주제어 :	러시아어, 생격, 내재격, 외부격, 의미론

투 고 일 :	2008.	10.	15

심 사 일 :	2008.	11.	1	~ 11. 30

심사완료일 :	2008.	12.	15

The “Genitive Absolute” in Russian*

- Isolated and Unconditioned Expressions –

Sukhoon Choo**

****	이 논문은 2008년 한국외대 교내 학술지원비에 의해 연구되었음.

****	한국외대 노어과 교수

제24권 2호

러시아 법치행정의 장애요인에 대한 연구

국문요약

러시아어에서 두 개 이상의 명사(구)가 결합하여 명사(구)가 명사(구)를 수식할 때, 수식하는 명사구에는 일반적으로 생격이 할당된다. 러시아어의 생격은 수사구문이나 부정구문에서 그 기능을 수행하기도 하나, 수식명사구의 생격할당은 생격의 가장 핵심적인 구조적 기능의 하나라고 할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 수사구문이나 부정구문, 또한 전형적인 수식명사구문(NP+NPGEN) 등의 생격구문과는 다른 생격구문(‘절대생격’)을 제시하고, 필자가 ‘절대생격’이라고 명명하는 세 가지 형태의 내부적 생격구조를 살펴 봄으로써 러시아어의 생격구문에 대한 또 다른 분석을 시도해 보고자 한다.

1. Introduction

The Genitive case in Russian is, among other things, the case for adnominal NP modifiers. That is, when one NP modifies another, the modifying NP is assigned the Genitive case. The Genitive has other functions as well (for example, it is involved in quantification and negation), but this is its core structural function.

However, there are three striking constructions when the Genitive is used with NPs which do not involve quantification or negation, but which also do not reflect adnominal modification. In this paper I would like to give an account of those two constructions and, most importantly, integrate them into the full account of Genitive case assignment provided in Choo 2007.

2. The Adnominal Genitive and Its Role in Genitive Case Assignment

The Genitive case is used to mark a variety of adnominal modifiers. The 1980 Academy grammar (Švedova 1980, 2: 64) states that “As a whole, there are no lexical‐semantic constraints on the adnominal modifier.” Nevertheless, the Academy grammar does offer a list of “meanings” (i.e., what I have been calling functions) associated with adnominal modification in the Genitive case. Let us review their classification in order to get an idea of the diversity of Genitive adnominal modifiers.

(1)	Subjective Modifiers

a.	rasporjaženie direktora

directiveNOM directorGEN

‘a directive of the director’

b.	pomošč´ sosedej

helpNOM neighborsGEN

‘the neighbors’ help’

c.	blednost´lica

palenessNOM faceGEN

‘paleness of face’

d.	pribytie poezda

arrivalNOM trainGEN

‘the arrival of the train’	(Švedova: 1980, 64)

To Russian grammarians, a subjective modifier is anything that could be paraphrased as the subject of a predicate. For example, (1c) blednost´ lica corresponds to lico bledno ‘the face is pale’, (1b) pomošč´ sosedej corresponds to sosedi pomogajut ‘the neighbors help’, and so forth. They do not regard this relationship as derivational; rather, it simply indicates that the entire NP has the logical force of a predication. The Academy Grammar notes the difference between the verbal nominalizations in (1a) and (1d). The nominalization in (1d) is described as processal, an action nominal, while (1a) does not have that strongly verbal nuance: it is simply a noun derived from a verb.

For some reason, the Academy grammar neglects to mention objective nominalizations alongside subjective nominalizations. It would have been natural to include this when enumerating the functions asociated with the adnominal Genitive. Omission of such an important function casts doubt on how exhaustive the semantic categories the Grammar proposes are.

(2)	Possessors

(ⅰ)	Alienable possessions

(ⅱ)	Inalienable properties

(ⅲ)	Inalienable physical possession

a.	kniga Ivana

bookNOM IvanGEN

‘Ivan’s book’

b.	rezul´tat poezdki

resultNOM tripGEN

‘the result of the trip’

c.	podrobnosti sobytij

detailsNOM eventsGEN

‘details of the events’

d.	ruka otca

handNOM fatherGEN

‘the father’s hand’

e.	kryša doma

roofNOM houseGEN

‘the roof of the house’	(Švedova: 1980, 64)

Among the relations that can be viewed as loosely possessive, the Academy grammar singles out three sub‐classes: proper possession of alienable objects, as in (2a); the abstract association of a noun with properties, qualities, or characteristics, illustrated in (2b) and (2c); and inalienable possession of body parts, as in (2d). An example like (2e) is assigned to the possessive relation proper, which I find incorrect. Rather, I would group (2e) with (2d) as a “part‐whole” relation, with the difference that the “whole” in (2e) is inanimate, while in (2e) it is animate.

The Academy Grammar then goes on to distinguish a set of more dependent modifiers.

(3)	Modifiers Denoting Purpose or Function

a.	škola povarov

schoolNOM cooksGEN

‘school for cooks’

b.	nedelja pis´ma

weekNOM letterGEN

‘week of letter‐writing’

(4)	Modifiers Denoting Presence

a.	strana ozer

countryNOM lakesGEN

‘land of lakes’

b.	dom obuvi

houseNOM footwareGEN

‘house of shoes’

(5)	Modifiers Denoting Inclusion or Belonging

a.	člen partii

memberNOM partyGEN

‘Party member’

b.	rabotnik kolxoza

workerNOM collective farmGEN

‘collective farm worker’

(6)	Modifiers Denoting Association or Origin

zakon Vakernagelja

lawNOM WackernagelGEN

‘Wackernagel’s Law’

(7)	Determining Modifiers

a.	master sporta

masterNOM sportGEN

‘Master of Sport’

b.	toska smerti

griefNOM deathGEN

‘grief of death’

c.	gorod detstva

cityNOM childhoodGEN

‘city of childhood’

(8)	Metaphoric Modifiers

a.	lenta vospominanij

ribbonNOM recollectionsGEN

‘ribbon of recollections’

b.	stado oblakov

herdNOM cloudsGEN

‘herd of clouds’	(Švedova: 1980, 64‐5)

While the modifiers in (2–8) are fundamentally independent―they can occur on their own as NPs, and the meaning of the examples follows from the junction of the two equal independent NPs―the Genitive NPs in (9) have no particular status outside of such combinations.

The Academy Grammar then goes on to distinguish a set of more dependent modifiers. The adnominal Genitive modifiers in (2–8) are fundamentally independent―they can occur on their own as NPs, and their meaning follows from the combination of the two NPs―the Genitive NPs in (9) are unlikely to occur apart from similar phrases.

(9)	a.	fizika vysokix ènergij

physicsNOM high energiesGEN

‘high energy physics’

b.	boegolovki individual´nogo navednenija

warheadsNOM individual targetingGEN

‘MIRVs’

c.	čelovek beloj rasy

personNOM white raceGEN

‘white person’

d.	sobytija dovoennyx let

eventsNOM pre‐war yearsGEN

‘events of the pre‐war years’

e.	obuv´ otečestvennogo proizvodstva

footwearNOM domestic productionGEN

‘domestic footwear’

f.	kover krasivogo risunka

rugNOM beautiful patternGEN

‘a rug with a beautiful pattern’

g.	faktory bol´šogo značenija

factorsNOM great importanceGEN

‘factors of great importance’

The 1980 Academy Grammar attempts to define semantic sub‐classes of such modifiers, e.g., origin (9e), qualitative assessment (9g), etc., but the categories seem arbitrary and of little general interest. In a generative syntactic framework, it is obvious that adnominal modifiers simply represent a particular syntactic relation, semantically constrained only by the way the lexical meanings of the NPs can combine. The syntactic configuration represented by the NPs in (2–9) can be defined as in (10).

(10)	NP

N	NPGEN

This configuration is absolutely insensitive to semantics. The NPs in (11), created by mixing elements of the NPs in (9), are bad not for any syntactic reason, but by virtue of the semantic anomaly presented by the confluence of those particular lexical items.

(11)	a.	*boegolovki beloj rasy

warheadsNOM white raceGEN

*‘white warheads’

b.	*obuv´ individual´nogo navednenija

footwearNOM individual targetingGEN

*‘individually targetable shoes’

The point is that this kind of Genitive NP is assigned case as a result of its syntactic configuration, nothing more and nothing less. This is completely expected and uncontroversial within the modern generative literature on Russian case.

