Property-Denoting NPs and Non-Canonical Genitive Case

Kagan, Olga

doi:10.3765/salt.v17i0.3090

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the above analysis was first proposed in Grimm (2005), Kagan (2007) independently presented a detailed semantic analysis of the genitive/accusative alternation, asserting that the relevant distinction between the accusative or genitive assignment is existential commitment, or lack thereof. Essentially, Kagan (2007) proposed that intensional predicates which do not presuppose existential commitment license the genitive case, whereas when existential commitment is present, the accusative case is licensed.…”

Section: The Genitive/accusative Alternation In Russianmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Essentially, Kagan (2007) proposed that intensional predicates which do not presuppose existential commitment license the genitive case, whereas when existential commitment is present, the accusative case is licensed. Given that existential commitment correlates with existential persistence, the analysis of Kagan (2007) converges well with the predictions made by the agentivity lattice.…”

Section: The Genitive/accusative Alternation In Russianmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantics of case

Grimm

2010

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a framework which connects case assignment with the semantics of argument realization. Broad notions of agency and affectedness are decomposed into more fine-grained semantic properties, loosely based on Dowty's Proto-Role theory, but conceived in terms of privative opposition and organized into a lattice. This lattice provides a semantic space of participant properties and supports defining hierarchical relations among participant types, interpreted as semantic prominence, as well as topological relations such as 'closeness', interpreted as semantic similarity between participant types. Cases are defined as connected regions of this space, relating a given case to a structured set of semantic properties. A case system is represented as a semantic system, which embodies oppositions and contrasts, and operates against the backdrop of the general semantics of argument realization, where one can define notions such as maximal agents and maximal patients and represent generalizations from the research on transitivity. Core case markers (e.g. ergative, accusative) are represented as subspaces of the lattice spreading outwards from the maximal agent and maximal patient nodes of the lattice. Case alternations arise when the subspace of the lattice delimited by a predicate's entailments for an argument is partitioned by different cases, exemplified with the genitive/accusative alternation in Russian occurring with direct objects of certain intensional predicates. This method also provides a treatment of case polysemy, viz. a single case subsuming multiple uses, by relating the diverse uses at the more abstract semantic level of the case's region on the lattice, demonstrated with non-canonical uses of the dative.

show abstract

Section: The Genitive/accusative Alternation In Russianmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Genitive/accusative Alternation In Russianmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantics of case

Grimm

2010

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Or is it a combination of these features, which clearly overlap in their distribution? An alternative analysis is that it is the semantic type of the NP that matters, as has been proposed by Kagan (, ) and Borschev et al (), who argue that genitive NPs semantically denote properties. Finally, a number of analyses argue that the semantics of the verb itself is what determines whether an object can be genitive under negation (Paducheva , ; Kagan , ).…”

Section: Sorting Out the Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whatever the proper characterization of these NPs turns out to be, there are additional factors that contribute to the likelihood of an indefinite NP occurring in the Gen‐Neg construction. In addition to indefiniteness and non‐specificity, Timberlake () and Kagan (, ) point out that common nouns that are abstract or plural are more likely to occur in the Gen‐Neg construction than those that are concrete or singular. Abstract vs. concrete NPs (Kagan :150) Onnenašel sčast'ja /???

…”

Section: Sorting Out the Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to indefiniteness and non‐specificity, Timberlake () and Kagan (, ) point out that common nouns that are abstract or plural are more likely to occur in the Gen‐Neg construction than those that are concrete or singular. Abstract vs. concrete NPs (Kagan :150) Onnenašel sčast'ja /??? sčast'je .he neg foundhappiness.

…”

Section: Sorting Out the Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Genitive of Negation in Russian

Harves

2013

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the genitive of negation in Russian, one of the most well-studied case alternations that exists in the language and the most well-known diagnostic for unaccusativity. Direct objects and subjects of unaccusative predicates may occur in the genitive case under sentential negation, alternating with accusative and nominative, respectively. When these Noun Phrases (NPs) appear in the genitive, they tend to receive an indefinite, non-specific, or existential interpretation. Recent semantic analyses of this construction argue that such NPs are best treated as properties of type , which are the result of a type-shifting operation. In this paper, we examine five different types of approaches in analyzing this construction and show that in spite of the range of proposals that exists, a number of issues remain. The genitive of negation presents a puzzle that lies at the heart of the syntax-semantics interface. Putting together the syntactic and semantic generalizations that have been noted for this construction in a coherent way can shed light on the overall architecture of the grammar.

show abstract

Strong and Weak Nominals

McNally

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Milsark introduced the terms weak and strong to distinguish (respectively) the nominals that could appear in English there ‐existential sentences (e.g., some trees , cf. There are some trees in the garden ) from those that putatively could not (e.g., most trees , cf. ?? There are most trees in the garden ). Since then, the strong/weak distinction has played a role in the analysis of a wide variety of phenomena in many languages. This chapter reviews the different characterizations of the distinction that have appeared in the literature, as well as the most important phenomena in which it has been argued to intervene: existential constructions, the individual‐level/stage‐level predicate distinction, certain aspects of information structure, case marking, and so‐called semantic incorporation. We also review the application of the distinction to subclassify definite descriptions.

show abstract

Property-Denoting NPs and Non-Canonical Genitive Case

Abstract: n/a

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

Semantics of case

Semantics of case

The Genitive of Negation in Russian

Strong and Weak Nominals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About