EXTENSIONS OF THE
PRIMEVAL GENITIVE
A REPLY TO PESETSKY
(2013)
Andrew McKishnie & Paul B. Melchin
University of Ottawa
9th Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics
Society
Seattle, WA, USA
Sept. 20, 2014
PRELIMINARIES
 Pesetsky’s 2013 monograph, Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic
Categories, provides a new and interesting account of case assignment in
Russian
 Though we agree in principle with many of his claims, we feel that some
aspects of the system he proposes can be changed to account for the
facts for a wider range of data in a more uniform manner
2
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
 Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)
 Primeval Genitive Conjecture
 Russian as a Case-Stacking Language
 NUMBER Head
 The system in action: Depictives
 An outline of our contributions to the system
 Div Head
 Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system
 Adjective Case Mismatch
 Genitive of Negation
 Conclusions
3
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 Pesetsky proposes that different case endings are actually realizations of
syntactic categories that get passed onto other constituents in certain
conditions
Genitive
=N
Accusative
=V
Nominative
=D
Oblique
=P
 Oblique in this system includes every case except for nominative
(accusative, genitive, dative, locative/prepositional and instrumental)
4
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 Falling out from this hypothesis is his ‘Primeval Genitive Conjecture’
which states : ‘NGEN categorizes a Russian root as a noun (in the
lexicon).’ (Pesetsky 2013: 9)
 This means that nouns are ‘born genitive’ so to speak- they enter the
derivation with genitive morphology
 Other cases are seen as the N merges with other syntactic categories
(D,V, P)
5
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 For this system to work, one must assume that Russian is a ‘case-
stacking’ language; that is, a language which allows multiple cases to be
present on a single nominal
 Evidence for case-stacking comes from Lardil (a Tangkic language spoken
in Northern Australia)
6
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
Ngada derlde marun-ngan-i
wangalk-I
I
boomerang-ACC
break boy-GEN-ACC
‘I broke the boy’s boomerang’
Ngada latha karnjin-i
marun-ngan-ku
I
boy-GEN-INSTR spear-INSTR
spear wallaby-ACC
maarn-ku
‘I speared the wallaby with the boy’s spear’
7
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 However, Russian never overtly shows multiple case suffixes on a single
nominal
 This is due to the presence of the ‘One-Suffix Rule’ in Russian: ‘Delete
all but the outermost suffix’ (Pesetsky 2013)
 Suppression of NGEN and DNOM by PDAT
Stem NGEN DNOM PDAT

