Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (
This paper discusses the syntax and semantics of prenominal possessives in Russian. I will argue that syntactically expressions in bold in (1) are adjectives, despite claims to the contrary in Babyonyshev (
(1)
a.
Masha-
knig-a
book-
‘Masha’s book’
b.
mother-
ključ-i
key-
‘My mom’s keys’
Traditionally prenominal possessives are classified as adjectives. (
Like other adjectives in Russian, prenominal possessives precede the head noun and agree with it in number, gender and case.
(2)
a.
Ja
I
našla
found
mom-
telefon.
telephone.
‘I have found my mom’s telephone.’
b.
neighbor-
sobak-a
dog-
zalajala.
barked
‘The neighbor’s dog barked.’
As is well-known, possession is not the only type of relation that can hold between the individuals that are usually labelled as “the possessor” and “the possessum”:
(3)
a.
petya-
portret
portrait.
‘Petya’s portrait’
b.
petya-
mam-a
mother-
‘Petya’s mother’
c.
petya-
nos
nose.
‘Petya’s nose’
In (3a) Petya can be the possessor of the portrait or the person portrayed, in (3b)
Furthermore, in event nominals, possessive adjectives are able to fill an
(4)
mom-
postojannoje
constant.
vyraženije
expression.
nedovol’tsva
displeasure.
‘Mom’s constant expression of displeasure’
While
I will argue against this in this paper. I will provide evidence that prenominal possessives are adjectives, and I will give a semantic analysis that will account for their grammatical behavior.
The structure of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 and 3 I discuss more data and provide evidence in support of the adjectival analysis. In Section 4 I will provide background on possessives and show that English-like analyses are not applicable to possessives in Russian. In section 5 I propose a semantic analysis. Section 6 is the conclusion.
In this section I will provide evidence, based on distribution facts, that prenominal possessives in Russian are adjectives.
Generally, based on what we know about languages that have determiners, permutations between determiners and adjectives are not expected. Determiners head a functional projection, adjectives originate within NP, thus, permutations are impossible. This generalization is exemplified in (5) for English.
(5) | a. | #beautiful the book |
b. | #John’s this book | |
c. | #this every book |
Only adjectives modifying the same head noun can permute (with certain restrictions, cf.
Russian does not have overt articles marking definiteness. Bošković (
Let us consider the facts.
Possessives can permute with other adjectives both when they occur attributively (6) and as predicates (7).
(6)
a.
mom-
new
rabota
job
svjazana
is tied
s
with
putešestvijami.
travelling
‘Mom’s new job involves travelling.’
b.
new
mom-
rabota
job
svjazana
is tied
s
with
putešestvijami.
travelling
‘Mom’s new job involves travelling.’
(7)
a.
Vse
all
gosti
guests
na
on
etoj
this
večerinke
party
byli
were
Petya-
former
odnoklassnikami.
classmate.
‘The guests at the party were Petya’s former classmates.’
b.
Vse
all
gosti
guests
na
on
etoj
this
večerinke
party
byli
were
former
Petya-
odnoklassnikami.
classmate.
‘The guests at the party were Petya’s former classmates.’
The examples in (6) and (7) are of special importance because they provide evidence that possessives in Russian and English are typologically different. English does not allow permutations, neither in attributive nor in predicate position. This kind of grammatical behavior is expected if we assume that possessives in English are part of DP, not NP (see
Nouns combined with prenominal possessives can be arguments of quantifiers (
(8)
Bolnyje
sick
v
in
palate
room
lovili
caught
každyj
every.
mam-in
mom-
žest.
gesture
‘The sick people in the room waited for every mom’s gesture’.
The noun phrase in (8) is interpreted as ‘every gesture of my mother’, not ‘the gesture of every mother’.
Moreover, possessives can permute with numerals.
(9)
a.
Dva
two
pap-in-yx
dad-
velosipeda
bicycles
stojali
stood
na
on
balkone.
balcony
‘Two of dad’s bicycles were on the balcony.’
b.
Pap-in-y
Dad-
dva
two
velosipeda
bicycles
stojali
stood
na
on
balkone.
balcony
‘Dad’s two bicycles were on the balcony.’
The data in (9) are problematic for the assumption that possessives are determiners. Numerals are generally considered to be hosted outside NP. If possessives were determiners, they should not be able to permute with numerals similarly to
(10)
a.
Každyje
every
tri
three
goda
years
oni
they
pokupajut
buy
novuju
new
mašinu.
car
‘Every three years they buy a new car.’
b.
#tri
three
každyje
every
goda
year
However, Landman (
Thus, with respect to their syntactic position, prenominal possessives pattern with adjectives. If they are adjectives, then they originate inside the nominal phrase. Thus, the semantic type of the expression [possessive+noun] is naturally <e,t>. As a consequence, nouns modified by prenominal possessives can occur in predicative positions without undergoing any type-shifts. In the next subsections I will provide evidence in support of this claim.
