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
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