Printer Friendly

Russian evaluative nominalizing suffixes and change in gender.

1. Introduction

This is a study of Russian nominalizing evaluative suffixes, such as--an,--jash,--jon,--ul,--un,--ur,--us,--ush,--ag,--jak,--al,--jar,--akh,--il,--in,--ob,--ot,--okh,--jug,--uk, and--ukh. Suffixes of this kind can attach to various syntactic categories, e.g., adjectives, verbs, nouns, and always form nouns of the second declension (--a--declension or class II). Interestingly, these suffixes can change syntactic category, animacy, declension class, and the gender of the base. This, however, is not the case for kinship nouns, as their gender does not change.

For example, in (1), the evaluative affectionate suffix--ul attaches to an inanimate feminine noun krasota 'beauty'. The resulting evaluative noun krasotulja 'pretty person (affect)' is an animate noun of common gender, as it can trigger either masculine or feminine gender agreements. Thus, in this example, we observe a change in animacy and gender of the base.
(1) a. kras--ot--a               b. kras--ot--ul--ja
       pretty/red--NOM--NOM.SG      pretty/red--NOM--EVAL--NOM.SG
       (INANIM; FEM)                (ANIM; COMMON GENDER)
       beauty'                      'pretty person (affect)'


However, in (2), when the suffix--ul attaches to the masculine kinship noun syn 'son', there is no change in the gender of the base and the resulting noun is also masculine. We do observe, however, a change in declension class: syn 'son' belongs to the declension class I (--o--ending in nom.sg), while synulja belongs to the declension class II (--a--ending in nom.sg).
(2) a. syn                     b. syn--ul--ja
       son.NOM.SG                 son--EVAL--NOM.SG (ANIM; MASC; CLASS
       (ANIM; MASC; CLASS I)      II)
       son'                       'son (affect)'


The data above prompt the following questions: (i) How can we account for a change in syntactic category and category features of the base (animacy, declension class and gender) when the evaluative suffixes attach? And (ii) why do kinship nouns behave differently from non--kinship nouns in terms of the absence of gender change?

This research is conducted within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz 1993; Halle 1997; Marantz 1997, among many others), which distinguishes between word formation from vroots and from syntactic categories. The central claim of DM is that there is no division between syntax and morphology. DM differs from descriptivist frameworks, which view categorization in terms of inflection vs. derivation as something that has been proved problematic with respect to the behavior of evaluative derivations (Brown and Hippisley 2012; Dressler and Barbaresi 1994; Manova 2004; Scalise 1984, 1988; Stump 1991, 2001; Vinogradov 1972; among others). It has been shown in the literature that the behavior of evaluative derivations is not wholly inflectional or derivational. In contrast, DM regards inflection and derivation not as primitives, but as derived notions, thus allowing this framework to better account for the behavior of nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian.

This work is organized as follows. In [section]2, I present Russian data with nominalizing evaluative suffixes. In [section]3, I propose an analysis of the data. In [section]4, I present the conclusions.

2. Data (1) and Questions

The Russian nominalizing evaluative suffixes under investigation are listed in table 1.

These suffixes have the following common properties. First, they all carry evaluative meanings expressing the speaker's attitude (affectionate or vulgar) and are productively used in colloquial Russian, as shown in (3) and (4).
(3) a. pap--a             b. pap--ul--ja
       dad--NOM.SG           dad--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS II)
       (MASC; CLASS II)
       'dad'                 'dad (affect)'

(4) a. vor               b. vor--jug--a
       thief.NOM.SG         thief--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
       (MASC; CLASS I)
       'thief'              ' thief (vulg)'


Second, they can attach to various syntactic categories and always form nouns, as in (5) and (6).

(5) ADJECTIVE == NOUN
a. grjaz--n--yj              b. grjaz--n--ukh--a
   dirty--ADJ--MASC.NOM.SG      dirty--ADJ--EVAL--NOM.SG
   'dirty'                      (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
                                'dirty person (vulg)'


(6) VERB ? NOUN
a. raster--ja--t'   b. raster--jash--a
   lose--TH--INF       lose--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
   'to lose'           'person who loses things (affect)'


Third, they always form nouns of the--a--declension (or class II), as in (7) and (8).

