The work on this article has been supported by a grant from the Czech Research Foundation (GAČR), grant number GC21-12611J. I also want to thank three anonymous reviewers of this paper for their helpful comments and suggestions, as well as the audience at Sinfonija 13 in Budapest.
Alexiadou, Artemis and Gereon Müller. 2008. Class features as probes. In A. Bachrach and A. Nevins (eds.) Inflectional identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 101–155.
Baunaz, Lena and Eric Lander. 2018. Nanosyntax: the basics. In L. Baunaz, K. De Clercq, L. Haegeman and E. Lander (eds.) Exploring nanosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3–56.
Bayer, Josef, Markus Bader and Michael Meng. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111. 465–514.
Blix, Hagen. 2021. Phrasal spellout and partial overwrite: On an alternative to backtracking. Ms. NYU, New York. lingbuzz/005793.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bobaljik, Jonathan and Uli Sauerland. 2018. *ABA and the combinatorics of morphological features. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 15.
Caha, Pavel. 2010. The German locative-directional alternation. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13(3). 179–223.
Caha, Pavel. 2013. Explaining the structure of case paradigms through the mechanisms of Nanosyntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 1015–1066.
Caha, Pavel. 2017. How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt's generalisation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 84.
Caha, Pavel. 2021. Modeling declensions without declension features: The long version. Ms. Masaryk University, Brno. lingbuzz/005537.
Caha, Pavel. to appear. Nanosyntax: some key features. In A. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz and I. O. Massuet (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of distributed morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2019. The fine structure of the comparative. Studia Linguistica 73(2). 470–521.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (ed.) Structures and beyond. No. 3 in The cartography of syntactic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.
Chvany, Catherine V. 1982. Hierarchies in the Russian case system: For N-A-G-P-D-I, against N-G-D-A-I-P. Russian Language Journal / Pyccкий язык 36(125). 133–147.
Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Gender in Russian: An account of gender specification and its relationship to declension. Russian Linguistics 6. 197–232.
De Clercq, Karen and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2017. *ABA revisited: evidence from Czech and Latin degree morphology. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 69.
Halle, Morris. 1997. Impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang and M. McGinnis (eds.) Papers at the interface. No. 30 in MITWPL. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 425–449.
Halle, Morris and Bert Vaux. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In J. Jasanoff, H. C. Melchert and L. Olivier (eds.) Mir Curad: Studies in honor of Clavert Watkins. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 223–240.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . and Halle, Morris Bert Vaux 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In (eds.) Mir Curad: Studies in honor of Clavert Watkins. , J. Jasanoff and H. C. Melchert L. Olivier Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 223– 240.
Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 119–132.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In P. Kiparsky and S. Anderson (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 93–106.
McCreight, Katherine and Catherine V. Chvany 1991. Geometric representation of paradigms in a modular theory of grammar. In F. Plank (ed.) Paradigms: The economy of inflection. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 91–112.
McFadden, Thomas. 2018. *ABA in stem-allomorphy and the emptiness of the nominative. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 8.
Müller, Gereon. 2003. A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In O. Arnaudova, W. Brown, M. L. Rivero and D. Stojanovic (eds.) Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 12: The Ottawa Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 353–373.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . Müller, Gereon 2003. A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In (eds.) Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 12: The Ottawa Meeting. , O. Arnaudova , W. Brown and M. L. Rivero D. Stojanovic Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 353– 373.
Smith, Peter W., Beata Moskal, Ting Xu, Jungmin Kang and Jonathan David Bobaljik. 2019. Case and number suppletion in pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37(3). 1029–1101.
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to language. In P. Svenonius, G. Ramchand, M. Starke and T. Taraldsen (eds.) Nordlyd 36: Special issue on Nanosyntax. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. 1–6.
Starke, Michal. 2018. Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes. In L. Baunaz, K. De Clercq, L. Haegeman and E. Lander (eds.) Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 239–249.
Stockall, Linnaea and Alec Marantz 2006. A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 1(1). 85–123.
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2018. The feature structure of pronouns: a probe into multidimensional paradigms. In L. Baunaz, K. D. Clercq, L. Haegeman and E. Lander (eds.) Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 277–304.
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido, Michal Starke, Karen De Clercq and Pavel Caha 2020. How to be positive. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 23.
Zompì, Stanislao. 2019. Ergative is not inherent: Evidence from *ABA in suppletion and syncretism. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 73.
