Prosodic correspondence in syntax: Russian approximative inversion

Phrasal Phonology

Rene Kager en Wim Zonneveld (eds)

NIJMEGEN UNIVERSITY PRESS tDfq'(

Prosodic Correspondence in Syntax: Russian Approxitnative Inversion

Loren Billings and Michael Yadroff

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper1 we discuss a phenomenon unique to the East Slavic languages, in which a numeral and noun change places in order to express an approximate quantity. This construction has properties which tell us about the interactions of syntax and prosody. In order to account for interactions of these different grammar components, we make use of Optimality-theoretic constraints.

Our position is that grammar components are truly autonomous; if these components place conflicting requirements on a given structure, then resolution of such conflicts is only by ~1eans of output constraints. For example, the syntax does not tell the morphology at various points in the derivation how to build words. Instead, the grammar generates numerous outputs- some of which entail violations of syntactic constraints, while others violate morphological constraints -and various constraints determine which output fonn is best-formed.

This paper is organized ·as follows: Section 2 describes and organizes the relevant data as reported in the linguistic literature. In section 3 we propose a syntactic phrasing of the data. Finally, in section 4, we propose a system of output constraints to formalize the syntax/prosody interaction involved in Russian approximative mverswn.

1. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer, L. Babby, W. Browne, A. Cardinaletti, G. Cinque,

E. Dresher, D. Fehrmann, G. Fowler, S. Franks, G. Giusti, C. Golston, T. Hall, U. Junghanns, E.

P. Kester, W. Klimonow, N. Kondrashova, P. Law, S. Lohken, G. Longobardi, J. McCarthy, I. Mel'cuk, A. Munn, M. Nespor, L. Parrott, C. Schmitt, M. Schoorlemmer, E. Selkirk, A. Steube, M. Verhijde,

C. Wilder, W. Wurzel, I. Zimmermann, G. Zybatow and the Slavic and E. Eur. Languages electronic list (seelangs @cunyvm.cuny.edu) for their input in earlier versions of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented as follows: Universita di Venezia (7 May 1996, by Yadroff), Zentrum fUr Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin (31 May 1996, by Billings) and Universitat Leipzig (27 June

1996, by Billings); we would like to express our appreciation for comments and discussion. Billings

gratefully acknowledges the Zentrum ftir Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, for a visiting

fellowship there during the summer of 1996, during which much of this research was prepared. Yadroff

gratefully acknowledges a visiting fellowship at Universita di Venezia during the Spring of 1996.

...

rJ'!J

-I' , ~

\1'\

~ ..o-

;< <.L. '"1 c

~ ~ ..n ..D --D

46 Prosodic Correspondence in Syntax

2. THE DATA

In the East Slavic languages a numeral and noun can be juxtaposed to express approximation, as the Russian examples in (1 a-b) show:2

(1) a. pjat' knfg five books 'five books'

b. knfg pjat' books five 'approximately five books'

Main word stress is indicated with acute accents. In all the data we show here, any word shown without word stress must procliticize to the following word.

In this section we discuss the following types of data: We begin by considering the interaction of prepositions with the landing site of the inverted noun. We then introduce adjectives to the discussion, showing how the presence of an adjective requires a different inversion strategy.

2.1 Prepositions

So far, the data in (la-b) look like a mere juxtaposition of two elements. With the addition of prepositions, however, it becomes clearer which element is moving. This subsection shows that it is the noun which moves to a position before the numeral, and not vice versa. 3 This is because the inverted noun's landing site is affected, in the formal register, by the prosodic weight of the preposition.4

2.1.1 Light prepositions When there is a light preposition, as in (2a), then the inverted noun can appear either after or before the preposition, as shown in (2b-c):

(2) a. za pjat' knfg 'for five books' fer 5ve books

b. za knfg pjat' 'for approximately five books' (Colloquial Russian) c. knfg za pjat' 'for approximately five books' (Formal Russian)

2. We do not indicate the inflectional agreement of the words in this paper's examples. See Billings (1995) and Yadroff and Billings ( 1998) for these details which, although not relevant to the distinctions made in this paper, are relevant to other aspects (especially to the syntactic ones) of the issue overall. 3. This is first observed, to our knowledge, by Fowler (1987:39-40), who also suggests a Move Alpha analysis for approximative inversion. 4. Aside from lacking their own word stress, prosodically light prepositions also have the following two conclusive diagnostics. First is vowel reduction. Standard (including formal and colloquial) Russian reduces unstressed vowels as follows (following a non-palatalized consonant): first-pretonic /o/ and /a/ neutralize to [a) (also characterized as [A] in some descriptions); otherwise, these vowels reduce to[~]. Thus, the vowel in za in (2a-c) reduces to [a], but to [~]prior to a host without initial-syllabic stress, as in za mintit pjdt' 'in (the course of) approximately five minutes' (Colloquial Russian). The other test is the position of the preposition in negated PPs; cf. Billings ( 1997) for details.

L. Billings and M. Yadroff 47

The variants in (2b-c) reflect differing registers (colloquial and formal, respectively). This register distinction is crucial to much of the coming discussion. The preposition za in (2) is prosodically light, and procliticizes to (the first PrWd of) its complement. That is to say, a light preposition must form a PrWd with its

complement.

2.1.2 Heavy prepositions Heavy prepositions, on the other hand, do not show the ordering option of (2b-c). For example, the preposition otnos{tel'no 'regarding' in (3) is prosodical1y heavy (i.e., it carries its own word stress). In both registers the noun must appear after the

preposition.5

(3) a. otnosftel'no pjatf knfg 'regarding five books'

regarding five books

b. otnosftel 'no knfg · pjatf 'regarding approximately five books'

regarding books five

c.* knfg otnosftel'no pjatf

books regarding five [=ex. 25 in Mel'cuk (1985:153))

Even in the formal register, the order in (3b), preposition-noun-numeral, is required. The order in (3c) is ruled out in both registers in Russian.

To summarize the discussion so far, the ordering of constituents in approximative

inversion is tabulated in ( 4):

(4) Type ofP:

a. Formal:

b. Colloquial:

prosodically light: prosodically heavy:

Noun Preposition Numeral j Preposition Noun Numeral

Preposition Noun Numeral Preposition Noun Numeral

In other words, the noun alternates between being before or after the preposition in the formal register, depending upon whether the preposition is prosodically light or heavy, respectively. We've drawn a box separating the one distinct cell in

this table from the others.

2.1. 3 Quantificational prepositions A small group of apparent prepositions behave differently, however: These are prepositions which contribute to the quantificational semantics of the expr~ssion. One is (prosodically light) po 'each/apiece'; another is (heavy) 6kolo 'ap-

proximately'.

5. Although etymologically adverbial, as Hill (1977) shows, oll!ositel'no 'regarding' behaves as a preposition in the modem language. Hill's primary test is the ability of this word to trigger nasal-initial

third-person (personal) pronouns in its complement. See also Billings ( 1996).

..


While these two elements may not look like prepositions from their glosses, both of them are homophonous with non-quantificational conclusively prepositional forms: po 'along' and 6kolo 'near' .6 In this section we consider these quantificational forms for completeness of description.

If either of these is used, then the inverted noun must appear before it:

(5) a. po pjat' knfg 'five books apiece' apiece five books

b.* po knfg pjat' apiece books five

c. knfg po pjat' books apiece five

'approximately five books apiece'

Unlike (other) prosodically light prepositions, po, in its quantificational meaning of 'each/apiece' is not allowed to have the preposition-noun-numeral constituent order in (5b). This is true even of the colloquial registe1. Compare the ungrammatical (5b) with the grammatical colloquial order in (2b), in which the light preposition is not quantificational.

The examples in (6) show 6kolo, a prosodically heavy quantificational preposition:7

(6) a. 6kolo pjatf knfg 'approximately five books' approximately five books

b.* 6kolo knfg pjatf approximately books five

C. knfg 6kolo pjatf books approximately five

'approximately five books'

Unlike with other prosodically heavy prepositions, cf. (3a-b) above, the inverted noun with 6kolo (in its quantificational meaning of 'approximately'), me~t be to the left of this preposition. 8

6. Analyses in the literature differ pointedly regarding the status of quantificational prepositions. Babby (1985; 1987) proposes that these are prepositions, a position with which Neidle (1988) and Franks (1995) disagree. Billings (1995) proposes a modification along the lines of Babby (1985; 1987). 7. See also Billings (1995:170) and Mel'cuk (1985: !52, 157-58) for other examples like (6c). 8. It may seem redundant for a construction to explicitly express approximation (using 6kolo 'approximately') and undergo approximative inversion as well. Native-speaking linguists, like Suprun (1962:5-6) and Mel 'cuk (1985: 158), emphasize that forms like (6c) merely add a meaning of hypotheticality to the already approximative expression. If we knew of any other heavy quantificational preposition, we would use it. In any event, we do not deal with the distinction between hypothetical and non-hypothetical approximation any further in this paper.

'1 I !


Adding the complication of quantificational prepositions to the picture, we can revise the table in (4) as shown in (7):

(7) Type of preposition: quantificational prosodically light prosodically heavy

(light or heavy): (non-quantificational): (non-quantificational):

a. Formal: NPNum NPNum PNNum

b. Colloquial: NPNum I PNNum PNNum

As in (4) above, we've drawn a line separating the noun-preposition-numeral or- · ders from the preposition-noun-numeral orders. We delay any discussion of the formal properties of quantificational prepositions until section 3.1 below.

2.2 Adjectives

Yet another factor influences approximative inversion: If the quantified noun is modified by an adjective, then ordinary inversion does not occur. For example, the noun in (8a) is modified, and instead of the noun being inverted, a pleonastic count noun appears in the would-be landing site, as in (8f):

(8) a. pjat' five

b.* knfg books

c. * starfnnych antique

d. * starfnnych antique

e.* knfg books

f. stuk pjat' items five

starfnnych antique

pj:it' five

pjat' five

knfg books

starfnnych antique

starfnnych antique

knfg books

starfnnych antique

knfg books

pjat' five

pjat' five

'five antique books'

knfg 'approximately five antique books' books

[ = ex. 58 in Mel' cuk (1985 :96)]

Any type of mere movement to pre-numeric position - be it with just the noun inverted, as in (8b); just the adjective inverted, as in (8c); or both these words inverted, as in (8d-e)- is ungrammaticalYThe place-holder noun stuk 'items' appears in the same position that the noun would ordinarily move to if it could invert. Instead of inverting one (or more) of these words, the attested strategy employed by structures like (8a) is shown in (8f), with a pleonastic count noun occupying the position to which the noun would ordinarily invert.

9. The examples in (8b-e) represent the only orders in which either the noun, the adjective, or both these words have been moved to the left of the numeral. One other ordering of these three constituents, numeral-noun-adjective, is not shown in (8). Such an order, desjal 'knig starinnych, is also attested and is synonymous with ( 8a), but with contrastive focus on the adjective (and requires additional prosodic

.j

\I ;l;

·i:

);. !.

i.•

.t

i·'

50 Prosodic Correspondence in S_vnULr:

2. 2.1 Inventory of pleonastic count nouJZs Before continuing, we should elaborate on the array of possibie pleonastic count

nouns in Russian. Two primary nouns that serve this purpose are strlk 'items' and celovek 'persons'. Generally speaking, celovek is used for human NPs, but in de

cidedly archaic texts dtis ·souls' is found occasionally. For non-human NPs, suik 'items' is used, but primarily in the colloquial register. We have not found a fully equivalent fom1 in the formal register. However, ekzempljarov 'examples/copies/ specimens' can be used to refer to printed items. Thus, in (Sf) the use of snik is

colloquial; ekzempljdrov could be used in the same position to reflect the fomul register. 10

2.2.2 Combining preposirions and adjectives The examples in (9) are similar to the data in (2), but with an adjectival modifier added. As in (2b-c), there are two approximative structures. Assuming that the pleonastic count noun is where the inverted noun would appear, then (9b) is consistent with the colloquial register, while (9c) reflects the formal one.

(9) a. za pjat' starfnnych knfg for five antique books

·for five antique books' b. z.a srtik pjat' starfnnych knfg (Colloquial Russian)

for items five antique books

'for approximately five antique books' c. ekzempljarov za pjat' starfnnych knig (Fom1al Russian)

-copies for five antique books

'for approximately five antique books'

marking on that word). This order does not, however, express approximation. That said, it is possible for contrastive desjat' knfg sianim_vch to further undergo approximative inversion: knfg des) at' starfnnych

'approxima1ely ten antique books' (again, with the same prosodic marking on the final adjective). Note that this surface order is identical 10 (8b) above (but with different prosody). Crucially, we have starred (8b) as glossed-i.e., as the approximative counterpart of non-contrastive (Sa). Cf. Mel'cuk (1985:96) for further discussion.

10. Two more words-goiJ1• 'heads'. used specifically for livestock, and mist 'places', to individuate pieces of baggage-are slightly different, because they allow non-count, singlllaria wnlum nouns like /sk.ot- '/'livestock' and /bagaz- 'I 'luggage' to become countable. Also, Sllik is occasionally found with human NPs, but in a very irreverent usage. In any event, we discuss only St(ik and ekz.empljaro\' with 'books' here; SILik will be used to test for the colloquial register, while ek.zemp/jdrov will be used as a diagnostic of the formal register. The choice of Sitik versus ekzempljdrov is not exactly that of colloquial/ fom1al, but rather everyday/bureaucratese. Since ours is not primarily a sociolinguistic study, we simply use the terms 'colloquial' and ·formal' here. Cf. also Sussex (1976) for an analysis of these count nouns along the lines of measure nouns in, e.g., Chinese.


The best means of expressing (9a) with approximation for each register is shown in (9b-c). The fonnal register, in (9c), prefers the fom1al-register count noun ekzempljarov, while the colloquial register prefers strik. Using pleonastic count nouns in (9b-c) other than as shown causes register paradoxes.

The examples in (10) cmTespond to the data with heavy, non-quantificationa1

prepositions in (3), but with adjectives added. In (1 Ob) §uik appears exactly where the noun's landing site would otherwise be. As in (3c), where the noun is prohibited from inve1ting to a position preceding the heavy preposition, the pleonastic noun in (1 Oc) is likewise restricted from appearing to the left of the heavy prepo

sition.

(10) a. otnos{tel'no pjatf starfnnych knfg regarding five antique books

'regarding five antique books' b. otnos(tel'no stuk/ekzempljarov pjatf starinnych

regarding items/copies five antique

'regarding approximately five antique books' c. * stuk/ekzempljarov otnos(tel 'no pjatf starfnnych

items/ copies regarding five antique

knig books

knfg books

In ( 1 Ob) either of the two pleonastic count nouns is used; reflecting the respective registers. Neither count noun can be used in front of the heavy preposition, as shown

by the ungrammaticality of (10c). The examples in ( 11) are the analogs of those in (5), with po in its meaning of

'each/apiece'. As in (5), the only site allowed for the pleonastic count noun is

before po.