(7) CLASS I ? CLASS II
a. syn                         b. syn--ul--ja
   son.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)     son--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS II)
   'son'                          'son (affect)'


(8) CLASS II ? CLASS II
a. mam--a              b. mam--ul--ja
   mother--NOM.SG         mother--EVAL--NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS II)
   (FEM; CLASS II)
   'mother'               'mother (affect)'


2.1. Animacy

The majority of these suffixes consistently form animate nouns. They typically refer to humans--as in (9b) and (10b)--but can also be used in reference to anthropomorphic animals, such as pets. Two vulgar suffixes,--ob and--ot, are the exception to this rule: they can only attach to inanimate bases and form inanimate nouns, as in (11b), (12b).

(9) INANIM ? ANIM
a. slast'             b. slast--jon--a
   sweet.NOM.SG          sweet--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
   (FEM; CLASS III)
   'sweet'               'person with sweet tooth (affect)'

(10) a. kras--ot--a               b. kras--ot--ul--ja
        pretty/red--NOM--NOM.SG      pretty/red--NOM--EVAL--NOM.SG
        (FEM; CLASS II)              (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
        'beauty'                     'pretty person (affect)'


(11) INANIM = INANIM
a. styd             b. styd--ob--a
   shame.NOM.SG        shame--EVAL--NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS II)
   (MASC; CLASS I)
   'shame'             'shame (vulg)'

(12) a. sram              b. sram--ot--a
        shame.NOM.SG         shame--EVAL--NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS II)
        (MASC; CLASS I)
        'shame'              'shame (vulg)'


This is summarized in table 2.

2.2. Grammatical gender

In [section]2.2.1, I discuss animate suffixes, and in [section]2.2.2 I deal with inanimate suffixes.

2.2.1. Animate suffixes

The same suffix can form nouns of different grammatical genders: masculine, as in (13b); feminine, as in (14b); and common gender (MASC or FEM), as in (15b) and (16b). As noted before, when animate suffixes attach to kinship nouns, the gender of the base is always preserved, as in (13), (14).

(13) MASC = MASC
a. ded                  b. ded--ul--ja
   grandfather.NOM.SG      grandfather--EVAL--NOM.SG
   (MASC; CLASS I)         (MASC; CLASS II)
   'grandfather'           'grandfather (affect)'


(14) FEM = FEM
a. bab--a                b. bab--ul--ja
   grandmother--NOM.SG      grandmother--EVAL--NOM.SG
   (FEM; CLASS II)          (FEM; CLASS II)
   'grandmother'            'grandmother (affect)'


(15) MASC ? COMMON GENDER (MASC OR FEM)
a. chort                          b. chert--jak--a
   devil.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)      devil--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM;
                                     CLASS II)
   'devil'                           'devious person (vulg)'


(16) FEM ? COMMON GENDER (MASC OR FEM)
a. pravd--a                        b. pravd--okh--a
   truth--NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS II)      truth--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM;
                                      CLASS II)
   'truth'                            'truth telling person (vulg)'


Nouns of common gender can trigger either masculine or feminine gender agreement depending on the biological gender of the referent. Such nouns are not uncommon across languages, e.g., Spanish el/la estudiante 'the (masc/fem) student'; Garifuna mutu le/to 'this (masc/fem) person' (meaning 'a man' or 'a woman') (Munro 2015: 7); Halkomelem [t.sup.[theta]][partial derivative]/[beta][??] alex 'the (unmarked/fem) sibling' (meaning 'a brother or a sister') (Steriopolo and Wiltschko 2010: 163).

Common gender nouns (MASC or FEM) formed from animate evaluative suffixes can trigger feminine (17a), masculine (17b), or mixed (feminine and masculine; 17c) (2) gender agreements.
(17) a. Eht--a                      grjaz--n--ul--ja      vsjo
        this--FEM                   dirty.person--ADJ--   everything
        tut  zapachk--al--a.        EVAL--NOM.SG
        here make.dirty--PAST--FEM
        "This (FEM) dirty person
        (affect) has made (FEM)
        everything dirty.'
     b. Eht--ot                     grjaz--n--ul--ja      vsjo
        this--MASC                  dirty.person--ADJ--   everything
                                    EVAL--NOM.SG
        tut                         zapachk--al.
        here make.dirty--PAST.MASC
        'This (MASC) dirty person
        (affect) has made (MASC)
        everything dirty.'
     c. ?Eht--a                     grjaz--n--ul--ja      vsjo
        this--FEM                   dirty.person--ADJ--   everything
                                    EVAL--NOM.SG
        tut                         zapachk--al.
        here make.dirty--PAST.MASC
        'This (FEM) dirty person
        (affect) has made (MASC)
        everything dirty.'


2.2.2. Inanimate suffixes

Inanimate suffixes only form nouns of feminine gender, as in (18).3

(18) FEM = FEM
a. smekh                            b. smekh--ot--a
   laughter.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)     laughter--EVAL--NOM.SG (FEM;
                                       CLASS II)
   'laughter'                          'laughter (vulg)'


2.3. Summary

The properties of the nominalizing evaluative suffixes under investigation are summarized in table 3. They all form nouns of the--a--declension. The majority of the suffixes (excluding--ob,--ot) form animate nouns which belong to different grammatical genders (MASC, FEM, or COMMON). Two vulgar suffixes (--ob,--ot) never change the animacy of the base, as they only attach to inanimate bases and form inanimate nouns; they consistently form feminine nouns.

3. Analysis

[section]3.1., I analyze the manner of syntactic attachment of the evaluative suffixes. I cover the question as to whether they attach as syntactic heads or modifiers in the syntactic tree. In [section]3.2., I analyze their place of syntactic attachment. In [section]3.3., I discuss morphosyntactic features of the evaluative suffixes. In [section]3.4., I consider two different syntactic approaches to account for evaluative derivations. Finally, in [section]3.5., I argue against the interpretable gender features analysis.

3.1. Manner of syntactic attachment

I propose that the evaluative suffixes under investigation are nominalizing heads, as in (19).

The evidence comes from the fact that they can attach to various syntactic categories (adjectives, verbs, nouns) and always form nouns, as shown in (20)-(22).

(20) ADJECTIVE ? NOUN
a. grjaz--n--yj              b. grjaz--n--ul--ja
   dirty--ADJ--MASC.NOM.SG      dirty--ADJ--EVAL--NOM.SG
   'dirty'                      (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
                                'dirty person (affect)'


(21) VERB ? NOUN
a. vypiv--a--t'     b. vypiv--okh--a
   drink--TH--INF      drink--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
   'to drink up'       'boozer (vulg)'


(22) NOUN = NOUN
a. kot                         b. kot--jar--a
   cat.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)     cat--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS II)
   'cat'                          'cat (vulg)'


3.2. Place of syntactic attachment

The data in (22) above raise the question as to where in the syntactic tree the evaluative suffixes attach. Do they attach to roots, as in (23a), or to syntactic categories, as in (23b)?

There are strong indications that they attach above syntactic categories, as in the structure (23b) above. One piece of evidence stems from the fact that category--forming morphology is inside the evaluative suffix, as shown in (24)-(25).

Aside from containing category--forming morphology, evaluative suffixes are also able to attach to compounds, as in (26).
(26) a. kos--o--lap--yj              b. kos--o--lap--in--a
        crook--TH--paw--ADJ.MASC.SG     crook--TH--paw--EVAL--NOM.SG
                                        (MASC/FEM)
        'awkward'                       'awkward person (vulg)'


3.3. Morphosyntactic features

In [section]3.3.1, I discuss the feature [animate]; in [section]3.3.2, I discuss the feature [class].

3.1.1. The feature [ANIMATE]

I propose that--with the exception of--ob and--ot,--the evaluative suffixes are specified for the feature [ANIMATE], as in (27).

This is evidenced by the fact that they consistently form animate nouns from inanimate bases, as in (28), (29).
(28) a. slast'                     b. slast--jon--a
        sweet.NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS      sweet--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM;
        III)                          CLASS II)
        'sweet'                       'person with sweet tooth (affect)'

(29) a. grjaz--n--yj              b. grjaz--n--ukh--a
        dirty--ADJ--MASC.NOM.SG      dirty--ADJ--EVAL--NOM.SG
        'dirty'                      (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
                                     'dirty person (vulg)'


Note in passing that the structure proposed in (27) above is similar to the proposals in Panagiotidis (forthcoming, 9) and Wiltschko (2012), as in (30a) and (30b), respectively, in which animacy is located immediately above nP.

3.3.2. The feature [CLASS]

I propose that the evaluative suffixes are specified for the feature declension [CLASS II], but have no gender feature, (4) as shown in (31).

The reason for this proposal is that the evaluative suffixes consistently form nouns of the--a--declension (CLASS II), as in (32)-(34).

(32) CLASS I ? CLASS II
a. vor                           b. vor--jug--a
   thief.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)     thief--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM;
                                    CLASS II)
   'thief'                          'thief (vulg)'


(33) CLASS II = CLASS II
a. mam--a                          b. mam--an--ja
   mother--NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS II)     mother--EVAL--NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS
                                      II)
   'mother'                           'mother (affect)'


(34) CLASS III ? CLASS II
a. doch'              b. doch--ur--a
   daughter.NOM.SG       daughter--EVAL--NOM.SG
   (FEM; CLASS III)      (FEM; CLASS II)
   'daughter'            'daughter (affect)'


The evaluative suffixes are not specified for the feature [GENDER], because they can form nouns of different genders, as in (35)-(37). Nevertheless, it is important to note that they can change the gender of the base to which they attach. Thus, in (35), a masculine noun becomes a common gender noun when the evaluative suffix--in is attached. In (36), a masculine noun becomes feminine when the evaluative suffix--ob is attached.

(35) MASC ? COMMON GENDER (MASC OR FEM)
a. durak                        b. durach--in--a
   fool.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)     fool--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC/FEM; CLASS
                                   II)
   'fool'                          'fool (vulg)'


(36) MASC ? FEM
a. styd                           b. styd--ob--a
   shame.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)      shame--EVAL--NOM.SG (FEM; CLASS II)
   'shame'                           'shame (vulg)'


(37) MASC = MASC
a. brat                             b. brat--ukh--a
   brother.NOM.SG (MASC; CLASS I)      brather--EVAL--NOM.SG (MASC;
                                       CLASS II)
   'brother'                           'brother (vulg)'


3.4. Syntactic approaches to account for evaluative derivations

Here, I discuss which syntactic approach best accounts for evaluative derivations in Russian: a hierarchical structure approach (Chomsky 2000, 2001) or a cy--clicity approach (Marantz 2001; Embick 2010; Marvin 2013). To answer this question, I investigate Russian data in which an evaluative suffix attaches to a gendered nominal, as in (38).

The two approaches make completely different predictions. Consider first the hierarchical structure approach. The probe searches downward into its c--command domain for a goal and enters into an Agree relation with the first goal it encounters. In the structure (38), D [GEN_] would agree in gender with the lower n [GENDER] because the higher n [CLASS II] [EVAL] has no gender feature. Hence it is not a suitable goal.

Consider now the cyclicity approach. n is a phase head that triggers spell--out of its complement. The spelled--out material is not accessible to later operations (Phase Impenetrability Condition, as in Chomsky 1999, 2000). Thus, in the structure (38), the higher n [EVAL] triggers spell--out of the lower n [GENDER], meaning that D [GEN_] has no access to the lower n [GENDER]. The Russian data in (39) and (40) below show that the cyclicity approach is best suited to account for the data. First, consider the data in (39).

In the structure (39c), the hierarchical structure approach predicts that D [GEN_] would agree with the lower n [FEM], because the higher n [EVAL] is not a suitable goal (it has no gender feature). Thus, the resulting evaluative derivation should be feminine. The cyclicity approach makes a different prediction: gender of D [GEN_] has no access to the lower n [FEM]. Thus, the gender of the resulting evaluative derivation would be unknown (it could be either masculine or feminine, since it denotes a human). The data in (39b) substantiates this assumption. Now consider the data in (40).

