Genitive of Quantification in Slavic: A View from Ellipsis
Sandra Stjepanović
West Virginia University
This paper presents evidence that the impossibility of numeral phrases like koliko lavova ‘how many
lions’ or pet lavova ‘five lions’ in (1) in inherent case contexts in Serbo-Croatian (SC) is due to a
morphological inadequacy, rather than to conditions on the assignment of inherent case in narrow syntax
or theta-theoretic reasons (see, for example, Franks (1994) and Bošković (2006, 2008), among others).
The evidence is based on the contrast between examples like (1a) on one hand, and those in (2) on the
other.
(1)a.* Koliko lavova
se on približio?
b. *On se približio
pet lavova.
how-many lionsGEN SE he approached
he SE approached five lionsGEN
‘How many lions did he approach?’
‘He approached five lions.’
(2) Znam da se on približio
jednom lavu, ali ne znam koliko
tigrova.
know1sg that SE he approached oneDAT lionDAT but not know how-many tigersGEN
‘I know that he approached one lion, but I don’t know how many tigers.’
As the contrast between (1) and (2) shows, it is not possible to have such numeral phrases as
complements of inherent case-marking verbs like približiti se ‘to approach’ (1), unless they are remnants
of sluicing (2). (2), therefore, shows that sluicing can repair the inadequacy that causes the
ungrammaticality of (1). The question is what this inadequacy is. In what follows I sketch an answer to
this question. I also extend the analysis to similar Genitive of Quantification (GQ) constructions in
Russian.
While numeral phrases are not felicitous as complements of inherent case-marking verbs, they are
quite happy as complements of structural case-marking verbs even in non-sluiced structures, as in (3).
(3)a. Koliko
lavova
je on nahranio?
b. On je nahranio
pet lavova.
how-many lionsGEN
is he fed
he is conquered five lionsGEN
‘How many lions did he feed?’
‘He fed five lions.’
Contrasts like the one between (1) and (3) have received a lot of attention in the literature on Slavic GQ.
Bošković (2008), who incorporates many insights of Franks (1994), who builds on Babby (1987), among
others, attributes the ungrammaticality of (1) to a violation caused by the impossibility of the verb to
discharge its inherent case onto its numeral phrase complement. More precisely, he argues that
morphologically undeclinable forms of higher numerals like pet ‘five’ or their wh-counterparts, such as
koliko ‘how many’, are caseless in SC. Since the head of the numeral phrase is caseless, the verb cannot
check its Case against it. Furthermore, following Chomsky’s (1986) approach to inherent case, Bošković
assumes that a verb that assigns inherent case will theta-mark its object iff it assigns it the inherent case in
question. Given this assumption, according to Bošković, having a numeral phrase like those in (1) as an
object of an inherent Case assigning verb in SC then inevitably causes a theta-criterion violation. I will
refer to this analysis as a violation of an LF version of Inverse Inherent Case Filter (IICF).
While I will follow Bošković’s (2008) insight that the ungrammaticality of cases like (1) is due to
a violation of the IICF (i.e., the failure of the verb to discharge case onto its complement), it is clear from
the contrast between (1) and (2) that the IICF cannot be subsumed solely under LF mechanisms. This is
because the LF’s of (1a) and the embedded clause of the second conjunct in (2) are the same (under both
LF and PF approaches to sluicing), and if (1) were bad due to a violation of an LF version of the IICF,
one would then expect (2) to be just as bad as (1), counter to fact. However, the contrast between (1) and
(2) can be accounted for straightforwardly, if we assume that sluicing is a PF process (as in Merchant
2001, 2008, Lasnik 2001, Fox and Lasnik 2003, Boeckx and Lasnik 2006, Bošković 2009, among others)
and that the IICF is a representational constraint (given that such constraints can be rescued by PF
deletion, unlike derivational constraints in narrow syntax (Boeckx and Lasnik 2006)). (1) is bad because
the inadequacy caused by the IICF is present at PF, while (2) is ok, because this inadequacy is eliminated
when sluicing deletes the offending structures. The question is what this inadequacy that can be rescued at
PF is exactly, in other words, what the Inverse Inherent Case Filter is.
In order to account for the data above, I propose that IICF is a condition that requires inherent
case to be morphologically realized, if it can be, akin to Freidin and Babby’s (1984) Principle of Lexical
Satisfaction. I argue that it should be formulated along the lines of (4).
(4)
A verb lexically specified for inherent case must assign its morphological case feature to the NP
that checks a structural case feature against the verb in syntax.
The formulation implies that an inherently case-marked verb is lexically specified with a morphological
case feature, which it must assign to its complement. Case Filter, as a licensing condition on NPs is also
present in syntax, i.e., the NP has a structural case feature which it must check/value in the standard way.
Given this, examples like (1) and (3) are both ok with respect to Case Filter, but (1) violates the IIFC,
given that the verb did not discharge its morphological case feature onto its complement, as evidenced by
the fact that its complement, the numeral NP, is a morphologically caseless form. If at PF the structure
that contains the verb with the undischarged feature is deleted by sluicing, the offending affix is gone, and
the sentence is rescued, as in (2). There is no inverse case filter for structural cases. If the verb is not
specified with a morphological case feature (i.e., it is not an inherent case-marking verb), then a
morphological reflex of structural case can be realized through a default rule that spells out accusative or
nominative, depending on the structural position with which the structural case feature is associated (as in
Cowper 1988). The rule may be optional. As a result, a morphologically caseless form is possible in
structural case environments, as in (3).
I show that the analysis can be extended to Russian GQ:
(5)
Ivan kupil pjat’ mašin.
(6) *Ivan vladeet pjat’ fabrik.
Ivan bought five cars-gen
Ivan owns
five factories-gen
(7)
Ivan vladeet
pjat’ju fabrikami
(8) *Ivan vladeet pjat’ju fabrik.
Ivan owns
five-instr factories-instr
Ivan owns five-instr factories-gen
(5) receives the same analysis as SC (3). (6) shows that Russian and SC are similar in that they do not
allow the GQ pattern in inherent case contexts. According to the analysis proposed here, (6) is ok with
respect to Case Filter, but violates the IICF, just as (1) in SC does. However, unlike SC, Russian higher
numerals have what Bošković (2008) refers to as a case-agreeing pattern, which allows the IICF to be
satisfied, as in (7). (8) is a violation of the IICF. While five factories satisfies Case Filter in syntax to
receive a theta-role, the IICF is violated because the instrumental case affix was not assigned to the whole
NP that satisfied the Case Filter. The structures for numeral phrases remain as in Bošković (2008).
In sum, apart from documenting an interesting instance of violation repair under sluicing, the
paper also bears on the nature of inherent case licensing and the distribution of GQ in Slavic.
REFERENCES
BABBY, LEONARD H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 5: 91-138; BOECKX, CEDRIC, AND HOWARD LASNIK. 2006. Intervention and Repair. Linguistic
Inquiry 37: 150-155. BOŠKOVIĆ, ŽELJKO. 2008. A minimalist account of genitive of quantification. Formal
description of Slavic languages 5, 270-287. BOŠKOVIĆ, ZELJKO. 2009. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Ms., University of Connecticut. CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1986. Knowledge of
language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. COWPER, ELIZABETH. 1988. Deriving inherent case:
Passives in German. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol 9. FOX, DANNY, AND HOWARD LASNIK. 2003.
Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry
34: 143-154. FRANKS, STEVEN. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 12: 570-649. FREIDIN, ROBERT, AND LEONARD H. BABBY. 1984. On the interaction of lexical and
syntactic properties: Case structure in Russian. Cornell working papers in linguistics VI, 71-104. LASNIK, HOWARD.
2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31, 301-320.
MERCHANT, JASON. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. ROSS, JOHN ROBERT. 1969. Guess who? Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society, 252-286.