A Spurious Genitive Puzzle in Polish

Błaszczak, Joanna

doi:10.1524/9783050062365.17

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should also be pointed out that Polish GN, which is like Lithuanian GN in many respects, exhibits the same pattern where semantic properties of the object do not play a role as to whether the GN rule can be applied or not (e.g. Błaszczak 2010).…”

Section: Semantic Approaches To Gnmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6] We frequently point out similarities to Polish GN. Due to space, we cannot go into various interesting analyses of Polish, such as Przepiórkowski (2000), Witkoś (2008), Błaszczak (2010). [7] See also the distinction made between syntactic case and morphological case (s-case and m-case) in Lexical Functional Grammar (Spencer 2003(Spencer , 2006(Spencer , 2009.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

Sigurðsson¹,

Šereikaitė²

2023

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze genitive of negation (GN) in Lithuanian. When the verb is negated, GN is realized on an object that would otherwise be realized as accusative. We demonstrate that Lithuanian GN is a syntactic (in line with Arkadiev 2016) and morphological phenomenon in contrast to Russian GN, whose realization is influenced by semantic factors (e.g. Kagan 2013). It differs from Russian (Pesetsky 1982) in that (i) it is always assigned to a DP which would otherwise bear structural accusative regardless of its semantic properties, and (ii) it cannot affect a structural nominative DP regardless of whether it is an external or internal argument. Lithuanian GN, in this respect, is similar to Polish GN (e.g. Przepiórkowski 2000, Witkoś 2008). We offer a three-layered approach to case, arguing that GN is a reflection of structural object case, assigned in syntax, then translated to morphological genitive case at PF and, finally, realized at Vocabulary Insertion (Halle & Marantz 1993). Thus, structural object case has two morphological realizations: as genitive under negation or as accusative in the absence of negation. Lithuanian also exhibits long-distance GN (Arkadiev 2016), showing that case boundaries can cross non-finite clauses without an overt CP element, suggesting these are not phases.

show abstract

Section: Semantic Approaches To Gnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

Sigurðsson¹,

Šereikaitė²

2023

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cf. Borschev & Partee (2002) and Kagan (2012) for a comprehensive review of the Russian GoN and Błaszczak (2008Błaszczak ( , 2010 for differences between the Polish and the Russian GoN constructions.…”

Section: Long Distance Genitive Of Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Polish, control structures show bi-clausal properties such as separate initial argument structures, separate temporal specification (relevant for Partial Control, Landau 2000), and selection requirements but also monoclausal ones, such as clitic/weak pronoun climbing, reflexive binding, and LDGoN (cf. Willim 1989;Tajsner 1990;Witkoś 1998;Przepiórkowski 1999Przepiórkowski , 2000Błaszczak 2001Błaszczak , 2010Bondaruk 2004). To what extent can structure removal account for the facts in ( 28)-( 29).…”

Section: J Witkośmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agree, Move and the Scope of the Phase Impenetrability Condition

Witkoś

2021

Studia Anglica Posnaniensia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses a certain contradiction in the application of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) to domains involving the long-distance Genitive of Negation (GoN) and wh-movement in Polish. It appears that in syntactic domains of the tensed sentence including an infinitive complement, there is a tension between a long-distance dependency (holding between NEG in the main clause and the embedded object in genitive) and a cyclic operation of wh-movement. The operation of wh-movement, a classic example of Chomsky’s Move, observes cyclicity and the PIC, judging by the standard tests based on reconstruction (Chomsky 1995; Heycock 1995; Fox 1999; Safir 1999; Legate 2003; Witkoś 2003; Lebeaux 2009), while the Agree-based case marking requires the PIC to be inoperative in exactly the same context and in the same domain. Both operations place contradictory requirements on the PIC, which implies that this condition does not apply to them in the same manner: it always holds of Move but does not always hold of Agree.

show abstract

“… 8 The direct object of a negated transitive verb in Polish is obligatorily marked for Genitive, a phenomenon known as Genitive of Negation (Błaszczak 2001a , b , Blaszczak 2007 ; Przepiórkowski 1997 ; Witkoś 1998 ). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psycholinguistic Investigation of the Immediate Interpretation of Plural Nouns in the Scope of Sentential Negation in Polish

Gulgowski

Błaszczak

2020

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number meaning of grammatically plural nouns is to some extent context sensitive. In negative sentences, plural nouns typically receive an inclusive reading referring to any number of individuals (one or many). This contrasts with their more frequent exclusive reading referring to a group of two or more individuals. The present study investigated whether a plural noun in a negative sentence is treated as inclusive immediately when it is encountered or whether this interpretation is delayed. In an experiment using a technique based on a numerical variant of the Stroop effect (Berent et al. in J Mem Lang 53:342–358, 2005. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.002; Patson and Warren in J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36(3):782–789, 2010. 10.1037/a0018783), participants counted visually presented singular and plural Polish nouns embedded in either affirmative or negative sentences. The nouns were displayed once or as two copies. Plural nouns were easier to count when they were repeated twice on the screen than when only one copy was displayed. For singular nouns this pattern was reversed and the effect was weaker. Crucially, no difference was found for plural nouns appearing in affirmative and negative sentences. This indicated that an inclusive (“one or more”) reading of plural nouns in the scope of sentential negation was not immediate. The results are in line with past research suggesting that the semantic processing of a negative sentence may proceed in two phases (Fischler et al. in Psychophysiology 20(4):400–409, 1983. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.x; Kaup et al. in J Pragmat 38:1033–1050, 2006. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.012; Lüdtke et al. in J Cogn Neurosci 20(8):1355–1370, 2008. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20093; Spychalska in Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI student session, 2011).

show abstract

A Spurious Genitive Puzzle in Polish

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

Agree, Move and the Scope of the Phase Impenetrability Condition

Psycholinguistic Investigation of the Immediate Interpretation of Plural Nouns in the Scope of Sentential Negation in Polish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About