chapter 2
The overgeneration problem and the case
of semipredicatives in Russian*
Steven Franks
Indiana University, BloomingtonUnlike ordinary adjectives, Russian sam ‘alone’ and odin ‘one’ (“semipredicatives”)
are in the dative in infinitival non-obligatory control contexts but in obligatory
control structures they must agree in case with their antecedents. This paper
starts from the puzzle of avoiding overapplication of the mechanism for assigning
dative – the standard assumption that dative arises through agreement with
a PRODAT subject introduces a “look-ahead” problem. Approaches of Franks,
Babby, Grebenyova, and Landau are considered, with the aim of unifying
critical insights. It is argued that (i) there is no need to posit PRODAT; (ii)
semipredicatives can be directly assigned dative whereas ordinary adjectives must
agree; (iii) arguments have more sensitive case requirements than do adjuncts.- Introduction
This paper revisits a classic problem in the syntax of Russian case, drawn to the atten-
tion of generative grammarians by Comrie (1974). Comrie focused on the unusual
behavior of sam ‘self ’ and odin ‘alone’ –“semipredicatives”, to use his original term – in
infinitival clause contexts. In configurations of obligatory control (OC) by a subject
these items necessarily agree in case with the controller, as in (1). On the other hand,
they appear in the dative when there is no obvious controller, as in (2), or there is a
controller, but it is somehow inaccessible for case-agreement purposes, as in (3).
(1) On xočet [vse sdelat’ sam/samomu].
he.nom wants all do inf self.nom/dat
‘He wants to do all that himself.’
- This paper has gone through considerable reworking, thanks largely to valuable input
from two anonymous reviewers, as well as from the editors of this volume. I am particularly
indebted to Gréte Dalmi for her editorial advice. A much earlier version was presented at
AATSEEL 2009, and I also thank that audience for feedback.