(11) a. po pjat' starfnnych knfg apiece five antique books

'five antique books each' b. * po sulklekzempljarov pjat' starfnnych knfg

apiece items/copies

c. suik/ekzempljarov po five antique

pjat' starfnnych books

knfg items/copies apiece five antique books

'approximately five antique books each'

Again, the pleonastic count noun appears in the same place, before quantificational po, regardless of register. Any inverted order other than (llc) is ungrammatical.

To summarize the use of pleonastic count nouns, we modify the table above in (7) as (12), showing the position of the pleonastic count noun (Meas) relative to the preposition. The relative position of P and Meas in (12) is identical to the relative position of P and N in (7) above.

1.!

52

(12) Type of preposition:

a. Formal:

b. Colloquial:

quantificational

(light or heavy):

Prosodic Correspondence in Syntax:

prosodically light prosodically heavy

(non-quantificational): (non-quantificational):

MeasPNumAN MeasPNumAN I PMeasNumAN

Meas P Num AN r P Meas Num AN P Meas NumAN

Pleonastic count nouns appear in exactly the same position that inverted nouns appear in. The only difference is that the noun does not move, but rather a pleonastic one appears in the very same position. Furthermore, it so happens that the two registers use different words for the pleonastic count noun, which appear in different positions based on these registers' positioning of the inverted noun.

In section 2 we have presented the primary data as reported in the linguistic literature and confirmed by us. 11 We have refrained from analyzing the data in detail. In the following section we lay out our syntactic analysis, reporting one more structure predicted by this model.

3. PHRASE STRUCTURE

In this section we make explicit our (albeit preliminary) assumptions about the syntactic structure of approximative-inversion constructions. 1 ~ We propose the phrase structures in ( 13a-b) for both registers of Russian; ( 13a) represents the nonapproximative, uninverted, surface order of (2a), while (13b) shows the abstract, pre-inverted structure of the approximative examples in (2b-c) above. (NB: We abbreviate 'Numeral' as 'Num' and 'Number' as 'No'. We realize that other linguists use 'NumP' to abbreviate 'Number Phrase'. Our apologies for any confusion this might cause.)

11. The only new data in §2 are those with ekzempljdrov, which complement the stLik dam reported originally by Mel' cuk. For the record, Mel' cuk ( 1985) does not use prosodic weight in distinguishing (2) from (3). Instead, he uses a distinction of primary/derived, a traditional notion related to the functional/ lexical distinction, which we pursue further in Yadroff and Billings ( 1998 ). 12. It is impossible to illustrate the tree in (13) with overt, base-generated words under each of the heads. For example, Q is filled only by an abstract feature. Nor can D be filled by overt material in approximative inversion (but can be filled by demonstratives if <+DEF> ); cf. discussion below. It is, however, possible to have an overt word in Meas, which emphasizes the quantity of the expression in ( 13) even when there is no inversion. Such count nouns are obligatory under certain circumstances (namely, when the counted item is morphologically adjectival); cf. Billings ( 1995: 105-32) for further discussion and extensive data of this type.

L. Billings and M. Yadroff

(13) a.

b.

pp (Formal and Colloquial Russian)

~p po ~

nP za Qo ~

for I NoP no ~ <-APPROX> / ~

I No' <±DEF> NumP ~

j'-.,. MeasP "'t' Noo ~ pJa I / ~ five o NP

pp

<+PL> Mr j'-.,.

<+COUNT> knig

books

~ po

I za

for

QP

~ Qo nP

I ~ <+APPROX> no NoP

I ~ <-DEF> NumP No'

~ ~ pjat' No 0 MeasP

five I~ <+PL> Meas0

I <+COUNT>

NP

!i knig

books

53

ll


While (13a) allows either setting of the <DEF> feature, (13b) requires a <-DEF> setting. The surface-order trees corresponding to (13b) appear in (14) and (16) below.

The primary innovation in these structures is the functional projection MeasP (measure phrase) between the NoP (number phrase) and NP. Following one of the possibilities explored in Franks (1995:165-74), we consider approximative inversion to be head-movement: the movement of one head to the next higher head position. 13 Approximative inversion occurs when N head-adjoins first into Meas, then this complex Meas node head-adjoins into No, then this complex No node head-adjoins into D[eterminer], and finally this complex D head-adjoins into Q[uantification]. This movement is licensed by a feature in Q that must be checked overtly- a 'strong' feature in the framework of Chomsky (1995). We preliminarily identify this feature simply as <±APPROX>. 14

(14) PP .....---_--------- QP

po

I za

for ~p Qo

~ Do

N~ ~ D'

Measo A No'

Nok Meas0

I knig books

Qo

'for approximately five books'

~ th NoP

------~ NumP No'

~ pjat' five

~asP ,, A t. NP

I

U. tk

(Colloquial Russian)

13. Although we present a head-movement analysis of approximative inversion here, our analysis is not crucially inconsistent with an XP-movement analysis-the other option explored by Franks (1995: 165-74). That is, farther XP-movement incurs more violations of STAY below in (17a). We further investigate the syntactic issues--e.g., head- vs. XP-movement-in Yadroff and Billings ( 1998). See Billings (1996) for one other phenomenon in Russian analyzed as head-movement into P. J 4. In ( 14) and ( I6)below we show successive head-movement without ex corporation from intermediate heads. Franks ( 1995: 170) suggests an excorporation model. Either model will work for these purposes.


Q, D, No, and Meas each head functional categories. For the purposes of this paper we assume that PP is functional as well; cf., however, Yadroff and Billings (1998) for a different approach.

Every nominal expression contains a MeasP. In Meas there is the abstract feature <±coUNT>; in most cases N itself moves into Meas to check this feature; in some instances an overt count noun can appear even if there is no approximative inversion. Some element must be checked against the <±coUNT> feature in Meas. Likewise, No is where <±PL> is checked. 15

As shown in section 2.2 above, adjectives prohibit N from head-moving into Meas in approximative-inversion constructions. We do not consider the structural position of adjectives here; nor do we deal with the way in which this blocking takes place. 1 ~> It is sufficient for the present study to observe that adjectives block such movement of N .17

The D projection does not receive direct empirical support in Russian, since this language has no articles as such; the only overt manifestation of D in this language is demonstratives. However, as Paduceva (1985:83-107) shows, there exists indirect evidence to support a DP in· Russian; see also Avrutin (1992). Namely, it is possible for a nominal expression to lack an overt determiner but still be definite. This <±DEF> distinction, although not always overtly expressed, limits the distribution of a nominal ex-pression in various structures. In fact, we have identified that approximative in-version is in complementary distribution with <+DEF> expressions. This indicates that the landing site of approximative inversion is to the left of DP. Al1 the feature settings of these complex heads must be consistent with each other. For this reason, in order for head-movement through D to be possible, the setting forD must be <-DEF>Y

The QP is discussed in Franks (1994; 1995) as one means, inter alia, of distinguishing East Slavic (which includes Russian) from West and South Slavic. Only East Slavic exhibits approximative inversion (because, according to Franks, only

15. Billings (1995: 54-59) provides an overview of the traditional analysis of Russian numerals a,s a separate part of speech. See also §3.1 below for discussion of the special position of NumP. The <±coUNT> and <±PL> features in Meas and No (unlike <±APPROX> in Q) are weak. (In terms of §4 below, the CHECK-F constraints dealing with <±couNT> and <±PL> are ranked below the STAY constraint.) Assuming that adjectives are within, adjoined to, or immediately above NP (and since overt expressions do not generally showN preceding adjectives), then these features are not checked at overt syntax. 16. A very similar problem to this is observed in Swedish/Norwegian, in which an adjective prohibits N from moving into D. Kester (1996) discusses this syntactic problem in some detail. 17. Zimmermann (1991:52-53) briefly outlines a structure for the Russian DP which proposes that both numerals and adjectives are adjoined toN' (without considering approximative inversion). Babby ( 1985; 1987) and Billings ( 1995) assume that such adjectives are likewise within (a five-bar-level) NP. Alas, no explanation of adjectives' structural position in the nominal expression that we know about is satisfactory in blocking inversion. Hence the stop-gap constraint below in (17d). 18. By 'definite' we really mean a cluster of still little-understood semantics having to do with referentiality. Such semantic restrictions, alas, have not been followed up in detail here. See Kester (1996: 115-54) and the sources cited thentin regarding a similar restriction on the location of a ·determiner· like element in Nordic languages.

