Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
and number are rather matters of agreement. In gender agreement, for instance,
masculine subjects may never take feminine complements – though the reverse can
happen, especially with epicenes, if only colloquially:
(63) Rus Ma
´
s
ˇ
a [Fem] – xoro
´
s
ˇ
ij [Masc]/xoro
´
s
ˇ
aja [Fem]
kolle
´
ga [Common]
‘Masha is a good colleague’
Adjective predicates have agreement at the same level as the highest-ranked gender
in the subject:
(64a) Pol studentki [Fem] igo
´
rnicy [MascPers] sa˛ ma˛drzy [MascPers]
‘the female students and the miners are intelligent’
(64b) Cz hrady [MascInan] acı
´
rkve [Fem] jsou kra
´
sne
´
[MascInan]
‘the castles and churches are beautiful’
All these generalizations, however, are subject to an overall restriction: the
greater the syntactic distance from the subject, the more semantic agreement is
likely to override grammatical agreement. Attributive adjectives show near-total
grammatical agreement, while relative pronouns and especially personal pronouns
show a greater probability of semantic agreement:
(65) Rus Nu
´
zˇno zna
´
t
0
,c
ˇto
odno
´
znac
ˇı
´
tel
0
noe lico
´
[Neut] neda
´
vno
sde
´
lalsja [Masc] znac
ˇ
ı
´
tel
0
nym lico
´
m, i do togo
´
vre
´
meni o
´
n
[Masc] by
´
l neznac
ˇı
´
tel
0
nym lico
´
m. (Gogol, S
ˇ
inel
0
)
‘It is necessary to know that a certain distinguished person
(only) recently became a distinguished person, and before that
he was an undistinguished person.’
Putting all these facts together, Corbett has proposed an ‘‘agreement hierarchy’’.
The lesser the syntactic distance between nominals and concording or agreeing
constituents, as with attributive adjectives, the more likely is grammatical agree-
ment. Conversely, the greater the syntactic distance, the more probable is semantic
agreement:
Attributive adjective predicate relative personal
pronoun pronoun
------------> greater syntactic distance
This hierarchy covers not only number agreement but also gender agreement, and
in structures like relative clauses and anaphora (reference) in personal pronouns,
often in subsequent sentences.
6.2 Syntactic roles and relations 329
Only finite verb forms can express agreement (examples from Hora
´
lek (1992:
258). Agreement is not expressed when – somewhat colloquially – infinitives are
used in place of finite verbs:
(66) Cz to by tak bylo, my
that Cond so be-3SgPast we-Nom
de
ˇ
lat a on si chodit na procha
´
zku
work-Inf and he-Nom Refl-Dat go-Inf on walk-AccSg
‘that’s the way it would be, we’d have to work and he’d go for a walk’
Imperatives used in place of finite verbs, including those expressing conditions,
agree in number:
(67a) Rus aja
´
i pridı
´
k nemu
´
ne vo
´
vremja
and I Emph come-2SgImper to him Neg in time
‘I did not come to him in time’
(67b) Rus uda
´
r
0
tepe
´
r
0
moro
´
z–o
´
zimi
strike-2SgImper now frost-NomSg crop-NomPl
vse
´
propadu
´
t
all- NomPl fail-3PlFut
‘if frost comes now all the winter crops will be lost’
6.2.3 Government
In government – unlike concord or agreement – the controlled construction takes
on a feature which is dictated by, but not contained in, the controller itself.