Prenominal possessives can occur in genitive case under the scope of negation. It is well known that in Russian verbs under negation can take arguments in accusative or genitive case (
The natural interpretation for (11a) is ‘there is a specific ring that he does not wear’. This contrasts with (11b) that implies that he is not married.
(11)
Partee (
a.
On
he
ne
not
nosit
wear
obručal’noje
wedding.
kol’c-o.
ring-
‘He does not wear the/his wedding ring.’
b.
On
he
ne
not
nosit
wear
obručal’nogo
wedding.
kol’c-a.
ring-
‘He does not wear a wedding ring.’
Nouns modified by prenominal possessives are felicitous in this position.
(12)
a.
Ja
I
ne
not
slušala
listen
mam-in-y
mom-
sovet-y.
advice-
‘I did not listen to my mother’s advice.’
b.
Ja
I
ne
not
slušala
listen
mam-in-yx
mom-
sovet-ov.
advice-
‘I did not listen to my mother’s advice.’
In (12a)
This strongly suggests that
If [possessive+noun] were a DP that underwent a type-shift from <<e,t>,t> to <e,t>, then the prediction would be that any quantificational DP can undergo the same kind of shift and occur in genitive case under the scope of a negative operator.
However, this is not the case in Russian.
(13)
#ja
I
ne
not
slušala
listen
každ-ogo
every-
sovet-a
advice-
Intended: ‘I did not listen to every piece of advice’
The data discussed in this subsection provide evidence that nouns modified by prenominal possessives can occur in genitive of negation because the expression [possessive+noun] is born as an expression of type <e,t>. The ability to occur in this position does not result from a semantic shift from argument type <<e,t>,t>.
At this stage the possibility of the shift from e to <e,t> for [possessive+noun] has not yet been excluded. In the next subsection I will show that this is not a plausible analysis either.
Filip (
In principle there could be a different explanation of why nouns modified by possessives are grammatical in this predicative position. Following Babyonyshev (
Filip (
(14)
Filip (
On
he
kak-to
somehow
varenya
jam.
na-varil
na-cook.
iz
from
čerešni
cherry.
žut’
horror
kak
how
mnogo:
much:
desjat’
ten
veder.
bucket.
‘He made/cooked up a (relatively) large quantity of jam – from cherries – boy, did he make a lot of it: ten buckets!’
In (15)
(15)
Filip (
po-pil
po-drink.
konjačka
brandy.
‘He drank some/a little brandy’
Prenominal possessives can occur under the scope of measure prefixes.
In (16a)
(16)
a.
My
we
na-jelis’
na-eat
nataš-in-yx
natasha-poss-
pirogov.
pies.
‘We ate a lot of Natasha’s pies.’
b.
On
he
s
with
udovolstvijem
pleasure
po-jel
po-eat
mam-in-yx
mom-poss-
kotlet.
chops.
‘He ate some of mom’s chops with pleasure.’
Now the crucial observation is that proper names cannot be arguments of measure prefixes that require their arguments to be of type <e,t>.
(17)
My
we
uže
already
na-smotrelis’
na-watch
#nataši.
Natasha
Intended: ‘We have had/seen enough of Natasha.’
Arguably, the interpretations of proper names are generated at type e. If shifting from e to <e,t> is freely available, proper names should be felicitous in the scope of these prefixes. So we should assume that this shift is not available here. But then we must assume that prenominal possessives are not shifted from type e to <e,t>, since they
The data in examples (15)–(17) provide support for the adjectival analysis of prenominal possessives and against analyzing [possessive+noun] as an argument of type e. Possessive adjectives originate inside the nominal phrase, thus, [possessive+noun] is born at type <e,t>. As a result, nouns modified by prenominal possessives can be complements of measure prefixes without undergoing any semantic shifts.
In this section I have provided evidence that syntactically prenominal possessives pattern with adjectives. Adjectives originate within NP, thus the expression [possessive+noun] is born at type <e,t>. This claim is supported by the data: nouns modified by prenominal possessives can occur in predicative positions. The ability to occur in Genitive of negation and under the scope of measure prefixes does not result from any type-shifting because neither quantificational DPs nor proper names can occur in these positions.
In the next section I will show that the expression [possessive+noun], being born at type <e,t>, does not always stay at type <e,t> and can shift to <<e,t>,t> in argument position, as predicted by Partee Triangle.
It is known that indefinites in English can have narrow or wide scope interpretation in intensional context.
(18) | Peter wants to find a French woman. |
When ‘a French woman’ in (18) has a
(19) | a. | He met her at a party. |
b. | He has not met any French woman yet, anyone who is both French and female will suit him |
The same distinction holds for definite DPs in English:
(20) | Peter wants to find the department chair. |
(20) also allows for a
The literature following Longobardi (
(21) | Peter wants to find June. |
Longobardi proposed that proper names undergo N to D raising, and end up in the D position, where they are interpreted as referential (
Following this, one can assume that the
This idea forms the background for the analysis of Babyonyshev (
(22)
Petr
Peter
xočet
wants
najti
to find
sosedk-in-u
neighbor-
podrugu.
friend.