Surface
stol
-a
-ø
-u

stolu
‘table’
lamp -y
-a
-e

lampe
‘lamp’
stol
-ov
-y
-am

stolam
‘tables’
lamp -ø
-y
-am

lampam
‘lamps’
8
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 Russian poses an interesting problem related to case and number when
there is a paucal present (2, 3 or 4)
 Number Mismatch: the noun is singular, the the modifiers and
demonstrative are plural
 Case Mismatch: the noun and adjective that follow the paucal show
genitive case, but the paucal, along with the demonstrative and adjective
that precede it, show nominative case
 Previous accounts of these mismatches can be found in Franks (1995)
and the references cited therein.
9
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
et-i
posledn-ye
krasiv-ye
stol-y
these-PL.NOM last-PL.NOM beautiful-PL.NOM table-PL.NOM
‘these last beautiful tables’
et-i
posledn-ye
these-PL.NOM last-PL.NOM
dva
krasiv-yx
stol-a
two.M.NOM beautiful-PL.GEN table-SG.GEN
‘these last two beautiful tables’
10
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 The number mismatch disappears when there is a non-paucal numeral
present (i.e. 5 or above); however, the case mismatch remains
et-i
posledn-ye
p’at’
krasiv-yx
these-PL.NOM last-PL.NOM five.NOM beautiful-PL.GEN
stol-ov
table-PL.GEN
‘these last five beautiful tables’
11
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 Pesetsky (2013) proposes that number is assigned in two different ways
in Russian: Synthetically (singular or plural), or Periphrastically (DUAL,
TRIAL or QUADRAL)
 Synthetically: N enters the syntax already bearing a number feature,
NUMBER (because the NGEN nominalizer that formed in the lexicon
bears NUMBER)
 Periphrastically: N enters the syntax not bearing NUMBER (because the
nominalizer NGEN that formed the noun does not bear NUMBER) and
immediately merges with an instance of NUMBER
 In this system, the paucal ‘numerals’ themselves are realizations of the DUAL, TRIAL
and QUADRAL features, and the noun bears default singular morphology in their
presence
12
INTRODUCTION TO PESETSKY (2013)
 This system presents conceptual and empirical problems
 Conceptually, it seems odd that number would be assigned in different ways; although
the morphemes assigning number differ morphologically (free vs bound), they
perform the same semantic function, and so should have the same syntactic category
 Empirically, the Primeval Genitive could be used to account for the Genitive of
Negation, yet Pesetsky (2013: 150) specifically states that Genitive of Negation is
NOT an instance of the Primeval Genitive, but rather a Null P assigning genitive case;
this does not explain with the semantic facts about Genitive of Negation, namely its
non-specific reading
13
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
 Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)
 Primeval Genitive Conjecture
 Russian as a Case-Stacking Language

NUMBER Head
 The system in action: Depictives
 An outline of our contributions to the system
 Div Head
 Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system
 Adjective Case Mismatch
 Genitive of Negation
 Conclusions
14
THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES
 One of the proposals from Pesetsky is that all oblique cases (dative,
locative/prepositional and instrumental) are a realization of P, whether P
is overt or covert
 One area in which this can be seen is in Russian depictive structures
 Past research, such as Richardson (2001; 2006) and McKishnie (2013)
(amongst many others) has noted that Russian has two distinct types of
depictives: Case Agreement Depictives (CADs) and Instrumental Case
Marked Depictives (ICMDs), illustrated on the next slide
15
THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES
 CAD Structure
Milicija
privela ego
domoj pyanogo
police.NOM brought he.ACC home drunk.ACC
‘The police brought him home drunk.’
 ICMD Structure
Milicija
privela ego
domoj pyanim
police.NOM brought he.ACC home drunk.INST
‘The police brought him home drunk.’
16
THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES
 The proposed structure for CADs in McKishnie (2013) fits perfectly
with Pesetsky’s system of case assignment; the DepP is assigned
Accusative case, as is the entire DP that is dominated by V
17
THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES
 However, the proposed structure for ICMDs in McKishnie (2013) is
incongruent with Pesetsky’s system; the DepP, adjoined to the VP, must
receive case by default
18
THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES
 In Pesetsky’s system, there is no case by default; the only way
instrumental case can be assigned is by a P, which in this case, must be
null
19
THE SYSTEM IN ACTION: DEPICTIVES
 So, CAD-type depictives help to confirm Pesetsky’s overall case system,
while ICMD-type depictives illustrate why it is necessary to have both
overt and null Ps to account for the oblique cases
 Next, we will discuss some shortcomings of Pesetsky’s system, and how
our proposed changes can be used to account for a larger amount of
data
20
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
 Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)
 Primeval Genitive Conjecture
 Russian as a Case-Stacking Language

NUMBER Head
 The system in action: Depictives
 An outline of our contributions to the system
 Div Head
 Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system
 Adjective Case Mismatch
 Genitive of Negation
 Conclusions
21
OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM
 The system in Pesetsky (2013) is based on a fairly simple model of the
nominal extended projection.
 The only categories present are DP and NP
 However, much work in the last 25 years has suggested that there are
other functional categories present.
 We propose that Pesetsky’s system can be improved by considering a
more detailed model of Noun Phrase structure, following the model of
Borer (2005).
22
OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM
 Borer (2005) proposes that there are three functional categories
dominating NP in the nominal extended projection:
 Div: the division head, divides the denotation of the noun, makes it a count noun.
Home of plural marking and numeral classifiers.
 #: the cardinality head, provides quantity. Home of numerals and many quantifiers.
 D: the determiner head, provides information on specificity and referentiality. Home
of definite determiners.
23
OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM
 Borer’s (2005) model of the DP can be seen below:
24
OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM
 Using the case assignment system of Pesetsky (2013), but the DP
structure of Borer (2005), we claim that the system can account for a
wider range of facts, in a more uniform way, than in Pesetsky (2013).
 We claim that all number specifications are generated in Div, rather than
having a divide between synthetic and periphrastic number assignment.
 This has two advantages:
 Number assignment is uniform, rather than split two ways.
 There is no divide in number assignment between the syntax and the lexicon,
following Marantz (1997) and other recent work.
25
OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM
 As can be seen in the tree above, all numbers (SINGULAR, DUAL, TRIAL,
QUADRAL and PLURAL) are contained in the Div head
 The various mismatches result from the fact that the paucals are free
morphemes, whereas the SINGULAR and PLURAL numbers are affixes,
requiring the noun to move to the Div head
26
OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM
 The presence of the Div head allows for a uniform mechanism for
number assignment, which is preferred to the split mechanisms of
Pesetsky
 Additionally, if we assume that NOM case is absorbed by the # head,
and that the presence of a numeral (paucal or non-paucal) blocks the
movement of the N to that head, the presence of Genitive case on
nouns following a numeral is easily explained
27
OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SYSTEM
‘a/the table’ stol
‘two tables’ dva stola ‘five tables’ pjatj stolov
 As you can see, anything below #P retains its primeval genitive, as the
NOM case assigned by D is absorbed at the # head
28
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
 Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)
 Primeval Genitive Conjecture
 Russian as a Case-Stacking Language

NUMBER Head
 The system in action: Depictives
 An outline of our contributions to the system
 Div Head
 Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system
 Adjective Case Mismatch
 Genitive of Negation
 Conclusions
29
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 Does the addition of a Borer-like DP improve Pesetsky’s system for case
assignment?
 We believe that it does. In addition to a unified system of number
assignment, it also accounts for various phenomena in Russian; the
different case marking we see in various types of adjective, as well as the
classic and well-described ‘Genitive of Negation’
 See Franks (1995) again, and references therein, for previous accounts of the Genitive
of Negation
30
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 We now return to one of the puzzling pieces of data from the beginning
of the presentation:
et-i
posledn-ye
these-PL.NOM last-PL.NOM
dva
krasiv-yx
stol-a
two.M.NOM beautiful-PL.GEN table-SG.GEN
‘these last two beautiful tables’
31
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 There is a case mismatch between the adjective ‘last’, which appears in
Nominative case (like the determiner ‘these’ and the paucal ‘two’), and
the adjective ‘beautiful’, which appears in Genitive case, like the noun
‘table’
 This can be explained by proposing that different classes of adjectives
adjoin at different points in the structure
 Adjectives like ‘last’, or ‘Ordinal Adjectives’, adjoin to the #P, whereas
most other adjectives adjoin at the NP level
32
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 This improves Pesetsky’s system, which
postulated that case assignment had to do with
timing of movements with respect to satisfying
selectional features, and that Ordinal Adjectives
adjoined at a different time than other
adjectives
 The presence of the #P and its nominativeabsorbing property explains the case mismatch
(as well as the linear order relative to the
numeral) between the two types of adjectives
 This is an instance of locality – the probe agrees
with the nearest case features.
33
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 Now, let us consider the Genitive of Negation:
 In the Genitive of Negation, internal arguments can appear in genitive
case (as opposed to accusative or nominative) with a negated verb.
 Nouns bearing the Genitive of Negation are interpreted as having a
narrow scope with respect to negation and are non-referential
34
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
Ja
ne
čital knig-i
I.NOM NEG read book-PL.ACC
‘I didn’t read the books’
Ja
ne
čital
knig-ø
I.NOM
NEG read book-PL.GEN
‘I didn’t read any books’
35
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
Pismi
letter.PL.NOM
ne
prišli
NEG arrived.PL
‘The letters did not arrive’
Pisem
ne
prišlo
letter.PL.GEN
NEG arrived.SG.NEUT
‘No letters arrived’
36
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 We propose that the non-specific/non-referential properties of these
nouns is due to the lack of a DP projection in the structure
 This also accounts for the presence of genitive case; since there is no D,
V cannot assign its Accusative case, due to its selectional requirements,
thus the N retains its primeval genitive case
37
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 The idea of having the option of reduced structure for non-specific
internal arguments is not new; similar proposals have been made for
structures in Turkish, French, and other languages:
 In Turkish, specific (or definite, or referential) objects receive accusative
marking, while non-specific objects are bare (Öztürk 2009: 335):
Ali kitap okudu
Ali kitab-ı
okudu
Ali book read
Ali book-ACC read
‘Ali did book reading’
‘Ali read the book’
 Öztürk analyzes this as an NP without accompanying functional material
(D, Num, etc.)
38
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM
 A similar construction occurs in French, where a noun phrase can
appear with the particle de and no article, getting a non-specific,
indefinite reading, which is analyzed by Mathieu (2012) as lacking the DP
projection:
J’ ai
lu
de bon-s roman-s.
I have read DE good-PL novel-PL
‘I read good novels.’
39
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
 Introduction of Pesetsky (2013)
 Primeval Genitive Conjecture
 Russian as a Case-Stacking Language