I!


East Slavic has QPs). Franks (1994:661-62, fn. 73) also shows that approximative inversion was also first attested at the same time that Russian acquired the QP (in the 16th century).

Regardless of the validity of the D and Q projections, the only structure crucial to this study is the following: Some position to the left of NoP is the landing site of approximative inversion. That is, an approximative meaning is acquired when N appears, in overt syntax, in a position preceding (the quantificational preposition, if any, and) the numeral.

In the remainder ofthis section we further elaborate the structure in (14), showing how the presence of so-called quantificational prepositions affects (or rather does not affect) approximative inversion. We then formalize the observation above in section 2 about prosodically heavy and light (non-quantificational) Ps, showing that it is possible for head-movement to continue beyond Q into P.

3.1 rt there is a quantificational preposition

In section 2.1.3 above we show that so-called quantificational prepositions (as opposed to canonical Ps) always follow the inverted noun. In this subsection we discuss a possible explanation for such elements.

A quantificational preposition such as distributive po 'apiece/each' or approximative 6kolo 'approximately' appears to the left of the numeral; in approximative-inversion constructions it follows the inverted N (or Meas; cf. 2.2.2 above) and precedes the numeral. That is, when Meas adjoins to No, as in (14), the quantificational preposition still immediately precedes the numeral. For this model to work, the structure must place quantificatione1 prepositions somewhere within (or adjoined to) NumP. There is no interference from any NumPelements when Meas head-adjoins through No and beyond. 19

There is separate evidence that Num heads a maximal projection. As Mel' cuk

19. One consequence of placing quantificational prepositions within NumP is that both types of prepositions can each appear in the same nominal expression: one canonical P and a quantificational preposition. We originally considered this a problem for our model until we uncovered just such an example, from a mainstream newspaper article, shown in (i):

(i) [ ... ] odfn paket iz 6kolo dvadcatf pod6bnych dokumentov. one packet out-of approximately twenty similar documents 'one packet out of approximately twenty similar documents' [Simes and Robin (1996: 108), quoting Jzvestija; glosses/word stresses added]

This example suggests rather strongly that so-called quantificational prepositions are not generated in P. We therefore cease consideration of such elements, which consistently function as mere extensions of NumP, as (15a-c) show. We should, however, add that if an example like (i) undergoes approximative inversion, then it is possible for garden-path effects to cloud informants judgments, as we observed in the following, elicited variations of (i). In (ii) the consecutive italicized nouns can mean 'packet of documents' (because of the GEN case of the second noun), which then makes it impossible to parse ekzempljcirov as a pleonastic count noun. This problem really only arises when reading the written sentence, since the intended approximative


(1985:433) and Billings (1995:76, 110) show, various other elements can accompany the numeral. Aside from quantificational prepositions, which precede the numeral, the italicized elements in (15a-c) can also follow the numeral.

(15) a. pjat' s lfsnim cas6v 'just over five hours' five with excess hours

b. pjat' s polovfnoj cas6v 'five and a half hours' five with half hours

c. pjat' s cetvert'ju cas6v 'five and a quarter hours' five with quarter hours

Thus, the quantificational preposition, numeral and other elements behave as a single phrase with regard to approximative inversion.

3.2 Further head-movement into P

What remains to be explained are formal-register structures like (2c) and (9c). In both of these N precedes P, as shown in ( 16):

interpretation has a distinct prosodic break between the nouns. The same garden-path effect also applies to (v) below.

(ii) odfn pakit ekz.emp/jcirov iz 6kolo dvadcatf pod6bnych dokumentov one packet copies out-of approximately twenty similar documents 'one packet out of approximately twenty similar documents' (Formal Russian)

(iii) odfn paket iz st1.ik 6kolo dvadcatf pod6bnych dokumentov one packet out-of items approximately twenty similar documents 'one packet out of approximately twenty similar documents' (Colloquial Russtan)

In (iv) the adjective has been removed from (i).

(iv) odin paket iz 6kolo dvadcati dokumentov one packet out-of approximately twenty documents 'one packet out of approximately twenty documents'

The inverted counterparts of (i:v) are shown iri (v) and (vi), corresponding to the formal and colloquial registers, respectively.

(v) odin pakit dokumentov iz 6kolo · dvadcati one packet documents out-of approximately twenty 'one packet out of approximately twenty documents' (Formal Russian)

(vi) odin paker iz dokwnentov 6kolo dvadcatf one packet out-of documents approximately twenty 'one packet out of approximately twenty documents' (Colloquial Russian)

Note the differing landing sites of the noun dokumentov in (v) and (vi).

...

1'1

58 Prosodic Correspondence in Sylltax

(16) pp

~ po QP

~A Q 0 P 0 t DP

A I gA D 0

h Q 0 za th NoP

1\ for A No 0

. D 0 NumP No'

A ~/\ Meas0 No0 pjat' t. MeasP

/~J five ' A No

\ k

knig books

Meas 0

'for approximately five books' (Forrnal Russian)

t. J

NP

~ tk

Our model potential1y al1ows for head-movement into any P. In section 4 below we propose a model to prohibit this subsequent movement from Q into Pin the colloquial register and limit its overapplication in the forrnal register.

To summarize section 3, we have shown that approximative inversion is successive head-movement of the noun into a functional head to the left of the numeral. In certain cases there is further head-movement of this noun onward into

the preposition.

4. AN OPTIMALITY-THEORETIC TREATMENT

With the preceding syntactic structures in place, it's now possible to formalize the difference between the two registers of Russian using the violable-constraint framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993). We begin by applying two constraints in the Optimality-syntax literature and proposing three new ones. The primary innovation is a constraint requiring prosodic-word contiguity between the inverted and non-inverted structures. We then show how these constraints, ranked differently in forrnal and colloquial Russian, result in differing outputs in certain environments. We end the section with an exploration of the other possibilities represented by the factorial typology of these five constraints.

4.1 The constraints

We employ the following constraints- (17a-b) are from Grimshaw (1997), while (17c-e) are our adaptations from the pre-Optimality linguistic literature:


(17) a. STAY: rules out traces (Economy of Derivation) b. FULL-INT(erpretation): rules out unparsed lexical-conceptual structure c. CHECK-F: rules out unchecked strong features d. A: prohibits a noun leaving behind a modifier-adjective e. PRWD-CNTG: each PrWd in the non-inverted structure must be co

extensive with some PrWd in the conesponding inverted structure.

The constraint STAY in (17a) is nothing more than the Economy of Derivation in constraint form, needed in any fonnal system to restrict movement. Every time a constituent moves syntactically, a trace is left behind. Each trace represents one violation of STAY.