See such works as Babby 1984 a, Choo 2007, Fowler 1987, Franks 1995, Friedin and Babby 1984, and Richardson 2007 for exploration of this kind of approach to Russian case.

3. The Genitive in a Unified Theory of Case Assignment

In previous work (Choo 2007, Choo 2006) I have proposed a theory of case assignment which provides a flexible and powerful account of various different types of case. Before we consider the “Genitive Absolute” constructions which challenge this or any analysis of Russian case assignment, let us review this theory and see how it is required to handle various different types of Genitive NPs.

My typology of case assignment may be summarized in the following table:

Table 1. Typology of Case Assignment

	Extrinsic	Intrinsic
Configurational	+
Lexical	+	+
Semantic	+	+
(Choo: 2007, 170)

This approach applies two sets of criteria to NPs in order to account for their morphosyntactic case. First, case may be extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic case is derived from some element outside of the case‐marked NP. The structure in (10) illustrates extrinsic configurational case. The right‐hand NP is in the Genitive because of its syntactic relation to the left‐hand N, which is outside of the Genitive NP. This is the very definition of extrinsic. In this case, the case assignment is configurational because what triggers the Genitive is the relation to an element of category N, not any specific lexical items which are nouns. But specific lexical items can also trigger case assignment, as in (12):

(12)	a.	okolo	Moskvy

around	MoscowGEN

b.	bojat’sja	sobaki

to fear	dogGEN

In (12a), it is not all prepositions which assign the Genitive case to their objects, only a limited lexical set including okolo and a handful of others. Similarly, not all verbs assign the Genitive, but bojat’sja does in (12b) as a result of its specific lexical property. Here it is not the configurational category which is responsible for case assignment, but the specific lexical item that occurs within a certain configuration. But the case is still extrinsic, in that the preposition and verb stand outside the Genitive NP.

We can even contrast lexical and configurational case assignment with the same NP, as in (13):

(13)	a.	pamjatnik	Puškinu

monument	PuškinDAT

b.	pamjatnik	Puškina

monument	PuškinGEN

Pamjatnik Puškinu in (13a) is the familiar designation of a well‐known statue and meeting place in Moscow. The noun pamjatnik simply requires the Dative case on its extrinsic complement by virtue of its specific lexical properties. But nothing prevents it from assigning the Genitive configurationally, just like any other noun, as in (13b). The meaning of pamjatnik Puškina is unconditioned by the specific semantics of (13a), and Pushkina can plausibly have at least two semantic relations to pamjatnik: this can be a statue owned by Puškin, or created by Puškin.

Alternatively, one might regard (a) as extrinsic semantic case, to be considered immediately below. In this case we would suggest that a particular semantic class of nouns, includingpamjatni ‘statue’,pis’m ‘letter’,prika ‘order’, etc., would all assign the Genitive by virtue of their semantics. For the purposes of illustrating this typology, it does not matter. The important point is that this would also be extrinsic case assignment: the nouns stand outside the Genitive NP and assign case to it from this extrinsic position

Extrinsic case assignment can also be based on the semantics of the external element which assigns case. This can be most clearly illustrated in Russian for quantifiers, as in (14):

(14)	a.	pjat’	knig

five	booksGEN

b.	mnogo	knig

many	booksGEN

Here, the semantics of quantification in Russian regularly requires that the quantified NP stand in the Genitive case. Again, it is important to recognize that this case assignment is extrinsic: the semantics of quantification originates with the quantifier, extrinsic to the Genitive‐marked NP. The morphological case marking on the Genitive NP is merely a reflex of what the external quantifier requires.

One might reasonably ask whether this might not be configurational case assignment in a structure like (15):

(15)	NP	(some analyses call this QP)

Q	NPGEN

Under this approach, it is the element of formal class Q which would assign Genitive case by virtue of its type, not the meaning of the element Q. I offer two strong arguments that this case is based on semantics and not class. First, not all elements with the semantics of quantification are elements of type Q in this configuration. Consider the examples in (16):

(16)	a.	Boris	starše	Ivana.