NUMBER Head
 The system in action: Depictives
 An outline of our contributions to the system
 Div Head
 Discussion of our improvements to Pesetsky’s system
 Adjective Case Mismatch
 Genitive of Negation
 Conclusions
40
CONCLUSIONS
 Although we agree with the core principles of Pesetsky’s analysis, we
have shown that many aspects of it can be reworked and extended to
account for a larger range of phenomena, including:
 Tweaking NUMBER to provide a unified account of number assignment through the
introduction of a Div head to provide a single syntactic location for all number
features
 The introduction of a # head to provide a place for the merging point of non-paucal
numerals and the absorption point of NOM
 Extending the Primeval Genitive to the Genitive of Negation structure
41
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 We would like to thank various people for their helpful comments and
insights into this research, including Robert Truswell, Éric Mathieu, Maria
Luisa Rivero, Kyumin Kim, Brandon Fry, Nova Starr, Vesela Simeonova,
Kate Riccomini, Daiho Kitaoka, Bethany McKishnie and all the students
from LIN 7912A
42
SELECTED REFERENCES
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense, Vol. I: In Name Only. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, UMass Amherst.
Franks, S. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marantz, A. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own
lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201-225.
Mathieu, E. 2012. Licensing by modification: The case of French de nominals. Journal of Linguistics. 48, 2: 389-426.
McKishnie, A. 2013. Depictives in East Slavic: Two Cases, How Many Structures? Paper presented at
Международная Конференция «Типология Морфосинтаксических Параметров
2013»
(International “Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters” Conference). Moscow, Russia.
October 17, 2013.
Öztürk, B. 1999. Incorporating Agents. Lingua, 119 (2), 334-358.
Pesetsky, D. 2013. Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Richardson, K. 2001. What Secondary Predicates in Russian Tell Us About the Link Between Tense, Aspect and
Case. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 26, 1-25.
Richardson, K. 2006. Case and Aspect in Ukrainian Depictive Secondary Predicates. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28:
1-4, 245-257.
43
THE END/КОНЕЦ
Thank you for your attention!
Спасибо за внимание!!
We welcome all questions and comments!
For further information please contact:
Paul:
pmelc074@uottawa.ca
Andrew: andrew.mckishnie@uottawa.ca
44