FuLL-INT in (17b) rules out the use of a lexical word in overt syntax without also parsing that word's semantics, or LCS. This is an incremental constraint, meaning that lexemes with more LCS incur more violation of FULL-INT if used pleonastically. As such, stuk is a least-LCS countable noun, and violates FuLL-lNT minima11y.20 Using any other noun stem- i.e., one with more LCS- incrementally increases violation of this constraint. Similarly, do in English is a least-LCS verb stem in subject-auxiliary inversions, where Grimshaw (1997) harnesses the FULLINT constraint.

In (17c) CHECK-F, for our purposes, requires a noun to reach Q, where a strong feature is located. Empirically, the noun must precede the numeral (and quantificational preposition, if any) in overt syntax. Since there is no overt indication that the movement has gone any further than to the left of NumP, we interpret pre-NumP positioning of the noun to indicate satisfaction of this constraint. The notion of 'strong feature' in Chomsky p995) denotes a feature that must be checked before Spell-Out. In our terrns, this is a feature that is bcensed by a CHECK-F constraint ranked higher than STAY, thus requiring movement. The other features in (13a-b) are 'weak' by this definition (i.e., ranked below STAY).

The constraint in (17 d), which we will just call 'A' preliminarily, merely requires the noun to remain in situ if an adjective appears between the numeral and noun. At this point this constraint is a mere stipulation. We hope to derive it from other linguistic primitives in future work; cf. also Yadroff and Billings (1998).

The constraint in (17e), PRWD-CNTG, is the primary theoretical innovation of this paper. It requires that inversion must be to a position such that the PrWd groupings of the non-inverted order are retained in the corresponding approximative-inversion construction. Note the wording in (17e): The constraint is assessed with a universal quantifier (each) pertaining to the non-inverted structure and an existential one (some) pertaining to the inverted structure; inserting a pleonastic count noun in the inverted structure, therefore, does not violate this

20. For some reason, animacy (specifically, the <±HUMAN> feature setting) is generally maintained when pleonastic insertion occurs. We do not offer an explanation for this here.

....

•:l

d


constraint as long as each of the PrWd groupings of the non-inverted structure is maintained in the approximative structure. The theoretical grounds for PR WDCNTG are not as straightforward as those of the other constraints and thus deserve some background and explanation.

A recurring proposal in the recent prosodic-morphology literature is that certain morphological phenomena are exceptions to the general phonology of the languages they occur in because of a constraint requiring these forms to be identical with or 'correspond to' a particular surface form directly. For example, McCarthy and Prince (1995) show that in numerous reduplicative phenomena the surface form of the reduplicant (=copy) must be identical to the surface fom1 of the reduplicative base. These phenomena have been refened to as over- and underapplication. They cite the following examples from Tagalog:

(18) Nasal substitution in Tagalog [ = ex. 9 in McCarthy and Prince (1995:255)]

a. Root b. Prefixation c. Nasal Sub. d. Reduplication

/pu:tul/ paN-pu:tul pa-mu:tul pa-mu-mu:tul

'cut off'

(cf. *pa-pu:tul) (cf. *pa-pu-pu:tul, *pa-mu-pu:tul, *pa-pu-mu:tul)

Nasal Substitution is said to overapply in (18d) to both the base mu:tul and the reduplicant mu. McCarthy and Prince propose constraints for phenomena such as these that not only require assimilations like Nasal Substitution in (18b-c), but also constraints requiring that the base and reduplicant be identical. Urbanczyk (1995) shows particularly compelling examples of this: In languages with multiple reduplications to the same base, each copy must correspond to the base (i.e., root+ reduplicants) to which it is affixed.

Such correspondences between copy and base can be viewed as side-by-side surf~ce comparisons. That is, the form of the reduplicant can be assessed with regard to the co-appearing base, not far away in the surface form. In other morphological phenomena, however, correspondences have been observed between the surface form and some other surface-inflectional form which is not present in the same output. McCarthy and Prince (1990) show that in Arabic the so-called broken plural must conespond specifically to the nominative-singular form, and not to the underlying representation. Furthermore, the well-known type-2 affixes of English have been re-analyzed by Burzio (1994) and Benua (1995) as requiring conespondence between such an affixed form and the surface stem without such type-2 affixation.

One other phenomenon that is analyzed along the same lines is a vocative in Russian: Yadroff (1996) shows that the vocative form of names is not the inflectionless, bare stem (as some previous authors have analyzed it), but the nominative surface form minus the final vowel. In certain cases the resulting vocative form violates the phonology of Russian, as (19) shows:


( 19) Vocative Underlying stem Nominative singular of nickname diminutives Mask /masdk-/ Maska (*masdk) (<Mas a< Marfja)

[=ex. 7ain Yadroff(l996:136)]

These vocative fonns are exceptional not only because of their unusual final consonant clusters, but because the underlying yers (weak vowels, shown here as g, which emerge in syllables preceding an inflectional ending) are not realized here; cf. the genitive-plural, with a zero inflection: Masgk.

For the record, Yadroff (1996) is not written using the Optimality framework. Nor, for that matter, is McCarthy and Prince (1990), which predates Optimality Theory, orB urzio ( 1994 ), which, according to its author, arrived at his conclusions independently. Regardless of theoretical framework, the notion of conespondence with some other surface form underlies each of these works' approaches. We extend the same principle from morphology to syntax.

The PRWD-CNTG constraint in (17e) follows these observations about correspondence in morphology by requiring a specific kind of PrWd grouping-that of the non-approximative form. To illustrate this point, we reiterate the formal-Russian data in (2a-b) and (3a-b), repeated here as (20a-b) and (2la-b), respectively, with their PrWd groupings indicated using braces:

(20) a. {za pjat'} {knfg} 'for five books' for five books

b. {knfg} {za pjat'} 'for approximately five books' books for five (Formal Russian)

In (20b) N moves beyond Pin order to maintain the same PrW d grouping as in (20a). In (21b), however, because Pis prosodically heavy, the noun need not move beyond P ~o insure that each .?rWd be the same ::~.sin (21::).

(21) a. { otnosftel'no} {pjatf} {knfg} regarding five books

'regarding five books' b. { otnosftel'no} {knfg} {pjatf}

regarding books five

'regarding apprQximately five books'

In the colloquial register, on the other hand, prosodic contiguity is not as important as minimal movement. For that reason, instead of (20b ), this register opts for (22) [= (2b)], in which PRWD-CNTG-with regard to (20a)-is violated.

(22) { za knfg} {pjat'} (Colloquial Russian) for books five

'for approximately five books'

II


Colloquial Russian does, however, converge with the formal register in using (21 b)

as welP 1 To be most clear, we are not merely observing surface facts; we are

arguing that the prosodic structure of the output determines the syntactic consituent

order.

4. 2 The tableaux

The tableaux in (23) through (25) formalize the data in (2), (3), (20) and (22). In

each tableau the intermediate projections DP and NoP (and any overt material

therein, such as the numeral) are not shown because of space limitations.

(23) Colloquial Russian CHECK FULL PRWD [cf. (2b)/(22) or (3b)/(21 b)]: A -F -lNT STAY -CNTG

a.~ (PP p (QPNi (MeasP ti (NP ti ]]]]

b. [PP [p Ni-P) [QP \ [MeasP 1; [NP t; )]]]

c. I [pp p [QP (MeasP (NP N ]]]] *!

d. j [PP p [QP Meas; [MoasP 1; [NP N, ]])] *!

e. I [PP [P Meas;-P] [QP t; [MeasP t; [NP Ni ]]]] *!

f. I [PP p [QP [MeasP Meas, [NP N; ]]]] *! *!