Boris	older	IvanGEN

‘Boris is older than Ivan.’

b.	Rebenok	nakupil	konfet.

child	bought a large quantity of	candiesGEN

‘The child bought a huge amount of candies.’

Comparative adjectives can assign the Genitive case to the object of comparison, as in (16a). This predicate must contain an AP of the form in (17):

(17)	AP

A	NPGEN

But it is in no way a general property of elements of class A that they assign the Genitive case. Instead, this is restricted to adjectives which have the extra nuance of semantic quantification of the degree to which they express a property such as ‘oldness’.

Similarly, there are verbs prefixed with the prefix na‐, which adds the meaning of ‘perform the action of the verb in a large quantity’, as in (16b). Again, it is not a property of the class V that they assign the Genitive, but instead it is a function of the meaning of quantification.

Space does not permit a fuller restatement of all the possible examples of extrinsic semantic Genitive case assignment in Russian, but it should be noted that the Genitive of negation can also be included in this typological category, as demonstrated in Choo 2007.

A second argument is more subtle, but equally convincing. Consider the Genitive‐initial Genitive NP in a very typical Russian quantificational sentence, as in (18):

(18)	Druzej u menja v to vremja bylo mnogo ___.

‘As for friends, at that time I had many of them.’

It looks as though this is a normal quantified NP complement to mnogo, which has been fronted for reasons of topic‐comment structure. But now consider other examples of this construction given in (19):

(19)	a.	Xleba u vsex bylo v obrez.

‘The amount of bread available just was enough for everybody.’

b.	Sardinok v banke ostalos’ dve.

‘The number of sardines remaining in the can was two.’

c.	Podrug v to vremja u menja bylo vsego odna.

‘The number of female friends I had then was only one.’

d.	Deneg ostalos’ kot naplakal.

‘The amount of money left was such that the cat cried over it [i.e., nothing at all].’

e.	Deneg u nego ― s gulkin nos.

‘The amount of money he has is very little.

f.	Deneg u nego v obrez.

‘The money he has is just enough.’

g.	Podrug v to vremja u menja ostalos’ vsego liš’ odna Tanja.

‘The number of friends I had left at that time was just Tanja alone.’

h.	Vremeni prošlo dve nedeli.

‘The amount of time that passed was two weeks.’

This set of examples shows that the quanitifier is not necessarily of the formal class Q (it can be a PP, as in (19e) or (19f), or even a clause, as in (19d). Furthermore, the sentence‐initial Genitive NP must not originate as a syntactic complement to the NP, because in several of these sentences there is another NP present in that position, e.g., (19g) and (19h).

What these sentences have in common, and what conditions the assignment of the Genitive case, is that the initial NP notifies the listener that there is an upcoming specification of quantity. That is the very definition of extrinsic semantic case assignment.

Now let us turn our attention to intrinsic case. This type of case assignment is not systematically found in Russian. However, like other phenomena from the cross‐linguistic “bank” of linguistic universals, constructions which are common in one language but not in another, may still occur on occasion in a language which seems not to have them.

The easiest to illustrate, and very widespread typologically, is intrinsic semantic case assignment. In this type of case, the case is self‐assigned to an NP by virtue of its intrinsic (inherent) meaning. Let us consider several examples from Hungarian, a language which makes extensive use of intrinsic semantic case assignment.

The reason for this is that Hungarian has a large number of morphological cases (approximately 17, though accounts vary depending on how some borderline morphological forms are treated). There cannot be enough extrinsic configurational positions available to condition all these cases, so their analysis requires semantics.

(20)	a.	A macska fekszik a dobozban.[inessive case: ‘inside’]

‘The cat is lying inside the box.’

b.	A macska fekszik a dobozon. [superessive: ‘on, on top of’]

‘The cat is lying on top of the box.’

c.	A macska fekszik a doboznál. [adessive: ‘by, next to, alongside’]

‘The cat is lying by the box.’

It is easy to see that the alternative cased NPs all stand in the same syntactic position, and therefore this case cannot be configurational. Instead, we must conclude that the choice of case is conditioned solely by the semantic relation expressed by the NP itself. Thus, these examples illustrate intrinsic semantic case assignment.

Russian may well have intrinsic semantic case. An obvious possibility would be the Dative case for indirect objects (semantic recipients and beneficiaries of the action of the verb). However, most existing surveys of the syntax of Russian case (Fowler 1987, Franks 1995, Richardson 2007, etc.) attempt to treat the Dative in Russian as configurational. Fowler 1996 gives a particularly persuasive argument that Dative NPs must have a unique configurational position, based on their inability to undergo passivization. In other research I am working on an account of the Russian Dative in which semantics figures more strongly, but I am not yet ready to go on the record about this construction. And we don’t have time today.

It is easy to conceive of intrinsic lexical case. This would be any NP which is inserted into a sentence already bearing a particular case, i.e., it stands in the lexicon in a particular case, without any semantic motivation. For example, one might analyze Russian adverbs like utrom ‘in the morning’, letom ‘in the summer’ in this way. These examples are not actually so clear (Fowler 1987 argues that they are extrinsic configurational case, for example), but they do illustrate what the typology of case assignment requires here. However, intrinsic configurational case is nearly impossible to conceive of: how can we have a configuration and still be intrinsic? The notion of configuration requires external structure surrounding the case‐marked NP, and as a result, intrinsic configurational case seems to be an inherent contradiction. Therefore it is omitted in Table 1.

Let us now turn our attention to several constructions I think of as the “Genitive Absolute”. It turns out that, in my typology of case assignment, these constructions exemplify intrinsic case.

4. The Genitive Absolute: Three Intrinsic Genitive Case Constructions

Although the Russian system of morphosyntactic case seems strongly oriented toward extrinsic assignment, there are constructions where it is hard or impossible to identify any extrinsic element which could be responsible for case assignment. Such cases, therefore, illustrate a “Genitive Absolute”, or unconditioned Genitive. In the typology outlined above, this translates to intrinsic Genitive case assignment.

(21)	Moja	dočka	rodilas’	12‐ogo	sentjabrja.

my	daughter	was born	12thGEN	SeptemberGEN

‘My daughter was born on September 12.’

In this construction we are concerned only with the Genitive case on dvenadcatogo ‘12th’; ‘September’ is in the Genitive for the usual configurational reasons based on the structure in (10).

What might condition this construction? It usually accompanies verbal predicates, but not always (On u nas 12‐ogo sentjabrja. ‘He is at our place on September 12.’). The case marking seems to be built into the construction, i.e., intrinsic, with a particular meaning ‘date when something happens’. Why this should be expressed by the Genitive case is probably an unanswerable question, but it is worth noting that there are some older phrases which instantiate the same case marking aside from the expression of dates per se.

(22)	segodnja ‘today’

včerašnego dnja ‘yesterday’

prošlogo goda ‘last year’

It must also be noted that this is a unified construction, that is, it occurs with a range of lexical items (the numbers ‘one’ through ‘31’). Therefore we cannot identify it as intrinsic lexical case ― that would require redundant specification of the same case marking for all numbers which go into the Genitive in dates. Thus we conclude that it must reflect intrinsic semantic case.

A second group of Genitive Absolute constructions consists of NPs which occur in the Genitive case in the predicate of a nominal sentence. Examples are given in (23):

(23)	a.	Naša produkcija ― vysokogo kačestva.

our productionNOM high qualityGEN

‘Our production is of high quality.’

b.	Ivan — nevysokogo rosta.

IvanNOM non‐high heightGEN

‘Ivan is rather short.’

c.	Na zavode — vysokogo mnenija o nem.

on factoryPREP high opinionGEN about himPREP

‘At the factory everyone has a high opinion of him.’

This is a very interesting construction. Note that these NPs cannot readily be identified as configurational Genitives with the structure in (10) because they are separated from the apparent N which would put them into the Genitive by the copula ‘be’. The copula is null in (23), but it would be overt in the past tense equivalents of the sentences in (23), (Ivan byl nevysokogo rosta, etc.). Moreover, these NPs feel like completely “normal” Genitives, expressing something very similar to adnominal modification across the copula.

Nevertheless, they cannot formally be identified as adnominal configurational Genitives. First, the vast majority of Genitive NPs cannot occur in the predicate, as shown in (24):

(24)	a.	*Etot	stol	byl	Ivana.

this	table	was	IvanGEN

*‘This table was of Ivan.’

b.	*Etot	rabotnik	byl	kolxoza.

this	worker	was	collective farmGEN

*‘This worker was of the collective farm.’

