Cover not available

Article published In: Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.175–196

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Non-canonical case marking on subjects in Russian and Lithuanian

An interface approach

 | University of Trento
Published online: 24 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00010.mag
Abstract
In case-marking languages with nominative-accusative alignment the subject of a sentence is usually marked by nominative case. In some of these languages, however, the subject of a number of verbs is either consistently or alternately marked by another, non-nominative case. Such non-canonical case marking has often been approached in the linguistic literature as a phenomenon at the interface between syntax and semantics. Yet the predictions of this kind of approach seem more probabilistic than regular. This paper offers a new perspective to analyse the phenomenon, which encompasses the role of information structure in case marking. Drawing on Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.): Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (pp. 112–171). New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar theory of differential subject marking and Dalrymple, M. & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar approach to differential object marking, it is argued that non-canonically case-marked subjects can be better analysed as instances of either non-topical subjects or subjects lacking one or more semantic features typical of topicality. The approach outlined in the paper is tested on a number of constructions in Russian and Lithuanian. It is shown how, in both languages, the analysed instances of non-canonically case-marked subjects exhibit a complex interplay among grammatical, semantic and discourse-pragmatic factors.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential subject marking
  • 3.DSM and its semantic features
  • 4.The proposal
  • 5.The data
    • 5.1Russian
    • 5.2Lithuanian
  • 6.Discussion and some speculations
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. W. & Onishi, M. (Eds.). (2001). Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Babby, L. H. (1993). A Theta-theoretic Analysis of Adversity Impersonal Sentences in Russian. In S. Avrutin, S. Franks & L. Pogovac (Eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 2: The MIT meeting (pp. 25–67). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smitherman, T., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesi, S., Jenset, G. B. & McGillivray, B. (2014). Reconstructing Constructional Semantics: The Dative Subject Construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. In N. Gisborne & W. B. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in cognitive linguistics (pp. 49–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & C. Poletto. (2004). Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2 (pp. 52–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, M. & King, T. H. (1996). Structural Topic and Focus without Movement. In Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (Eds.), On-line Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1984). Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages. Linguistics, 221, 857–864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, E. (Ed.) in press. Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European family. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalrymple, M. & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danesi, S. C., Johnson, A. & Barðdal, J. (2017). Between the Historical Languages and the Reconstructed Language: An Alternative Approach to the Gerundive + “Dative of Agent” Construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen, 1221, 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fici, F. (2008). I costrutti riflessivi nelle lingue slave. Propensioni e disposizioni. Linguistica e filologia, 261, 57–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fici, F. & Žukova, N. (2011). Riflessioni sulle specificità lessico-semantiche del costrutto Vcera mne ne rabotalos. In V. Benigni & A. Sacalone (Eds.), Ulica Sevcenko 25, korpus 2 (scritti in onore di Claudia Lasorsa) (pp. 53–61). Cesena / Roma: Caissa Italia S.c.a.r.l.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. (2008). The Fine Structure of the Topic Field. In C. De Cat & K. Demuth (Eds.), The Bantu-Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure (pp. 261–292). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. and Thorstein Fretheim. (2004). Topic and focus. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 175–196). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knjazev, Ju. P. (2007). Grammatičeskaja semantika. Russkij jazyk v tipologičeskoj perspective. Moskva: Jazyki Slavjanskich Kultur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komar, E. (1999). Dative subjects in Russian revisited: Are all Datives created equal? In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats & C. M. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 71, (pp. 245–264). Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kortlandt, F. (2009). Baltica & Balto-Slavica. Brill Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, L. & Simpson, J. (1981). Quirky Case and lexical representations of Icelandic verbs. Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 171, 185–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malčukov, A. & Ogawa, A. (2011). Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: a semantic map approach. In A. Malčukov & A. Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 19–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malčukov, A. & Siewierska, A. (Eds.). (2011). Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malčukov, A. & Spencer, A. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. (1996). Projection and position. In J. Costa, R. Goedemans & R. van der Vijver (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSole IV (pp. 203–220). Leiden: HIL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Case and locality in L-Syntax: Evidence from Georgian. MITWPL, 321, 139–158.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Semantic and morphological restrictions in experiencer predicates. In J. T. Jensen & G. van Herk (Eds.): Proceedings of the 2000 CLA Annual Conference, Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa, 245–256.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. A. (1974). O Sintaksičeskom Nule. In A. A. Xolodovič (Ed.), Tipologija Passivnyx Konstrukcij (Diatez I Zalogi) (pp. 343–361). Leningrad.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mrázek, R. (1964). Sintaksis Russkogo Tvoritel’nogo, Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis Facultas Philosophica 941, Prague.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Penčev, J. (1996). Functions of the formant se/si in Bulgarian. Revue des Études Slaves, 68, 4. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 249–264). Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. (1991). Quirky Subjects in Old Icelandic. In H. Á. Sigurðsson (Ed.), Papers from the Twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp. 369–378).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2002). The Theta System: an overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 281, 229–290.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sal’nikov, N. (1977). Bezličnye Predloženija Tipa ‘Kryšu sorvalo vetrom’, Russian Linguistics, 31, 271–292.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seržant, I. A. (2014). The independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In A. Holvoet & N. Nau (Eds.), Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic (pp. 257–299). Amsterdam &0 Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Independent partitive as a Circum-Baltic isogloss, Journal of Language Contact, 81, 341–418. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senn, A. (1966). Handbuch der litauischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.): Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (pp. 112–171). New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soschen, A. On Subject and Predicates in Russian. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Vallduví, E. (1992). The Informational Component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolford, E. (2008). Differential Subject Marking at Argument Structure, Syntax, and PF. In H. de Hoop and P. de Swart (Eds.), Differential Subject Marking (pp. 17–40). Dodrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xodova, K. I. (1958). Tvoritel’nyj Padež v Stradatel’nyx Konstrukcijax I Bezličnyx Predloženijax. In S. B. Bernstein (Ed.), Tvoritel’nyj Padež v Slavjanskix Jazykax (pp. 127–158). Moskva: Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Moroni, Elisa
2025. The Impact of Computer-Mediated Collaborative Writing on the Acquisition of Russian Impersonal Sentences: A Pilot Study. Instructed Second Language Acquisition 9:2 ► pp. 198 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue