Cover not available
Part of
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: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.05bog
References (62)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Case checking vs. case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 522–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63: 187–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Phases beyond clauses. To appear in Nominal Constructions in Slavic and Beyond, L. Schürcks, A. Giannakidou, U. Etxeberria & P. Kosta (eds). [URL]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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & Mateu, J. 2011. Bare nominals and argument structure in Catalan and Spanish. The Linguistic Review 28: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
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. [URL]
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. [URL]
Nakajima, H. 2006. Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 674–684. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar