Numeral Subjects in Polish: Surface Morphology vs. Abstract Syntax

• Authors: Witkoś Jacek
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Numeral subjects in Polish show a non-uniform agreement pattern with the verb depending on the cardinality of the numeral (paucal vs. high) and the gender of the NP. Full agreement shows with paucal numerals (<5) on non-virile NPs, while high numerals (≥5,) require default agreement (3 person, neuter, singular) on the verb. Paucal numerals combined with virile NPs may show either full agreement or default agreement, while high numerals with virile NPs show default agreement. Furthermore, high numerals combined with virile NPs show a surface morphological form of accusative/genitive, whereas high numerals combined with non-virile NPs show a surface morphological form of accusative/nominative. At the same time all the subtypes of the numeral subject share crucial syntactic properties with the standard nominative subject (e.g. coordination, anaphoric binding, control). This contribution reports on a plausible account of the morphological aspect of the overt (dis-)agreement between the numeral subject and the verb and proposes an account of an abstract syntactic relation between the numeral subject and Tense which resembles the standard procedure of nominative case marking.

Keywords

EN

the numeral subject; default agreement; subjecthood properties; case theory

• Publisher: Oficyna Wydawnicza ATUT – Wrocławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe
• Journal: Beiträge zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft
• Year: 2020
• Issue: 9
• Pages: 173-204

Contributors

author

Witkoś Jacek

• Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Poland

References

• Andrews Avery D, 1982, The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic, in: Bresnan J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA, pp. 427-503.
• Avrutin Sergey, 1994, The structural position of bound variables in Russian, in: Linguistic Inquiry 25(4), pp. 709-727.
• Babby Leonard H., 1980, The syntax of surface case marking, in: Wayne H./Herschensohn J. (eds.), Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 1-32.
• Babby Leonard H., 1987, Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian, in: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, pp. 91-138.
• Bailyn John F., 2004, The case of Q, in: Arnaudova O. (ed.), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ottawa Meeting 2003, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1-36.
• Bejar Suzana, 2003, Phi-syntax. A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
• Benmamoun Abbas / Bhatia Archna / Polinsky Maria, 2009, Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages, in: Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9, pp. 67-88.
• Bittner Maria / Ken Hale, 1996, The structural determination of Case and agreement, in: Linguistic Inquiry 27, pp. 1-68.
• Blake Barry, 1994, Case, Cambridge.
• Bobaljik Jonathan David, 2008, Where’s phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation, in: Daniel H./Adger D./Béjar S. (eds.), Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, Oxford, pp. 295-328.
• Bošković Željko, 2006, Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian, in: Boeckx C. (ed.), Agreement Systems, Amsterdam, pp. 99-120.
• Caha Pavel, 2009, Nanosyntax of case. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromso.
• Caha Pavel, 2010, The parameters of case marking and Spell-Out driven movement. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001026 (accessed 15 Feb 2011).
• Cardinaletti Anna / Starke Michal, 1994, The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes, in: University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 4, pp. 41-109.
• Cetnarowska Bożena, 2003, On pronominal clusters in Polish, in: Costa P./ Błaszczak J./Frasek J./Geist L./Żygis M. (eds.), Investigations into formal Slavic linguistics. Vol. 1, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 13-30.
• Chomsky Noam, 1986, Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use, New York.
• Chomsky Noam, 1993, A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory, in: Hale K./ Keyser J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Silvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-52.
• Chomsky Noam, 1995, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA.
• Chomsky Noam, 2000, Minimalist inquiries, in: Martin R./Michaels D./Uriagereka J./Keyser S. J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89-156.
• Chomsky Noam, 2001, Derivation by phase, in: Kenstowicz M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-52.
• Chomsky Noam, 2008, On Phases, in: Freidin R./Peregrín C./Otero M./Zubizarreta M. (eds.), Issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Cambridge, MA, pp. 133-166.
• Citko Barbara, 2014, Phase theory: An introduction, Cambridge, MA.
• Citko Barbara / Germain Allison / Witkoś Jacek, 2018, If you can’t agree, move on! On labels and non-nominative subjects, in: Glossa: A Journal of Generative Linguistics 3(1), pp. 28-68.
• Corbett Greville G, 1979, Adjective movement, in: Nottingham Linguistic Circular 8(1), pp 1-10.
• Cuervo Maria Cristina, 2003, Datives at large, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
• Danon Gabi, 2012, Two structures for numeral-noun constructions, in: Lingua 122, pp. 1282-1307.
• Dziwirek Katarzyna, 1994, Polish subjects, New York
• Franks Steven, 1994, Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic, in: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, pp. 597-674.
• Franks Steven, 1995, Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax, New York.
• Franks Steven, 2002, A Jakobsonian feature based analysis of the Slavic Numeric Quantifier Genitive, in: Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10, pp. 141-181.
• Franks Steven, 2017, Syntax and spell-out in Slavic, Bloomington, IND.
• Germain Allison, 2014, Nullifying null expletives: Accounting for EPP in Russian Impersonal and nominative in situ constructions, in: Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23, pp. 418-438.
• Hestvik Arild, 1992, LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation, in: Linguistic Inquiry 23(4), pp. 557-594.
• Hicks Glyn, 2009, The derivation of anaphoric relations, Amsterdam.
• Ionin Tania, 2001, Scope in Russian: Quantifier Movement and Discourse Function, Ms. MIT.
• Jakobson Roman, 1936, Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus, in: Selected writings vol. 2, The Hague, pp. 23-71.
• Jimenez-Fernandez / Ángel Luis / Rozwadowska Bożena, 2016, The information structure of Dative Experiencer psych-verbs, in: Cetnarowska B./Kuczok M./ Zabawa M. (eds.), Various dimensions of contrastive studies, Katowice, pp. 100-121.
• Kallas Krystyna, 1995, O konstrukcjach z przyimkiem niż [On constructions with preposition niż], in: Grochowski M. (ed.), Wyrażenia funkcyjne w systemie i tekście [Functional expressions in a system and text], Toruń, pp. 99-110.
• Klockmann Heidi, 2015, What are categories? Adjective-like and noun-like semi-lexical numerals in Polish, in: Błaszczak J./Klimek-Jankowska D./Migdalski K. (eds.), How categorical are categories? New approaches to the old questions of Noun, Verb and Adjective, Boston, pp. 236-271.
• Klockmann Heidi, 2017, The design of semi-lexicality: Evidence from case and agreement in the nominal domain, Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
• Kornfilt Jakilin / Omer Preminger, 2015, Nominative as no case at all: an argument from raising-to-accusative in Sakha. Ms., Syracuse University.
• Krasnowolski Antoni, 1897, Systematyczna składnia języka polskiego [Systematic syntax of Polish], Warszawa.
• Laskowski Roman, 1998, Kategorie morfologiczne języka polskiego: Charakterystyka funkcjonalna [Morphological categories in Polish: The functional description], in: Grzegorczykowa R./Laskowski R./Wróbel H. (eds.), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego: Morfologia [Grammar of contemporary Polish: Morphology], Warszawa, pp. 151-224.
• Małecki Antoni, 1863, Gramatyka języka polskiego większa [A greater grammar of Polish], Lwów.
• Mańczak Witold, 1956, Ile rodzajów jest w polskim? [How many genders are there in Polish], in: Język Polski XXXVI, pp. 116-121.
• Marušič Franc Lanko, 2009, Non simultaneous spell-out in the clausal and nominal domain, in: Grohmann K. (ed.), InterPhases: Phase-theoretic investigations of linguistic lnterfaces, Oxford, pp. 151-181.
• Marušić Franc Lanko / Nevins Andrew / Badecker William, 2015, The grammar of conjunction agreement in Slovenian, in: Syntax 18, pp. 39-77.
• Matushansky Ora / Ruys Eddy G., 2015, Measure for measure, in: Zybatow G./ Biskup, P./Guhl M./Hurtig C./Mueller-Reichau O./Yastrebova M. (eds.), Slavic Grammar from a Formal Perspective: The 10th Anniversary FDSL Conference, Frankfurt, pp. 72-89.
• Matushansky Ora / Ionin Tania, 2016, Polish Numeral NP Agreement as a Function of Surface Morphology, in: Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 25, Ann Arbor, pp. 72-89.
• Miechowicz-Mathiasen Katarzyna, 2012, Licensing Polish higher numerals: An account of the Accusative Hypothesis, in: Błaszczak J./Rozwadowska B./ Witkowski W. (eds.), Current Issues in Generative Linguistics: Syntax, Semantics and Phonology. Generative linguistics in Wrocław 2, Wrocław, pp. 58-75.
• Migdalski Krzysztof, 2016, Second Position Effects in the Syntax of Germanic and Slavic Languages, Wrocław.
• Nikolaeva Liudmila, 2014, The secret life of pronouns, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
• Pereltsvaig Asya, 2006, Small nominals, in: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24, pp. 433-500.
• Pesetsky David, 1982, Paths and categories, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
• Pesetsky David, 2013, Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories, Cambridge, MA.
• Pesetsky David / Torrego Esther, 2001, T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences, in: Kenstowicz M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, Cambridge, MA, pp. 355-426.
• Pesetsky David / Torrego Esther, 2007, The Syntax of Valuation and the Interpretability of Features, in: Karimi S./Samiian V./Wilkins W. (eds.), Phasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, Amsterdam, pp. 262-294.
• Pica Pierre, 1991, On the interpretation between antecedent-Government and Binding: The case of long-distance reflexivization, in: Koster J./Reuland E. (eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridge, pp. 119-136.
• Preminger Omer, 2009, Failure to Agree is not a failure: phi-Agreement with post-verbal subjects in Hebrew, Ms., MIT/ Harvard University.
• Preminger Omer, 2011, Agreement as a Fallible Operation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
• Przepiórkowski Adam, 1999, Case Assignment and the complement-adjunct dichotomy: A non-configurational constraint-based approach, Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.
• Przepiórkowski Adam, 2001, Predicative case agreement with Quantifier Phrases in Polish, in: Przepiórkowski A./Bański P. (eds.), Generative Linguistics in Poland: Syntax and Morphosyntax, Warsaw, pp. 159-169.
• Przepiórkowski Adam, 2004, O wartości przypadka podmiotów liczebnikowych, in: Bulletin De La Société Polonaise De Linguistique, fasc. LX, pp. 133-143.
• Przepiórkowski Adam / Patejuk Agnieszka, 2012, The puzzle of case agreement between numeral phrases and predicative adjectives in Polish, in: Butt M./ King T.H. (eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG’12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 490-502.
• Pylkkänen Liina, 2008, Introducing Arguments, Cambridge, MA.
• Rappaport Gilbert, 2001, Extraction from nominal phrases in Polish and theory of Determiners, in: Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8, pp. 159-98.
• Rutkowski Paweł, 2002, The syntax of quantifier phrases and the inherent vs. structural case distinction, in: Linguistic Research 7, pp. 43-74.
• Rutkowski Paweł, 2007, Hipoteza frazy przedimkowej jako narzędzie opisu składniowego polskich grup imiennych [The Determiner Phrase hypothesis as a tool of syntactic analysis of Polish nominal phrases], Doctoral dissertation, Uniwersytet Warszawski.
• Safir Kenneth, 2004, The syntax of anaphora, Oxford.
• Saloni Zygmunt, 1976, Kategoria rodzaju we współczesnym języku polskim [The category of gender in contemporary Polish], in: Kategorie gramatyczne grup imiennych w języku polskim. Materiały konferencji w Zawoi, 13–15 XII 1974 [Grammatical categories of nominal phrases in Polish. Proceedings of the conference in Zawoja, 13–15 XII 1974], pp. 41-76.
• Saloni Zygmunt / Świdziński Marek, 1985, Składnia współczesnego języka polskiego [Syntax of contemporary Polish], Warszawa.
• Starke Michal, 2009, Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language, in: Nordlyd 36 (1), pp. 1-6.
• Stegovec Adrian, 2016, What we aren’t given: selection and ditrasitive passives in Slovenian, paper presented at the Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Cornell University, May 13th 2016.
• Szober Stanisław / Łoś Jan, 1928, Trzy piękne córki było nas u matki: Formy podmiotu i orzeczenia w zdaniach z podmiotem logicznym, określonym przydawką liczebnikową [There was three beautiful daughters at their mother’s: Forms of the subject and the predicate in sentences with a logical subject determined by the numeral modifier], in: Język Polski, vol. XIII.4, pp. 97-112.
• Wierzbicka Aleksandra, 2014, Rodzaj gramatyczny w języku polskim: Przegląd koncepcji [Grammatical gender in Polish: A review of different concepts], in: Polonica XXXIV, pp. 155-166.
• Willim Ewa, 1989, On word order: A government-binding study of English and Polish, Kraków.
• Willim Ewa, 2015, Case distribution and phi-agreement with Polish Genitive of Quantification in the feature sharing theory of Agree, in: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 51(2), pp. 315-57.
• Witkoś Jacek / Dziubała-Szrejbrowska Dominika / Łęska Paulina, 2018, The Syntax of Numeral Noun Constructions, Berlin.
• Witkoś Jacek, 2020, On Accusative Numeral Subjects in Polish, in: Radeva-Bork T./Kosta P. (eds.), Current Developments in Slavic Linguistics. Twenty years After (based on selected papers from FDSL 11), Berlin, pp. 259-272.
• Witkoś Jacek / Łęska Paulina / Dziubała-Szrejbrowska Dominika / Gogłoza Aleksandra, 2020, Bind me tender, bind me do! Dative and accusative arguments as antecedents for reflexives in Polish, Berlin.
• Witkoś Jacek / Łęska Paulina, 2020, Dative Antecedents for Reflexives and Pronouns, in: Acta Linguistica Academica, DOI: ALING-2020.00014.
• Woolford Ellen, 1999, More on the anaphor agreement effect, in: Linguistic Inquiry 30, pp. 257-287.
• Woolford Ellen, 2006, Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure, in: Linguistic Inquiry 37, pp. 111-130.
• Zeijlstra Hedde, 2012, There is only one way to agree, in: The Linguistic Review 29, pp. 491-539.

Identifiers

DOI

10.23817/bzspr.9-9