We briefly explain the notation in an Optimality-theoretic tableau for those who might be unfamiliar with the specifics of this framework: The constraints are listed along the top of each tableau, left-to-right, from highest- to lowest-ranking. Various possible outputs of the grammar-called candidates-are arrayed along the left side of the tableau, each with a letter, (a-f), identifying it. The l6f' symbol

here indicates the attested form in each tableau. The spaces beneath the con:;traints and to the right of the candidates are (.'a11ed cells. A sta! (*)in a p~ticular cell indicates that a particular candidate in that row violates the constraint in that column. An exclamation point(!) after a star indicates a fatal violation, which eliminates that particular candidate from consideration. Gray-shaded cells indicate that the best-formedness determination has been made prior to consulting these cells.:12

For ease of exposition, in each of the tableaux in this paper the (c) candidate represents the control group, with no movement or pleonastic insertion of any

21. At our Utrecht talk which preceded this paper we mistakenly implied that there was some correspondence between two syntactic forms. In fact, as this paper's title then and now correctly encapsulates, it is the prosodic organization of constituents that must correspond, which brings about a structure in syntax that is otherwise ill-formed. 22. The following is an additional notation in Optimality tableaux: A line between columns indicates that these two constraints are ranked in that order, while no line shows that no ranking can be made between the two constraints divided by it. This is not always possible to indicate, as discussed in the footnotes immediately preceding tableaux (24) and (27).


sort. The (a) candidate involves movement as far as Q, while the (b) candidate has head-moved N as far as P. The (d-f) candidates involve pleonastic insertion of a count noun (Meas), with (d) moving Meas only as far as Q, (e) moving Meas toP, and (f) showing no movement of Meas. We should also point out that while Nand Meas share a co-index (subscript i), this is not movement per se and is thus not a violation of the STAY constraint; any movement of Meas does, however, constitute a STAY violation.

Because no adjectives are present in tableaux (23) through (25), constraint A's

column of cells is blank. This constraint comes into play in tableaux (26) through (28). Because A is unviolated in all the data discussed here, we leave it at the left edge.

Moving to tableau (23 ), assume for a moment that the constraints are ranked conclusively in the order A» CHECK-F » FuLL-lNT »STAY» PRWD-CNTG (where'»' indicates that the preceding constraint dominates the following one). Two candidates, in (23c, f), violate the CHECK-F constraint because neither of these has a noun in Q to check the <-DEF> feature in surface syntax. This violation remove:::. these two candidates from consideration. This leaves four more candidates: (23a-b, d-e). The next highest constraint, FULL-lNT, is violated by candidates (23d-f), because they each have a pleonastic count noun. This further eliminates candidates (23d-e), leaving only candidates (23a-b) as contenders. The competition moves on to the next highest constraint, STAY, which is violated by candidate (23a) twice and by (23b) three times, conesponding to the number of movement traces in each candidate's structure. Since (23a) violates this constraint fewer times than the other remaining candidate does, it is the optimal candidate (=the attested form). As it so happens, PrWd-CNTG is not needed in this particular tableau, since the optimality determination has been made by more highly ranked constraints. If the preposition is light, then candidate (23a) gets one star in this column; otherwise, none. In either event, the number of stars in any gray-shaded cell is moot.

The :-ankir:g in the colloquial register is not exactly as we describe it in !he

preceding paragraph. In fact, it is impossible with the data at hand to rank CHECKF and FuLL-!NT with respect to each other (thus there is no line between these two columns in the tableaux for the colloquial register). These two constraints do, however, both conclusively dominate STAY, which further dominates PRWD-CNTG. Nor is it possible to rank the A constraint with respect to any of the other constraints. The ranking shown in (23) is thus as follows: A , { { CHECK-F , FuLLlNT } )>STAY» PRWD-CNTG } (where '''indicates no ranking between the elements on either side of it).

Moving to the next two tableaux, note that the constraints are ordered differently in the colloquial register, shown in (23), as opposed to the formal register, shown in (24) and (25). Namely, in (23) PRWD-CNTG is ranked lowest, and thus appears at the rightmost edge of this and other tableaux representing the colloquial register. In the formal register, on the other hand, the PR WD-CNTG constraint is unviolated by any of the data and appears at the extreme left edge of the list of constraints. This is how Optimality Theory formalizes the differences between languages. The registers of Russian are, as far as this framework is concerned, two

I!

I ! I ~ , 1:'

II !I i I'


different languages, differing (albeit only slightly) in the hierarchy of constraints. In the formal register PRWD-CNTG, CHECK-F and FuLL-lNT each dominate STAY. It is impossible, however, to rank PRWD-CNTG, A, CHECK-F and FULL-INT with respect to each other (thus no line appears between these three columns in the various tableaux for the formal register)Y

(24) Formal Russian (light P) PRWD CHECK FULL

[ cf. exx. (2c )/ (20b) above]: -CNTG A -F -INT STAY

a. I [pp p [Q,N, [Moo;P t, [NP t, )]]] I*!

b. I& [pp [p N;-P] [QP t; [McasP 1; [NP \ ]]]]

C. I [pp p [QP [McasP [NP N ]]]] *!

d. r [pp p [QPMeas; [McasP t; [NP N; ]]]] ~:! *!

e. ! [PP [P Meas;-PJ [QP t; [McasP 1; [NP N; ]]]] *!

f. r [pp p [QP CvlcasP Meas; [NP N; ]]]] *! *!

In tableau (24) only one candidate, (24b), does not violate any of the four domi-nant constraints. This leaves only candidate (24b), thus making it the optimal (=the attested) form. In tableau (24) the STAY constraint is thus rendered moot.

Tableau (25) formalizes the behavior of approximative inversion with a heavy (non-quantificational) preposition in the formal register. Because there is no proclitic preposition, there is no violation ofPRWo-CNTG anywhere in the tableau.

(25) Formal Russian (heavy P) PRWD CHECK FULL [cf. exx. (3b)/(21 b) above]: -CNTG A -F -lNT STAY

a. liZ? I [pp p [QP N; [McasP t; [NP t; ]]]] I** h I [PI' [p N1-P] [Ql't1 [Mcasr' t/ [NP t; ]]]] I***!

c. I [pp p [QP [McasP [NP N ]]]] *!

d. r [pp p [QPMeas; [McasP t; [NP N; ]]]] *!

e. j [pp [P Meas;-P] [QP t; [McasP t; [NP N; ]]]] *!

f. r [pp p [QP [MeasP Meas; [NP N/ ]]]] *! *!

Two candidates, (25a-b ), satisfy the four undominated constraints. This takes the competition to the lowest constraint, STAY, which is violated by candidate (25a)

23. As in tableau (23), the A constraint is unviolated in (24) and (25) and cannot even be ranked with regard to the STAY constraint. The precise ranking in tableau (24) is as follows: A ' { { PRWDCNTG ' CHECK-F ' Fuu-lNT ) >> STAY ) . In tableau (25) the only conclusive ranking is as follows: A' PRWD-CNTG' { { CHECK-F 'FuLL~lNT) »STAY). We have positioned the PRWD-CNTG constraint at the opposite edges of the two registers' respective tableaux to make the difference in constraint rankings perspicuous.


twice and by candidate (25b) three times. Thus, (25a) is selected as optimal. The fonnal register, as it were, opts for further movement (into P) in order to

avoid disturbing the PrWd groupings of the corresponding non-approximative construction. These constraints show that the surface order of syntactic words is influenced by their prosodic structure. Head-movement into P is an option, one which incurs an additional violation of STAY, but which keeps there from being a violation of the PRWD-CNTG constraint.

