language can differ strikingly from the conventions
observed in the standard language. The implications of these differences for
the pragmatic analysis of constituent order in the third sub-set of data are
discussed.