278A Reference Grammar of Russian

Passives present the argument that might otherwise be the accusative object as the nominative subject. Being the “derived” subject of a passive allows that argument to function, for example, as the subject of the modal vj´xm; the validity of the possibility hangs on the subject.

[9]Xedcndj yt vj;tn ,snm pf,snj. The feeling cannot be forgotten.

These are familiar facts, but they serve to remind us that there is some value to being the subject: it is the argument which is most responsible for the state of the world and the argument whose states are representative of the whole world. It is for this reason that -- if need be, under certain conditions -- the picture of the world reported by the predicate can be reduced to a property of the subject.

Something similar could be said about the direct object. The direct object, which is expressed in the accusative, is expressed in the accusative because its properties are in some way contingent, dependent, subject to change. This is true both when the object is significantly affected, such as the footwear in [1] cfgju∫ vs´ dpΩkb gjl vs´ irb, and also when it is merely held static in a dependent state, such as the instruments in vepsrƒyns lth;ƒkb gjl vs´ irfvb bycnhev†yns ‘the musicians held their instruments under their arms’. Thus the object (when there is one) is an aspectual argument -- an entity whose states are contingent and subject to change. Arguably other entities could be subject to change, as, for example, the hospital in Gj´ckt bywbl†ynf utythƒkf nén ;t evxƒkb d ,jkmy∫we ‘Right after the incident they whisked the general off to the hospital’. But such loci are subject to change exactly because the direct object is subject to change; their change depends on the change in the object. The aspectual properties of the direct object -- its potential for change -- are the most informative and representative of the aspectuality of the predicate, of the possible change of the predicate. If the subject is the argument whose properties best define responsibility for the world, in the object we see the entity whose changes best represent the change of the world.

5.1.7 Typology of predicates

With these concepts in hand, we can construct a typology of predicates as follows. The typology is relevant for valence in the strict sense -- the arguments and their cases that occur with given predicates -- and also for other patterns of behavior (agreement with quantified subjects, or use of a reflexive cdj´q in reference to an argument other than a nominative subject, to name two examples).

(a) I M P E R S O N A L : Impersonal predicates -- one of the distinctive characteristics of Russian syntax -- arise by suppressing the possibility of a subject argument. In [10], responsibility is presented as indirect, displaced, and there is no subject

Predicates and arguments 279

argument; in [11], responsibility is not attributed to anything:

[10]Ljhjue pfkbkj djljq.4

There occurred flooding over of the road by water.

[11]Yf Rhsvcrjv vjcne z ljkuj cnjzk, cvjnhz d venyst djkys, vtyz njiybkj, ljvjq tkt lj,hfkcz.

On the bridge I stood for a long time staring at the muddy waves, it made me sick, I hardly made it home.

Or a predicate can be impersonal by suppressing the expression of any possible aspectual argument. Thus with certain verbs stating discomfort in the domains of a person and a body part of the person, there is no aspectual argument. Aspectuality is absorbed in the predicate:

[12]E vtyz wfhfgftn d ujhkt, nhtobn d eif[.

I have a scratchiness in my throat, a ringing in my ears.

And some verbs reporting adverse effect leave that effect unnamed:

[13]Rfr njulf dktntkj Zujlt jn cfvjuj Cnfkbyf. Just as Iagoda caught it from Stalin himself.

When the predicate is impersonal, it adopts the neuter singular in the past tense, the third-person singular in present-tense forms.

The term “impersonal” is applied to sentences which necessarily lack a subject, but not to sentences in which the subject argument happens to be omitted by ellipsis (for example, the omitted subject of hfpékbcm in [1]) or to unspecified third-plural agents (Vtyz edthzkb, xnj ybrfrb[ vfkmxbitr yf ,fks yt gecrf/n

‘I was assured that they were not admitting any young boys to the balls’) or generic addressees (nbit tltim, lfkmit ,eltim ‘go quietly, you’ll get further’).

(b) Q u a n t i f y i n g ( e x i s t e n t i a l , m o da l ) : The verb be and similar predicates establish the existence of an entity in a domain.

[14]D ktce kt;fk uke,jrbq cytu. In the forest lay deep snow.

As a rule, the domain argument, expressed as a dative or some prepositional phrase (d<\loc>, as in d ktcé; e plus genitive is a favorite), is well-defined. The entity whose existence is established is the aspectual argument (cy†u). That argument is generally the nominative subject. That argument can be genitive if the predicate is negated or if the predicate is one of the lexical quantifying predicates, such as [dfn∫nm ‘to be sufficient’ (§5.3). In this way quantifying predicates can also be impersonal.

4 Babby 1994.

280A Reference Grammar of Russian

(c)I N T R A N S I T I V E : Intransitives are predicates with a sole major argument, the nominative subject. That argument can combine all the characteristic properties of subjects to some or another degree. Thus in gj´tpl evxƒkcz ‘the train dashed off ’, the subject argument gj´tpl ‘train’ is the most informational argument (its movement defines the world); it is the modal argument (it is responsible, even if not conscious); and it is the aspectual argument (its position changes). Intransitives often use oblique phrases or prepositional phrases to specify the domain of states over which the aspectual argument changes, for example, the tunnel of gj´tpl evxƒkcz d neyy†km ‘the train dashed into the tunnel’ or the shore in [1] (Gjljik∫ r ,†htue htr∫).

(d) R E F L E XI V E I N T R A N S I T I V E : Many intransitives are related to a transitive predicate by the addition of the “reflexive” affix -cz (-cm): jnlfk∫nmcz/ jnlfkz´nmcz ‘remove oneself ’ (jnlfk∫nm ‘remove, send something away’), gjlyz´nmcz/gjlybvƒnmcz ‘rise’ (gjlyz´nm ‘raise something’), ecnhj´bnmcz/ ecnhƒbdfnmcz ‘get settled’ (ecnhj´bnm ‘settle someone’). Whereas in a transitive the roles of responsible argument and aspectual argument are separated, reflexive intransitives merge these roles, and present a change or relation as not arising from an external source.

(e)S e m i - t r a n s i t i v e s : With some predicates, the aspectuality -- change or potential for change -- is not localized to an argument expressed in the accusative case. Because there is no accusative object, the predicates are not, strictly speaking, transitive. Yet there is an argument other than the subject that is involved in the change; in this respect they are something more than intransitive. Such predicates might be termed semi-transitive. There are different groups, depending on the case governed by the predicate: genitive, expressing quantification or partial contact (bp,t;ƒnm ytghbz´nyjcntq<gen> ‘avoid difficulties’); dative, expressing a goal (gjvj´xm/gjvjuƒnm directs succor to its dative goal); or instrumental expressing metonymy (eghfdkz´nm cnhfyj´q<ins> ‘govern the country’, ld∫ufnm kjrnz´vb ‘to move with the elbows’).

(f)T R A N S I T I V E S : A transitive predicate has a nominative subject and an accusative object. The nominative subject is responsible for the state of the object or changes in the object. The accusative object is the aspectual argument, or patient: its states are subject to change and dependent on the flow of the predicate history and, ultimately, dependent on the subject. The object can undergo actual change, as do the instruments of d rjhblj´ht gz´nthj ht,z´n jn djcmv∫ lj xtns´ hyflwfnb yfcnhƒbdf/n bycnhev†yns ‘in the corridor five children from eight to fourteen are tuning their instruments’, or be held in a relationship in which its location or existence is contingent, such as the instruments of vepsrƒyns lth;ƒkb gjl vs´ irfvb bycnhev†yns ‘the musicians held their instruments under their arms’.