Tableaux (26) through (28) each show the same data as (23) through (25), but with the addition of an adjective modifying the noun. It is in these tableaux where violations of the A constraint become apparent. Crucially, constraints A and CHECKF each dominate FuLL-INT in both registers; this ranking is what eliminates candidates (a-c) from consideration when there is an adjective present.24

That said, in the following colloquial-Russian tableau candidates (26a-c, f) violate one or the other of the two undominated constraints (A and CHECK-F). The two surviving candidates, (26d-e), each violate FuLL-lNT equally, which therefore fails to make a detem1ination. This pushes the optimality detem1ination on to the next highest constraint (STAY). The STAY constraint is violated fewer times by candidate (26d) than by (26e), meaning that (26d) survives as the optimal form.

(26) Colloquial Russian CHECK FULL PRWD [cf. ex. (9c) above]: A -F -lNT STAY -CNTG

a. [pp p [QPNi [McasP t; [NP At;]]]] *!

b. [pp [p N;-P] [QP 1; [McasP t; [NP At; ]]]] *!

C. I [pp p [QP [MeasP [NP AN ]]]] *!

d. ~ [pp P [QP Meas; [McasP t; [NP AN; ]]]]

e. I [pp [p Meas(P] [QP t; [MeasP t; [NP AN;]]]]

f. . [PP p [QP [MeasP Meas; [Ni' AN; ]]]] I *!

As in tableau (23), the bracketed stars in the PRWo-CNTG column occur only if the Pis prosodically light. As in (23), such stars always are in shaded cells and are thus moot.

The formal-register tableau in (27) likewise has the same pattern in the A, CHECK-F and FuLL-lNT columns, but recall that PRWD-CNTG is likewise undominated in this register. This also eliminates candidate (27d). As a result, candidate (27e) survives as the optimal/attested form. 25

24. Tableau (26) shows also the constraint rankings established in the earlier tableau of the colloquial register, (23). Likewise, (27) and (28) show rankings established above in (24) and (25) for the formal register. 25. The data in tableau (27) alone allow for a number of rankings in which STAY dominates FuLL-lNT. Such a ranking is ruled out by tableaux (24) and (25). Barring such possibilities, however, tableau (27) requires both A and CHECK-F to dominate FuLL-lNT (hence the solid line

II


(27) Formal Russian (light P) PRWD CHECK FULL (cf. ex. (9b) above]: -CNTG A -F -lNT STAY

a. I lpp p [QPNi [MeasP ti (NP At,.))]) *! *!

b. I [pp [p Ni-P) [QPti CvlcasP ti [NPA ti ]]]] *!

C. I [pp p [QP [McasP [NP AN ]]]) *!

d. I (PP p [QPMeasi [McasP t, [NP ANi]]]] *!

e . .w I [, [, Meas,·P] [0 , t, [Me"'\[., AN, ]J]J I f. (PP p [or [McasP Measi [NP ANi ]]]] *!

Finally, in tableau (28), also representing the formal register, candidates (28a-c, f) all violate undominated constraints. The two remaining candidates, (28d-e), fare equally with regard to FULL-INT. The competition thus moves on to the STAY constraint. Candidate (28d), with fewer violations of STAY, wins.

(28) Formal Russian (heavy P) PRWD CHECK FULL [ cf. ex. ( 1 Ob) above]: -CNTG A -F -lNT STAY

a. [pp p [QP Ni [McasP ti [NP A ti ])]] *!

b. (pp (p Ni-P] [QP ti (McasP ti (NP A ti ]]]] *!

C. I [pp p [QP [McasP [NP AN ])]) *!

d. ~ [PP p [QPMeasi [McasP ti [NP ANi]]]]

e. I (pp [P Measi-P] [QP t,. [McasP t,. [NP AN,.]])]

f. (pp p [QP [MeasP Meas,. [NP AN,. ]]]] I *!

Incidentally, inserting any other count noun in Meas position in any of these tableaux incurs incrementally greater violation of the FuLL-lNT constraint, because any other count noun would have incrementally more unparsed lexical-conceptual structure.

4. 3 A factorial typology of the constraints

A reviewer has suggested that certain other rankings of these constraints result in very different structures. This subsection explores those possibilities.

between the CHECK-F and FuLL-lNT columns). This winnows down the potential candidates to (27d-e). This tableau's data also require PR W o-CNTG to dominate STAY, a dominance relation established in (24) as well. Crucially, PRWo-CNTG need not be ranked with respect to FuLL-lNTin tableau (27), despite the limitation in the tableau notation (which implies that there is a ranking between the two). The same is true of (28) with the exception that PRWo-CNTG cannot be ranked relative to any other constraint in that tableau.


Five constraints allow for 120 possible rankings (5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120). Rather than list all 120 permutations here, we simply show the nine possible arrangements of data corresponding to the four different kinds of input (i.e., whether or not the Pis heavy and whether or not there is an adjective); cf. the four formalRussian tableaux above: (24), (25), (27) and (28). The table in (29) shows each possible arrangement of data corresponding to these four tableaux. (In each N is the lexical noun, while Meas is a pleonastic count noun.)

(29)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Results in (24), (25), (27), and (28):

(24c) (25c) (27c) (28c)

(24d) (25d) (27d) (28d)

(24e) (25d) (27e) (28d)

(24a) (25a) (27a) (28a)

(24b) (25a) (27b) (28a)

(24a) (25a) (27c) (28c)

light-P Num N heavy-PNum N

light-P Num adjective N heavy-P Num adjective N

light-P Meas Num N heavy-P Meas Num N

1ight-P Meas Num adjective N heavy-P Meas Num adjective N

Meas light-P Num N heavy-P Meas Num N

Meas light-P Num adjective N heavy-P Meas Num adjective N

light-P N Num heavy-P N Num

light-P N Num adjective heavy-P N Num adjective

N light-P Num heavy-P N Num

N light-P Num adjective heavy-P N Num adjective

light-P N Num heavy-P N Num


Necessary constraint ranking:

STAY

I CHECK-F

CHECK-F

I STAY

~ PR WD-CNTG FULL-lNT

PR WD-CNTG CHECK-F

~ STAY

I FULL-lNT

CHECK-F FULL-lNT

lXI I / '-I

A STAY

I PRWD-CNTG

0-IECK-F FULL-lNT PR WD-CNTG

lXI/ A STAY

FULL-lNT A

~ CHECK-F

I STAY

I PRWD-CNTG

ll


a o·

h.

1.

(24b) (25a) (27c) (28c)

(24a) (25a) (27d) (28d)

(24b) (25a) (27e) (28d)



1ight-P N Num heavy-P N Num

light-P Meas Num adjective N heavy-P Meas Num adjective N


Meas light-P Num adjective N heavy-P Meas Num adjective N

A FULL-INT

~ CHECK-F PRWD-CNTG

~ STAY

CHECK-F A

~ FULL-lNT

I STAY

I PRWD-CNTG

A CHECK-F

~ FuLL-INT PR Wo-CNTG

~ STAY

In (29a) there is no movement or insertion of any pleonastic count noun. This is because STAY dominates CHECK-F, the constraint that licenses movement. Any ranking of the other three constraints relative to these two is inconsequential. This is perhaps the universally unmarked ranking, especially with regard to the approximative feature (attested only in East Slavic), hence there is no approximative inversion in most languages. Note that this ranking likewise precludes pleonastic count nouns because they too must move (albeit not as far), thus

entailing violations of STAY. Suffice it to say that all the remaining possibilities rank STAY below CHECK-F:

In (29b-c), which both have the ranking CHECK-F :>STAY» FuLL-lNT in common, there is obligatory pleonastic-count-noun insertion. This is because such count nouns invariably entail fewer traces. Failing to parse a count noun's LCS is preferable to any additional movement. In (29b) a pleonastic count noun appears regardless of whether there is an adjective. The position of this count noun is always after P, however. Such results are generated by ranking STAY above both PR WD-CNTG and FULL-INT. In (29c) almost the same ranking as in (29b) is observed, except that PRWo-CNTG is ranked above STAY. This results as in the same across-the-board use of pleonastic count nouns. Unlike (29b), however, the landing site of the count noun is sensitive to the prosodic weight of P.