Traditional Slavic grammarians view government predominantly in terms of
cases: a given verb is said to ‘govern’ an accusative, genitive, dative or instrumental:
(68a) Sorb wjec
ˇorne
sło
´
nc
ˇko
pozłoc
ˇuje
tu pł o
´
dnu le
ˇ
tnju krajinu [Acc]
‘the evening sun gilds this fruitful summer land’
(68b) Cz nema
´
te se c
ˇ
eho [Gen] ba
´
t ‘you have nothing to fear’
(68c) Ukr dyva
´
n pra
´
vyv jomu
´
[Dat] za lı
´
zˇko ‘the couch served him as a bed’
(68d) Ukr pra
´
vyty avtomobı
´
lem [Instr] ‘to drive a car’
A verb may also govern a preposition with a specified case:
(69a) Blg poma
´
gam na nja
´
kogo [Acc] ‘I help someone’
330 6. Syntactic categories and morphosyntax
(69b) Rus podpı
´
syvajus
0
na literatu
´
rnyj z
ˇurna
´
l [Acc]
‘I subscribe to a literary journal’
or a verb may govern more than one object, with or without prepositions, and with
specified cases:
(70) Rus ja
´
pro
´
dal emu
´
[Dat] mas
ˇ
ı
´
nu [Acc] za trı
´
dcat
0
[Acc] ruble
´
j
‘I sold him [Dat] the car [Acc] for 30 roubles [Acc]’
Some verbs may be able to govern several cases, sometimes interchangeably, or
may vacillate between pure case government and ‘preposition þ case’ government:
(71a) Pol pobłogosław mie˛ [Acc]/mi [Dat], Panie
‘bless me, O Lord’
As we would expect from the decline of case forms in Bulgarian and Macedonian,
these languages contain many more examples of prepositional objects than the
other Slavic languages do:
(71b) Blg abonı
´
ram se za ve
´
stnik ‘I subscribe to a newspaper’
Not only verbs govern cases. Nouns, and especially action, agent or abstract
nouns derived from verbs, can govern objects. If the verb takes an accusative, the
derived noun often governs the ‘objective genitive’:
(72a) Slk otvorenie vy
´
stavy [Gen] ‘the opening of the exhibition’
(72b) Slk pisatel’ listu [Gen] ‘the writer of the letter’
though some derived nouns take other cases, with or without a preposition:
(73a) Rus ljubo
´
v
0
ma
´
teri [Gen] ‘love of a mother’ (ambiguous)
(73b) Rus ljubo
´
v
0
kma
´
teri [Dat] ‘love for a mother’
Verbs which do not govern the accusative usually form derived nouns which govern
the same case as the verb:
(74a) Rus o
´
n zave
´
duet ka
´
fedroj [Instr] ‘he heads the department’
(74b) Rus o
´
n – zave
´
dujus
ˇ
c
ˇij
ka
´
fedroj [Instr]
‘he is the head of the department’
(Note that the governed case is retained even in the abbreviation: za
`
vka
´
fedroj
‘head of a department’; see 8.2.3)
6.2 Syntactic roles and relations 331
Non-derived nouns may also show government, especially if they are semantically
like verbs – e.g. action nouns:
(75a) Cz nade
ˇ
je na vy
´
hru [Acc] ‘the hope of a win’
(75b) Cz nade
ˇje
vyhra
´
t [Inf] ‘the hope to win ’
Adjectives govern cases, most obviously in predicative position:
(76a) Rus o
´
n blagoda
´
ren na
´
m [Dat] ‘he is grateful to us’
(76b) Rus o
´
n nedovo
´
len na
´
mi [Instr] ‘he is dissatisfied with us’
(76c) Rus o
´
n sklo
´
nen k boju
´
[Dat] ‘he is inclined to fighting’
(76d) Rus o
´
n sklo
´
nen boro
´
t
0
sja [Inf] ‘he is inclined to fight’
Prepositions and prepositional phrases can also govern cases, and can occur out-
side controlled environments. Both are illustrated in:
(77) Pol on nie jest w stanie [Loc] wyste˛powac
´
‘he is not able (not in a condition) to perform’
Some adverbs, adjectives, nouns and prepositional phrases can govern one or more
of the types of subordinate sentence, an indirect question or command, just as they
govern noun phrases and cases.
(78a) Cz nehlede
ˇ
na to [Acc], zˇ e m e
ˇ
l moc pra
´
ce, musel tam jı
´
t
‘in spite of the fact that he had a lot of work, he had to go there’
(78b) Rus ja
´
soobs
ˇ
c
ˇ
ı
´
lva
´
m [Dat] o tom [Loc], kak þ
SENTENCE
‘I told you about (it ), how þ SENTENCE
Government and agreement operate simultaneously on complements after copu-
lae and semi-copulative verbs. The verb may govern a nominative or an instru-
mental case, which may be accompanied by a preposition. In languages with a
choice between the nominative and the instrumental, as in East Slavic, the instru-
mental tends to designate a more temporary state:
(79a) Rus o
´
nby
´
l filo
´
sof [Nom]
‘he was a philosopher’
(permanent characteristic, i.e. he was a philosopher by disposition)
(79b) Rus o
´
nby
´
l filo
´
sofom [Instr]
‘he was a philosopher’
(non-permanent state, as in a profession)
(79c) Sorb stac
´
so z wuc
ˇ
erjom [Instr] ‘to become a teacher’
Slavic has many such quasi-‘‘be’’ predicates like ‘pass for’, ‘be known as’, and others.
332 6. Syntactic categories and morphosyntax
The second extension of combined government and agreement involves ‘‘predi-
cate attributes’’ or ‘‘adjuncts’’. The same pattern applies, with the verb governing the
case, and the gender and number agreeing with the subject. In one type of adjunct
the agreeing-governed word refers to the subject, and the verb is a verb of motion:
(80) Sorb dz
´eˇc
´
i chodz
´a
wle
ˇc
´
u bosy [NomPl]
‘the children go about barefoot in summer’
In the other type the adjunct refers to the direct object (the ‘‘Second Object’’):
(81a) Sorb Widz
´
ach plakat [Acc] na wrota p
ˇ
ribity [Acc]
‘I saw a notice stuck on the gate’
(81b) Rus ja
´
zna
´
l ego
´
[Acc] stude
´
ntom [Instr]
‘I knew him as a student’
There is also the so-called ‘‘Second Dative’’:
(82) Rus ostava
´
t
0
sja odnomu
´
[Dat] menja
´
ne privleka
´
et
‘to remain alone does not attract me’
6.2.4 Case
The case system of Slavic has presented a major arena of linguistic research. Notions
of markedness have been extended to morphological markedness and the relation
between zero and expressed desinence, for instance in the genitive plural (6.2.4.4; and
Greenberg, 1969; Bethin 1984), and the relation of morphosyntactic marking to
functional communicative needs (Comrie, 1978). There has also been intensive inves-
tigation of the meanings of the cases, stemming in particular from Jakobson’s 1936
‘ ‘ Beitrag’’ paper, an attempt to show that the apparently disorganized surface mean-
ings of cases express more coherent underlying meanings. Wierzbicka (1980), on the
other hand, argues for the coherence of surface case. This study of case has been one
of the powerful integrative forces in Slavic language studies, bringing together formal
and functional approaches in a way paralleled only by studies of word order (7.4).
6.2.4.1 Nominative
The nominative is used as the grammatical subject, and agrees with the predicate as
outlined in 6.2.2. It doubles for the vocative where that case is formally missing
(6.2.4.2). The nominative singular is also the citation form for nouns and pronouns;
and the nominative masculine singular is the citation form for adjectives. It is
morphosyntactically relevant that the nominative is not always distinct from the
accusative.
6.2 Syntactic roles and relations 333
Some non-inflecting nouns, almost always borrowed words, have their syntactic
role marked by agreement and concord (such nouns are rare outside East Slavic
and, to some extent, Polish):
(83) Rus ko
´
fe vku
´
snyj [Masc] ‘the coffee is good’
Rus ma
´
e
`
stro vos
ˇ
¨el [Masc] ‘the conductor came in’ (naturally [Masc] )
Pol tam stał [Masc] kiwi ‘a kiwi was standing there’
(masculine from: ptak ‘bird’ [Masc] )
Infinitives can also be used as grammatical subjects (also (82) above):
(84) Rus slu
´
s
ˇ
at
0
takı
´
eve
´
s
ˇ
c
ˇ
i menja
´
vozmus
ˇ
c
ˇ
a
´
et
‘to hear such things upsets me’
An important non-subject use of the nominative is in ‘‘be’’ predicates in B/C/S,
Slovenian and Sorbian (in all of which the instrumental is now archaic or literary).