Instead, if a Russian speaker wants to communicate this information, he will restructure the sentence so that the configuration in (10) is retained:

(25)	a.	Eto	byl	stol	Ivana.

this	was	table	IvanGEN

‘This was Ivan’s table.’

b.	Eto	byl	rabotnik	kolxoza.

this	was	worker	collective farmGEN

‘This was a worker of the collective farm.’

One conceivable analysis would posit an elliptical deleted noun to trigger Genitive case assignment in the predicate, creating the structure in (10).

(26)	a.	Naša produkcija ― [e = produkcija] vysokogo kačestva.

our productionNOM [production] high qualityGEN

‘Our production is of high quality.’

b.	Ivan — [e = čelovek] nevysokogo rosta.

IvanNOM non‐high heightGEN

‘Ivan is rather short.’

c.	Na zavode — [e ??] vysokogo mnenija o nem.

on factoryPREP high opinionGEN about himPREP

‘At the factory everyone has a high opinion of him.’

In sentences (26a) and (26b) this looks like a very promising possibility. We can clearly identify a specific elliptical N in (26a), repeating the subject of the sentence. (26b) requires a generic noun čelovek, but this is not unthinkable.

There are similar proposals for the analysis of long‐form adjectives inthe predicate of ‘be’ sentences, where an elliptical or generic noun contrasts with a short‐form adjective which s not attributiv

a.	Ivan umnyj elovek].

‘Ivan is smart = Ivan is a smart person.’

b.	Ivan umen.

‘Ivan is smart.

However, example (26c) casts some doubt on this idea, because it is difficult to identify any elliptical N which has been omitted. It would still be conceivable to posit the null pro found in the subject position of Russian sentences with no overt subject but a 3rd person plural verb form (Govorjat, …).

I have two arguments against this approach, followed by an alternative. First, it is always methodologically suspect to posit a null element unless it is absolutely necessary. This is one of the great dangers of zero elements: it is just too convenient to posit them whenever one imagines a need for them. Their use should be as constrained as possible.

Second, it also happens that precisely the same kinds of Genitive NPs which can occur alone in the predicate can also occur preposed to the nouns which they modify. Examples are given in (27):

(27)	a.	V komnatu vošel nevysokogo rosta paren´.

into roomACC entered non‐high heightGEN guyNOM

‘A short guy entered the room.’

b.	Tam vypuskajut vysokogo kačestva tovary.

there put out3.PL high qualityGEN goodsACC

‘They put out high quality goods there.’

Ordinarily, Genitive NPs reflecting (10) follow the head N. There are exceptions, for example in poetry the adnominal Genitive may precede its head (recall Pushkin’s “Mednyj vsadnik”: “Ljublju tebja, Petra tvoren’e”, where Petra precedes its head noun), but in everyday language this is very unusual, and should be regarded as a highly marked word order deformation with special emphatic properties. But in (27) the word order has no particular emphatic effect.We must conclude that the Genitive on such NPs is sufficiently independent to occur without the configuration in (10), either preposed or in the predicate of copular sentences.

How is this possible? I have one suggestion to make. Note that not all adjectives can occur in the predicate of copular sentences. In particular, some pure relational adjectives occur only attributively:

(28)	a.	sobač’e serdce ‘heart of a dog’

a´.	*ego serdce byl sobač’e *’his heart was of a dog’

b.	matematičeskij učebnik ‘mathematics textbook’

b.	*ego učebnik byl matematičeskij *’his textbook was mathematical’

Additionally, purely relational adjectives do not form a comparative, nor do they regularly form nominalizations. These generalizations are strong, although there are some borderline cases.

What may we conclude from this observation? It appears that the Genitive NPs which occur in the predicate, or preposed to their head N, are parallel to qualitative adjectives, which themselves occur freely in the predicate. The distinction between relational and qualitative adjective is a semantic one. Therefore semantics is the unifying element which permits this special use of the Genitive case. When an NP has meaning parallel to that of a qualitative adjective, it bears intrinsic semantic Genitive case and has the additional freedom to occur in the predicate of a copular sentence or preposed to its head noun.