Note that in each of (29a-c) the ranking of the A constraint relative to the others is immaterial. This is because if any movement occurs at all, it is without involving the lexical noun and therefore renders moot the adjective's existence.

In the remaining possibilities, tabulated in (29d-i), CHECK-F and FuLL-lNT each dominate STAY. We consider first the cases in which FuLL-INTis undominated, in (29d-g). In each of these rankings pleonastic count nouns are ruled out because


any movement of the lexical noun to check the approximative feature is preferable to inserting a pleonastic count noun.

In (29d-e) the A constraint is dominated by CHECK-F (and by FuLL-INT). As a result, movement takes place regardless of whether there is an adjective. In (29d) STAY dominates PRWo-CNTG, which permits N to precede P. In (29e) PRWD-CNTG dominates STAY, resulting in movement beyond a prosodically light P.

In the final four combinations of data, shown in (29f-i), the A constraint is undominated. In both of (29f-g) FULL-INT and A both dominate Check-F, resulting in movement only if there is neither an adjective in the input nor a resulting count noun. In (29f) the unmodified noun moves uniformly to post-P position, while in (29g) the unmodified noun moves beyond only a prosodica11y light P.

This leaves only (29h-i). In both of these FuLL-lNT is dominated by A and by CHECK-F. These are, in fact, the two attested rankings, corresponding to the colloquial and formal registers of Russian, respectively.

Are the other combinations, in (29a-g), attested? Presumably the pattern in (29a) accounts for most of the world's languages with regard to the approximative feature; i.e., no movement at all. In (29b-c) there are similar phenomena in which some pleonastic element checks a feature while the lower head stays in situ. With regard to (29d-e), Kester (1996: 154) reports a phenomenon in northern dialects of Swedish and Norwegian in which adjectives (which otherwise prohibit N-raising to D) apparently incorporate N and raise to the next highest head. Crucially, any adjectival inflection is lost, which essentially removes any syntactic trace of adjective-hood; such data therefore do not constitute NP-movement as such. If it turns out that the A constraint is part of Gen (the inviolable component of an Optimality-theoretic grammar), then (29d-e) - in. which the A constraint is violated- can be ignored. Standard Swedish/Norwegian appear to conform to the general pattern of (29f-g), in which movement (into D to check <+DEF>) takes place only if there is no adjective.

To summarize section 4, we have harnessed Grimshaw's STAY and FULL-INT constraints, which limit movement and pleonastic insertion (respectively). We also propose constraints which require movement (CHECK-F) and prohibit movement from N when there is an adjective (preliminarily called A). The primary innovation of this section, however, is PR WD-CNTG, which requires the PrW d groupings of the nominal expression to remain identical in approximative and non-inverted structures.

5. CoNCLUSION

We have shown in this paper that the approximative-inversion construction in Russian involves a conflict between syntactic requirements (economy of derivation and checking strong features) and a prosodic constraint, which requires the contiguity of prosodic words to remain the same even when a noun has moved. The prosody, as it were, forces the syntax to undergo excessive movement (by means of movement to a higher head). This is the situation in the fonnal register.

I I ·l


In the colloquial one, however, the syntax rules, forcing a violation of prosodic contiguity.

REFERENCES

Avrutin, Sergey. 1992. Movement ofbound variables. Third Leiden Conference for Junior

Linguists, 1-16. Babby, Leonard H. 1985. Prepositional quantifiers and the Direct Case Condition in Russian.

Issues in Russian morphosyntax, ed. by M.S. Flier and R.D. Brecht, 91-117. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.

Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 91-138.

Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. Papers in Optimality TheOI)', ed. by Jill Beckman eta/., 77-136. [=University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18.] Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Billings, Loren A. 1995. Approximation in Russian and the Single-Word Constrainl. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.

Billings, Loren A. 1996. Sandhi phenomena and language change. lnteJ:faces in Phonology, ed. by Ursula Kleinhenz, 60-82. [= Swdia grammatica 41.] Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Billings, Loren A. 1997. Negated prepositional phrases in Slavic. Formal approaches to Slavic Lin-guistics 4, ed. by E. Wayles Browne et al., 115-34. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Burzio, Luigi. 1994. Principles of English Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fowler, George. H. 1987. The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Russian. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Chicago. Franks, Steven L. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 12,597--674. Franks, Steven L. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University

Press. Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and Optimality. Linguistic InquiJ)' 28, 373-422 Hill, Steven P. I977. The n~factor and Russian prepositions. Their development in 11th-20th

century texts.[= Slavistic printings and reprintings 118.] The Hague: Mouton. Kester, Ellen-Petra. 1996. TheNawre of Adjectival Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht Uni

verstty. McCarthy, John J ., and Alan S. Prince. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The

Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 209-83. McCarthy, John J., and Alan S. Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in

Optimality Theory, ed. by Jill Beckman et al, 249-384. [=University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18.] Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Mel'cuk, Igor' A. 1985. Poverchnostnyj sintaksis russkich Cislovych vyraienij. [=Wiener slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 11.] Wien: lnstitut fi.ir Slawistik der Universitat Wien.

Neidle, Carol. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Paduceva, Elena. 1985. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost' s dejstvitel'nost'ju. Moskva: Nauka. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optinzaliry The01y: Constraint Interaction in Generative

Grammar. Ms. (=Tech. Rpt. #2, Rutger University Center for Cognitive Science). To appear from MIT Press.

Simes, Natasha, and Richard M. Robin. 1996. Political Russian. 3rd edn. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Suprun, Adam E. 1962. Oboznacenie netocnych (priblizitel 'nych) kolicestv pri pomosCi opredelennokolicestvennych cislitel' nych. U cenye zapiski Filologiceskogo fakul'teta 8, 5-14. [ = Voprosy leksiki i grammatiki russkogo jazyka. Frunze: Kirgizskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.]

Sussex, Roland. 1976. The numeral classifiers of Russian. Russian Linguistics 3, 145-55.


Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1995. Double reduplication in parallel. Papers in Optimality TheOJ)', ed. by Jill Beckman et al. [=University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18.], 499-531. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Yadroff, Michael G. 1996. Modem Russian vocatives: A case of subtractive morphology. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4, 133-53.

Yadroff, Michael G., and Loren A. Billings 1998. The syntax of approximativ~ inversion in Russian (and the general architecture of NP). Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6, ed. by Zeljko Boskovic e1 al., 319-38. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Zimmermann, lise. 1991. The 'subject' in noun phrases: Its syntax and semantics. Syntax und Semantik der Subsrantivgruppe, ed. by lise Zimmermann, 33-68. [ = Studia grammatica 33.] Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Prosodic correspondence in syntax: Russian approximative inversion

Documents

Transcript of Prosodic correspondence in syntax: Russian approximative inversion