Article published in:
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 101–128

Weak referentiality and Russian instrumental nominals

This paper focuses on weak instrumental nominals in Russian and it shows their similarities, both from a semantic and a syntactic point of view, with bare predicates in Romance languages, namely Catalan. These nominal expressions are property-denoting expressions that show non-unique reference. We extend the analysis proposed for predicate nominals to other instrumental nominals in Russian: nominal adjuncts, cognate adjuncts, and manner cognate objects. We analyze these bare nominals as objects of an abstract function F which is postulated either subordinate to a light verb, where it projects the property-type attributed to Ninstr, or is adjoined to a verbal predicate, where it is interpreted as introducing a modification of the event predicate.
Published online: 03 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.05bog
References

References

Babby, L.H.
1985 Prepositional quantifiers and the direct case condition. In Issues in Russian Morphosyntax, M. Flier & R.D. Brecht (eds), 91–117. Columbus OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J.F.
1991 The configurationality of case assignment in Russian. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 56–98.Google Scholar
2012 The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J.F. & Rubin, E.J.
1991 The unification of instrumental case assignment in Russian. In Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 9, A. Toribio & W. Harbert (eds), 99–126.Ithaca NY: Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Baker, M.
2003 Lexical Categories. Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beyssade, C.
2007 Bare Nouns in French. Ms, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
Bogatyreva, L.
2011 Russian Instrumental Nominals as a Counterpart of Bare Nominals in Romance. MA dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Borschev, V., Paducheva, E.V., Partee, B.H., Testelets, Y. & Yanovich, I.
2008 Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, Vol. 16, A. Antonenko, J.F. Bailyn & C.Y. Bethin (eds), 48–67. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bosque, I.
1996 El sustantivo sin determinación. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž.
2005 On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Case checking vs. case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 522–533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63: 187–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Phases beyond clauses. To appear in Nominal Constructions in Slavic and Beyond, L. Schürcks, A. Giannakidou, U. Etxeberria & P. Kosta (eds). <http://​web2​.uconn​.edu​/boskovic​/papers​/FinalPotsdam​.pdf>Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. & Gajewski, J.
2011 Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 39. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Butt, M. & King. T.H.
2004 Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. In New Perspectives on Case Theory, E. Brandner & H. Zinsmeister (eds), 53–87. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Carlson, G.
1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, UMass. Published 1980 by Garland, New York.
Chierchia, G.
1998 Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, H.
1996 Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
de Swart, H., Winter, Y. & Zwarts, J.
2007 Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 195–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.
1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M.
1973 Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth, & Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Espinal, M.T.
2013 Bare nominals, bare predicates: Properties and related types. In New Perspectives on Bare Noun Phrases in Romance and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series 141], J. Kabatek & A. Wall (eds), 63–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & Mateu, J.
2011 Bare nominals and argument structure in Catalan and Spanish. The Linguistic Review 28: 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & McNally, L.
2007 Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In Proceedings of the Workshop. Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages [ Arbeitspapier 122], G. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (eds), 45–62. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
2011 Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 87–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franks, S.
1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2002 A Jacobsonian feature based analysis of the Slavic numeric quantifier genitive. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10: 141–181.Google Scholar
Geist, L.
2007 Predication and equation in copular sentences: Russian vs. English. In Existence: Syntax and Semantics, I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M.L.
2006 A Short Reference Grammar of Standard Slovene. Reference Grammar Network. Duke University / University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: SEELRC. <http://​www​.seelrc​.org:8080​/grammar​/mainframe​.jsp​?nLanguageID​=8>Google Scholar
Hale, K.
1986 Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In Features and Projections, P. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 233–254. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J.
1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harves, S.
2002 Unaccusative Syntax in Russian. PhD dissertation, Princeton University.
Harves, S. & Kayne, R.S.
2012 Having ‘need’ and needing ‘have’. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 120–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, A.
2004 Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle, A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
1936 Beitrag zur Allgemeinen Kasuslehre. See English translation Jakobson, R. 1984. Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931-1981 [Janua Linguarum, Ser. Maior 106], L.R. Waugh & M. Halle (eds), 59–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kagan, O.
2010 Genitive objects, existence and individuation. Russian Linguistics 34(1): 17–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, D.
1999 The Comparative Syntax of Albanian. On the Contribution of Syntactic Types to Propositional Interpretation. PhD dissertation, University of Durham.
Ladusaw, W.
1994 Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings of SALT IV, M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds), 220–229. Ithaca NY: Cornell DMLL.Google Scholar
Leko, N.
1986 Syntax of Noun Headed Structures in Serbo-Croatian and Corresponding Phrasal Structures in English. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Mateu, J.
2002 Argument Structure. Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. <http://​www​.tesisenxarxa​.net​/TDX​-1021103​-173806>
Matushansky, O.
2000 The instrument of inversion. Instrumental case and verb raising in the Russian copula. In Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, R. Billerey & B. Lillehaugen (eds), 101–115. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
McNally, L. & van Geenhoven, V.
1998 Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Expanded version of a paper presented at the 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium. <http://​www​.upf​.edu​/pdi​/louise​-mcnally​/_pdf​/publications​/weaknps​.pdf>
Milsark, G.
1977 “Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F.
2007 Weak reference or the true semantics of relative identity statements. Oxford-Paris Philosophy of Language Workshop, December 2007, IHPST, Paris. <http://​semantics​.univ​-paris1​.fr​/pdf​/handout​-relative%20identity​-paris​.pdf>
Nakajima, H.
2006 Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 674–684. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. & Borschev, V.
2004 The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 14, K. Watanabe & R.B. Young (eds), 212–234. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, B., Borschev, V., Paducheva, E., Testelets, Y. & Yanovich, I.
2012 The role of verb semantics in genitive alternations: Genitive of negation and genitive of intensionality. In The Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language 4(1), A. Grønn & A. Pazelskaya (eds), 1–29. Oslo: Oslo University.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A.
1999 Cognate objects in Russian: Is the notion “cognate” relevant for syntax? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 44(3): 267–291.Google Scholar
2000 On accusative adverbials in Russian and Finnish. In Adverbs and Adjunction [Linguistics in Potsdam 6]. A. Alexiadou & P. Svenonius (eds), 155–176.Potsdam: University of Potsdam, Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2001 On the Nature of Intra-Clausal Relations: A Study of Copular Sentences in Russian and Italian. PhD dissertation, McGill University, Montreal. Distributed by McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.
2007 Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B.
1998 Building verb meanings. In The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors, M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds), 97–134. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Roy, I.
2006 Non Verbal Predications: A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences. PhD dissertation, USC.
Sailer, M.
2010 The family of English cognate object constructions. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed), 247–261. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Švedova, N.J.. et al. (
(eds) 1980 Russkaja grammatika, Tom II: Sintaksis. (Russian Grammar, Vol. II: Syntax). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P.
2002 Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szucsich, L.
2002 Case licensing and nominal adverbials in Slavic. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 10: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, Jindrich Toman (ed.), 249–270. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, V.
1996 Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. PhD dissertation, University of Tubingen. Published in 1998. Standford CA: CSLI.
von Heusinger, K. & de Hoop, H.
2011 Semantic aspects of case variation. Lingua 121: 1–2. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, S. & Zlatić, L.
2003 The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, R.
2008 Bare predicate nominals in Romance languages. In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], H. Høeg Müller & A. Klinge (eds), xviii, 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar