Adjectives in layers Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

Rhema. Рема. 2018. № 4 DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2018-4-125-165

А.М. Перельцвайг*, О.А. Каган**

* Университет Санта-Клары, 95053, Санта Клара, Калифорния, США

** Университет имени Давида Бен-Гуриона в Негеве, 52956 Беэр-Шева, Израиль

Прилагательные в иерархической структуре именной группы

В данной статье исследуются синтаксис и семантика аттрибутивных (модифицирующих) прилагательных в русском языке, в котором отсутствуют артикли, но имеются сложные модели падежного маркирования и согласования между элементами именной группы. В синтаксической литературе утверждается, что из-за отсутствия артиклей у именных групп в русском языке совершенно иная структура, чем у их аналогов в языках с артиклями. В статье показывается, что данное утверждение неверно, а модифицирующие прилагательные могут занимать один из шести уровней в функциональной структуре именной группы. Ключевые слова: именные группы, атрибутивные прилагательные, модификация, падежное маркирование, согласование, семантика.

DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2018-4-125-165

А. Pereltsvaig*, O. Kagan**

* Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, 95053, USA

** Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, 52956, Israel

Adjectives in layers I

m

This paper investigates the syntax and semantics of modifying/attributive i adjectives in Russian, a language lacking articles but having complex patterns * of case marking and agreement within a noun phrase. It has been claimed 125

in the literature that due to its lack of articles, Russian has a completely different internal structure for noun phrases than in languages with articles. In this paper we argue against that claim and propose that there are six layers of functional structure within a noun phrase which modifying adjectives can occupy. Key words: noun phrases, attributive adjectives, modification, case marking, agreement, semantics.

1. Introduction

The main aim of this paper is to investigate the distribution, ordering and interpretation of prenominal modifying adjectives. The syntax of modifying adjectives has been hotly debated for more than two decades, with proposals including analyzing adjectives as heads that take NP as a complement [Abney, 1987], as heads left-adjoined to N [Sadler, Arnold, 1994], as heads that take NP as a rightward specifier [Delsing, 1993], as adjoined to NP [Svenonius, 1993], or as specifiers of dedicated functional projections [Cinque, 1994; Scott, 2002]. In this paper, we will probe into the syntax and semantics of modifying adjectives by closely examining the relevant data from Russian, an article-less language with intricate patterns of intra-nominal case marking and agreement. Based on this investigation, we argue that there are several (six, to be precise) slots that prenominal modifying adjectives can occupy, sprinkled throughout the extended noun phrase (eNP).

The idea is not completely new: it has been explored in the "cartographic approach" going back to Cinque's study of adverbial modification in clauses [Cinque, 1999]. For a detailed analysis of adjectival modification along these lines, see Scott (2002); for the application of the cartographic approach to Russian adjectives, see Pereltsvaig (2007). However, we depart from these earlier studies in several significant ways.

First, unlike Scott (2002) and Pereltsvaig (2007), we base our argument not only on the ordering of various semantic classes of adjectives (e.g., Size, Age, Color, Material, etc.) with respect to each other, but on the ordering and interpretation of adjectives with respect to other elements of the eNP. In this, our approach is closer to that of Svenonius (2008): like him, we argue that the interpretation of a modifying adjective depends on the adjective's 2 position with respect to functional projections inside the eNP. We propose h that adjectives are generated in functional projections we call aPs which § are sandwiched between other, independently-motivated functional 1 projections, discussed in detail in Section 2 of this paper.

1 Another departure from Scott's (2002) and Pereltsvaig's (2007) approach is that we argue for a less fine-grained hierarchy of adjective classes than that

u

proposed by these authors. Based on a reanalysis of the data from Pereltsvaig

(2007) and some additional new data, we show that the less fine-grained hierarchy is supported by stronger judgments about adjective ordering. This issue is addressed in Section 3 of this paper.

Furthermore, in addition to adjective classes considered by Svenonius

(2008), all of which occur after/below numerals (i.e., projections aP-3 through aP-6 in the tree in (1) below), we also consider adjectives that can appear before/above numerals, that is above NumP (i.e., projections aP-1 and aP-2 in the tree in (1) below). The projection aP-1 - the highest projection for adjectives - hosts such items as the poslednie-type adjectives of Babby (1987), adjectival possessors (e.g., masin 'Masha's') and demonstratives such as etot 'that'. In Section 4 of this paper, we show that these adjectives can appear either before or after numerals, with significant differences in meaning: when occurring above numerals, they are associated with referential, quantificational and/or exhaustive meaning, absent if the same adjective occurs lower in the structure, where property-modifying interpretation emerges. We propose that these differences in interpretation derive from the functional projection DP, and not from the adjectives themselves. Thus, these data (and our analysis of it) provide additional argument in favor of postulating a DP for Russian (contrary to [Boskovic, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012]). Following Pereltsvaig (2006a), we maintain that some noun phrases in Russian are DPs, while others are Small Nominals. We examine several types of Small Nominals in Russian (cf. [Kagan, Pereltsvaig, 2011; Pereltsvaig, 2011]) and show that these nominals lack the upper layers of eNP and hence have no room for the highest types of adjectives; as expected these adjectives are impossible in such nominals. Thus, our evidence for distinct classes of adjectives is based on syntactic facts and the syntax-semantics interface and cannot be explained away by appealing to purely semantic or cognitive factors (cf. [Sproat, Shih, 1988, 1991], among others).

Finally, in Section 5, we examine an additional, often overlooked class of adjectives in Russian, which modify numerals rather than nouns in the eNP (i.e., the dobryx-class of [Babby, 1987]). We show that even though these adjectives are closely associated with numerals, they are not projected in the specifier in the functional projection of the numerals itself, NumP. Instead, we propose that these adjectives are projected in an aP of their own, above NumP but below the aP hosting poslednie-type adjectives. This strengthens our argument that the interpretation of adjectives depends h (at least in part) on the independently motivated functional projections inside m the eNP between which the relevant aP is merged. 1

It should be noted that for the purposes of this paper we focus on one-word modifying adjectives (e.g., bol'soj 'big') leaving phrasal adjectival

J

modifiers (e.g., gordyj svoimi uspexami 'proud of own successes') aside.1 While the question of whether such one-word adjectives are in the head or specifier of aPs is largely outside the scope of this paper, we adopt Pereltsvaig's (2006b) position that one-word adjectives are heads rather than phrases. Given this, we ignore the alternative possibility of phrasal adjunction of adjectives to the independently-motivated functional projections (e.g., poslednie-type adjectives being adjoined to DP, etc.); nothing in our analysis crucially depends on the choice between adjunction and separate aP functional projections for adjectives.

2. Independently motivated functional projections

In this section, we start our consideration of the structure of the extended noun phrase (eNP), in particular in Russian, by reviewing our views about the independently motivated functional projections that constitute the "skeleton" of the eNP, such as DP, NumP, UnitP, ClP, nP, etc. The functional architecture of the eNP that we ultimately adopt is shown in the tree in (1). The six positions for the six different types of adjectives are numbered, for ease of reference.

The highest independently motivated functional projection we assume is the DP, whose roots trace back to the work of Abney (1987). When it comes to article-less languages like Russian, a debate has been raging in the literature for some time as to whether such languages have the DP projection at all. Thus, some researchers argue that DP is found only in languages with articles ([Chierchia, 1998; Willim, 1998, 2000; Baker, 2003, p. 113; Trenkic, 2004] and most notably [Boskovic, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012]). The opposing view, namely, that even in article-less languages a nominal may have the fully projected functional architecture, including the DP, is argued for in Rappaport (1992, 2001), Engelhardt & Trugman (1998), Progovac (1998), Leko (1999), Pereltsvaig (2001, 2006a, 2007), Rutkowski (2002a, b, 2006a, b, 2007), Franks & Pereltsvaig (2004), Rutkowski & Maliszewska (2007) and elsewhere. In this paper we provide an additional, albeit indirect, argument in favor of DP in article-less languages by showing that adjectives merged above and below this projection have a different morphosyntax and a different interpretation. Crucially, we show that the higher adjective position - aP-1 - is associated with referentiality and exhaustivity, properties that are known to characterize the DP projection in other languages.

co 1 Furthermore, we ignore the possibility of focused adjectives; an interested reader is referred

| to Gutierrez-Rexach & Mallen (2002), Giusti (2002), Truswell (2004), Demonte (2008) ^ and Svenonius (2008). According to the latter, focused adjectives are merged above KindP

1[Zamparelli, 2000]. In all the empirical studies reported in this paper, the speakers have been explicitly instructed to ignore the possible focused pronunciation/interpretation of adjectives.

(1) poslednie celyx pjat' stuk bol'six staryx plusevyx last whole five items big old plush

belyx medvedej white bears

'the last whole five items of big old plush polar bears' aP-1

poslednie DP 'last'

aP-2

celyx NumP 'whole'

aP-4

staryx StageP 'old'

aP-5

pljusevyx riP 'plush'

A°-6 №

belyx medvedej 'white' 'bears'

Next, we assume the projection of NumP, which hosts numerals and other ^ quantity expressions, including lower quantifiers like mnogo 'many' and h idiomatic quantity expressions like the PP do figa 'lots' and even clausal m quantity expressions like cert znajet skol'ko 'devil knows how many'. Overall, this projection is uncontroversial (in some literature on Slavic it is called QP, but we adopt the label "NumP" so as to avoid a confusion

of quantifiers like vse 'all', which are merged higher). Moreover, we remain agnostic as to whether numerals like pjat' 'five' are merged in the Num° or in Spec-NumP (see Bailyn 2004 for a discussion). As we discuss in Section 5 below, this choice is immaterial for the purposes of the present paper.

Furthermore, following Svenonius (2008), we adopt a three-way distinction between numeral classifiers merged in UnitP (cf. Borer's 2005 #P), sortal classifiers merged in SortP (cf. Borer's 2005 ClP) and noun classifiers merged in nP. Numeral classifiers make nominal referents countable or quantifiable, whereas sortal classifiers sort nominal referents by characteristics such as shape (see Svenonius 2008: 20). While in many languages, these two functions are performed by the same lexical items, there are a few other languages such as Akatek (as described by [Zavala, 2000]), where numeral and sortal classifiers co-exist.2 In Akatek, numeral classifiers distinguish human, animal and inanimate nouns (here, only the inanimate one is shown). The sortal classifier distinguishes a dozen or more shapes ('smooth,' 'long three-dimensional,' 'erect,' 'half-circle,' 'round,' 'wide flat,' 'small spherical,' 'separate,' etc.); note that the same noun can appear with different sortal classifiers, depending on how the referent is perceived. As shown in the examples below (from [Zavala, 2000, p. 117, 123]), numeral classifiers appear structurally outside sortal classifiers.

(2) a. kaa-b' sulan aw-aan

two-INAN smooth A2-corncob 'your two corncobs'

b. ?os-eb' jilan 'aan three-INAN long.3d corncob 'three corncobs'

c. kaa-b' b'ilan poon yalixh-taj two-INAN SMALL.ROUND plum small-PL 'two small plums'

The third type of classifier is the noun classifier, which typically sorts nouns by material qualities or essences (cf. [Svenonius, 2008, p. 21]). Akatek has a set of fourteen noun classifiers ('man, 'woman,' 'animal,' 'tree,' 'corn,' 'water,' 'salt,' etc.) alongside the three numeral classifiers and the set of sor-tal classifiers, discussed above. All three types of classifiers are illustrated below (adapted from [Zavala, 2000, p. 126-127]).

u 2 Another example of a language with distinct and co-occurring numeral and sortal classifiers

co appears to be Squamish Salish (cf. [Kuipers, 1967, p. 149-152]). According to Aikhenvald (2000, Ü p. 114), in this language "numerals and numerical interrogative 'how much' distinguish three

^ forms: objects, animals, and humans... In addition, numerals co-occur with one of the seven

1 so-called 'lexical suffixes' the choice of which depends on the semantics of the noun, e.g., l-qsl 'small oblong object'.

(3) a. ?os-k'on kupan no' wakas

three-ANIM HALF.CIRCLE ANIMAL cow 'three cows' (lying down)

b. ?os-eb' kupan ?isim paat three-INAN HALF.CIRCLE CORN tortilla 'three (folded) tortillas'

c. ?os-eb' soyan ?isim paat three-INAN ROUND CORN tortilla 'three tortillas'

The (simplified) structure for (3 c) is shown below:

(4) DP

NumP

soyan ROUND

?isim CORN

paat 'tortilla'

In Russian, only the first type of classifier is instantiated. As in Akatek and Squamish Salish, the set of numeral classifiers contains three items: stuk 'items' for objects, golov 'heads' for animals (especially livestock) and celovek 'persons' for humans (there is also an archaic version for humans, dus 'souls'). While Aikhenvald (2000, p. 115-116) claims that golov 'heads' in Russian (as well as the corresponding items in English and Hungarian) are not numeral classifiers, we find her arguments rather weak or faulty. First, she maintains that these items "do not fill an obligatory slot in the numeral-noun construction": while we agree on the facts (i.e., that numeral classifiers in Russian are optional), their position in the eNP is rigidly determined. Her second argument is that these items "often have a lexical meaning of their own": while these items derive from lexical nouns meaning 'item', 'head' and 'person', they do not contribute any lexical meaning when appearing as numeral classifiers. Her third argument that concerns the distinction

between mass and count nouns does not apply to Russian (Aikhenvald illustrates it with Hungarian). Her forth argument is that golov 'heads' and similar items occur with genitive complements; while this is true, we do not see it as an argument for the lexical nature of these items (cf. [Pereltsvaig, 2007] for arguments that numerals, which similarly take genitive complements, are not nouns either). Aikhenvald's (2000, p. 116) fifth and last argument is that "there is a restricted number of such words in a non-classifying language"; however, as we point out above, Russian mirrors Akatek and Squamish Salish in having three items in the set of purely numeral (i.e., non-sortal) classifiers: one each for objects, animals and humans.

There are three additional arguments for treating these items as numeral classifiers rather than nouns. The first argument has to do with the form of the classifier for humans, celovek: this special count form is peculiar for occurrences of 'persons, people' together with a numeral. In the absence of a numeral (even if a quantifier like mnogo 'many' is present), the plural form of celovek 'person, man' is the suppletive ljudi 'people', as shown below (cf. [Mel'cuk, 1985; Yadroff, 1999]):

(5) a. Ja videl pjat' celovek.

I saw five person.PL.COUNT

'I saw five people.'

b. Ja videl (mnogo) ljudej.

I saw many person.PL 'I saw (many) people.'

c. *Ja videl (mnogo) celovek.

I saw many person.PL.COUNT 'I saw (many) people.'

More generally, stuk 'items', golov 'heads' and celovek 'persons' cannot occur without a numeral being present; this is the hallmark of a numeral classifier (cf. [Yadroff, 1999, p. 152]):

(6) *My ne nasli stuk jablok.

we not found items.GEN apples.GEN

Finally, stuk 'items', golov 'heads' and celovek 'persons' used in this clas-2 sifier function cannot take any modifiers (cf. [Yadroff, 1999, p. 151-152]):

h-

§ (7) a. *desjat' veselyx celovek nasix oficerov

| ten happy persons our officers

b. *pjat' otdel'nyx stuk nexorosix slov

132 five separate items obscene words

Therefore, contrary to Aikhenvald (2000), we take stuk 'items', golov 'heads' and celovek 'persons' to be numeral classifiers; a similar position for corresponding items in Bulgarian is argued for by Cinque and Krapova (2007). According to our analysis, these numeral classifiers are merged in UnitP (cf. the structure we propose in (1) above). Note further that there is no adjective-hosting projection above UnitP, which explains why numeral classifiers cannot be modified directly (as shown in (7) above). The numeral classifiers are discussed further in Section 5 below.

The final, and perhaps the most controversial, functional projection that we assume in this paper is StageP, which turns entities to which Individual-level properties apply into entities to which Stage-level properties may apply. While the exact nature of the Individual-/Stage-level distinction remains illusive, at least some scholars analyze Stage-level properties/predicates as applying to the Event argument (or perhaps, a "Stage argument") of the nominal (cf. [Kratzer, 1989, 1995]). It is our contention that StageP is the functional projection where this Event/Stage argument is added, similar to adding the Agent argument in vP (cf. [Kratzer, 1996]). This StageP projection becomes particularly relevant for structurally distinguishing between such Individual-level properties as material and origin, on the one hand, and such Stage-level properties as age and temperature, etc.; this is discussed in more detail in Section 3 below.

3. "Lower" adjectives

In this section, we focus on adjectives that modify the property denoted by the noun, such as bol'soj 'big', staryj 'old',pljusevyj 'plush', belyj 'white/ polar' in (1) above. Following Svenonius (2008), we reject the approach adopted by Scott (2002) whereby individual adjective classes (e.g., Size, Color, etc.) are associated with specific functional projections. As pointed out by Svenonius, "the categories [such as Size, Color, etc.] are not well-motivated outside of the adjectival ordering phenomenon that they are introduced to describe". Furthermore, as we show below, the fine-grained hierarchy of adjective classes proposed by Scott (2002) is not supported by the actual adjective ordering facts; in particular, as we show below, ordering restrictions on some of Scott's categories, such as Age and Color, are far stricter than those on, say, Length and Height.

But first, we will briefly address the syntax of the so-called idiomatic ™ adjectives, such as the ones in belyj medved' 'polar [literally, white] bear', h beloe vino 'white wine', zeleznaja doroga 'rail road [literally, ferrous] road', m Cernoe more 'Black Sea', Bol'saja Medvedica 'Ursa Major'. First of all, note that adjectives appearing as idiomatic are not an exclusive lexical class: these adjectives can also appear as non-idiomatic, in combination with 133

different nouns (e.g., belaja/cernaja kraska 'white/black paint', zeleznyj zamok 'iron lock', bolsaja kuca 'big heap'). However, when occurring in such collocations, idiomatic adjectives do not make the usual, transparent contribution to the interpretation of the noun phrase (i.e., that of Color, Material, Size, etc.); for example, beloe vino 'white wine' is not white but yellowish-green and zeleznaja doroga 'rail road [literally, ferreous] road' of the toy kind may be made from plastic:

(8) a. zelenovatoe beloe vino

greenish white wine

'a greenish white wine' b. plastikovaja zeleznaja doroga plastic ferrous road

'a plastic railroad'

Note that the adjective with the idiomatic interpretation must be closest to the noun, hence the ungrammaticality of the following:

(9) a. *beloe zelenovatoe vino

white greenish wine

intended: 'a greenish white wine'

(ok with comma intonation: 'wine that is white in color with a greenish tint) b. *zeleznaja plastikovaja doroga ferrous plastic road

intended: 'a plastic railroad'

The same is true if we use two adjectives, each of which can potentially have an idiomatic meaning with the given noun: only the adjective that is closest to the noun will have idiomatic meaning in each case:

(10) a. belaja bol'saja medvedica

white big she-bear

'a white Ursa Major'

b. bol'saja belaja medvedica

big white she-bear

'a big (female) polar bear'

g This is in line with our general observation that the same lexical items

§ can appear in distinct syntactic positions with distinct meaning (see also this 1 section below and the following sections).

A further example is provided by the phrase belyj cernyj medved' 'a white 134 black bear', referring to a Kermode bear (or "spirit bear", as the First Nations

people call them). These bears are not albinos and not related to polar bears, but belong to the Ursus americanus kermodei subspecies of the American black bear. Thus, in belyj cernyj medved' 'a white black bear' the adjective closest to the noun - cernyj 'black' - is used idiomatically, to designate a species (and does not denote color per se), while the first adjective - belyj 'white' - refers to the white (or cream-colored) coat of such a bear.3 Thus, in the structure we propose, belyj 'white' in this phrase occupies the position aP-5, whereas cernyj 'black' occupies the position A-6.

Idiomatic adjectives also differ from non-idiomatic adjectives in that they cannot be modified or extended by a complement, such as ocen' belyj 'very white', belyjpo cvetu 'white in color':

(11) a. *ocen' belaja medvedica

very white she-bear

'a very (typical) polar bear' b. belaja po cvetu medvedica white in color she-bear 'a white in color (female) bear', not 'polar bear'

Given the lexical nature of idiomatic adjectives, we propose to analyze them as part of a lexical compound, specifically as an A° merging with a N°. This position is marked as adjective position 6 in the tree in (1) above. This proposal is similar to what Sadler and Arnold (1994) propose for all prenom-inal adjectives; we limit this structure to idiomatic adjectives only.

Let us now consider non-idiomatic noun-modifying adjectives. Here, we propose that these adjectives can be divided into three groups (rather than thirteen or more classes, as done by Scott 2002), and, as shown in the tree in (1), we believe that these three groups of adjectives are merged in three different structural layers.

The first, highest group includes adjectives that can modify only count nouns, not mass nouns. Such adjectives include those denoting various dimensions of size (overall size, length, height, depth, width), as well as speed and shape. Since substances do not have intrinsic boundaries, one cannot talk about the length, height or width of a substance. Examples of these adjectives are given in (12a) below, and the structural position of these adjectives -above SortP and below UnitP - on our tree in (1) is marked as aP-3.

The second group includes adjectives that denote potentially Stage-level properties that can apply to mass nouns as well as count nouns, such as weight, wetness, age and temperature. Examples of adjectives from those

3 Bruce Barcott describes the coats of the belyj cernyj medved' 'a white black bear' thus: f "more like a vanilla-colored carpet in need of a steam cleaning" [Barcott, 2011, p. 41]. 135

two types are given in (12b) below, and their structural position - above StageP, but below SortP - on our tree in (1) is marked as aP-4.

The distinction between these two groups of adjectives has been drawn already by Muromatsu (2001), who divides adjectives into two classes: those which are sensitive to shape and merge above classifiers and those which are not sensitive to shape and merge below classifiers. Since we adopt Svenonius' (2008) distinction between three kinds of structurally distinguished classifiers, we modify Muromatsu's proposal as follows: adjectives that are sensitive to shape merge above sortal classifiers (in SortP) and adjectives that are not sensitive to shape merge below sortal classifiers.