In the other Slavic languages (East and West except Sorbian) there is a choice
between nominative and instrumental cases in the predicate. Here the instrumental
tends to express a meaning which is located in time and space, while the nominative
expresses atemporal, or metaphorical, meanings. In East Slavic only the nomina-
tive is possible when the copula is present tense:
(85) Rus mo
´
j ote
´
cby
´
l po
´
varom [Instr] ‘my father was a cook’
Rus mo
´
j ote
´
cby
´
l anglic
ˇ
a
´
nin [Nom] ‘my father was English
(an Englishman)’
Rus mo
´
j ote
´
c po
´
var/anglic
ˇ
a
´
nin [Nom]
‘my father is a cook/an Englishman’
while in West Slavic, the selection is not controlled by tense:
(86) Pol mo
´
j brat jest studentem [Instr] ‘my brother is a student’
Cz na
´
s
ˇ
soused je banke
´ˇ
r [Nom]/banke
´ˇ
rem [Instr]
‘our neighbour is a banker’
And in some Russian dialects it can function as the direct object of infinitives
(10.3.3):
(87) Dial-Rus na
´
do lo
´
dka [Nom] kupı
´
t
0
‘we must buy a boat’ (lit.: ‘necessary boat to buy’)
6.2.4.2 Vocative
The vocative has been lost in Russian in East Slavic; in Slovak in West Slavic; and
in Slovenian in South Slavic (see 5.4.2). In these languages the vocative is replaced
334 6. Syntactic categories and morphosyntax
by the nominative, though it may be maintained in the dialects and in the colloquial
language, and even extended as a zero-ending form:
(88) Colloq-Rus Nata
´
s
ˇ
, idı
´
sjuda
´
‘Natasha, come here!’
instead of the standard Nata
´
s
ˇ
a. The vocative is syntactically less integrated with the
structure of the sentence than the other cases, and is excluded by Jakobson (6.2.4.8)
from his formal model of the case system. In Slavic descriptions, too, it is often
referred to as a ‘form’ and not a ‘case’ (Ukr kly
´
c
ˇna
fo
´
rma [vs vidmy
´
nok ‘case’],
Cz vokativnı
´
tvar [vs pa
´
d]).
6.2.4.3 Accusative
The accusative occurs both without prepositions and with prepositions. Without
prepositions, its main function is the direct object, and it is also used in time
expressions to answer ‘how long?’:
(89) Sln ve
`
sda
´
n ‘all day’
Rus my
´
razgova
´
rivali vsju
´
no
´
c
ˇ
0
‘we talked all night (long)’
Bel havary
´
c
0
hadzı
´
nu ‘to talk for an hour’
Slk c
ˇ
akal chvı
´
l’ku na odpoved’ ‘he waited a moment for an answer’
And sometimes ‘when?’:
(90) ‘every day’:
B/C/S sva%ki da
&
n Sln vsa
´
kda
´
n
Rus ka
´
zˇdyj de
´
n
0
Ukr ko
´
zˇnyj de
´
n
0
Cz kazˇdy
´
den Sorb ko
´
zˇdy dz
´
en
´
With prepositions the accusative most often expresses direction (especially with
v and na) or in time, answers to ‘when?’:
(91) B/C/S pu
&
t use
`
lo ‘the road to the village’
B/C/S
`
ıc
´
i na po
`
sao ‘to go to work’
Rus poe
´
dem vgo
´
rod ‘let’s go to the city’
Rus id
¨
em na konce
´
rt ‘we’re going to a concert’
Pol wychodzic
´
na ulice˛ ‘to go out’ (lit. ‘into the street’)
Cz jdu na univerzitu ‘I’m going to the University’
‘on Wednesday’: B/C/S u sre
&
du Rus v sre
´
du
Pol ws
´
rode˛ Cz ve st
ˇ
redu
These same prepositions can express location with the locative (below). Others
expressing the accusative of direction have locational parallels with the instrumen-
tal, notably za and pod:
6.2 Syntactic roles and relations 335
(92) B/C/S za
´
c
´
i za u%gao ‘to go round (lit. ‘behind’) the corner’
B/C/S sta%viti pod za
&
s
ˇ
titu dr
`
zˇav
e ‘to place under the protection of the
state’
Rus zajtı
´
za u
´
