338A Reference Grammar of Russian

the contexts listed in the second half of Table 5.13, the entity expressed by the instrumental is tangentially involved in the progress of the event; the entity is in a relationship of synecdoche to some other more central agent or aspectual element, or to the general idea of agentivity or aspectuality. For example, the contribution of the instrumental entity as agent or aspectual argument is only partial, incomplete; it is connected to agentivity or aspectuality, but that entity is not identified completely as the primary agent or aspectual argument. In the middle of Table 5.13 are constructions in which the instrumental is used in adverbial functions. They describe a history that has one shape -- harsh-speaking or forest-traveling at night (through the medium of forest) -- and that shape is linked to but differentiated from other imaginable types of histories. If there is a unity in the constructions employing the instrumental, it is the way in which two alternatives are proposed, where the asserted history is viewed as a synecdochic part of a larger history.

5.7 Case: context and variants

5.7.1 Jakobson’s case system: general

In two studies twenty years apart, Roman Jakobson developed an analysis of the case system of Russian that is both of historical and continuing interest.46 The analysis, formulated in the spirit of the structuralist intellectual climate of the period between the two world wars, consists of the following interlocking claims.

Invariant meaning (Gesamtbedeutung): Jakobson proposed that each case has a consistent meaning, or value. That value is present in all contexts in which a case is used -- with verbs, with prepositions, with adjectives or nouns.

Binary feature analysis: Collectively, the cases form a tightly structured system in which each case can be specified by positive or negative values of a minimal number of binary features. Over the whole system, the features are utilized as fully as possible.

Markedness: The binary features are asymmetric: for each binary feature, one value is marked (more narrowly defined and restricted in usage), the other unmarked (broader in definition and usage).

46 For useful translations of Jakobson 1936/1971[b], 1958/1971[b], see Jakobson 1984. Commentary and application: Neidle 1988.

			Predicates and arguments 339
NOM	ACC	GEN		[ PERIPHERAL]
INS	DAT	LOC		[ PERIPHERAL]
[ DIRECTIONAL]	[ DIRECTIONAL]
[ QUANTIFYING]		[ QUANTIFYING]

Fig. 5.1 Jakobson’s feature analysis of Russian case

Maximalization: Jakobson included in his analysis the two secondary cases. (Fig. 5.1 and the discussion below ignore the second genitive and locative.)

Syncretism and iconicity: The binary feature analysis of case predicts the occurrence of syncretism (the same morphological expression of different case endings). Syncretism occurs between cases that are similar and share features; that is, similarity in value is matched in an iconic fashion by similarity of morphological form.

5.7.2 Jakobson’s case system: the analysis

Jakobson’s analysis of the six basic cases can be represented as in Fig. 5.1. Nominative and accusative are [ −p e r i p h e r a l ] , inasmuch as these cases are

used for the major arguments of predicates. The distinction of [±p e r i p h e r a l ] fits with contemporary theories of syntax that distinguish between syntactic cases (= [−p e r i p h e r a l ] ) and semantic cases (= [+p e r i p h e r a l ] ), except that in contemporary theories, syntactic case is automatically derived from a syntactic structure and is thereby devoid of meaning, whereas Jakobson exactly wanted to argue that all cases in all contexts have value. Even if the features of Jakobson are utilized in a contemporary approach as notational devices analogous to phonological features, the spirit in which the features were intended differs radically. The accusative and dative are a class and share the feature value [+d i r e c t i o n a l ] , since they express the direct and indirect objects; both can be said to occur with arguments to which activity of the predicate is directed. The locative is transparently [+p e r i p h e r a l ] . It is less than obvious in what sense the locative is [+q u a n t i f y i n g ].

The genitive and instrumental (§5.6) are the cases where the issues of invariance and binary features come to the fore. Both are used in a wide range of contexts.

The genitive is used with prepositions, with verbs, with quantifiers, and as internal arguments of noun phrases. These uses, claims Jakobson, all reflect a restricted quantity of participation by the argument marked with the genitive case.

340 A Reference Grammar of Russian

This formulation makes sense with contexts which measure the quantity in some way -- with quantifiers and verbs that govern the genitive. Quantifying verbs like [dfn∫nm ‘be sufficient’, yfcjk∫nm ‘salt up a whole lot of’, yfcvjnh†nmcz ‘look at to one’s heart’s content’ measure quantity of participation against an implicit standard. The partitive usage is quantifying (ds´ gbnm xƒz<gen1> ‘drink some tea,’ §5.5). The genitive of negation could be viewed as restricted participation (§§5.3, 5.4). What this formulation means with respect to the internal arguments of noun phrases -- possessors -- is less clear, unless one takes this to mean that the possessor participates only by virtue of serving in a limited role relative to another entity -- the head noun of a noun phrase. But this is a rather different sense of limited participation from the genitive used with quantifiers.