Thus, a close semantic connection is established between elements to be merged in the functional projection, in this case SortP (i.e., classifiers that "sort nominal referents by characteristics such as shape") and the adjectives to be merged in the functional projection immediately above SortP: these adjectives denote properties that are sensitive to shape (and hence can apply only to count, not mass nouns).

This is a general pattern that obtains with respect to other projections that host adjectives and functional projections that constitute the skeleton of the eNP: at each level, the interpretation of a given adjective depends crucially on the functional projection immediately below the projection where the adjective is merged.

The third and structurally the lowest group of (non-idiomatic) noun-modifying adjectives include those that denote properties of color, material and origin. Examples of adjectives from this group are given in (12c) below, and their structural position - immediately above nP and below SortP - on our tree in (1) is marked as aP-5.

(12) a. Adjectives sensitive to shape (aP3):

malen'kij 'small', dlinnyj 'long', vysolkij 'tall, high', glubokij 'deep', sirokij 'wide', bystryj 'fast', polyj 'hollow'

b. Adjectives with stage-level meanings not sensitive to shape (aP4): legkij 'light', mokryj 'wet', staryj 'old' and teplyj 'warm'

c. Individual-level adjectives (aP5):

cernyj 'black', russkij 'Russian' and zeleznyj 'ferrous'

2 It should be noted that the distinction between adjectives merged in aP-4

h and those merged in aP-5 is not a distinction of gradability, as has been § often suggested (cf. [Scott, 2002]), nor does it correspond to the distinction between kacestvennye vs. otnositel'nye prilagatel'nye ("quality vs. relative

1 adjectives"), drawn by Russian grammars (cf. [Academy Grammar, 1980]). For instance, the category of otnositel'nye prilagatel'nye 'relative adjectives'

in Russian includes not only such low aP-5 adjectives as those denoting material or origin (e.g., derevjannyj jascik 'a wooden box', gruzinskoe vino 'Georgian wine'), but also possessive adjectives which are structurally high, as discussed in Section 4 below (e.g., olina kniga 'Olga's book'). Furthermore, even though adjectives denoting color can form adverbs in -o/-e (e.g., belo), comparative and superlative forms (e.g., belee 'whiter', belejsij 'whitest') and adjectives with the suffix -ovat (e.g., belovatyj 'whitish'), which can be attached only to gradable adjectives [Kagan, Alexeyenko, 2011], and are thus classified as both gradable and kacestvennye prilagatel 'nye "quality adjectives), we classify them as belonging to the lowest category, structurally in aP-5, for reasons discussed in detail below.

Instead of relying on gradability or the morpho-semantic distinctions like the one underlying the distinction between kacestvennye (quality) vs. otnosi-tel'nye (relative) adjectives, we propose that the relevant property that characterizes adjectives appearing in aP-5, as distinct from those appearing in aP-4, is their inherently Individual-level nature. As can be seen from (1), aP-5 appears below the StageP projection, the one in which the event argument of Stage-level predicates is introduced. As a result, adjectives that merge above this projection, for example in aP-4, are compatible with Stage-level interpretation (although this interpretation is not obligatory, since an event argument need not be introduced). In contrast, adjectives that merge in aP-5 appear too low in the structure to receive Stage-level readings: these adjectives apply to the property denoted by the NP irrespective to any particular stage, situation or event, and are thus interpreted as denoting permanent, inherent, essential, Individual-level properties.

One way to distinguish between Individual- and Stage-level properties/ predicates in English is their grammaticality in existential constructions: only Stage-level properties/predicates are said to be possible [Kratzer, 1995]:

(13) a. There are firemen available. b. *There are firemen altruistic.

Another test involves their grammaticality as secondary predicates: once again, only Stage-level properties/predicates are grammatical in such structures (cf. [Rapaport, 1991; McNally, 1993]):

(14) a. I bought the dog sick.

b. *I bought the dog intelligent. 1

u

When it comes to Russian, two tests emerge as distinguishing Individual vs. | Stage-level properties/predicates. The first test involves the pronoun doubling 1 in colloquial Russian. As has been shown by McCoy (1998), this construction f is possible only with essential, Individual-level properties/predicates: 137

J

(15) a. Morozenoe ono xolodnoe.

ice-cream it.NOM cold

'As for ice-cream, it is cold.' b. *Morozenoe ego Alla ljubit.

ice-cream it.ACC Alla loves 'As for ice cream, Alla loves it.'

The second test concerns the availability and use of short vs. long forms of adjectival predicates. As argued by Kagan and Alexeyenko (in progress), following traditional grammars, short forms typically denote Stage-level properties in the sense that they "denote properties that hold of an individual in a particular event/situation", whereas (nominative) long forms "attribute a property to an individual without a dependence on a particular situation/ event which typically results in an individual-level interpretation".4 (But see e.g. Bailyn (1994) for a different approach and some counterexamples.) When it comes to instrumental long forms, they "are relativized to a temporal interval, [but] this interval can be equivalent to an individual's lifetime, in which case the resulting meaning is close to that of an individual-level (nominative) predicate". Crucially for our present purposes, short forms generally denote Stage-level properties; hence, if a given adjective does not have a short form, it is likely to denote an Individual-level property (except for a few rare cases of morphological gap in the paradigm).

With these tests in mind, we can now consider the categories of adjectives that occur, according to our analysis, in aP-5. Adjectives that are most clearly linked to this position are adjectives of material and origin, such as zeleznyj 'ferrous' and russkij 'Russian'. Both groups relate to properties that are generally conceptualized as permanent and inherent and that are not expected to change from situation to situation. In English, these types of adjectives are impossible in existential constructions (e.g., *There are chairs wooden / *There are songs Russian) and as secondary predicates (e.g., *I bought the chairs wooden / *I heard the songs Russian).

In (colloquial) Russian adjectives denoting material or origin can occur in the pronoun doubling construction, even in non-generic sentences:

(16) a. Etot kljuc on zeleznyj.

this key he.NOM ferrous

'As for this key, it's iron-made.' b. Vanja on russkij.

Vanya he.NOM Russian 'As for Vanya, he's Russian.'

I4 See Soschen (2001), Geist (2010) and references therein for a discussion of the relation between short and long forms of adjectives in Russian and the individual-/stage-level distinction.

Furthermore, the Individual-level nature of such adjectives in Russian is supported by the fact that they generally lack short forms. For example, adjectives such as derevjannyj 'wooden', stekljannyj 'glass-made', mednyj 'brass-made', russkij 'Russian', amerikansky 'American', svedskij 'Swedish', brjussel'skij 'of Brussels' all lack a short form (cf. [Sochen, 2001, p. 6; Timberlake, 2004, p. 290]), which points to their inherently Individual-level nature.

A somewhat less obvious case is posed by the third group of adjectives that occupy aP-5, namely, adjectives denoting color. Whether these predicates are originally (unless coercion is involved) Individual-level or Stage-level may be subject to debate. We believe, however, the basic meaning is indeed Individual-level, which is why the adjectives pattern together with those of material and origin. Even though the color of certain objects may be changed either by external factors (e.g., This chair was black but now it is red - we painted it) or by internal factors (e.g., This apple was green last week, but now it's red - it's ripened), unless forced by such special context, color is perceived as an inherent property. For example, when a recipe calls for green apples, it is understood as calling for Granny Smith apples, not unripe Red Delicious or Gala apples. The idea is that even though color may in principle be changed, we do not typically conceptualize this property as one that changes from situation to situation and is therefore linked to a particular stage or eventuality. Furthermore, adjectives of color pattern with other Individual-level predicates in the existential sentence test: *There are chairs green (cf. *There are chairs wooden, vs. There are chairs available). Similarly, color is not good (unless coerced) as a secondary predicate: *I bought the dog brown (cf. *I bought the dog intelligent, vs. I bought the dog sick)5

Similarly, in Russian, adjectives denoting color can occur in the pronoun doubling construction, even in non-generic sentences (compare the sentence in (17a) with an adjective of color to the sentence in (17b) with an adjective of material):

(17) a. Eto morozenoe ono zelenoe.

this ice-cream it.NOM green

'As for this ice-cream, it is green.'

b. Eto morozenoe ono fistaskovoe.

this ice-cream it.NOM of.pistachios 'As for this ice-cream, it is made from pistachios.'

Furthermore, adjectives of color typically lack short forms. This is particularly true of descriptive color adjectives (i.e., those that are derived

On coercion from Individual- to Stage-level property, see Chierchia (1995: 177). 139

5

плащ его - был - красен,

plasc ego - byl - krasen,

cloak his was red.SHORT

конь его - был - бел.

kon' ego - byl - bel.

horse his was white.SHORT

from the name of an object of that color); cf. [Sochen, 2001, p. 6-7]: there are no such short forms as *kremov (from kremovyi 'cream-colored'), *kofeen (from kofeinyi 'coffee-colored', *sokoladen (from sokoladnyi 'chocolate-colored'), *persikov (from persikovyj 'peach-colored'). Even when it comes to abstract color terms, their use in short forms is limited to archaic meanings (e.g., krasen from krasnyj with the archaic meaning 'beautiful', not the modern meaning 'red') and archaic/poetic style, as in the example below from Marina Tsvetaeva's poem:

(18) H

I

and

H

I

and

'And his cloak was red and his horse was white.'

Also, short forms of color adjectives may occur in the attributive position in idiomatic expressions, but these expressions are frozen relics of an earlier stages of Russian when short forms were not associated with Stage-level properties:

(19) a. krasna devica

red/beautiful.SHORT maiden 'a beautiful maiden' b. sred' bela dnja

amidst white.SHORT day 'in broad daylight'

Thus, we classify adjectives of color as belonging to the same category as those of material and origin, the category of Individual-level properties. These adjectives denote inherent characterizing properties that are Individual-level by default, unless coercion is involved. Therefore, they appear especially close to the NP and below the StageP projection.

Our division of noun-modifying adjectives into three large groups instead of a more fine-grained hierarchy is supported by the data concerning the strength of judgments regarding adjective orderings, as expressed by inter-speaker homogeneity of judgments (i.e., how little variation across speakers is found with respect to a given adjective pair). Having reanalyzed the data presented in Pereltsvaig (2007), we find that judgments regarding different adjective pairs vary in homogeneity. Some adjective pairs, such as in the phrase staryj belyj taburet 'an old white

u

stool', present no problem to the speakers who select the same adjective ordering unanimously. In contrast, judgments for other pairs, such as uzkij suxoj ovrag 'a narrow dry ravine', are much more variable, with only 68% of speakers selecting the preferred order. Overall, pairs involving adjectives that would be merged in a3 and a5, according to our proposal in (1), were judged most unanimously, with the average figure of judgment homogeneity being 95.6%. For pairs that involve adjectives from a3 and a4, or from a4 and a5, this figure is 83.3%. For pairs that involve adjectives that belong to the same group, according to our proposal, that is adjectives that are both merged in a3 or in a5, the figure is merely 74% (there are no adjective pairs in Pereltsvaig's 2007 data that involve two a4-type adjectives). The unpublished follow-up study conducted by Pereltsvaig in 2008, enhanced by pictures (whose goal was to make sure that speakers interpret the adjectives in the most uniform fashion), came up with similar figures. The combined results from Pereltsvaig (2007) and the follow-up study (with 66 speakers total) are as follows: 91% for a3-a5 adjective pairs, 79% for a3-a4 and a4-a5 adjective pairs, and 76% for a3-a3 and a5-a5 adjective pairs.