gol ‘togoround(lit.‘behind’) the corner’
Rus polozˇı
´
t
0
pod krova
´
t
0
‘to put under the bed’
Pol wyjechac
´
za miasto ‘to go out of (lit. ‘beyond’) town’
Pol rzucic
´
sie˛ pod samocho
´
d ‘to throw oneself under a car’
6.2.4.4 Genitive
The primary function of the genitive – without prepositions – is to express posses-
sion (see above). It also expresses negation (for example, a negative direct object
may be genitive – a feature now archaic in B/C/S and Czech and losing ground
everywhere) and absence (see 7.1.3):
(93) Sln nı
´
razbı
´
l o
&
kna ‘he didn’t break the window’
Rus ja
´
ne nas
ˇ
¨
el ta
´
m de
´
neg ‘I didn’t find any money there’
Rus apel
0
sı
´
nov ne
´
tu ‘there are no oranges’
Sorb nimamy zˇanoho chle
ˇ
ba wjac ‘we have no more bread’
(Ger kein Brot mehr)
Sorb ani kamenja tam njebe
ˇ
‘there wasn’t even a stone there’
Slk nema
´
m pen
ˇ
azı
´
‘I have no money’
cf. Cz ani slovo ne
ˇ
rekl ‘he didn’t say a word’
In time expressions, it may answer ‘when?’, especially in respect of dates:
(94) ‘on the 2nd of April’:
B/C/S dru%g
oga aprı
´
la Sln dru
´
gega aprı
´
la
Rus vtoro
´
go apre
´
lja Bel druho
´
ha krasavı
´
ka
Cz druhe
´
ho u
´
nora Pol drugego kwiec
´
nia
With prepositions it denotes separation (‘from’, ‘off’, ‘out of’, using ot, s,(i)z), or
achievement of a goal, including a destination (‘reach’, using do). In each case the
verbal prefix is also highly relevant; ‘absence’ is further exemplified by bez
‘without’:
(95a) B/C/S vra
´
titi se
iz ra %ta ‘to return from war’
Rus ona
´
ue
´
xala iz go
´
roda ‘she has left town’
Pol ide˛ z kina ‘I’m coming from the cinema’
(95b) B/C/S pu
&
t do gra
&
da ‘the road to town’
Rus ona
´
dos
ˇ
la
´
do ugla
´
‘she reached the corner’
Pol pojechał do miasta ‘he’s gone to town’
336 6. Syntactic categories and morphosyntax
(95c) B/C/S de
´
te bez rodite
´
lj
a ‘orphan’ (lit. ‘child without parents’)
Rus o
´
n osta
´
lsja bez de
´
neg ‘he was left without money’
Pol bez
_
zony ‘without a wife’
Slk byt’ bez pen
ˇ
azı
´
‘to be without money’
An extension is separation, propinquity, or small distance, without movement,
for example with u ‘next to, chez’:
(96) B/C/S sta
`
jati kod st
`
ola ‘to stand by the table’
Rus stoja
´
t
0
u okna
´
‘to stand by the window’
Pol mieszkac
´
u brata ‘to stay at one’s brother’s place’
Cz sede
ˇt
u okna ‘to sit by the window’
Partitive genitive In all languages except Russian the partitive genitive is formally
the same as the normal genitive, and can express the notion ‘some’ by itself:
(97) B/C/S da
&
jmito``ga vı
´
na ‘give me some of that wine’
Slk napadlo snehu ‘some snow fell’
Pol daj mi wody ‘give me some water’
Russian in addition has a small number of distinct partitive forms of masculine
nouns used mostly as optional variants in this meaning. While some high-frequency
words are commonly found in this form, most may now also use the normal
genitive, that is the separate forms are slowly disappearing, surviving best with
quantity words. Formally, the special form (GenSg
2
, see 5.5.1.1) has the former
u-stem ending -u:
(98) Rus c
ˇ
a
´
s
ˇ
ka c
ˇ
a
´
ju ‘a cup of tea’
kilo
´
sa
´
xaru/sa
´
xara ‘a kilo of sugar’
Rus kupı
´
te c
ˇ
a
´
ja(c
ˇ
a
´
ju) ‘buy some tea’;
cf. kupı
´
te xle
´
ba ‘buy some bread’
kuso
´
k xle
´
ba ‘a piece of bread’ (neither can have *xlebu)
Genitive-accusative The so-called ‘‘genitive-accusative’’ is one of the classic pro-