Note that suc NPs can also occur in postposed position, repeating the structure in (), e.g.,elovek nevysokogo rost. In this case, we might debate which kind of case assignment wins: either the extrinsic confgurational assignment due to () or the intrinsic sematic assignment. I will not attempt to answer that question here, since in either case the Genitive is licensed

As a final note, I am aware of one example in which a Genitive NP is regularly preposed without the proper semantics:

(29)	On ― svoego	roda	genij.

he	self’s	typeGEN	genius

‘He is a genius of a unique sort.’

The expression svoego roda ‘of a unique sort, sui generis’, probably calqued from the Latin, is always preposed; it is actually ungrammatical following genij in (29). This is the only such phrase I am aware of, although it is possible that others could be found. Since it is lexically restricted, and since preposing is obligatory rather than optional, this NP can be regarded as a clear example of intrinsic lexical case in Russian.

5. Conclusion

In this paper/article I have analyzed three limited and rather unsystematic constructions marked with the Genitive case in terms of a systematic typology of Russian case assignment. These constructions have not been considered previously in terms of their importance for the typology of case in Russian. While they are restricted in their productivity and manifestly marginal to the overall system, they illustrate an important methodological point.

Any reasonable theory of case in Russian must provide a coherent account of the “major” uses of the Genitive case (adnominal modification, quantification, negation). If it does not, that theory is hardly worthy of consideration. Competing theories can often be evaluated effectively in terms of how well they handle peripheral constructions like the Genitive Absolute. In this paper I have shown that my typology can not only handle them, it actually predicts that there should be examples of intrinsic semantic and intrinsic lexical case in Russian. That is strong confirmation indeed.

Bibliography

Babby, Leonard H. 1984. “Case Conflicts and Their Resolution”. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 1–21.

Choo, Sukhoon. 2007. “Genitive‐Initial Sentences in Russian and the Typology of Case Assignment”. Language and Linguistics 40: 153‐174.

_______ 2006. “The Restrictions on Infinitival Clauses in NP Positions in Russian”. Slavic Studies, 22‐2: 279‐297.

Fowler, George. 1996. “Oblique Passivization in Russian.” Slavic and East European Journal 40(3): 519–46.

_______. 1987. The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.

Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.

Freidin, Robert and Leonard H. Babby. 1984. “On the Interaction of Lexical and Syntactic Properties: Case Structure in Russian”. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 71–103.

Richardson, Kylie G. 2007. Case and Aspect in Slavic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Švedova, N.Ju., ed. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Moscow: Nauka, 2 v.

Резюме

Сокхун Чу

В настоящей статье анализируются три конструкции, в которых приписываеется родительный падеж именной группе без видимой связи с другими конструкциями в родительном падеже. Родительный падеж принципиально представляет собой падежом приименной модификации: именная группа (NP), зависящая от существительного, стоит в родительном падеже в силу синтаксической структуры, соединяющей их. Такой падеж называется «синтаксическим». В других же слиучаях, родительный падеж вызван семантикой квантификации или отрицания («семантический» падеж). Помимо этих типов приписания падежа, есть и «лексический» падеж, когда падеж вызван проивольными свойствами определенной лексемы (напр., предлог от приписывает родительный падеж).

В рамках такого подхода к анализу категории падежа рассматриваются три конструкции: 1) дата в родительном падеже (напр. она родилась 12‐го сентября); 2) родительный падеж в сказуемом при связке (напр. он был невысокого роста); 3) именные группы в родительном падеже, предшествующие тому существительному, от которого они зависят (напр. он своего рода генийи). Приводятся аргументы, что в первом случае мы имеем дело с падежом «внутренне‐семантическим», т.е. где ключевым момент является внутренняя семантика той именной группы, которая стоит в родительном падеже, а не семантическая связь с другим элементом предложения. А в типах (2) и (3) родительный падеж выступает в результате лексических свойств именно родительной именной группы. Все три конструкцтии служат хорошими примерами «внутреннего падежа», хотя в русском языка преобладает «внешний» падеж, приписываемый эелементами вне данной именной группы.

추석훈 - suchoo@hanmail.net / 010‐8779‐5186 / 관심분야 : 슬라브어 형태통사론, 역사언어학