Mismatches in Russian Nominal Ellipsis - PDF document

9/4/20 Mismatches in Russian Nominal Ellipsis Мы давно называемся взрослыми И не платим мальчишеству дань , И за кладом на сказочном острове Не стремимся мы в дальнюю даль . Maria Polinsky Ни в пустыню , ни к полюсу холода , Ни на катере ... к этакой матери . Но поскольку молчание - золото , То и мы , безусловно , старатели . Промолчи - попадешь в богачи ! Промолчи , промолчи , промолчи ! ( Александр Галич ) 2 1 2 Outline • Setting the stage: main moving parts • Russian NPE and PNE: feature matches and mismatches • Analysis of the data • Conclusions and outstanding questions Setting the stage 3 4 3 4 1

9/4/20 Two main characters Ellipsis • Basic assumptions • Ellipsis • phi-features in the noun phrase § the ellipsis site has structure § ellipsis involves PF-deletion triggered by a syntactic feature (Merchant 2001) 5 6 5 6 Ellipsis Identity condition on ellipsis • Ellipsis is regulated by an identity condition of • Strict syntactic identity is too strong of a some sort: requirement (Merchant 2001; Kroll 2019; Rudin 2019; Ranero 2020) • Pat left but I don’t know when Pat left. • They bought a foreign car, but I don’t know which • Either the Board grants the license by December 15 foreign car they bought. or it explains why it di didn dn’t grant the license by December 15. • Kim is a birdwatcher and her siblings are • No student finished the exam except Kim di did finish birdwatchers too. the exam. 7 8 7 8 2

9/4/20 Identity condition on ellipsis Identity Condition • Semantic identity is too weak • Syntactic condition is too strong • Semantic condition is too weak • synonymy is insufficient to license ellipsis * Jamie is no longer a bachelor and Peter did get married too (Omer Preminger’s example) • Q1: What should be included in the Identity • voice and argument structure mismatches are rarely Condition? available (Chung 2013, Merchant 2013) 9 10 9 10 Ellipsis contexts to consider Identity Condition today • Syntactic condition is too strong • Noun phrase ellipsis (NPE) • Semantic condition is too weak Mary’s daughter and Jane’s daughter are friends. • Q1: What should be included in the Identity • Predicate-nominal ellipsis (PNE) Condition? Kim is a linguist and Pat is a linguist too. • Preview of the answer: the identity condition should be formulated in reference to features 11 12 11 12 3

9/4/20 Features inside a noun phrase Decomposing noun phrases • Decompositional approach to noun phrase (independently motivated): • Roots are acategorial (Harley 2014; Merchant 2019, a.o.) • Gender is on the categorizing n which combines with √ ROOT and carries formal gender features (Kramer 2015) • Status of NumP is less clear (Ritter 1998; Picallo 2019) 13 14 13 14 Noun phrase decomposition Decomposing noun phrases: Outstanding questions and ellipsis Do all derivational affixes have the same status? • Yes, they are all functional heads (Marantz 2001; Marvin 2003) • Yes, they are all roots (Lowenstamm 2015) 15 16 15 16 4

9/4/20 Test case: Russian gender Test case: Russian gender • Little n ’s in Russian (possibly elsewhere in Slavic) • Q2: Russian gender n [+F]: feminine gender feature, a. what is the decompositional structure of the triggers feminine concord Russian noun phrase (with the emphasis on gender and number)? n [-F]: masculine gender feature, triggers masculine concord b. what is the status of Russian affixes used to derive gendered nouns? n Ø 1 : no gender feature, triggers masculine concord n Ø 2 : no gender feature, triggers neuter concord 17 18 17 18 Test case: Russian gender Test case: Russian gender • Q2a: what is the decompositional structure of Q2b: what is the status of Russian affixes used to the Russian noun phrase (with the emphasis on derive gendered nouns? gender and number)? • Preview of the answer: • Preview of the answer: • Not all derivational affixes are created equal • It is simpler than you think • It is more articulated than you think 19 20 19 20 5

9/4/20 Test case: Russian gender Outline Q2b: what is the status of Russian affixes used to • Setting the stage: ellipsis, phi-features, Russian derive gendered nouns? • Russian NPE and PNE: feature matches and mismatches • Preview of the answer: • Analysis of the data • Not all derivational affixes are created equal, so both • Conclusions and outstanding questions Marantz and Lowenstamm are partially right 21 22 21 22 Section outline • Number matches and mismatches • Gender: three main classes • More gender: focus on morphology Russian NPE and PNE: Feature matches and mismatches 23 24 23 24 6

9/4/20 Number under ellipsis Number under ellipsis [NUMBER] mismatches are available (and predicted, e.g., Saab 2019) Moi druz’ja karte ž niki, i moj mu ž to ž e my friends card players and my husband too ‘My friends are card players, and my husband too.’ Moj mu ž karte ž nik, i moi druz’ja to ž e my husband card player and my friends too ‘My husband is a card player, and my friends too.’ 25 26 25 26 Number under ellipsis Section outline • Number matches and mismatches *Oni bliznecy/ trojnja š ki i moj mu ž to ž e • Gender: three main classes they twins triplets and my husband too • More gender: focus on morphology (‘They are twins/triplets, and my husband too.’) *Moj mu ž bliznec/trojnja š ka i oni to ž e my husband twin/triplet and they too (‘My husband is a twin/triplet, and they too.’) What is going on here? 27 28 27 28 7

9/4/20 Gender mismatches under Gender mismatches under ellipsis ellipsis • Greek • Greek (Merchant 2014, Alexiadou 2015, Sudo & Spathas 2016) (Merchant 2014, Alexiadou 2015, Sudo & Spathas 2016) • Spanish • Spanish (Depiante & Masullo 2001, Merchant ( Depiante & Masullo 2001, Donatelli 2019, Merchant 2014, 2014, Donatelli 2019, Ranero 2019, 2020, Saab Ranero 2019, 2020, Saab 2010) 2010) • Portuguese • Portuguese (Bobaljik & Zocca 2011) (Bobaljik & Zocca 2011) • To my knowledge, Slavic languages have not been systematically investigated with respect to gender matches under ellipsis 29 30 29 30 Background Examples Masculine/feminine pairs of animate nouns fall into • Class I: ellipsis impossible, common in kinship three distinct classes under NPE and PNE terms (*John is a good uncle and Mary is a good aunt too) • nouns that never license ellipsis of their counterpart, regardless of gender John [ PredP is a good uncle] and Mary [ PredP is a • nouns that license ellipsis both ways (M > F, F > good aunt] too M) • nouns in which the masculine noun of the pair licenses ellipsis of the feminine version, but not vice versa (M > F, *F > M) (Merchant 2014) 31 32 31 32 8

9/4/20 Examples Examples • Class I: ellipsis impossible, common in kinship terms • Class I: ellipsis impossible, common in kinship (* John is a good uncle and Mary is a good aunt too ) terms (*John is a good uncle and Mary is a good • Class II: either form can antecede the other aunt too) ( John is a good lawyer and Mary is a good lawyer too; • Class II: either element can antecede the other Mary is a good lawyer and John is a good lawyer (John is a good lawyer and Mary is a good too ) lawyer too; Mary is a good lawyer and John is a • Class III: the masculine can antecede the feminine good lawyer too) but not the other way around ( John is a good actor and Mary is a good actress too; *Mary is a good actress and John is a good actor too ) 33 34 33 34 Let’s add Russian Class I: Kinship terms Three main classes as in other languages • Class I: car’/carica ‘tsar/tsarina’, dedu š ka/babu š ka ‘grandfather/grandmother’, baran/ovca ‘ram/ewe’ *Vera babu š ka, i Kostya to ž e V grandmother and K too • Class II: nominal advokat ‘lawyer’, doktor ‘doctor’, avtor ‘author’, etc.; deadjectival de ž urnyj/ (‘Vera is a grandma and de ž urnaja ‘person on call’; epicene tupica ‘dunce’ Kostya too.’) *Kostya dedu š ka, i Vera to ž e • Class III: princ/princessa ‘princ(ess)’, ljot č ik/ljot č ica K grandfather and V too ‘pilot’, sportsmen/sportsmenka ’athlete’, idiot/idiotka ‘idiot’, krasavec/krasavica ‘looker, beauty’; (‘Kostya is a grandpa and Vera ž iraf/ ž irafa ‘giraffe’; most names of nationalities too.’) 35 36 35 36 9