blems of Slavic morphosyntax. It belongs to the ‘‘secondary gender’’ system of
Slavic, according to which a noun phrase which syntactically expects an accusative
takes the morphological form of the genitive (5.4.4). This affects nouns (in all
languages except Bulgarian and Macedonian) and all concording parts of the noun
phrase, as well as pronouns (including Bulgarian and Macedonian):
6.2 Syntactic roles and relations 337
(99) B/C/S zna
&
m to``ga sta
&
ro
¯
ga c
ˇ
o
`
veka ‘I know that old man ’
Rus my
´
uvı
´
deli vyso
´
kogo stro
´
gogo milicione
´
ra
‘we saw a tall stern-looking policeman’
Pol widze˛ ładnego kota ‘I (can) see a handsome cat’
In the personal pronouns all languages have common forms for accusative and
genitive for 1 Person and 2 Person. For 3 Person, some retain some distinction, either
in relation to animacy (Czech, Slovak), the clitic/non-clitic forms (Polish, Sorbian),
or in the feminine only (B/C/S, Slovenian); the rest make no distinction (see 5.5.2.3).
There are several proposed explanations for this phenomenon. One approach is
phonological: with the rearrangement of the phonological system in relation to
hard and soft consonants, the consequent effect on /i/ and /y/, and the reorganiza-
tion of the declensions as hard/soft variants, a form like PSl NomPl rabi was
perceived as out of place in a hard declension and pressured to become raby, that
is, to merge with the accusative plural and partner the soft NomPl koni. In turn, the
soft equivalent of the accusative plural should be koni, and not kone
ˇ
(5.5.1.1). Slavic
had therefore to face the decision of resisting these pressures so as to maintain the
nominative accusative distinction, giving in to them and losing the distinction, or
finding a morphological solution. This account overlaps with arguments from
morphology, since marked categories are expected to hold or acquire desinences,
while unmarked categories like the nominative do not (Greenberg, 1969; Bethin
1984). Or there are more functional-syntactic arguments which refer to syntactic
ambiguity and the prominence of animate actors and patients (Comrie, 1978).
On the other hand, the (personal) pronouns had no such problems, yet had
clearly gone in this direction already in Proto-Slavic, as evidenced by OCS forms,
where only the enclitic forms retained separate accusatives (see 5.5.3), which means
that the motive and solution were in the first place syntactic, with the nouns making
use of the existing pattern as a solution to their newly developed homophony.
As this was a Proto-Slavic problem, all languages became involved in the genitive–
accusative change, even those which did not subsequently develop the hard soft
phonological or morphological opposition (5.5).
Why should this development not affect the neuters, at least in the nouns?
Comrie (1978) argues plausibly that a major factor was the foregrounding of
animate agents and patients in the structure of the noun phrase: particularly
since so many verbs can take both animate subjects and animate objects, and
since word order was relatively free and driven by pragmatic rather than gramma-
tical needs, it was important to separate out the grammatical roles of (animate)
agents and patients. There was no homophony in the singular forms of the other
major class of animates, the feminines of the a/ja-declension (5.5.1.3).
338 6. Syntactic categories and morphosyntax