In this appendix, I summarize my final analysis of the patterns. Table (111) contains the feminine singular declensions II and III. One thing to be kept in mind is that the -i in dat/loc/ins of Declension III is not the same marker as -y in Declension II (they differ in accentual properties).
|Feminine declensions, singular|
In (112), I summarize my analysis of the masculine and neuter singular declensions. It is worth pointing out that the locative -e of the masculine/neuter declensions is different from the -e in Declension II. This is not a shortcoming of the analysis, since these markers have different accentual properties (Melvold 1989, 21). The markers should therefore not be unified. Finally, I am assuming that the -a in gen.sg of the masculine/neuter declension is different from the nom.sg -a in Declension II.
|Meuter declensions, singular|
One thing that is worth pointing out at this point is the issue of phonological alternations. In Russian, Declension II endings differ in the instrumental and in the genitive, depending on whether they follow the so-called hard-stem noun or a soft-stem noun.In the instrumental, soft stems have -ej and hard stems exhibit -oj. In other words, the ins ending -ej in nedel’-ej (recall (3b)) is a phonologically conditioned allomorph of -oj in gub-oj, see (4). I shall treat this as a regular phonological process (orthogonal to the issue of declension).In the genitive, we find an alternation between (hard-stem) gub-y ‘lip, gen’ and (soft-stem) nedel’-i ‘week, gen.’ This could lead one to suspect that in the genitive in Table (4), there is actually syncretism between the two declensions, because the difference between -y and -i could be attributed to a regular phonological process.However, this analysis turns out to be incorrect in this particular case for an independent reason, which is that the genitive ending of Declension II interacts differently with stress placement than the Declension III ending (Melvold 1989, 21). In particular, the ending in Declension II is accented, while the one in Declension III is non-accented. I will therefore treat these two markers as independent endings.
The form nedel’-ju would be acceptable as an accusative, but not as an instrumental.
An anonymous reviewer points out that an alternative way of looking at α and β is as stand-in features for a more substantive analysis. Under this interpretation, α and β are contentful features, we just do not know as yet which ones these are. A proposal along these lines is presented in Privizentseva (2020), who argues that the identity of the feature [−α] is [+fem], because inanimate nouns of Declensions II and III are overwhelmingly feminine. However, for such an analysis to go all the way, one would have to find a similar interpretation for the feature [β], which is the crucial one to explain away. This feature is the one that distinguishes Declensions II and III, i.e., our two nouns nedel’- ‘week’ and metel’- ‘snowstorm’ in (2). The point made by both Corbett and Müller is that it is very unlikely that we will ever be able to link this difference to some grammatical feature. The feature [+/−β] thus remains an arbitrary feature also in Privizentseva's (2020) work, as seems unavoidable.
Such a competition would wrongly lead to mouse blocking the singular use of sheep.
Due to the Superset Principle, the fact that metel’- in (60) spells out accP is compatible with it spelling out also nomP, as proposed in Section 3.1. Therefore, this update does not change anything about our previous conclusions.
There are two apparent exceptions, namely the masculine noun put’ ‘journey’ and a small group of neuters like vremja ‘time.’ However, the membership of these items in Declension III is spurious (they only share one single ending with Declension III). More on this below.
It is an important question to ask as to why the feature fem must be added with roots like gub- ‘lip.’ If fem were not added, the root would not be feminine. In Section 5, I speculate that this has to do with the idea that roots are ‘phrasal idioms’ (Marantz 1996), and they only become associated to a concept when they combine with fem. Note, however, that this is a different issue than the one I am exploring. The main issue for me is how to eliminate language-particular declension features, and not how to pair nouns with genders.
It is relevant to note that this result presupposes strict constituent matching; cf. Vanden Wyngaerd (2018) for an alternative view.
While traditionally assigned to Declension III, it is not clear to me that these nouns should be classified as such. The reason is that such nouns only share one ending with Declension III (the gen/dat/loc -i), while they inflect differently in all other cases. For example, the neuters take Declension IV endings in the whole of plural and also in the instrumental singular. All things considered, the membership of these nouns in Declension III is not clear. As a result, I am taking the generalization about the link between declension III and fem at face value.
Note that this table differs from the tables used for Declension II and III in that there is no fem feature to be lexicalized.
It is possible that these roots differ in their internal composition, but the question still stands: how does the internal composition make the presence/absence of the fem head obligatory?
Similarly, in the plural, the augmentative has the Declension IV shape dom-işˇ-a in nom/acc, and dom-işˇ-Ø in the gen.pl, exhibiting all the typical shapes for a Declension IV noun, despite its masculine gender. A puzzling fact is that in the nom.pl (and only there), the augmentative may also take on the Declension I ending -i.