On syntactic non-agreement

[Loren A. BILLINGS]

In my recent summary to this list (about _pol_ "half") my analysis of the
following Russian sentence was criticized:

>6.   Polkomnaty bylo zastavleno         [...]
>     1/2room    [was cluttered]neut.sg.

It was suggested that in this sentence (I) there is no subject and (II)
_Polkomnaty_ is the accuastive-case object.  I reply to each point in turn,
followed by a correction of my own:  (III) Predicate agreement in this
sentence is not neuter-singular.

  (I)  I disagree with the assertion that there is no subject:
Substituting _Polkomnaty_ with a non-quantified nominal expression
immediately results in morphological agreement on both the copula and the
participle, as the following examples show:

a.   Komnata              byla zastavlena
     [room]fem.nom.sg.    [was cluttered]fem.sg.

b.   Zal                  byl  zastavlen
     [hall]masc.nom.sg.   [was cluttered]masc.sg.

c.   Okno                 bylo zastavleno         (cvetami)
     [window]neut.nom.sg. [was cluttered]neut.sg   flowers

d.   Komnaty/Zaly/Okna                byli zastavleny
     [rooms/halls/windows]fem.nom.pl. [were cluttered]pl.

I am aware that some linguists have proposed that there is no subject
(podle^za^s^cee) in sentences like _Polkomnaty bylo zastavleno_; I find
such a position untenable in light of the paradigm in (a) through (d).

 (II)  I likewise disagree that _Polkomnaty_ (in the sentence _Polkomnaty
bylo zastavleno_) is in the accusative case.  Again, I rely on the analogy
provided by the paradigm in (a) through (d):  The initial nouns in (b)
through (d), like _Polkomnaty_, show no distinction in the nominative and
accusative cases; e.g., _Zal_ is (syntactically, if not morphologically)
both nominative and accusative.  The noun in (a), however, _does_ show a
nominative/accusative distinction, as the following sentences (both
ungrammatical in Standard Russian) show:

e.  *Komnatu      byla zastavlena
     [room]acc.sg [was cluttered]fem.sg.

f.  *Komnatu      bylo zastavleno
     [room]acc.sg [was cluttered]"neut.sg."

Examples (e) and (f) show that using the accusative-case form _Komnatu_,
regardless of the predicative agreement used, is ungrammatical in Russian.

As an aside, Ukrainian (and some Russian dialects) can have the equivalent
of either (a) or (f), as shown in (g) and (h), respectively:

g.   Kimnata           bula zastavlena
     [room]fem.nom.sg. [was cluttered]fem.sg.

h.   Kimnatu           bulo zastavleno
     [room]fem.acc.sg. [was cluttered]"neut.sg."

(III)  The reason I write "neut.sg." in scare quotes in (f) and (h) is
that, at least in Ukrainian, there is good reason to distinguish real
neuter-singular agreement--i.e., with a real neuter noun, as in (i)--with
non-agreement, as in (h) and (j).

i.   Vikno                bulo zastavlene              (kvitamy)
     [window]neut.nom.sg. [was cluttered]neut.sg        flowers

j.   Vikno                bulo zastavleno              (kvitamy)
     [window]neut.acc.sg  [was cluttered]non-agreement  flowers

Unfortunately Russian does not show a distinction between neut.sg. and
non-agreement (as participles ending in -ne and -no do in Ukrainian,
respectively).  Still, by this analogy, one should probably label the
predicates in (f) and (h), as well as the original example _Polkomnaty bylo
zastavleno_, not as "neut.sg.", but rather as non-agreeing.

In fact, I have argued in previous publications for this:  Billings
(1993:7-8) and Billings & Maling (1995:199 fn. 37, 211 fn. 60, 401, 402,
408-09 fn. 20, 427 fn. 49, 427-28 fn. 50).  I was thus using a shorthand
notation of "neut.sg." for the predicate in _Polkomnaty bylo zastavleno_
which I don't even believe in myself.

The remainder of the recent comment to this list I will not dignify with a
response.

REFERENCES:

BILLINGS, Loren (1993)  "A note on expletives in Ukrainian
     -no/-to passives."  _The Slavic syntax newsletter_ 3, 1-8.

BILLINGS, Loren and Joan MALING (1995)  "Accusative-assigning
     participial (-no/-to) constructions in Ukrainian, Polish
     and neighboring languages:  An annotated bibliography."
     Part 1 (A-M) _Journal of Slavic linguistics_ 3:1, 177-217.
     Part 2 (N-Z) _Journal of Slavic linguistics_ 3:2, 396-430.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loren A. BILLINGS, Ph.D.  (e-mail:  billings at rz.uni-leipzig.de)

Institut fuer Slavistik                     Home address:
Universitaet Leipzig                        (Preferred for receiving mail!)
Augustusplatz 9                             Funkenburgstr. 14
D-04109 Leipzig                             D-04105 Leipzig

Dept. secretary (1):  +49 (341) 973 7450    Home phone:  +49 (341) 980 7227
Dept. secretary (2):  +49 (341) 973 7454    Ofc. phone:  +49 (341) 973 7475
Dept. telefax:        +49 (341) 973 7499    (Ofc. location:  Hochhaus 16-8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------