In a similar fashion, the uses of the instrumental can be seen as related. The instrumental of simile and the predicative instrumental propose that an identity or property holds of something, but only partially (§§5.6, 6.2). Similarly, the agentive instrumental (true instruments, instrumental in pseudo-passives) and the aspectual instrumental (in nhzcnb herjq ‘shake [with] one’s hand’, idshznm rfvytv ‘throw [with] a stone’, gf[yenm jdwfvb ‘smell of sheep’) identify an entity that participates in the event in a certain way -- as agentive or aspectual -- while at the same time the entity is synecdochic to agentivity or aspectuality in general (vtyz elfhbkj njrjv ‘I was hit with a shock’, vf[fnm herjq ‘wave with the hand’). What really characterizes the instrumental, then, is synecdoche: it indicates an entity that is part of the larger agentivity or aspectuality of the predicate. As Jakobson defines the instrumental, it is positively defined for the feature [+peripheral], and it is negatively defined for other features. The definition is not sufficiently refined to get at what is involved in the instrumental: an entity is part of the whole, but not the whole story.

Whether these various contexts of the genitive, and the various contexts for using the instrumental, reduce to a single invariant meaning (Gesamtbedeutung) is ultimately a question of how one conceptualizes grammar. Jakobson seems to assert complete unity, but does so exactly by exhibiting the heterogeneous contexts in which a case is used -- for example, the contexts of the instrumental case listed in §5.6. No matter what, a grammatical description will have to contain a list of the various contexts in which a case is used. Wierzbicka’s exposition (1980), intended as a defense of Jakobson, does exactly this; it recognizes a set of contexts and gives somewhat different paraphrases for each. Inevitably one comes to a network model, a model that describes a set of partially distinct but partially related contexts or constructions. Once the network of contexts is spelled out, the question of whether there is an invariant meaning (Gesamtbedeutung) fades in importance.

Predicates and arguments 341

Where Jakobson’s definitions of case have some special insight is in contexts in which there is synchronic variation. For example, saying that the genitive is quantifying does get at something of the variation between accusative and genitive in the context of the genitive of negation: the genitive is indeed used when the utterance denies participation -- that is, when participation of an entity is quantified negatively.

The assessment is then mixed. The various constructions or contexts (Sonderbedeutungen) of each case have to be distinguished and described in some way, as partially distinct constructions. The fact that there is some similarity is inevitable, since the various constructions have developed from common historical sources. If one attempts to generalize over all contexts, the resulting overarching, Platonic definition will be vague. Yet an invariant value proves useful as a way of interpreting the sense of ad hoc variation of cases in contexts in which there is active variation.

5.7.3 Syncretism

While Jakobson formulated his analysis primarily in order to account for the meaning (value) of cases, he also attempted to demonstrate that syncretism matches meaning -- that is, that cases which have the same morphological expression have similar meanings, and specifically that all instances of syncretism -- the same (or similar) morphological expression for different cases -- occur between cells that are adjacent in Fig. 5.1.47 Similarity in form occurs only when there is similarity in meaning. For example, nominative and accusative form a class because they merge in the singular of inanimate nouns of Declension<I>; this small class can be defined as [−peripheral, −quantifying]. When the genitive and locative plural of (inanimate) adjectives merge -- Jakobson’s gbdys[<gen=loc pl> ‘alehouses’ -- that syncretism can be described simply as the merger of [+quantifying, +peripheral] cases. In this way syncretism appears to be iconic of meaning.

While it is true that all instances of syncretism occur between cells that are adjacent in the pictorial representation, it turns out to be difficult to define that concept of “adjacent cells” in terms of features; complex manipulations are needed. For example, accusative and genitive are merged in animates. To state this, one has to say, as in [284](a): among [−peripheral] cases, [+quantifying] (genitive) syncretizes with [−quantifying] if the [−quantifying] case is also [+directional] (accusative), but not if it is [−directional] (nominative).

47 On case geometry and Fig. 5.14, see Chvany 1982, 1984, 1986, McCreight and Chvany 1991.