342 A Reference Grammar of Russian

[284]

syncretism

featural statement

(a)

acc = gen

[−peripheral]

(/animates)

[+quantifying]

[−quantifying]

+

[

directional]

=

(b)

dat

loc

[ peripheral]

(/Declension<II> )

+[+quantifying]

[−quantifying]

+

[

directional]

=

=

(c)

gen

loc

dat

+

quantifying]

[

+

(/Declension<III> )

[

peripheral]

−

[

quantifying]

[+directional]

=

=

=

(d)

gen

loc

dat

ins

[

+

quantifying]

(fem sg adj; numerals)

[+peripheral]

A similarly complex statement has to be used with the dat and loc, which merge in the singular of Declension<II>: the [−q u a n t i f y i n g ] case syncretizes only if it is also [+d i r e c t i o n a l ] ([284](b)). A disjunction of features is required to state the syncretism of the set {gen, loc, dat}, which occurs in the singular of Declension<III> ([284](c)), or the syncretism of the set {gen, loc, dat, ins}, which occurs in feminine singular adjectives and some numerals ([284](d)).

Thus the patterns of syncretism between cells adjacent in Fig. 5.1 are not actually predicted directly and transparently from the feature definitions; extra statements are needed. In fact, it has been pointed out that, if the six basic cases (not the secondary cases) are arranged in the linear order: nom, acc, gen, loc, dat, ins, then only cells that are adjacent in this one-dimensional list tolerate syncretism, as marked by shaded cells in Fig. 5.2.48 This linearization makes it clear that the patterns of syncretism have their own logic that is not directly tied to the featural definitions of Fig. 5.1.

5.7.4 Secondary genitive and secondary locative as cases?

Jakobson included in the discussion the secondary genitive and locative. Jakobson’s inclusion of the two secondary cases has attracted some attention, the more so since he changed the featural definitions of these cases from the first study in 1936 to the second in 1958. In 1936, to characterize the distinction of two genitives and locatives, Jakobson invoked a special feature not otherwise used; gen2 and loc2 were said to be marked as [+shaping] with respect to gen1 and loc1. (In Jakobson’s language, gen2 and loc2 indicate “etwas Gestaltendes oder

48 Chvany 1982.

Predicates and arguments 343

Fig. 5.2 Syncretism and linearization of Russian cases

zu Gestaltendes,” meaning that gen2 shapes a mass quantity and loc2 serves as a container, thereby shaping something else.) In 1958, the analysis was changed, and gen2 and loc2 became [−directional], like nom and ins, while gen1 and loc1 became [+directional], like acc and dat.

As has been noted, the revised analysis of 1958 is the less appealing.49 Gen1 and gen2 are equally directional or non-directional, since both can equally be used for objects of predicates in the partitive meaning (regbnm cf[fhf<gen1> cf[fhe<gen2>). In the older two-dimensional figure, some features, specifically [±shaping], were of limited utility. Now in the revised analysis, the system of eight units makes a cube in which all features are used to the maximum. The 1958 analysis seems motivated less by patterns in language than by the desire to produce an elegant geometric figure.

Are gen2 and loc2 separate cases?50 Perhaps the question is misguided. Perhaps we should not be forced to declare either that they are cases (if so, why are they so limited?) or that they are not cases (if not, why is there nevertheless some small difference in meaning between the secondary and the primary cases, some of the time?). It might be preferable not to put the question in terms that require one to choose yea or nay.51 What these secondary cases are is alternate morphemes for the basic genitive and locative cases used under some conditions, with elusive semantic and stylistic overtones, with certain lexical items. Here, as in other instances of change, the older form is retained in the older, idiomatic, abstract uses, the newer form is employed for novel combinations not learned

49Worth 1984, 1998.

50See Comrie 1986[a], 1991 on the theoretical problem of defining cases.

51Despite Mel chuk’s pronouncement (1986:56): “One cannot, however, talk about ‘variants of a case 2’ or about ‘case allomorphs that differ semantically’ (as is sometimes done): these expressions are logically absurd.”