However, there are several problems with these two studies. First, some adjectives could be interpreted differently because of inherent lexical ambiguities; for example, zdorovyj (in zdorovyj ryzij kot 'a huge red cat') could be interpreted alternatively as 'huge' or 'healthy'. The classification of certain other adjectives adopted by Pereltsvaig (2007) is questionable as well: for instance, she classifies blestjascij 'shiny' as Color and drevnij 'ancient' as Age (rather than Typing Attribute, the lowest category on her hierarchy). Many of these problematic examples are due to the fact that Pereltsvaig (2007) implements very strict measures to control for adjective frequencies. In particular, she selected adjectives with closely matching frequency: no more than 30 positions apart on [Sharoff, 2002] frequency ranking of 5,000 most frequent words, and no adjectives ranked in between the two adjectives selected as a pair to be tested. While controlling for frequency is necessary (e.g., [Scott, 2002] shows that adjective frequency in a corpus can affect its ordering), we felt that the measures implemented by Pereltsvaig (2007) were too strict and resulted in too many unnatural, ambiguous or difficult to process pairs.

In order to remedy these problems, we conducted a new follow-up study, using a different set of lexical materials. In particular, we implemented h a different set of measures to control for the frequency of adjectives by using m adjectives that are the most frequent in each meaning subcategory (size, 1 length, etc.), according to Sharoff (2002) frequency dictionary of Russian.

These adjectives are listed below:

(20) a. aP3:

malen'kij 'small', dlinnyj 'long', vysokij 'tall, high',

glubokij 'deep', sirokij 'wide', bystryj 'fast', polyj 'hollow'

b. aP4:

legkij 'light', mokryj 'wet', staryj 'old' and teplyj 'warm'

c. aP5:

cernyj 'black', russkij 'Russian' and zeleznyj 'ferrous'6

Six types of pairs have been tested: a3-a4, a3-a5, a4-a5, a3-a3, a4-a4 and a5-a5, with two examples of each type of pair (thus, the total 12 items were tested). The actual test items (in the expected order) are listed in (21) below. The types of pairs and the order in which the two alternative orders -the expected and the reverse orders - were presented have been randomized. Each adjective has been used in no more than three test items; all test items

involved masculine gender.

(21) a. vysokij staryj dom 'a tall old house' a3- a4

b. cernyj zeleznyj sar 'a black ferrous [i.e., iron] ball' a5- a5

c. teplyj russkij platok 'a warm Russian kerchief' a4- a5

d. legkij mokryj plasc 'a light wet cloak' a4- a4

e. dlinnyj cernyj xvost 'a long black tail' a3- a5

f. staryj cernyj avtomobil' 'an old black car' a4 a5

g. glubokij sirokij rov 'a deep wide trench' a3 a3

h. staryj teplyj sviter 'an old warm sweater' a4 a4

i. dlinnyj teplyj sarf 'a long warm scarf' a3 a4

j. malen'kij zeleznyj kljucik 'a small ferrous [i.e., iron] key' a3 a5

k. zeleznyj russkij krest 'a ferrous [i.e., iron] Russian cross' a5-a5 l. dlinnyj vysokij zabor 'a long tall fence' a3-a3

Overall, 70 speakers participated in the study, giving us a total of 840 responses. These responses were coded according to whether they were in agreement with the expected order. For each tested pair, we calculated the percentages of speakers who preferred the expected order. Then, average percentage for each pair type, as well as for inter-type pairs (i.e., a3-a4, a3-a5 and a4-a5) and intra-type pairs (i.e., a3-a3, a4-a4 and a5-a5) was calculated. The results are as follows: for the inter-type pairs the average percentage of expected orders is 78.8%, whereas for intra-type pairs

I6 Zolotoj 'golden' is more frequent than zeleznyj 'ferreous', but it is ambiguous between Color and Material interpretations.

the corresponding figure is 52.2%. In other words, speakers were much more in agreement regarding the pairs that involve adjectives from different types (i.e., according to our analysis, adjectives attaching at different levels of the structure) than regarding the pairs that involve adjectives of the same type. This is one measure of how strong and homogeneous the intuitions are.

Individual responses and speaker comments are also interesting. One thing to point out is the much higher frequency of "no preference" responses for intra-type pairs than for inter-type pairs. Such responses were particularly frequent for pairs (21g), (21h), (21k) and (21l). The pair in (21g) received 16 (23%) "no preference" responses (plus five additional speakers commented that their "preference is very slight"), and the pairs in (21h) and (21k) received 6 and 5 "no preference" responses, respectively. The pair in (21l) received only three "no preference" responses, but three additional speakers commented that their "preference is very slight". Many speakers also commented that items (21g) and (21l) are better rephrased as coordinated phrases with either order of the adjectives (i.e., glubokij i sirokij rov 'deep and wide trench' or sirokij i glubokij rov 'wide and deep trench'; dlinnyj i vysokij zabor 'long and tall fence' or vysokij i dlinnyj zabor 'tall and long fence'). Of the inter-type pairs, only the item in (21i) received a significant number of "no preference" responses (five, to be precise); we are not sure why. Overall, however, it is the intra-type pairs that received the most variable responses and the highest number of "no preference" responses.

Conversely, the pairs with the highest percentage of responses preferring the expected order (i.e., pairs with the most homogeneous responses) were all inter-type pairs: (21e), (21f) and (21j), receiving 81%, 86% and 100%, respectively.

To summarize, our study shows that there is a clear difference between adjective pairs that involve two adjectives of the same type (i.e., intra-type pairs) and adjective pairs that involve adjectives of different types (i.e., intertype pairs). The intuitions about adjective ordering are much stronger and more homogenous across speakers for inter-type pairs than for intra-type pairs. This strongly supports our division of adjectives into these three types.

4. Poslednije-Type Adjectives

In this section, we consider the adjectives of the so-called poslednie-type (cf. [Babby, 1987]), which precede quantifiers such as numerals and fulfill ^ a special semantic function. Unlike the adjectives discussed in the previous h section, they do not modify the property contributed by the NP, but rather m provide information regarding the individuals referred to or quantified 1 over by the DP. In the presence of such adjectives, the nominal expression cannot be interpreted as property-denoting; rather, it receives a referential

(or sometimes quantificational) status. It is important to note that we include in this group indefinite pronouns (e.g. kakie-to) and determiners (e.g. eti) that appear in a DP and exhibit adjective-like behavior in that they agree with the head noun in number and gender:

(22) a. poslednie pjat' knig

last five books.GEN

'the last five books'

b. kakie-to desjat' podrostkov some ten teenagers.GEN 'some (unknown) ten teenagers'

c. eti sest' fil'mov these six movies.GEN 'these six movies'

In (22a), the adjective poslednie 'last' does not modify the kind of the books in question. Instead, it specifies which particular books the nominal refers to. In other words, its function is not to modify the property but to help identify the referent. It helps us choose, out of those entities that instantiate the property of being a book, the particular individuals referred to by the DP. The item kakie-to 'some' in (22b) contributes existential quantification over groups of ten teenagers and further makes sure that the speaker cannot identify the particular teenagers involved. In other words, it marks the referent as not speaker-identifiable (cf. [Kagan, 2011] for a detailed discussion of -to items). Once again, lack of identifiability is a characteristic of the referent, not part of the property denoted by the NP. Finally, the demonstrative eti 'these' in (22c) is an indexical expression that provides the nominal with a referential and definite status, making sure that its referent is familiar from the context (either physical or linguistic). Thus, in all these cases, the adjectives that precede the numeral provide information about the intended referent of the nominal, about the individuals that it picks up, and not about the property denoted by the NP.

Crucially, the referential interpretation of the nominal is not a mere by-product of the lexical meaning of the adjective. Rather, the structural position in which the adjective appears plays a crucial role in determining its 2 meaning. Evidence for this claim comes from the fact that many adjectives g can appear in different positions: either in the high position above the NumP § (aP-1) or lower in the structure below NumP (e.g., in aP-3). In these cases, 1 the interpretation of the adjective and of the nominal expression as a whole

1 depends on the position of the adjective. Adjectives merged high - in aP-1 -modify individuals rather than properties and thus indicate that the nominal

as a whole is either referential or quantificational in terms of its semantic type. In contrast, when the same adjectives are merged lower in the structure, they are interpreted as modifying the property denoted by the NP. This sometimes results in interesting shifts in the meaning of the adjective itself. In the following two subsections, we will illustrate this interaction between the syntactic position of the adjective and its interpretation with a number of examples. The contrast between the higher and the lower site will be determined by two factors: the position of the adjective relative to a numeral and its case form. Adjectives appearing in the higher site precede the numeral and exhibit nominative/accusative case (we will call the APNOM/ACC-Num order 'the A-initial pattern'), whereas adjectives appearing in the lower site follow the numeral and appear in the genitive case, which is associated with the numeral (the Num-APGEN order will be referred to as 'the Num-initial pattern').7 Then, in Section 4.3 we show that when occurring in the lower position, the adjective does not rule out the option of the nominal as a whole receiving a property-type interpretation, but with adjectives occurring in aP-1, the nominal as a whole cannot be interpreted as denoting a property.

4.1. Referentiality

Appropriately, our first set of examples contains the adjectivepervyj 'first'. Consider the following pair of sentences:

(23) a. Pervye pjat' ucitelej vysli v final.

first.NOM five teachers.GEN went-out to final

'The first five teachers came through to the finals.' b. Pjat' pervyx ucitelej vysli v final.

five first.GEN teachers.GEN went-out to final

'(The) five first teachers came through to the finals.'

When the adjective pervyj 'first' occurs in the higher position, above the numeral, its function is to make the referent of the nominal identifiable; as such, it makes the nominal as a whole referential. For instance, in order to figure out who came through to the finals according to (23a), one has to consider the first five teachers that participated in the contest, or the first five teachers in the row, etc., as should be specified by the context.

Interestingly, a different interpretation emerges if the adjective is merged in a lower position, to the right of the numeral, as in (23b). This sentence,

7 For the purposes of this discussion, we focus on nominals as they would appear in a structural case (nominative or accusative) position. If the nominal occurs in an oblique case ^

position, prenominal adjectives appear in the relevant oblique case, regardless of their structural f position (cf. [Babby, 1987; Bailyn, 2004], and the discussion in Section 5 below). 145

unlike (23a), receives the meaning in which pervyje 'first' does not affect the referentiality of the nominal, but rather determines the nature of the kind of teacher involved. This sentence can be uttered, for example, if people nominate for participation in the contest their first teachers (each person nominates the first individual who taught him or her at school). In this case, we deal with a contest in which first teachers participate. The sentence (23b) asserts that five participants came through to the finals. Here, the adjective pervyx 'first' modifies the property denoted by the NP, rather than relating to particular instantiations of this property. The individuals instantiate the property 'first teacher', and not merely the property 'teacher'. Except for being characterized by this property, the individuals need not be first in sequence in any other sense (e.g., first to make it through to the finals, first in a row, etc.). For instance, they could be the last participants on the list. Such a meaning can even be expressed in a phrase like (24a), in which the items pervyx 'first' and poslednie 'last' are perfectly compatible since the former modifies the property and the latter helps to identify specific instantiations of the property.8 Note that (24b) with the A-initial pattern cannot receive the corresponding reading, and in fact is ungrammatical.

(24) a. poslednie pjat' pervyx ucitelej

last.NOM five first.GEN teachers.GEN 'the last five first teachers'

b. *poslednie pervye pjat' ucitelej

last.NOM first.NOM five teachers.GEN

Our next example is provided by what we may call specificity markers, that is items that when occupying the high position, mark the nominals as either specific or non-specific. To illustrate, consider the minimal context in (25), discussed by Pereltsvaig (2006a):

(25) V Mariinskom teatre tancevali...

In the Mariinsky Theatre danced

a. ...opredelennyje pjat' balerin.

certain.NOM five ballerinas.GEN 'A certain five ballerinas danced in the Mariinsky Theatre.'

b. .pjat' opredelennyx balerin.

five certain.GEN ballerinas.GEN 'In the Mariinsky Theatre danced five ballerinas of a certain kind.'

8 ,

Moreover, even the following phrase is acceptable in an appropriate context:

^ (i) pervyje pjat' pervyx ucitelej

1 first.NOM five first.GEN teachers.GEN

'the first five first teachers'

In (25a), the nominal receives a specific interpretation and is understood to refer to a particular set of ballerinas. The adjective opredelennye 'certain, particular' affects the referentiality status of the whole nominal, making sure that it refers to a specific group of individuals. In turn, as pointed out by Pereltsvaig, (25b) relates to five ballerinas of a certain kind. Once the adjective occupies a lower position, it applies to the property denoted by the head noun.

Demonstratives provide another interesting case to consider:

(26) a. eti pjat' masin

these.NOM five cars 'these five cars' b. pjat' etix masin

five these.GEN cars 'five of these cars' 'five cars of this kind'

The A-initial order illustrated in (26a) is semantically unmarked, in the sense that here we receive the typical meaning associated with a demonstrative: the phrase refers to a group of individuals that are familiar from either linguistic or physical context. In turn, (26b) is interpreted differently. One interpretation that it may have is a partitive interpretation 'five of these cars'. To distinguish the demonstrative and the partitive reading, imagine a manager of a car dealership giving instructions to a salesperson to sell (26a) or (26b): in the former case, the manager has to point out the specific five cars in the lot and the salesperson is required to sell the five cars pointed out by the manager. But if the instruction are to sell (26b), the manager must point out a larger number of cars on the lot (i.e., more than five), and the salesperson is required to see some five cars out of that larger set.

But (26b) may also have a different meaning, according to which the demonstrative applies to some property of cars involved, rather than to the specific set of cars. This meaning is comparable to that of 'five such cars' or 'five cars of this type'. The relevant type of cars must be familiar from the context, but not necessarily a set of the particular cars involved. In fact, the phrase as a whole need not be interpreted as definite or even specific. The latter use of a demonstrative is illustrated in (27):

(27) Vsego za vojnu VVS SSA poterjali s

all.in.all during war Air.Force USA lost ^

pjat' etix masin... |

five these.GEN vehicles.GEN 1 'All in all, during the war, US Air Force lost five vehicles of this kind.'9

9 http://fictionbook.ru/author/maksim_kalashnikov/kreshenie_ognem_vyuga_v_pustiyne/ read_online.html?page=7

The generalization appears to be the following: under the Num-initial pattern, demonstratives and specificity markers apply to the property denoted by the NP. But under the A-initial pattern, these items relate to specific individuals that instantiate that property.

Also, a similar kind of behavior is exhibited by a number of indefinite pronouns. For instance, consider the pronoun kakoj-to 'some'. As a rule, such pronouns appear phrase-initially, mark the nominal as indefinite and provide information regarding the speaker's knowledge about the referent (namely, that the referent cannot be identified by the speaker). Thus, the phrase in (28a) can be used to relate to five ballerinas that are not known to the speaker. But an alternative order, as in (28b), is possible too. This phrase is most likely to be interpreted as 'five ballerinas of some type', where the speaker does not know which type of ballerinas exactly the women instantiate.

(28) a. kakie-to pjat' balerin

some.NOM five ballerinas.GEN 'some five ballerinas'

b. pjat' kakix-to balerin

five some.GEN ballerinas.GEN 'five ballerinas of some kind'

Our next example, appropriately, involves the adjective sledujuscij 'next'. As with the adjectives considered above, sledujuscij 'next' may occur either before or after a numeral, with the different case marking.

(29) a. sledujuscie pjat' knig

next.NOM five books.GEN 'the following five books'

b. pjat' sledujuscix knig

five next.GEN books.GEN 'five of the/some following books'

This example is somewhat different from what we have discussed above. Both orders are acceptable. As expected from our discussion of similar examples so far, the adjective in (29b) can be understood as property-modifying, in the sense that the entities instantiate the property of being a book that comes later in some ordering than a certain contextually specified book (e.g., was written later or stands on the shelf after some contextually specified book). The phrase is definitely not exhaustive; see discussion U of exhaustivity in the next subsection. Also as expected, the phrase with £ the A-initial pattern in (29a) can be interpreted as meaning 'the next five |E books', but it can also have the interpretation in which the list of books

Iis to be provided after the phrase. In such cases, the adjective is cataphoric, and the nominal has to be interpreted referentially.

(30) Interes predstavljajut sledujuscie pjat' knig:

interest present.3.PL following.NOM five books.GEN: "Emma", "Gordost' i predubezdenije", "Oliver Twist",

Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Oliver Twist,

"Mol' Flanders" i "Alice v strane cudes". Moll Flanders and Alice in Wonderland. 'The following five books are of interest: Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Oliver Twist, Moll Flanders and Alice in Wonderland.'

Of course, under the cataphoric use, the adjective cannot be interpreted as applying to the property. Rather, its use is purely referential. Non-surprisingly, such an interpretation is possible only under the A-initial order.

The facts are rather similar with the adjective takoj 'such', which can also receive a cataphoric reading, but only if it appears in the higher position. Both (31a) and (31b) may mean 'two such textbooks', although under this interpretation, (31b) is somewhat more natural.

(31) a. takie dva ucebnika

such.NOM two textbooks.GEN

b. dva takix ucebnika

two such.GEN textbooks.GEN

Interestingly, even under the 'such' reading, the two phrases do differ. The phrase in (31b) may relate either to the subject of the textbooks (e.g. such textbooks = textbooks of physics) or to less inherent properties (e.g. such textbooks = old and dirty textbooks), but the phrase in (31a) cannot refer to the subject of the textbook. For example, (31b) but not (31a) can serve as a natural continuation for Nam ocen' nuzny ucebniki po semantike. My kupili... 'We really need textbooks in semantics. We bought...'. Our explanation for this fact is as follows: in (31a) takie 'such' is merged outside the NP too high to be interpretable as the argument of ucebnik 'textbook', while in (31b) takie 'such' is low enough to be interpretable as referring to the argument of 'textbook'.

Furthermore, (31a) is much more appropriate than (31b) in cataphoric cases like (32), where the nominal is followed by the list of textbooks, and takie is interpreted as 'the following':

(32) Byli kupleny takie dva ucebnika: 2

were bought such.NOM two textbooks.GEN 5

"Vvedenie v semantiku" i "Osnovy sintaksiceskogo analiza" |

Introduction to Semantics and Basics Syntactic Analysis i

'The following two textbooks were bought: Introduction f

to Semantics and The Basics of Syntactic Analysis' 149

Again, the cataphoric meaning, which forces a referential interpretation of the nominal, is only available under the A-initial pattern.

Our final example involves the adjective redkij 'rare' and its interpretational properties. As a rule, this adjective modifies the property denoted by the noun and, thus, appears under the Num-initial pattern (33 a). However, the alternative A-Num order is possible as well, which results in an interesting shift in the interpretation:

(33) a. Pjat' redkix zivotnyx pereplyvut etu reku.

five rare.GEN animals.GEN will-swim-across this river 'Five rare animals can swim across this river.' b. Redkie pjat' zivotnyx pereplyvut etu reku.

rare.NOM five animals.GEN will-swim-across this river ~ 'It's difficult to find five animals that are able to swim across this river.'

The sentence in (33a) asserts that five rare animals, i.e. five animals of rare species, will cross the river, whereas the sentence in (33b) involves a totally different claim. Roughly, the latter sentence asserts that there exist few (if any) groups of five animals that are able to cross the river. Such animals may not exist at all; if they exist, they need not be of rare kinds.10 Thus, while in (33a) the adjective modifies the kind, in (33b), it relates to instances of the kind (we may say that it essentially quantifies over five-member sets of such instances, specifying that there are few such sets).

On the basis of the data discussed above, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, we have shown that a range of adjectives can appear in two distinct positions, above or below NumP. Second, the interpretation of such adjectives depends on the structural position they occupy. Third and final, the position located above NumP is associated with the referentiality status of the nominal; adjectives that appear in this position describe not the property but rather the individual instantiations that the nominal refers to.

The last point is especially important. It reveals that in Russian, there is a structural position within nominal expressions that appears above NumP

10 Compare to the quote from Nikolai Gogol's Vecera na xutore bliz Dikan'ki, praising the width of Dnieper: (i) Редкая Redkaja rare

Пышный! Pysnyj! Magnificent

'Hardly any bird could fly to the middle of the Dnieper. Magnificent! It has no equal river in the world."

птица долетит до середины Днепра.

ptica doletit do serediny Dnepra.

bird will-fly.PERF to middle Dnieper.GEN

Ему нет равной реки в мире.

Emu net ravnoj reki v mire.

to-it there-is-no equal river in world

and is responsible for referential interpretation. This position makes sure that the nominal is not interpreted as a property (type <e, t>), but rather as an individual (<e>) or a quantifier (<<e, t>, t>). Of course, this is exactly what characterizes the DP projection. Thus, the data provided above constitute evidence for the existence of the DP projection in Russian.

4.2. Exhaustivity

We claim above that even an article-less language like Russian has a DP projection and that this is the projection crucial to the referential interpretation of poslednie-type adjectives, which are merged in an aP immediately above the DP. These claims are further buttressed by the data involving exhaustivity inferences that depend on the position of possessive phrases. Like other examples of poslednie-type adjectives discussed in the preceding subsection, possessive adjectives (e.g., diminy 'Dima's') and possessive pronouns (e.g., moi 'my') too can appear either above or below a numeral. If they appear above a numeral, the phrase receives an exhaustive interpretation, which is associated with definiteness and with the DP projection (cf. [Zamparelli, 2000]). In contrast, when a possessor appears below NumP, exhaustivity is absent. These facts constitute further evidence that the high position in which adjectives can appear is located in the DP field.

To illustrate, consider the following contrast:

(34) a. pjat' diminyx knig

five Dima's.GEN books

b. diminy pjat' knig

Dima's.NOM five books both: 'Dima's five books'

Normally, possessive adjectives such as diminy 'Dima's' appear to the right of the numeral, as in (34a), and in such cases, exhaustivity is absent. However, they may also appear phrase-initially, to the left of the numeral, in which case the exhaustivity interpretation emerges. Thus, (34b) presupposes that Dima has exactly five books, whereas (34a) does not carry such a presupposition.11

The facts concerning demonstratives are actually similar:

(35) a. eti pjat' masin

these.NOM five cars 'these five cars'

11 Partee (2006) notes in passing that possessives in Russian do not carry an exhaustivity presupposition and in that pattern with Mandarin Chinese, rather than English. Phrases like (34b) constitute counterexamples to this generalization. Plausibly her generalization is based on examples with the number-initial pattern, such as (34a).

(35) b. pjat' etix masin

five these.GEN cars 'five of these cars' 'five cars of this kind'

The phrase in (35a), in which the demonstrative appears above NumP, is exhaustive: it presupposes that there exist exactly five relevant cars. This, we propose, results from the fact that the demonstrative appears in the DP area. In contrast, (35b) does not involve exhaustivity, since here, the demonstrative appears below NumP (and is thus not in, or immediately above, the DP).

4.3. Adjectives in Small Nominals

If poslednie-type adjectives are merged in the functional projection above the DP, we predict that they should not be grammatical in nominals that lack the higher levels of the functional architecture, specifically the DP. In other words, we predict that high adjectives considered in this section are ungrammatical in Small Nominals [Pereltsvaig, 2006a; Kagan, Pereltsvaig, 2011]. The prediction is borne out. For instance, Kagan and Pereltsvaig (2011) argue that genitive complements of intensive reflexive verbs in Russian (verbs that contain the prefix na- and the suffix -sja) are Small Nominals which lack the DP and even the NumP projections. For instance, this view is supported by the fact that the nominals in question cannot contain numerals and other quantifying expressions.

(36) *Ja najelas' pjati / djuziny kotlet.

I na-ate-sja five.GEN dozen.GEN burgers.GEN intended: 'I ate my fill of five / a dozen burgers.' [Kagan, Pereltsvaig, 2011, p. 223]

Crucially for our purposes, genitive complements of intensive reflexives cannot contain high adjectives. Within these genitive nominals, such adjectives are either ruled out completely or, if accepted, receive the property-modifying interpretation that is associated with lower positions.

(37) a. Ja nacitalas' takix ucebnikov.

I na-read-sja such.GEN textbooks.GEN

'I have read my fill of such textbooks.'

m b. Masa nasmotrelas' etix fil'mov.

fE Masha na-watched-sja such.GEN films.GEN

1 'Masha has watched her fill of such films.'

i c. Lena najelas' redkix konfet.

Lena na-ate-sja rare.GEN sweets.GEN

152 'Lena has eaten her fill of a rare type of sweets.'

Specifically, takix in (37a) can only relate to the type of textbooks involved. For instance, the sentence may mean, depending on the context, that the speaker has had enough of reading textbooks written by nonprofessionals or textbooks that are not reader-friendly. Furthermore, takix 'such' may be interpreted as referring to the subject-matter of the textbooks the speaker has had enough of: for example, the speaker has had enough of reading textbooks in physics. Recall from our earlier discussion that this interpretation is possible only if takix 'such' is merged low enough to be interpretable as an argument of ucebnikov 'textbooks.' However, takix 'such' in (37a) cannot receive a cataphoric reading, which is associated with a referential interpretation and signals the presence of a DP projection:

(38) *Ja nacitalas' takix knig:

I na-read-sja such.GEN books.GEN "Vojna i mir", "Idiot" i t.d.

War and Peace Idiot etc.

intended: 'I have read my fill of such books as the following:

War and Peace, Idiot, etc.'

Analogously, the demonstrative etix 'these' in (37b) relates to the kind of movies involved. The object is interpreted as 'such movies' or 'movies of this type'. It cannot be used to refer to a particular set of movies that has been previously mentioned in the discourse. Finally, (37c) asserts that Lena has eaten a fair amount of a rare type of sweets. It cannot mean that it is difficult to find sweets that Lena has eaten in a sufficient quantity. In other words, the adjective redkix modifies the property-denoting noun, rather than quantifying over objects.

The sentences in (37) above show that even poslednie-type adjectives are forced to receive property-related meanings that have been shown above to arise in lower positions. This is to be expected if, as we argue, the referential and quantificational meanings of such adjectives only arise when they are merged above the DP projection, which is absent in Small Nominals such as the genitive complements of intensive reflexives. If a given adjective can only receive the "high", referentiality-oriented interpretation, due to its lexical properties or to the context in which it appears, it is incompatible with Small Nominals:

(39) *Ja naelas' {ostal'nyx /sledujuscix /pervyx /dannyx} 2

I na-ate-sja {remaining /following /first /given} 5

kotlet. £

burgers i

intended: 'I ate my fill of the {remaining/following/first/given} *

burgers.' [Kagan, Pereltsvaig, 2011, p. 223] 153

To sum up, the fact that poslednie-type adjectives are attached at the DP-level is supported by their incompatibility with Small Nominals, in which this projection is absent.

Of course, these facts also leave open the possibility that the adjectives appear lower than the DP and are merged immediately above the NumP projection, which is absent from these nominals as well. However, there are two reasons to reject this alternative. Firstly, the referentiality-oriented interpretation of numerous poslednie-type adjectives makes them more naturally associated with DP than with NumP. Secondly and most importantly, the alternative analysis is ruled out by the fact that there is another type of adjectives (dobryx-type) that are merged between the DP and NumP projections (cf. position aP-2 in our tree in (1) above). These adjectives are discussed in the following section.

5. Dobryx-type adjectives

As we show in the preceding section, adjectives do not always modify the noun itself (contra [Rijkhof, 2002], who places adjectives in the innermost (Quality) layer). Quite the contrary, adjectives may modify not only the property denoted by the noun itself or its projection NP, but also provide additional referential information about the individual denoted by the DP as a whole. In this section, we consider yet another type of adjectives in Russian, which modify (or express speaker's evaluation) of the quantity denoted by the NumP. This type of adjective has been identified by Babby (1987); following Babby's work and Pereltsvaig (2011), we will refer to these adjectives as the dobryx-type adjectives. In addition to dobryx 'good', this relatively small class of adjectives includes celyx 'whole', dolgix 'long', kakix-nibud' 'some/any', nepolnyx 'incomplete' and a few others.

In terms of their position, such adjectives appear before numerals (and other quantity expressions), as shown in (40) below.

(40) a. celyx tridcat' svobodnyx dnej whole thirty free days

'a whole thirty free days' [Babby, 1987, p. 121] b. ...otnositel'no nedavno otkryto celyx do figa pescer relatively recently discovered whole to fig caves 'Relatively recently, a whole lot of caves has been discovered (there).'12

12 http://cml.happy.kiev.ua/cgi-bin/cml.cgi?num=12376

Note that those adjectives among the dobryx-type that can occur both above and below numerals have different meaning, depending on the position:

(41) a. celyx desjat' celyx butylok whole ten whole bottles 'a whopping ten unbroken bottles' b. On soversil dobryx desjat' dobryx del. he committed good ten good deeds 'He committed a whopping ten kind deeds.'

It can be seen that when the adjectives appear in the higher position (according to our analysis, aP-2; cf. (1) above), they relate to the quantity denoted by the quantifier. In particular, they express the speaker's evaluation of this quantity, generally either as impressively high or as relatively low. Importantly, the adjectives, when they appear to the left of the numeral, do not modify the noun and contribute no information about the property denoted by the NP. Thus, both desjat' butylok 'ten bottles' and celyx desjat' butylok 'a whopping ten bottles' contribute exactly the same property of being a bottle. In contrast, when the same adjective appears in a lower position, it does affect the property contributed by the nominal (but provides no evaluation of the quantity). Thus, the phrase desjat' celyx butylok 'ten unbroken bottles' involves the property of being an unbroken bottle. Once again, we see that the interpretation of the adjective and its domain of modification depends in a crucial way on the syntactic position it occupies. In this section, we concentrate on the higher position available to dobryx-type adjectives, which is located above the numeral and in which, a quantity-related evaluative meaning is triggered.

5.1. Dobryx-type adjectives: Syntactic analysis

Our proposal is that these adjectives are merged in aP-2, that is above NumP but below the level of DP (and consequently, below the level of the poslednie-type adjectives, discussed in the preceding section). That the dobryx -type adjectives are merged below the poslednie-type is confirmed by their relative ordering:

(42) poslednie celyx sem' let otdany last whole seven years given

polnometraznomy xudozestvennomu fil'mu [feature-length fiction film].DAT

'The last whole seven years have been dedicated to a feature-length fiction film.'13

13 http://uisrussia.msu.ru/docs/nov/2009/133/nov_2009_133_07.htm

Note that dobryx-type adjectives do not affect the referentiality status of the DP (unlike the poslednie-type adjectives), nor do they modify the property contributed by the nominal (unlike the lower adjectives that appear to the left of the numeral; cf. Section 3). Instead, they apply to the quantificational meaning component. This is captured under our analysis by the fact that they occupy a special syntactic position, which differs from those of all the other adjectives. The dobryx-type adjectives appear below the DP level, and thus too low to affect referentiality. Rather, they are merged in the aP immediately above NumP, which results in their quantity-related interpretation.

A further support for our analysis comes from a negative demonstration: we show in the next subsection that an alternative analysis that places dobryx-type adjectives closer to the numeral that they modify is not validated by the data.

5.2. Dobryx-type adjectives: An alternative analysis (to be rejected)

According to Babby's (1987, p. 122) original analysis of dobryx-type adjectives, they must occur closer to the numeral that they modify. Unfortunately, his analysis cannot be easily restated in contemporary X'-theoretic terms, but one way to implement his general idea would be to place dobryx-type adjectives in the specifier of the functional projection in which the numeral itself appears (or in the specifier of the quantity-expressing PP, such as do figa 'lots' in (40b) above). In what follows we provide evidence against this alternative analysis and ultimately reject it in favor of the analysis outlined in (1) above.

But before we proceed, it is crucial to consider the question of where the numeral itself is. According to the dual analysis of Bailyn (2004) and Pereltsvaig (2006b), the position of the numeral depends on the case marking pattern: in Babby's (1987) heterogeneous case pattern, that is if the noun phrase as a whole appears in a structural case position (i.e., nominative or accusative case), the numeral is argued to appear in the specifier of NumP, whereas in Babby's homogeneous case pattern, that is if the noun phrase as a whole appears in an oblique case position (e.g., dative, genitive, instrumental or prepositional case), the numeral is argued 2 to appear in the head of NumP. One piece of evidence for this dual analysis h involves the distribution of phrasal quantity expressions such as the PP § do figa 'lots': it can occur only in the heterogeneous case pattern illustrated 1 in (43 a) and not in the homogeneous case pattern, illustrated in (43b). Since

Ithis quantity expression is phrasal it cannot appear in those structures where the corresponding numeral would occur in the head position.

(43) a. Bond vypil {pjat' / do

Bond drank-up five.ACC / to 'Bond drank up {5 / a lot of} cocktails.' b. Bond napilsja {pjat'ju /* do Bond got-drunk five.INSTR /* to

figa} koktejlej.

fig} cocktails. GEN

figa} koktejljami.

fig } cocktails.INSTR

'Bond got drunk from {5 / a lot of} cocktails.'

As shown below, dobryx-type adjectives are possible in both case patterns:

(44) a. Artisty polucili celyx desjat' nagrad.

Actors received whole.GEN ten.ACC rewards.GEN 'The actors received a whole ten rewards.' b. Artisty byli premirovany celymi desjatju

Actors were prized whole.INSTR ten.INSTR

nagradami. rewards.INSTR

'The actors received a whole ten rewards.'14

On the alternative analysis, which we will ultimately reject below, the examples in (44) will be analyzed as follows: in the homogeneous case pattern in (44b), the numeral is in the Num° and celyx 'whole' can be taken to be in the Spec-NumP. The structure for (44a) is a bit more complicated: here, the adjective is in the specifier of a phrasal category QP headed by the numeral and the QP is in the specifier of NumP; the Num° itself is empty (as shown by Pereltsvaig 2006b, this empty Num° serves as an intermediate landing site for Approximative Inversion, which is possible in the heterogeneous case pattern but not in the homogeneous case pattern). These alternatives are schematized below:

(45) a. Homogeneous case pattern NumP

b. Heterogeneous case pattern NumP

celyx 'whole' Num° desjatju '10'

celyx Q° 'whole' desjat' '10'

Although the structures in (45) seem to represent better Babby's original insight that celyx 'whole' modifies the numeral only, we argue that

http://www.liveinternet.ru/community/a1tv/post55449883/page1.html

157

J

the structure we proposed in (1) above - the relevant portion of this structure is repeated in (46) below - is the correct one.

(46) oP-1

poslednie DP 'last'

aP-2

celyx NumP 'whole'

pjat' aP-3 'five' ^

The argument in favor of (46) over the alternatives in (45) comes from the data involving the so-called Approximative Inversion and the optional numeral classifiers (such as stuk 'items'; cf. Section 2 above). The Approximative Inversion is a process which creates an approximative meaning by inverting the highest nominal element around the numeral; this highest nominal element can be any element with nominal morphology: a numeral classifier, as in the examples below; a measure or container noun; or a lexical head of the noun phrase itself (see Pereltsvaig 2006b for a more detailed discussion of Approximative Inversion in Russian). The simplest case of Approximative Inversion inverts the noun around the numeral:

(47) a. sto karandasej 100 pencils.GEN 'a hundred pencils' b. karandasej sto pencils.GEN 100 'approximately a hundred pencils'

If an optional numeral classifier like stuk 'items' is present, the Approximative Inversion will invert the classifier rather than the noun around the numeral.

ro (48) a. sto (stuk) karandasej

| 100 items.GEN pencils.GEN

g 'a hundred pencils'

1 b. stuk sto karandasej

^ items.GEN 100 pencils.GEN

158 'approximately a hundred pencils'

(48) c. *karandasej sto stuk

pencils.GEN 100 items.GEN

Given the three-way distinction we adopt between numeral, sortal and noun classifiers (see Section 2 above), we take the classifier stuk 'items' to be merged in UnitP (tucked between NumP and ClP). Also, we follow Pereltsvaig's (2006b) analysis of Approximative Inversion as Head Movement into Evid° (i.e., the head of the EvidP, an optional projection merged inside DP, immediately above NumP). Now we have all the pieces in place and are ready to consider what happens in cases of Approximative Inversion of the classifier stuk 'items' in the presence of a dobryx-type adjective. Since the numeral classifier is the highest nominal element (as discussed immediately above), it will be the nominal element to invert around the numeral. But where does it land? It turns out that the landing site for stuk 'items' is between the dobryx-type adjective and the numeral rather than above the adjective:

(49) a. *stuk

items.GEN

dobryx sto karandasej

good.GEN 100 pencils.GEN

b. dobryx stuk sto karandasej

good.GEN items.GEN 100 pencils.GEN 'approximately a good hundred pencils'

Additional naturally occurring examples are provided below:

(50) a. dobryx

good.GEN ot

from

stuk

items.GEN

svoej

self's

dvadcat' 20

pervoj first ljubvi love

pisem letters.GEN nastojascej true

i neznoj

and tender

'approximately a good 20 letters from my first true and tender love'15

b. dobryx stuk desjat' opernyx good.GEN items.GEN 10 opera(A).GEN 'approximately a good 10 opera theaters'16

c. dobryx stuk tridcat' drugix kanalov good.GEN items.GEN 30 other.GEN channels.GEN 'approximately a good 30 other channels'17

teatrov theaters.GEN

15 http://askrin.livejournal.com/7253.html

16 http://forum.vg.co.ua/viewtopic.php?p=2676&sid=c45d935999cb4d92de6d1b28d41cf6ee

17

http://www.forum.vn.ua/archive/index.php/t-782.html

159

The alternative analyses schematized in (45) provide no room for the classifier stuk 'items' to land: since on these analyses the dobryx-type adjective is merged in the specifier of the projection headed by the numeral, there is no room between the adjective and the numeral where another functional projection (i.e., EvidP) can be tucked in. According to the analysis we propose in (46), the EvidP must be merged between aP-2 and NumP.

6. Conclusion

To sum up, in this paper, we have investigated syntactic and semantic properties of prenominal adjectival modifiers, focusing on Russian facts. We have argued that prenominal adjectives may appear in six distinct structural positions, and that each position correlates with certain semantic (and in some cases pragmatic) properties. The internal functional structure of a DP that we have assumed for this purpose consists of projections that are, crucially, independently motivated and used to account for additional phenomena in different languages. We have demonstrated that the syntax-semantics interface plays an important part in the behavior of prenominal adjectives. The semantics of an adjective correlates with the structural position it occupies; further, numerous adjectives can appear in more than one position, in which case the syntactic position of an adjective determines the way in which it gets interpreted. In other words, the semantic contribution of an adjective is often determined not only by its lexical meaning but also on the basis of the syntactic position it occupies.

The present investigation has consequences for a number of additional phenomena, independently discussed in the linguistic literature. Firstly, the syntactic-semantic properties of poslednije-type adjectives provide evidence in favor of the existence of the DP projection in an article-less language like Russian, an issue that has received a considerable attention in the recent years (see [Zlatic, 1997; Progovac, 1998; Willim, 1998, 2000; Leko, 1999; Rappaport, 2001; Franks, Pereltsvaig, 2004; Trenkic, 2004; Boskovic, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010; Pereltsvaig, 2006a, 2007, 2008; Lutikova, 2010; Boskovic, Gajewski, 2011], inter alia). A second and partially related fact is that possessive expressions in Russian do contribute an exhaustivity presupposition, contrary to what has been believed previously, although the presupposition only arises in a certain syntactic 2 configuration. These facts suggest that Russian is much more similar h to a language with articles like English than it may superficially seem § to be. Thirdly, we argued, contrary to Aikhenvald (2000), that Russian has 1 numeral classifiers, which occupy the same position as numeral classifiers

Iin other languages do. While the use of classifiers in Russian is relatively restricted and the classifier system of this language is not very rich,

the facts discussed in Section 2 point to certain similarities between Russian and the more classical classifier languages. This way, the investigation of adjectival syntax and semantics reveals a number of cross-linguistic patterns that plausibly point to universal principles governing languages with superficially different properties.

References

Abney, 1987 - Abney S.P. The English noun phrase and its sentential aspect. Ph.D. diss. MIT, 1987

Academy Grammar, 1980 - Академическая грамматика русского языка / Под ред. Н.Ю. Шведовой. М., 1980. [Akademicheskaya grammatika russkogo yazyka [Academy Grammar of the Russian language]. N.Yu. Shvedova (ed.). Moscow, 1980.]

Aikhenvald, 2000 - Aikhenvald A. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford, 2000.

Babby, 1987 - Babby L.H. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 1987. № 5(1). Рр. 91-138.

Bailyn, 1994 - Bailyn J.F. The syntax and semantics of Russian long and short adjectives: An X'-theoretic account. Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Ann Arbor Meeting. J. Toman (ed.). Ann Arbor, 1994. Pp. 1-30.

Bailyn, 2004 - Bailyn J.F. The case of Q. Proceedings of FASL 12. The Ottawa Meeting 2003. O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M.L. Rivero, D. Stojanovic (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI, 2004. Pp. 1-36.

Baker, 2003 - Baker M.C. Lexical Categories. Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge, UK, 2003.

Barcott, 2011 - Barcott B. Land of the Spirit Bear. National Geographic. 2011. August. Рр. 34-53.

Borer, 2005 - Borer H. Structuring Sense. An exo-skeletal trilogy. Vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford, 2005.

Boskovis, 2005 - Boskovis Z. On the locality of left branch extraction and the Structure of NP. Studia Linguistica. 2005. № 59 (1). Рр. 1-45.

Boskovis, 2008 - Boskovis Z. What will you have, DP or NP? Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Elfner E., M. Walkow (eds.). Book Surge Publishing, 2008.

Boskovis, 2009 -Boskovis Z. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica. 2009. № 63^ (2). Рр. 187-203.

Boskovis, 2012 - Boskovic Z. On NPs and clauses. Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories. G. Grewendorf, T.E. Zimmermann (eds.). Berlin, 2012. Pp. 179-245.

Boskovis, Gajewski, 2011 - Boskovic Z., Gajewski J. Semantic correlates of the DP/NP parameter. Proceedings of NELS 39. S. Lima, K. Mullin, B. Smith (eds.). Amherst, MA, 2011. Pp. 121-134.

Chierchia, 1995 - Chierchia G. A Note on the Contrast Individual Level vs. Stage Level Predicates in German. Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. P.M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, M. Squartini (eds.). Vol. 1: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Rosenberg and Sellier, 1995.

Chierchia, 1998 - Chierchia G. Reference to Kinds Across Languages. Natural Language Semantics. 1998. № 6. Pp. 339-405.

Cinque, 1994 - Cinque G. Evidence for Partial N-Movement in the Romance DP. Paths Towards Universal Grammar. Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne. G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, R. Zanuttini (eds.). Washington, DC,

1994. Pp. 85-110.

Cinque, 1995 - Cinque G. Italian syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, UK,

1995. Pp. 287-309.

Cinque, 1999 - Cinque G. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford, 1999.

Cinque, Krapova, 2007 - Cinque G., Krapova I. A note on bulgarian numeral classifiers. Pitar Mo$: A Building With a View. Papers in Honour of Alexandra Conilescu. G. Alboiu, A.A. Avram, and D. Isac (eds.). Bucharest, 2007. Pp. 45-51.

Delsing, 1993 - Delsing L.-O. On attributive adjectives in Scandinavian and other languages. Studia Linguistica. 1993. № 47(2). Pp. 105-125.

Demonte, 2008 - Demonte V. Meaning-form correlations and adjective position in Spanish. Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse. L. McNally, C. Kennedy (eds.). Oxford, 2008. Pp. 71-100.

Engelhardt, Trugman, 1998 - Engelhardt M., Trugman H. D as a Source of Adnominal Genitive in Russian. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Connecticut Meeting 1997. Z. Boskovic, S. Franks, W. Snyder (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI, 1998. Pp. 114-133.

Franks, Pereltsvaig, 2004 - Franks S., Pereltsvaig A. Functional categories in the Nominal Domain. Proceedings of FASL 12. The Ottawa Meeting 2003. O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M.L. Rivero, D. Stojanovic (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI, 2004. Pp. 109-128.

Geist, 2010 - Geist L. The argument structure of predicate adjectives in Russian. Russian Linguistics. 2010. № 34 (3). Pp. 239-260.

Giusti, 2002 - Giusti G. The functional structure of Noun Phrases: A bare phrase structure approach. Functional Structure in DP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. G. Cinque (ed.). Vol. 1. Oxford, 2002. Pp. 54-90.

Gutierrez-Rexach, Mallen, 2002 - Gutierrez-Rexach J., Mallen E. Toward a unified minimalist analysis of pronominal adjectives. Structure Meaning and Acquisition in Spanish. Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. C. Clements (ed.). Somerville, MA, 2002. Pp. 178-192.

Kagan, 2011 - Kagan O. On Speaker Identifiability. Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 2011. № 19 (1). Pp. 47-84.

Kagan, Alexeyenko, 2011 - Kagan O., Alexeyenko S. Degree modification in Russian morphology: The case of the suffix -ovat. Proceedings of IATL 26. N. Boneh (ed.). Jerusalem, 2011.

Kagan, Alexeyenko, in progress - Kagan O., Alexeyenko S. On the semantics of long and short adjectives in Russian. Ms. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and ro University of Osnabrück. In progress.

¡5 Kagan, Pereltsvaig, 2011 - Kagan O., Pereltsvaig A. Syntax and semantics of bare

s NPs: Objects of intensive reflexive verbs in Russian. Empirical Issues in Syntax and ^ Semantics 8. Bonami O., Cabredo Hofherr P. (eds.). Paris, 2011. Pp. 221-238. ¿î Kratzer, 1989 - Kratzer A. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. Papers

Ion Quantification. E. Bach, A. Kratzer, B. Partee (eds.). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1989.

Kratzer, 1995 - Kratzer A. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. The Generic Book. G.N. Carlson, F.J. Pelletier (eds.). Chicago, 1995. Pp. 125-175.

Kratzer, 1996 - Kratzer A. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. J. Rooryck, L. Zaring (eds.). Dordrecht, 1996. Pp. 109-138.

Kuipers, 1967 - Kuipers A.H. The Squamish language: Grammar, texts, dictionary. The Hague, 1967. (Janua linguarum. Series practica, 73.)

Leko, 1999 - Leko N. Functional categories and the structure of the DP in Bosnian. Topics in South Slavic Syntax and Semantics. M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, L. Hellan (eds.). Amsterdam, 1999. Pp. 229-252.

Lyutikova, 2010 - Лютикова Е.А. К вопросу о категориальном статусе именных групп в русском языке // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 9: Филология. № 6. С. 36-76. [Lyutikova Е.А. Towards the Question of Categorial Status of Noun Groups in Russian. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 9: Philology. № 6. Рр. 36-76.]

McCoy, 1998 - McCoy S. Individual-level predicates and pronoun doubling in colloquial Russian. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Connecticut Meeting 1997. Z. Boskovic, S. Franks, W. Snyder (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI, 1998. Pp. 231--251.

McNally, 1993 - McNally L. Adjunct predicates and the individual/stage distinction. The Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. E. Duncan, D. Farkas, P. Spaelti (eds.). Stanford, CA, 1993. Pp. 501-576.

Mel'chuk, 1985 - Mel'chuk I.A. Surface syntax of Russian numeral expressions. Wiener Slawischer Almanach. 1985. Sonderband 16.

Partee, 2006 - Partee B.H. A note on Mandarin possessives, demonstratives, and definiteness. Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. B.J. Birner, G. Ward (eds.). Amsterdam, 2006. Pp. 263-280.

Pereltsvaig, 2001 - Pereltsvaig A. On the nature of intra-clausal relations: A Study of copular sentences in Russian and Italian. Ph.D. diss. McGill University, 2001.

Pereltsvaig, 2006а - Pereltsvaig A. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 2006. № 24. Рр. 433-500.

Pereltsvaig, 2006b - Pereltsvaig A. Passing by Cardinals: In support of head movement in nominals. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton Meeting. J.E. Lavine, S. Franks, H. Filip (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI, 2006. Pp. 277-292.

Pereltsvaig, 2007 - Pereltsvaig A. On the universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica. 2007. № 61(1). Рр. 59-94.

Pereltsvaig, 2008 - Pereltsvaig A. Split phrases in colloquial Russian. Studia Linguistica. 2008. Special volume on spoken language. № 62 (1). Рр. 5-38.

Pereltsvaig, 2011a - Pereltsvaig A. On number and number-neutrality in languages with and without articles. Paper presented at the Workshop on languages with and without articles, Paris, March 2011.

Pereltsvaig, 2011b - Pereltsvaig A. As easy as two, three, four? Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Second Cornell Meeting. W. Browne, A. Cooper, ¡5 A. Fisher, E. Kesici, N. Predolac, D. Zec (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI, 2011. Pp. 417-434.

Progovac, 1998 - Progovac L. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. ^ Journal of Linguistics. 1998. № 34. Рр. 165-179.

Rapoport, 1991 - Rapoport T.R. Adjunct-predicate licensing and D-structure. Syntax and Semantics. 1991. № 25. Рр. 159-187.

Rappaport, 1992 - Rappaport G.C. On the adnominal genitive and the structure of noun phrases in Russian and Polish. Melanges Paul Garde. M. Guiraud-Weber (ed.). Aix-en-Provence, 1992. Pp. 239-262.

Rappaport, 2001 - Rappaport G.C. Extraction from nominal phrases in Polish and the theory of determiners. Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 2001. № 8(3). Pp. 159-198.

Rutkowski, 2002a - Rutkowski P. Noun/pronoun asymmetries: Evidence in support of the DP hypothesis in Polish. Jezikoslovlje. 2002. № 3. Pp. 159-170.

Rutkowski, 2002b - Rutkowski P. The syntax of quantifier phrases and the inherent vs structural case distinction. Linguistic Research. 2002. № 7. Pp. 43-74.

Rutkowski, 2006a - Rutkowski P. Why Polish numerals should not be analyzed as nouns. Minimalist Views on Language Design. C. Yim (ed.). Seoul, 2006. Pp. 249-263.

Rutkowski, 2006b - Rutkowski P. The syntax of floating intensifiers in Polish and its implications for the Determiner Phrase hypothesis. Proceedings of the BLS-32. Z. Antic et al. (eds.). UC Berkeley, 2006. Pp. 321-333.

Rutkowski, 2007 - Rutkowski P. The Determiner Phrase hypothesis as a tool of syntactic analysis of Polish nominal phrases. Ph.D. diss. Warsaw University, 2007.

Rutkowski, Maliszewska, 2007 - Rutkowski P., Maliszewska H. On prepositional phrases inside numeral expressions in Polish. Lingua. 2007. № 117 (5). Pp. 784-813.

Sadler, Arnold, 1994 - Sadler L., Arnold D.J. Prenominal adjectives and the Phrasal/Lexical Distinction. Journal of Linguistics. 1994. № 30. Pp. 187-226.

Scott, 2002 - Scott G.-J. Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. Functional Structure in DP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. G. Cinque (ed.). Vol. 1. Oxford, 2002. Pp. 91-122.

Soschen, 2001 - Soschen A. On the distribution of Copular Elements in Hebrew, Russian, and Spanish. Ms. University of Southern California. 2001.

Sproat, Shih, 1988 - Sproat R., Shih C. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. C. Georgopoulos, R. Ishihara (eds.). Dordrecht, 1988. Pp. 565-593.

Sproat, Shih, 1991 - Sproat R., Shih C. Prenominal adjectival ordering in English and Mandarin. NELS. 1991. № 18.Pp. 465-489.

Svenonius, 1993 - Svenonius P. The structural location of the attributive adjective. The Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. E. Duncan, D. Farkas, P. Spaelti (eds.). Stanford, CA, 1993. Pp. 439-454.

Svenonius, 2008 - Svenonius P. The position of adjectives and other phrasal modifiers in the decomposition of DP. Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse. L. McNally, C. Kennedy (eds.). Oxford, 2008. Pp. 16-42.

Timberlake, 2004 - Timberlake A. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge, UK, 2004.

Trenkic, 2004 - Trenkic D. Definiteness in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and some ro implications for the general structure of the nominal phrase. Lingua. 2004. № 114. | Pp. 1401-1427.

Truswell, 2004 - Truswell R. Attributive Adjectives and the Nominals they 2 Modify. Master's thesis. Oxford University, 2004.

s Willim, 1998 - Willim E. On the DP-hypothesis in Polish, an articless

1 language. Projections and Mapping: Studies in Syntax. P. Stalmaszczyk (ed.). Lublin, 1998. Pp. 137-158.

Willim, 2000 - Willim E. On the grammar of Polish nominals. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. R. Martin, D. Michaels, J. Uriagereka (eds.). Cambridge, MA, 2000. Pp. 319-346.

Yadroff, 1999 - Yadroff M. Formal Properties of Functional Categories: The minimalist syntax of Russian Nominal and Prepositional Expressions. Ph.D. diss. Indiana University Bloominton, 1999.

Zamparelli, 2000 - Zamparelli R. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York, 2000.

Zavala, 2000 - Zavala R. Multiple classifier systems in Akatek (Mayan). Systems of Nominal Classification. G. Senft (ed.). Cambridge, 2000. Pp. 114-146.

Zlatic, 1997 - Zlatic L. The Structure of the Serbian Noun Phrase. Ph.D. diss. University of Texas at Austin, 1997.

Статья поступила в редакцию 22.09.2018 The article was received on 22.09.2018

Каган Ольга Александровна - Ph.D. (лингвистика); старший преподаватель кафедры иностранной литературы и лингвистики, Университет имени Давида Бен-Гуриона в Негеве, г. Беэр-Шева, Израиль

Kagan Olga А. - Ph.D. (Linguistics); senior lecturer at the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

E-mail: [email protected]

Перельцвайг Ася Михайловна - Ph.D. (лингвистика); преподаватель Института непрерывного обучения им. Ошера, Университет Санта-Клары, Соединенные Штаты Америки

Pereltsvaig Asya М. - Ph.D. (Linguistics); lecturer at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, Santa Clara University, CA, USA

E-mail: [email protected]