‘Peter wants to find the neighbor’s friend.’
In (22) there is a specific
Babyonyshev (
However, looking at the Russian facts in more detail shows that Babyonyshev’s identification of
Let us imagine a situation: Peter is a young man who likes dreaming and hates working. Peter often thinks about how different his life would be if he married a rich woman. One day Peter finds out that a very rich single woman bought a house in the neighborhood. Peter was told that this woman only meets new people if they are introduced to her by someone she already knows. Peter does not know yet whether the woman has any friends in the neighborhood. However, we can felicitously say the sentence in (22): he wants to find someone who has the property of being the neighbor’s friend so that she could introduce him to his new neighbor.
Later on, it turns out that the neighbor has three friends in the neighborhood and Peter goes to the bakery with one of them. In the updated context (22) is still a felicitous sentence, however, the interpretation is different – Peter has a specific friend in mind, but we do not know which one.
Thus, (22) is ambiguous (analogously to indefinite nominal phrases in English): either there is a specific individual who Peter wants to find (transparent reading) or Peter does not care as long as the person fits the description ‘the neighbor’s friend’ if there is one (opaque interpretation).
We observe that, like indefinites and definites in English, Russian prenominal possessives show
However, if prenominal possessives are assumed to be adjectives, then the lifting in argument position for [possessive+noun] is a standard operation as predicted by the Upward Partee Triangle (
In the next section I will discuss literature on possessives and claim that English-like analyses of possessives are not appropriate for Russian and a new approach is needed.
Many linguists have worked on the semantics and syntax of possessives (e.g.
There are three main components that play an important role in constructing and interpreting a possessive: two individuals – the possessor and the possessum – and a relation that holds between the two (
In
If there are two types of head nouns, does this mean that there should be two different possessives? If we propose a unified analysis for the possessive, how are we going to deal with the fact that the same possessive construction should combine with two different types of nouns? Where does the relation come from? These are the questions that the researchers try to answer.
There are different strategies discussed in the literature aiming at providing an analysis of possessives.
Partee and Borschev (
Jensen and Vikner (
If the possessive can combine only with relations, then sortal nouns have to undergo a semantic shift to get a relational interpretation. In this case the possessive (Mary’s) is uniformly an
In this section I will discuss these two possibilities in detail and explain why neither of them seems to be adequate for prenominal possessives in Russian.
If we assume that
(23) | λyλx.BROTHERw(x,y) (MARY) |
λx.BROTHERw(x,MARY) |
If the head noun is sortal, it would have to undergo a meaning shift into a relational noun. The shift can be driven by different mechanisms: either the lexical semantics of the noun or pragmatics/context.
To derive the meaning of
(24) | Mary’s car: | car | λx.CARw(x) |
SHIFT (λx.CARw(x))=λyλx.CAR(x) ∧ |
|||
λyλx.CARw(x) ∧ |
|||
λx.CARw(x) ∧ |
This approach is advocated in Jensen and Vikner (
Jensen and Vikner (
The qualia structure represents the typical characteristics of a real-world object denoted by a lexical item. These characteristics are defined by the way human beings interact with the world around them and originate from Aristotle’s “modes of explanation”. People use things, interact with things, produce things and, in general, do things (
Qualia roles:
Formal – being an instance of, distinguishing an object within a larger domain;
Constitutive – being a part of, the relation between the object and its parts;
Telic – being used in/for, the function of the object;
Agentive – being the result of, how the objects come into being.
From qualia roles, Jensen and Vikner (
There is one more possible type of interpretation – pragmatic. In this case the relation is provided by the context (this is analogous to “free R/weak possession relation” discussed in
Partee and Borschev (
Partee and Borschev (
Jensen and Vikner’s analysis cannot be straightforwardly extended to prenominal possessives in Russian. Despite the fact that they seem to be interacting with the argument structure of the head noun (this will be discussed in detail in the next section), syntactically they are adjectives, i.e. they originate within NP. Thus combining a prenominal possessive with a nominal results in a predicate at type <e,t>.
The second possibility discussed in the literature is that a noun in genitive is a
(25) | Mary’s car: | ||
‘s | λyλPλx.P(x) ∧ R(x,y) | ||
Mary’s | λPλx.P(x) ∧ R(x,MARY) | ||
Mary’s car | λPλx.P(x) ∧ R(x,MARY) (λx.CARw(x)) | ||
λx.CARw(x) ∧ R(x,MARY) |
To be modified by a possessive, relational nouns must undergo a semantic transformation into a sortal noun. Barker (
The availability of this type-shifting operation allows for a uniform analysis of the possessive as a modifier that combines only with sortal nominals, the relation being pragmatically supplied.
(26) | a. | brother: | λyλx.BROTHERw(x,y) |
λRλx.∃y[R(x,y)] (λyλx.BROTHERw(x,y)) | |||
brother of someone: | λx.∃y[BROTHERw(x,y)] | ||
b. | Mary’s brother: | λPλx.P(x) ∧ R(x,MARY) (λx.∃y[BROTHERw(x,y)]) | |
λx.∃y[BROTHERw(x,y)] ∧ R(x,MARY) |
If there is no strong contextual relation between Mary and ‘the brother of someone’, then the only salient relation is the relation denoted by the head noun.
However, if there is a contextually supplied relation, e.g. writing an article about the Kennedy brothers, then the detransitivized
Partee and Borschev (
However, it seems to be the case that detransitivized usages of relational nouns and relational nouns occurring with arguments (i.e. in the relational interpretation) are both common in the possessive context in Russian.
The interpretation of prenominal possessives depends on the argument structure of the noun it combines with. When prenominal possessives combine with relational nouns (i.e. a relation is provided by the lexical semantics of a noun), the pure possessive interpretation (ownership) is not available. If a prenominal possessive applies to a sortal noun, the most natural interpretation is possessive. Thus, prenominal possessives in Russian can apply both to non-detransitivized relational nouns and sortal nouns. Consequently, the English-like analysis in which possessives are modifiers of <e,t> type nominal expressions is not applicable in Russian.
Let us look at the noun
(27)
a.
Ona
she
dala
gave
mne
me
knigu
book
Oskara
Oscar.
Uajlda.
Wilde.
Pro
about
kakoj-to
some
portret.
portrait
‘She gave me a book by Oscar Wilde. It was about a portrait.’
b.
Nad
above
stolom
table
hang
visel
portret
portrait
Stalina.
Stalin.
‘There was a portrait of Stalin hanging above the table.’
c.
portret
portrait
moljera
Moliere.
Šarlja
Charles.
Lebrena -
Le Brun.
nastojaščeje
real
proizvedenije
production
iskusstva.
art.
‘The portrait of Moliere by Charles Le Brun is a real masterpiece.’
Prenominal possessives can combine with
(28)
a.
Mne
me
ne
not
nravitsja
like
etot
this
pet-in
Petya-
portret.
portrait.
Petya
Petya
na
on
sebja
himself
sovsem
absolutely
ne
not
poxož.
similar
‘I do not like this portrait of Petya. He does not look like himself in it.’
b.
Pet-in-y
Petya-
portrety
portrait.
mne
me
nravjatsja
like
bolše
more
drugix
others
jego
his
kartin.
pictures
‘I like Petya’s portraits more than his other pictures.’
In (28a) Petya is the person in the picture, an argument of the relation between the picture and its theme. In (28b) the portrait is not associated with the objects in the picture, it simply names the kind of the picture, not landscapes or still life. Petya in (30b) can be interpreted as the owner of the pictures or as the author, i.e. he is in some way in control of the portrait.
It is worth noting here that being the author and being the possessor are different semantic relations. This is reflected in the fact that a prenominal possessive has to be interpreted differently depending on the meaning of the postnominal genitive, which in its turn is affected by the argument structure of the head noun.
If we force the author interpretation on the postnominal genitive, (e.g. we replace Petrov by a famous painter Vasnetsov) then the prenominal possessive must be interpreted as the person in the picture – as in (29).
(29)
Aljonušk-in
Alyonushka-
portret
portrait.
Vasnecova
Vasnetsov.
prozvodit
produces
silnoje
strong
vpečatlenije.
impression
‘Alyonushka’s portrait by Vasnetsov is very impressive.’
However, if we create a context (as in 30) in which Alyonushka is the possessor of the picture, e.g. she owns a huge collection of portraits from different ages, then Vasnetsov in (29) must be the theme of the portrait, and the author interpretation is unavailable.
(30)
U
at
mojej
my
sestry
sister
Aljonuški
Alyonushka
ogromnaja
huge
kollekcija
collection
portretov.
portraits
‘My sister Alyonushka possesses a huge collection of portraits.’
When the head noun is followed by two postnominal genitives, one denoting the theme and the other – the author, the only possible interpretation for the prenominal possessive is being the possessor of the picture. This holds even if we use famous portrait and artist’s names. Vasnetsov’s portrait of Alyonushka is well known – Alyonushka is a girl in the picture. Despite this fact, in (31) Alyonushka is understood as the possessor, not as the theme.
(31)
Aljonuškin
Alyonushka-
portret
portrait.
Ivanuški
Ivanushka.
xudožnika
painter.
Vasnecova
Vasnecov.
‘Alyonushka’s portrait of Ivanushka by the painter Vasnetsov’
It seems to be the case that the interpretation of prenominal possessives in Russian depends on the argument structure of the noun it combines with. Consequently, we cannot assume that possessives are modifiers that apply only to sortal nouns and that as a result, relational nouns have to undergo detransitivzation.
We conclude that applying the analyses that have been given for the English Saxon genitive (either as an argument or as a modifier) do not seem to be on the right track for Russian prenominal possessives. A proper analysis should incorporate two important features of prenominal possessives: morphologically they are adjectives, and semantically they are able to interact with the argument structure of the modified noun. We now provide such an analysis.
(32) shows the derivation of
(32) | -in: | λyλRλx.R(x,y) | (PETYA) |
Petin ‘of Petya’: | λRλx.R(x,PETYA) |
Proper names, expressions that inherently denote individuals, are not the only type of grammatical expressions that can combine with the possessive morpheme.
However, quantificational noun phrases cannot participate in the formation of a possessive adjective. In English “every candidate’s dissertation” is perfectly felicitous. The Russian translation of this expression is impossible with a possessive adjective, -i
(33)
a.
#roditel-in-y
parents-
ključi
keys.
Intended: ‘the parents’ keys’
b.
#semj-in
family-
dom
house.
Intended: ‘the family’s house’
Thus, the possessive operator can apply only to individuals. Proper names inherently denote individuals and are the most natural input for the possessive morpheme.
For cases when the possessive suffix combines with a predicate (like in
I assume that
(34) | ⟦w⟧M,g = g(w) = w0. |
Thus, relative to this assignment, ACTRESSw will denote the set of actresses in w0.
I assume that
(35) | ⟦ |
Thus, ACTRESS
Note the difference: Even if g(w) = w0, λw.ACTRESSw denotes the function that maps every world
(36) | aktrisin ‘of the actress’: | λyλRλx.R(x,y) (f(ACTRESSa)) |
λRλx.R(x,f(ACTRESSa)) |
Prenominal possessives are functions at type <<e,<e,t>>,<e,t>>, they map relations onto predicates. Relational nouns, like
(37) | a. | petina mama ‘the mother of Petya’: |
λRλx.R(x,PETYA) (λyλx.MOTHERw(x,y)) | ||
λx.MOTHERw(x,PETYA) | ||
b. | mamina podruga ‘a friend of my mother’: |
|
λRλx.R(x,f(λx.MOTHERa(x,me))) (λyλx.FRIENDw(x,y) | ||
λx.FRIENDw (x,f(λx.MOTHERa(x,me))) |
Possessives can modify sortal nouns like in
(38) | λPλxλy.P(x) ∧ |
λxλy.DRESSw(x) ∧ |
After the shift a relational noun can combine with the possessive
(39) | aktrisino platje ‘a dress of the actress’: |
λRλx.R(x,f(ACTRESSa)) (λxλy.DRESSw(x) ∧ |
|
λx.DRESSw(x) ∧ |
We will assume one more semantic shift that will turn an adjective that modifies sortal nouns into an adjective that can modify relational nouns. This shift is used in the analysis to account for the cases when possessives permute with property adjectives.
Most adjectives are predicates of type <e,t>: they denote a property as in (40a). In attributive position they standardly shift to a modificational type <<e,t>,<e,t>> as in (40b).
(40)
a.
This car is black.
Black:
λx.BLACKw(x)
b.
This is a black car.
Black:
λPλx.P(x) ∧ BLACKw(x)
There are adjectives that are inherently relational – they always result in a relational noun phrase. Partee and Borschev (
Let LBw be the relation that holds in |
||
if |
(41) | a. | favorite1 | λPλyλx.P(x) ∧ LBw(y,x,P) |
favorite1 book | λyλx.BOOKw(x) ∧ LBw(y,x,BOOKw) | ||
b. | favorite2 | λRλyλx.R(x,y) ∧ favorite1(x,y,R(y)) | |
favorite2 sister | λyλx.SISTERw(x,y) ∧ favorite1(x,y,SISTERw(y)) | ||
λyλx.SISTERw(x,y) ∧ LBw(y,x,SISTERw(y)) |
For cases when a property adjective combines with a relational noun (e.g.
(42) | Relational shift operation: λZλRλy.Z(λz.R(z,y)) | |
λZλRλy.Z(λz.R(z,y)) (λPλx.P(x) ∧ YOUNGw(x)) = | ||
λRλy.(λPλx.P(x) ∧ YOUNGw(x)(λz.R(z,y))) = | ||
λRλyλx.(λz.R(z,y))(x)) ∧ YOUNGw(x) | ||
λRλyλx. R(x,y) ∧ YOUNGw(x) | ||
young sister | λRλyλx.R(x,y) ∧ YOUNGw(x) (λyλx.SISTERw(x,y))= | |
λyλx.SISTERw(x,y) ∧ YOUNGw(x) |
This shift is available in the grammar independently of our analysis. We are going to use it for cases when a relational noun is first modified by a property adjective and then by a prenominal possessive, as in:
According to compositionality principles,
(43) | λZλRλy.Z(λz.R(z,y)) (λPλx.P(x) ∧ SILLYw(x)) |
λRλyλx.R(x,y) ∧ SILLYw(x) |
After the shift
(44) | λRλyλx.(R(x,y) ∧ SILLYw(x)) | (λyλx.HUSBANDw (x,y)) |
λyλx. HUSBANDw(x,y) ∧ SILLYw(x) |
(45) | λRλx.R(x,NATASHA) | (λyλx.(HUSBANDw (x,y) ∧ SILLYw(x))) |
λx.HUSBANDw(x,NATASHA) ∧ SILLYw(x) |
In principle there could be one more possibility to solve the type mismatch in examples like
However, here
Landman (
(46) | ?A sister is walking in the street. |
Without a strong contextual support (46) is infelicitous. The reason is that
(47) | I know that John’s brothers are all inside, but I see a sister walking down the street. |
In sum: on the analysis we assume, prenominal possessives are adjectives that modify relations via saturating one of the arguments of this relation. Relational nouns are the right input for prenominal possessives to apply to. Sortal nouns must undergo a semantic shift and become relational. Property denoting adjectives can shift to a relational interpretation and modify relational nouns.
Within the framework described in this section, the data discussed earlier in the paper can be naturally accounted for. In the following subsections I will show how the grammatical and semantic behavior of prenominal possessives follows from the semantics that has been assigned to them.
It has been shown in section 3 that prenominal possessives are referentially linked, but at the same time the expression [possessive+noun] is ambiguous between a
We have analyzed this via the choice function mechanism:
However, combining a prenominal possessive with a noun results in a predicate – a property that relates to the possessor in the actual world. While the possessor itself is always
I will now show how the two interpretations are derived for (22) from section 3, repeated here as (48):
(48)
Petr
Peter
xočet
wants
najti
to find
sosedk-in- u
neighbor-
podrug-u.
friend-
‘Peter wants to find the neighbor’s friend.’
The
(49) shows the two shifting rules in question:
(49) | a. | LIFT<e,t> →<<e,t>t>[α] = λP.∃y[α(y) ∧ P(y)] |
b. | LIFT<e<e,t>>→<<<e,t>t><e,t>>[β] = λTλx.T(λy.β(x,y)) |
The rule in (49a) applies to
(50) | najti sosedkinu podrugu ‘find a friend of the neighbor’ |
λx.∃y[FRIENDw(y,f(NEIGHBORa)) ∧ FINDw(x,y)] |
In the intensional context, this interpretation is lifted to type <s<e,t>>:
(51) | najti sosedkinu podrugu ‘find a friend of the neighbor’ |
λvλx.∃y[FRIENDv(y,f(NEIGHBORa)) ∧ FINDv(x,y)] |
(52) | xočet najti sosedkinu podrugu ‘want to find a friend of the neighbor’ |
λx.WANTw(x, λvλx.∃y[FRIENDv(y,f(NEIGHBORa)) ∧ FINDv(x,y)]) |
WANT relates in w0 the subject to worlds where the subject finds what is in
For
The wide scope mechanism does the following: instead of combining
(53) | xočet najti xn ‘want to find xn’ |
λx.WANTw(x, λvλx FINDv(x,xn)) |
The wide scope mechanism abstracts over this variable xn at the relevant level of scope taking, creating what is sometimes called a derived predicate, and combines this with the given interpretation of
Thus, in our case, the interpretation of the wide scope NP lifts to <<e,t>,t> by (49a), and the relation at type <e,<e,t>> lifts to <<<e,t>,t>, <e,t>> by (49b), and hence we derive:
(54) | xočet najti sosedkinu podrugu ‘want to find a friend of the neighbor’ |
λx.∃y[FRIENDw(y,f(NEIGHBORa)) ∧ WANTw(x, λvλx.FINDv(x,y))] |
This interpretation relates the subject in w0 to worlds in which the subject finds what is in w0 a friend of the neighbor in w0, a
Despite the fact that the possessor is always interpreted relative to the actual world, the property of being related to this possessor can have either a wide or narrow scope with respect to the intensional operator.
Event nominals are nouns morphologically derived from verbs. They denote sets of events (or states) and inherit from the verb its thematic relations with its arguments (
One of Babyonyshev’s (
Event nominals encode a relation in their lexical semantics, therefore they are the right type of input for the possessive adjectives and can be modified by them. Prenominal possessives modify relations saturating an argument of those relations. Grimshaw (
In (55) there are two event nominals –
(55)
Pet-in-o
Petya-
postojannoje
constant
vyraženije
expression
nedovol’tsva
displeasure.
anej
Ann.
‘Petya’s constant expression of displeasure with Ann’
We will start by showing how the meaning of
(56) | λyλxλs.DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=x ∧ Th(s)=y |
(57) shows the derivation for
(57) | λyλxλs.DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=x ∧ Th(s)=y (ANN) = |
λxλs.DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=x ∧ Th(s)=ANN |
(58) | λRλs.R(s,Petya) (λxλs.DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=x ∧ Th(s)=ANN) = |
λs.DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=PETYA ∧ Th(s)=ANN |
The basic idea in derivations in (59)–(63) is the same as in (58): event nominals can be modified by prenominal possessives because they naturally provide a relation for the possessive to apply to, the thematic relation between an event argument and an agent (experiencer) argument. In what follows I show how the interpretation for ‘Petya’s expression of displeasure’ is derived.
Let us now proceed to
(59) | expression λqλxλe.EXPRESSw(e) ∧ Ag(e)=x ∧ Th(e)=q |
The theme of
(60) | expression of displeasure with Ann |
λxλe.EXPRESSw(e) ∧ Ag(e)=x ∧ | |
Th(e) = λxλs.DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=x ∧ Th(s)=ANN |
At this point we need to relate the interpretation of event nominals to the propositional control interpretation: x expresses displeasure with Ann iff x expresses that x is displeased with Ann.
(61) | EXPRESSw(e) ∧ Th(e)=α iff |
EXPRESSw(e) ∧ Th(e)= λw.∃s[α(Ag(e))] |
The postulate in (61) makes (60) equivalent to:
(62) | λxλe.EXPRESSw(e) ∧ Ag(e)=x ∧ |
Th(e)=λw.∃s[DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=Ag(e) ∧ Th(s)=ANN] |
The next step in the derivation and the main aim of this section is to show that the semantics that we assigned to prenominal possessives can account for the fact that possessives fill an agent argument of event nominals. The adjectival analysis applies to these cases naturally: the possessive adjective modifies an event nominal via saturating an agent argument. Thus, unlike Babyonyshev (
The possessive
(63) | λRλe.R(e,Petya) |
(λxλe.EXPRESSw(e) ∧ Ag(e)=x ∧ | |
Th(e)=λw.∃s[DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=Ag(e) ∧ Th(s)=ANN]) = | |
λe.EXPRESSw(e) ∧ Ag(e)=PETYA ∧ | |
Th(e)=λw.∃s[DISPLEASEDw(s) ∧ Exp(s)=PETYA ∧ Th(s)=ANN]) |
When possessives modify event nominals, the interpretation of the possessive
Within the framework of our analysis we can account for the fact that prenominal possessives provide an argument for event nominals.
Event nominals pattern with relational nouns: both relational nouns and event nominals encode a relation in their lexical semantics, thus, being a natural input for the possessive.
Our analysis correctly predicts the patterns of behavior of nouns with optional arguments, e.g. ‘picture’ nouns. A prenominal possessive will aim at saturating an argument of a relation. What kind of relation is available for the prenominal possessive to apply to depends on the number of arguments that the noun has and which of these arguments are explicitly expressed by other grammatical forms (e.g. a postnominal genitive construction). We are now in a position to explain the observations that were made in section 2 of this paper.
I claimed in this paper that a prenominal possessive
Using the predictions that can be made based on the analysis given and the ambiguity of
The most unrestricted assumption about the lexical meaning of
(64) | a. | λx.PORTRAITw(x) |
b. | λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
|
c. | λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
|
d1 | λzλyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
|
d2 | λzλyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
(64a) represents a sortal interpretation. In (64b) and (64c)
There is another argument – an argument of the
As we will see, I am going to argue that the Russian lexicon does not assign all of these 5 interpretations to
Thus, if
Start with (64a): | λx.PORTRAITw(x) |
Shift this with |
λyλx. PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
λx. PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Start with (64b): | λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Start with (64c) | λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Start with (64b) | λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
λx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Shift with |
|
Start with (64c): | λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
λx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Shift with |
|
Start with (64d1) | λzλyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
|
Start with (64d2) | λzλyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
‘Petya’s portrait of Petrov by the painter Ivanov’ | |
Start with (64d1) | λzλyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
|
λx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
|
Start with (64d2) | λzλyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Apply to |
|
λx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧ |
Let us now consider the facts.
In the first place, there is no existing reading based on putative lexical meaning (64d2):
Moreover, the interpretation of
Secondly, there is also good reason to assume that lexical reading (64c) does not exist either. This follows from the fact that reading (5) does not exist.
If
The context: my grandmother has an impressive collection of portraits that were painted by different artists. The walls of her house are covered with these pictures. In this situation it should be natural to interpret the postnominal genitive
(65)
Gostinuju
living room
ukrašal
decorated
babušk-in
grandmother-
portret
portrait.
Van
Van
Goga.
Gogh.
‘The living room was decorated by grandmother’s portrait of Van Gogh.’
The most natural interpretation for (65) in this context is that Van Gogh is the theme – the individual in the portrait. There is another possibility (predicted by reading 6) – the grandmother is in the picture and Van Gogh is the painter. However, what is not available is the interpretation in which the grandmother is the possessor of the portrait and Van Gogh is the individual who painted it.
These data suggest that reading 3 (λyλx.PORTRAITw(x) ∧
If we reject lexical reading (64c), we have a problem with (66):
(66)
Pet-in-y
Petya-
portret-y
portrait-
mne
me
nravjatsja
like
bolše
more
drugix
others
jego
his
kartin.
pictures
‘I like Petya’s portraits more than his other pictures.’
One of the interpretations of
The answer lies in the nature of
A sortal noun
Partee (
What the data show is that if there is
When there is
By the same argument, we get
Important in the analysis is the role of
More generally, the grammatical patterns discussed in this section provide support for our analysis: the semantic function of the possessive adjective is to modify relations via saturating one of the arguments of the relation. If the modified noun encodes a relation in its semantics, then the possessive can apply straightforwardly saturating an argument of the relation. If the noun is sortal, then it undergoes a semantic shift (
Prenominal possessives are not directly predicative expressions, they form a predicate only in combination with a noun. However, they can be copula predicates when they occur bare.
(67)
Eta
this
mašina
car
pet-in-a.
Petya-
‘This car is Petya’s.’
For sentences like (67) we assume that the subject is an argument at type e and the predicate is of type <e,t>.
In (67) the prenominal possessive
The possessive relation is the most salient relation in a neutral context for prenominal possessives to apply to. However, if the contextual support is strong enough, other types of relations can become more salient.
For instance, assume that a group of parents gather near the daycare center, they are waiting for their children to come out. Masha’s mother has come first and steps forward, thus, Masha is the first child who will go home today. One of the workers of the daycare tells the other one:
(68)
Eta
this
mama
mother
maš-in-a.
Masha-
Pozovi
call
Mašu,
Masha
požalujsta.
please
‘This is Masha’s mother. Could you please get Masha?’
In (68)
The grammatical behavior of event nominals in this position patterns with that of relational nouns. To make (69) sound felicitous a strong contextual support is required. However, when the context is right, event nominals can occur as subjects with bare possessives as predicates.
Let us imagine the following situation: two actors discuss the play they both act in. Actor 1 says: “I do not like the interpretation of the image of the main character”. Actor 2 answers: “That is the interpretation of the main character that the author provides”. Actor 1 replies:
(69)
Eta
this
interpretacia
interpretation
glavnogo
main
geroja
character
kost-in-a.
Kostja-
no
but
kostja
Kostja
bolše
more
ne
not
glavnyj
main
režisjor.
director
my
we
možem
can
igrat’
act
po-drugomu.
differently
‘This interpretation of the main character is Kostya’s. But Kostya is no longer the director. We can act in a different way.’
Even though it is not natural for possessives to occur as predicates with relational nouns and event nominals as subjects, (68) and (69) show that it is possible when the context support is strong enough. Thus, the general pattern is the same as with sortal nouns.
In this paper I have claimed that prenominal possessives in Russian are possessive adjectives with the semantic function of modifying a relation via saturating one of the arguments of this relation. The adjectival analysis is supported by the patterns found in the syntactic behavior of possessives: they can permute with other adjectives, they can occur in predicate position.
Our analysis correctly predicts that relational nouns (i.e. inherently relational nominals like
Furthermore, our analysis predicts correctly that if one of the arguments gets a possessive interpretation, then this argument is always saturated last. There are no nouns that incorporate a possessive relation in their lexical semantics. Therefore, the possessive relation is contextually provided via the OF-shift of a sortal noun of type <e,t>.
1/2/3 = first/second/third person,
The suffix
In the rest of the paper I use, following Babyonyshev (
However, it is worth noting that this term does not seem to be precise enough, because on the one hand, a possessive relation is only one type of relation that is associated with this grammatical form, and on the other hand, these adjectives can occur in predicative position as well.
An anonymous reviewer brought to my attention the following examples:
(i).
so beautiful a book;
(ii).
how beautiful a book;
(iii).
that beautiful a book.
Bresnan (
Landman (
In this article the in-control relation is equivalent to Partee’s free R/weak possession relation. It differs from Jensen and Vikner’s control relation that is lexical, but not contextual.
I use a choice function to derive an individual from a predicate as this operation does not seem to have impact on the theory of definiteness in Russian (as little as it is known about how definiteness works in Russian). Our analysis can be compatible with the existence of a null definite determiner.
We assume, of course, that MOTHERw is a relation which is a function.
It seems to be the case that possessive adjectives with
(i). a. pap-in-o dad- ispolnenije fulfillment mojej my pros’by request ‘Dad’s fulfillment of my request’ b. Rassel-ovsk-aja Russell- traktovka interpretation deskripcij descriptions ‘Russell’s interpretation of descriptions’
However, relational nouns like
(ii). #Vedler-ovsk-aja Vendler- mama mother Intended: ‘Vendler’s mother’
A more detailed study of the data is needed. We will leave these issues for further research.
This shift is based on existential closure plus maximalization as discussed in Landman (
I would like to express my appreciation and deep gratitude to Susan Rothstein, who passed away on July 30, 2019, for her encouragement and detailed comments on earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank Fred Landman for numerous suggestions that helped to improve this study. The insightful comments offered by the anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated.
This work was supported by Bar-Ilan Presidential Ph.D. Fellowship, the Rotenstreich Fellowship and the Israel Science Foundation Grant 962/18 to Susan Rothstein.
The author has no competing interests to declare.