In the structure (40c), the hierarchical structure approach predicts that the evaluative derivation should be masculine, while the cyclicity approach again predicts unknown gender, as in (40b).

Based on this evidence, I conclude that the Russian data support the cyclicity approach (see Kramer 2014: 222-25, who reaches the same conclusions for Amharic and Somali).

It was noted above ([section]2.2.1) that kinship nouns behave differently--they do not change the gender of the base when an evaluative suffix attaches to them, as in (41), (42) below. Thus, we must now investigate the essence of the differences between kinship and non--kinship nouns.

Bobaljik and Zocca (2011) investigate the behavior of nominal predicates under ellipsis and show that there are semantic classes of nominals that differ with respect to whether or not the underived masculine forms carry a presupposition of maleness. The data in (43i) show that Russian kinship terms like brat 'brother' carry a presupposition of maleness, while non--kinship terms like vor 'thief' do not. The data in (43ii) show that when an evaluative suffix is attached, it produces no change in the presupposition of maleness. The question arises as to whether kinship nouns may have a special morphosyntactic feature compared to non--kinship nouns. This issue is discussed in the following subsection [section]3.5.

(43) APPLYING BOBALJIK AND ZOCCA (2011) TO RUSSIAN KINSHIP NOMINALS

(i) UNDERIVED MASCULINE FORMS
a. *Petja--   brat                       i     Marija   tozhe.
   Peter      brother.NOM.SG             and   Maria    also
   'Peter is a brother and Maria, too.'
b. Petja--   vor                         i     Marija   tozhe.
   Peter     thief.NOM.SG                and   Maria    too
   'Peter is a thief and Maria, too.'


(ii) DERIVED FORRMS WITH EVAL SUFFIX
a. *Petja--   brat--ukh--a                       i     Marija   tozhe.
   Peter      brother--EVAL--NOM.SG              and   Maria    also
   'Peter is a brother (eval) and Maria, too.'
b. Petja--   vor--jug--a                         i     Marija   tozhe.
   Peter     thief--EVAL--NOM.SG                 and   Maria    too
   'Peter is a thief (eval) and Maria, too.'


3.5. An interpretable gender features approach

Kramer (2015) proposes that gender features are located on n and come in two different types: interpretable, for natural gender, and uninterpretable, for arbitrary gender, as in (44). The "plain" n has no gender feature and the result is gender by morphological default.

(44) POSSIBLE INVENTORY OF FEATURES
a. n   i[+FEM]     Female natural gender
b. n   i[--FEM]    Male natural gender
c. n               No natural gender (or
                   it is irrelevant/unknown)
d. n   u [--FEM]   Male arbitrary gender
e. n   u [+FEM]    Female arbitrary gender     (Kramer 2015: 50, 170)


According to Kramer (2015), interpretable features are legible at LF and can change the interpretation of a linguistic structure (e.g., they can insert a denotation, see Zamparelli 2008: 170). Uninterpretable features are illegible at LF; they do not affect interpretation. Thus, there are no inherent male/female meanings on roots like vmother, vfather. As Kramer (2015: 52) states, "Licensing a root in a particular nominal context is what makes it interpreted as male or female".

(45) SEMANTIC LICENSING CONDITIONS: 'mother' (modified from Kramer 2015: 51) [n i[+FEM] [mother]] = 'female parent'

This approach becomes potentially problematic when it comes to non--nominal derivations with a kinship meaning. The analysis in (45) predicts that such derivations (i) either cannot have a male/female interpretation at all (the Russian data in (46) contradict this), or (ii) they must be universally derived from a nominal that always has an interpretable gender feature, as structured in (46d). Further research will be able to show whether (46d) is a correct structure.

Furthermore, if Kramer's (2015) approach is correct, we expect that in languages with no grammatical gender, there is either (i) no male/female interpretation at all, or (ii) if there is such an interpretation, the interpretable gender features must be present in the syntax. This leads to the question if there is any need to assume syntactic gender features in languages with no syntactic gender agreement.

If we apply Kramer's (2015) analysis to the Russian data in question, the kinship noun brat 'brother' would have the interpretable gender feature i[--FEM] (47a), while vor 'thief' would not have this feature (47b); these nouns would differ in presence or absence of the syntactic feature [GENDER].

In this case, EVAL suffixes would be realizations of different syntactic feature bundles , as in (48).
(48) a. n, [EVAL], i[+FEM]    Female natural gender
     b. n, [EVAL], i[--FEM]   Male natural gender
     c. n, [EVAL]             No natural gender (or it is
                              irrelevant/unknown)


All feature bundles in (48) contain the category feature n and the semantic feature [EVAL]. However, they differ in terms of their gender features: (48a) has i[+FEM]; (48b) has i[--FEM], and (48c) has no gender feature (morphological default). (5) However, there are three problems which might arise with the approach taken in (48).

First, there is the problem of potential over--generation. Every EVAL suffix, as in (49b), would have three homophonous counterparts (n i[+FEM], n i[--FEM], and "plain" n), as in (50a, b, c).
(49) a. grjaz--n--yj             b. grjaz--n--ul--ja
        dirty--ADJ--MASC.NOM.SG     dirty--ADJ--EVAL--NOM.SG
        'dirty'                     (MASC/FEM; CLASS II)
                                    'dirty person (affect)'


Second, the feature [CLASS] is not in Kramer's system. Thus, gender as a default, as in (50c), would be unclear in Russian, as default gender can be feminine (for CLASS II nouns) or masculine (for CLASS I nouns) in Russian. For example, in Russian CLASS II nouns, when the gender of the referent is unknown or unimportant, feminine gender agreement is most likely to be used, (51).

(51) n, [CLASS II] == [FEM]
     --Tam     grjaz--n--ul--ja                         sid--it.
       there   dirty--ADJ--EVAL--NOM.SG (CLASS II)      sit--PRES
       'A dirty person (affect) is sitting there.'
     --Kak--aja    grjaz--n--ul--ja?
       what--FEM   dirty--ADJ--EVAL--NOM.SG (CLASS II)
       'What (FEM) dirty person (affect)?'


In Russian CLASS I nouns, however, when the gender of the referent is unknown (or unimportant), masculine gender agreement is most likely to be used, as in (52).

(52) n, [CLASS I] ? [MASC]
     --Tam     vrach                         sid--it.
       there   doctor.NOM.SG (CLASS I)       sit--PRES
       'A doctor is sitting there.'
     --Kak--oj      vrach?
       what--MASC   doctor.NOM.SG (CLASS I)
       'What (MASC) doctor?'


The third potential problem with this approach is under--generation. Although Kramer's (2015) system fully accounts for feminine and masculine gender agreements, it cannot account for mixed gender agreement, as the author herself states, see (53), repeated from (17c) above.
(53) ?Eht--a     grjaz--n--ul--ja                  vsjo
     this--FEM   dirty.person--ADJ--EVAL--NOM.SG   everything
     tut         zapachk--al.
     here        make.dirty--PAST.MASC
     'This (FEM) dirty person (affect) has made (MASC) everything
     dirty.'


To summarize, if we apply Kramer's (2015) system to Russian evaluative derivations, the system seems to either over--generate, as in (50), with three ho--mophonous suffixes, or under--generate, as in (53), with mixed gender agreement. Therefore, I assume instead that natural gender 'male'/'female' is not a morhosyntactic feature, but rather a part of the root meaning (Steriopolo and Wiltschko 2010; Kucerova 2018). In other words, I assume no syntactic differences between the nouns 'brother' and 'thief,' as diagramed in (54) below. The difference between them is of semantic nature: the root vbrat 'brother' has a presupposition of maleness as part of its root meaning (see Bobaljik and Zocca 2011, discussed above), while the root vvor 'thief' does not.

4. Conclusions

I have presented a morphosyntactic analysis of evaluative nominalizing suffixes in Russian within the framework of Distributed Morphology.

I have argued that the evaluative suffixes under investigation are nominal heads which are specified for the morphosyntactic features [ANIMATE] and [CLASS II], but they have no grammatical gender features, as diagrammed in (55).

I have proposed that kinship nouns, such as syn 'son'/brat 'brother', retain the gender of the base not because the morphosyntactic feature [GENDER] is present in the derivation (I have argued that it is not), but rather because a presupposition of maleness is an inherent part of the root meaning.

References

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Gereon Muller (2008). Class Features as Probes. Bachrach, Asaf, and Andrew Nevins, eds. Inflectional Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101-155

Bobaljik, Jonathan D., and Cynthia Levart Zocca (2011). Gender Markedness: The Anatomy of a Counter--Example. Morphology 21(2): 141-166

Brown, Dunstan, and Andrew Hippisley (2012). Network Morphology: A Defaults--Based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Chomsky, Noam (1999). Derivation by Phase. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. Martin, Roger, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, and Samuel J. Keyser, eds. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89-155

Chomsky, Noam (2001). Derivation by Phase. Kenstowicz, Michael, ed. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-52

Dressler, Wolfgang, and L. Merlini Barbaresi (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Embick, David (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1993). Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. Hale, Ken, and Samuel J. Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111-176

Kramer, Ruth (2014). Gender in Amharic: A Morphosyntactic Approach to Natural and Grammatical Gender. Language Sciences 43: 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.004

Kramer, Ruth (2015). The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 58. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Kucerova, Ivona (2018). ?--features at the Syntax--Semantics Interface: Evidence from Nominal Inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4): 813-845. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00290

Manova, Stela (2004). Derivation versus Inflection in Three Inflecting Languages. Dressler, Wolfgang U., Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, and Markus A. Pochtrager, eds. Morphology and Its Demarcations. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.264.15man

Marantz, Alec (1997). No Escape from Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2), Article 14. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/iss2/14

Marantz, Alec (2001). Words. Paper presented at WCCFL 20, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Marvin, Tatjana (2013). Is Word Structure Relevant for Stress Assignment? Marantz, Alec, and Ora Matushansky, eds. Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0005

Munro, Pamela (2015). Garifuna Gender. Handout from the 2nd Linguistics Symposium, Department of Modern Languages, California State University Dominguez Hills, March 12.

Panagiotidis, Phoevos. Forthcoming. (Grammatical) Gender Troubles and the Gender of Pronouns. Mathieu, Eric, and Gita Zareikar, eds. Gender, Noun Classification, and Determination. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press

Scalise, Sergio (1984). Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris

Scalise, Sergio (1988). The Notion of 'Head' in Morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1: 229-45

Stankiewicz, Edward (1968). Declension and Gradation of Russian Substantives. The Hague: Mouton

Steriopolo, Olga (2008). Form and Function of Expressive Morphology: A Case Study of Russian. PhD dissertation. University of British Columbia. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/424

Steriopolo, Olga (2017). Nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian: The interaction of declension class, gender, and animacy. Poljarnyj vestnik: Norwegian Journal of Slavic Studies 20: 18-44

Steriopolo, Olga (2018). Morphosyntax of gender in Russian sex--differentiable nouns. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 26(2): 1-29

Steriopolo, Olga, and Martina Wiltschko (2010). Distributed gender Hypothesis. Zybatow, Gerhild, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor, and Ekaterina Pshehotskaya, eds. Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics. New York: Peter Lang, 155-172

Stump, Gregory (1991). A Paradigm--Based Theory of Morphosemantic Mismatches. Language 67(4): 675-725. https://doi.org/10.2307/415074

Stump, Gregory (2001). Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Vinogradov, Victor V. (1972). Russkij jazyk. 2nd ed. Moscow: Uchpedgiz

Wiltschko, Martina (2012). Decomposing the Count--Mass Distinction: Evidence from Languages that Lack It. Massam, Diane, ed. Count and Mass across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 146-171

Zamparelli, Roberto (2008). On the Interpretability of ?-Features. De Cat, Cecile, and Katherine Demuth, eds. The Bantu--Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167-199. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.131.11zam

Ruski evaluacijski nominalizirajuci sufiksi i promjene u rodu

Ovaj rad donosi istrazivanje ruskih evaluacijskih nominalizirajucih sufikasa koji dovode do promjene sintakticke kategorije i kategorijskih obiljezja osnove poput zivosti, sklonidbene vrste i roda. Vecina tih sufikasa sustavno tvori evaluacijske izvedenice druge sklonidbene vrste (a-sklonidba) s obiljezjem zivosti. No kada se radi o gramatickome rodu, cini se da nema dosljednosti u rodu evaluacijskih izvedenica pa kod osnova imenica koje oznacavaju rodbinske odnose dolazi do promjene u rodu te sustavno nastaju evaluacijske izvedenice zajednickoga roda (muskoga ili zenskoga). Kod osnova koje oznacavaju rodbinski odnos pak ne dolazi do promjene roda.

U radu se analizira ta pojava unutar teorijskoga okvira distribuirane morfologije pa ce rad biti zanimljiv teorijskim lingvistima, jezicnim tipolozima, ruskim lingvistima i edukatorima te svakomu koga zanima gramaticki rod.

Keywords: evaluative suffixes, nominalizer, grammatical gender, declension class, kinship nouns, Russian

Kljucne rijeci: evaluacijski sufiksi, nominalizator, gramaticki rod, sklonidbena vrsta, rodbinski nazivi, ruski jezik

Acknowledgments: Grateful thanks go to the anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions. This work is an elaboration of my 2017 study "Nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian: The interaction of declension class, gender, and animacy". This research was supported by a DFG (German Research Foundation) research grant to Olga Steriopolo (4/2016 - 3/2019).

Olga Steriopolo

Leibniz--Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) steriopolo(at)leibniz--zas.de

Prihvaceno za tisak: 10. rujna 2018.

(1) The data, unless otherwise specified, are taken from Steriopolo (2008), where they are cited from Stankiewicz (1968) and a number of academy grammars.

(2) Mixed gender agreement is subject to speaker variation and is unaccepted by some native speakers. Examples of mixed gender agreement in Russian can be found in the Russian National Corpus, available at http://ruscorpora.ru/.

(3) See also examples (11) and (12).

(4) This is contrary to Embick (2010), Alexiadou and Muller (2008), and Kramer (2015), among others, who consider [CLASS] a post--syntactic phenomenon (but see Steriopolo 2018 for arguments in favor of [CLASS] being a syntactic feature).

(5) Thank you very much to Ruth Kramer for granting a personal discussion of this phenomenon in Russian.

https://doi.org/10.22210/suvlin.2018.086.08
Table 1: Russian evaluative suffixes (from Steriopolo 2008: 62)

Affectionate suffixes   --an,--jash,--jon,--ul,--un,--ur,--us,--ush
Vulgar suffixes         --ag,--jak,--al,--jar,--akh,--il,--in,--ob,--ot,
                        --okh,--jug,--uk,--ukh

Table 2: Russian evaluative suffixes and animacy

Affectionate suffixes:  --an,--jash,--jon,--ul,--un,--ur,--us,--ush
Animate

Vulgar suffixes:
 i. Animate             --ag,--jak,--al,--jar,--akh,--il,--in,--okh,
                        --jug,--uk,--ukh
ii. Inanimate           --ob,--ot

Table 3: Russian evaluative suffixes, animacy, and gender

Affectionate suffixes: Animate   --an,--jash,--jon,--ul,--un,--ur,--us,
(fem/ masc/common)               --ush

Vulgar suffixes:
 i. Animate (fem/masc/common)    --ag,--jak,--al,--jar,--akh,--il,--in,
ii. Inanimate (fem)              --okh,--jug,--uk,--ukh--ob,--ot
COPYRIGHT 2018 Croatian Philologic Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Steriopolo, Olga
Publication:Suvremena Lingvistika
Date:Dec 1, 2018
Words:4771
Previous Article:Cllenges of adopting gender-inclusive language in Slovene.
Next Article:Ivana Filipovic Petrovic (2018): Kada se sretnu leksikografija i frazeologija. O statusu frazema u rjecniku. Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 230 str.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters