Modeling declensions without declension features. The case of Russian

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the Russian declension in Nanosyntax (Starke 2009, 2018). The analysis has two theoretically important aspects. First, it makes no reference to language-particular declension features. This allows one to maintain the idea that morphosyntactic features are drawn from a set provided by the UG, i.e., language invariant. The analysis also does not use contextual rules. In order to correctly pair the right ending with a particular root, the analysis only relies on specifying each marker for the features it spells out. The correct pairing of roots and affixes falls out from such a specification and the Nanosyntax model of spellout.

Trans-paradigmatic syncretism in case form processing in Russian

“…Starting from the foundational study by Jakobson (1936Jakobson ( /1984, different instances of intra-paradigmatic syncretism in Russian are discussed in all major theoretical frameworks (e.g. Alexiadou & Müller 2008, Baerman et al 2005, Brown & Hippisley 2012, Caha 2008, 2021, Corbett & Fraser 1993, Franks 1995, Halle 1994, Neidle 1988, Sims 2018, Müller 2004, Stump 2001, Wiese 2004). Explaining trans-paradigmatic syncretism, for example, the fact that -u is used in dative singular in the 1st declension and in accusative singular in the 2nd declension or the fact that -a is used in genitive singular in the 1st declension and in nominative singular in the 2nd declension, is much trickier.…”

1 | 1 | 2021

“…The analysis hence merely formalises the view that declension class is a function of gender, but does not pinpoint the exact additional component that completes the specification of this mapping. 4 The only attempt to provide a transparent (in the sense that concrete, independently attestable features are used) and explicit realisational account of declension classes in Slavic languages is Caha (2021) with a model of Russian declension classes. In what follows I will give only a brief assessment of his analysis, trying to minimise the unavoidable injustice to the presented work enforced by spatial limitations.…”

“…Obvious candidates for the features that conspire with declension class to determine agreement are those that Caha (2021) employs in his model. Caha's final account however does not make use of all the four features it includes -rather, features class, fem and ind always remain together, and may for the intents and purposes of his analysis be replaced by only one feature -or it could be only one of them that plays the relevant role.…”

“…Corbett (1991), Aronoff (1994), Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) among others postulate two independent features for the two sources of information: each noun is specified for both gender and declension class (where the former may be even further split), and grammatical operations and hierarchies decide about agreement. Others, like Müller (2004), Puškar (2017) or Caha (2021) propose to fully discard the declension classes as syntactic features or diacritics, and derive them from other features. While Müller (2004) does not identify the particular features using formal labels instead (F 1 , F 2 …), Puškar (2017) indicates them to centrally involve gender, and Caha (2021) explicates a set of four relevant features: class, feminine, individuated, and a fully unmarked case feature.…”

“…Others, like Müller (2004), Puškar (2017) or Caha (2021) propose to fully discard the declension classes as syntactic features or diacritics, and derive them from other features. While Müller (2004) does not identify the particular features using formal labels instead (F 1 , F 2 …), Puškar (2017) indicates them to centrally involve gender, and Caha (2021) explicates a set of four relevant features: class, feminine, individuated, and a fully unmarked case feature. A significant advantage of the latter type of accounts is that they can explain regularities about intra-and interdeclension syncretism.…”