<%BANNER%>

Russian and Polish Verbal Morphology

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043480/00001

Material Information

Title: Russian and Polish Verbal Morphology Comparative Feature Encoding
Physical Description: 1 online resource (91 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Prince, Rose B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: morphosyntax -- polish -- russian
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Slavic languages Russian and Polish exhibit notable similarities and differences in the way that they encode agreement on verbs. Case studies of Distributed Morphology (DM) in the Slavic family have generally not been comparative in nature. In this work I discuss comparatively the verbal structure and morphology of Russian and Polish verbs. In Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994), phonological features are not assumed in syntax. Rather, syntax manipulates sets of abstract features only. In this system, subject agreement is assumed to take place in the syntax between sets of interpretable agreement (or phi-) features in the subject DP and a set of unvalued/uninterpretable features in a functional head (typically T). At Morphological Structure (MS), a dissociated morpheme Agr is created and adjoined to T. The phi-features of T are then copied to Agr. Following the creation of Agr, vocabulary insertion rules, which supply phonological content to termial nodes, may apply to the Agr nodes. In this system, morphological paradigms such as the subject agreement paradigm arise due to the fact that vocabulary insertion rules may be underspecified relative to the features in the terminal nodes they apply to. When vocabulary insertion occurs, underspecified lexical insertion rules select the phonological content that matches the most features for a given context. When examining paradigms from related languages, such as those examined here, one expects that variation in those paradigms would fall out from small differences in this system, either at the level of MS (disassociated nodes, impoverishement rules, etc.) or in the vocabulary rules themselves. I attempt to show this is the case for the Polish and Russian paradigms examined here.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rose B Prince.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Henderson, Brent Mykel.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043480:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043480/00001

Material Information

Title: Russian and Polish Verbal Morphology Comparative Feature Encoding
Physical Description: 1 online resource (91 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Prince, Rose B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: morphosyntax -- polish -- russian
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Slavic languages Russian and Polish exhibit notable similarities and differences in the way that they encode agreement on verbs. Case studies of Distributed Morphology (DM) in the Slavic family have generally not been comparative in nature. In this work I discuss comparatively the verbal structure and morphology of Russian and Polish verbs. In Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994), phonological features are not assumed in syntax. Rather, syntax manipulates sets of abstract features only. In this system, subject agreement is assumed to take place in the syntax between sets of interpretable agreement (or phi-) features in the subject DP and a set of unvalued/uninterpretable features in a functional head (typically T). At Morphological Structure (MS), a dissociated morpheme Agr is created and adjoined to T. The phi-features of T are then copied to Agr. Following the creation of Agr, vocabulary insertion rules, which supply phonological content to termial nodes, may apply to the Agr nodes. In this system, morphological paradigms such as the subject agreement paradigm arise due to the fact that vocabulary insertion rules may be underspecified relative to the features in the terminal nodes they apply to. When vocabulary insertion occurs, underspecified lexical insertion rules select the phonological content that matches the most features for a given context. When examining paradigms from related languages, such as those examined here, one expects that variation in those paradigms would fall out from small differences in this system, either at the level of MS (disassociated nodes, impoverishement rules, etc.) or in the vocabulary rules themselves. I attempt to show this is the case for the Polish and Russian paradigms examined here.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rose B Prince.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Henderson, Brent Mykel.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043480:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 RUSSIAN AND POLISH VERBAL MORPHOLOGY: COMPARATIVE FEATURE ENCODING By ROSE BETH PRINCE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M ASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Rose Beth Prince

PAGE 3

3 For my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Firstly, I am very grateful to my committee Brent Henderson and Hana Filip for their guidance throughout the process of completing this thes is. I would also like to thank my Russian and Polish instructors at UF, especially Ingrid Kleespies, Lynn Patyk, Christopher Caes, and Ewa Wampuszyc, for encouraging me to go to grad school and our numerous conversations about R ussian and Slavic linguisti cs Most importantly I thank my parents for their patience, love, and dedication as well as teaching me the value of education from a young age I am truly grateful to my aunt, who diligently proofread this work for me. Finally, I thank my grandparent s, who introduced me to Slavic culture and were an extremely positive influence in my life. It is in their memory that I complete this study.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Russian and Polish in the Slavic Context ................................ ................................ 15 Russian and Polish Verbs and Distributed Morphology ................................ .......... 15 Outline of t his Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 2 THE ORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ............ 17 Distributed Morphology ................................ ................................ ........................... 17 Agreement ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 18 Mo rphological Merger and Adjacency ................................ .............................. 19 Morphological Merger ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Adjacency ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19 Syncretism, Impoverishment, and Morphosyntactic Features ................................ 20 Slavic Morphology t hrough DM ................................ ................................ ............... 21 Slavic Morphosyntactic Theo ry o utside of DM ................................ ........................ 23 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 28 3 OVERVIEW OF RUSSIAN AND POLISH GRAMMAR ................................ ........... 32 The Russian Verbal System ................................ ................................ ................... 32 Russian Irregular Verb Forms ................................ ................................ ................. 33 The Polish Verbal System ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 Polish Irregular Verb Forms ................................ ................................ .................... 36 Tense ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 36 Tense in Russian ................................ ................................ .............................. 36 Tense in Polish ................................ ................................ ................................ 37 Aspect ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 Mood ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 39 Indicative ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 39 Conditional ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 39 Imperative ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 42

PAGE 6

6 Grammatical Case and Verb Government ................................ .............................. 42 Reflexive Verbs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 44 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 45 4 COMPARAT IVE RUSSIAN AND POLISH VERBAL MORPHOLOGY .................... 53 Lexical Insertion Rules ................................ ................................ ............................ 53 Russian N onpast ................................ ................................ .............................. 53 Polish N onpast ................................ ................................ ................................ 53 Russ ian P ast ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 54 Polish P ast ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Nonpast Sample Derivations and Tree Structures ................................ .................. 55 Past Tense Sample Derivations and Tree Structures ................................ ............. 56 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 58 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 86 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 91

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 First conjugation endings for Russian nonpast verbs, [ e ] and [ o ] endings ..... 46 3 2 Second conjugation endings for Russian nonpast verbs ................................ .... 46 3 3 Russian nonpast verb endings ................................ ................................ ........... 46 3 4 Russian past conjugation ................................ ................................ ................... 47 3 5 Russian past verb endings ................................ ................................ ................. 47 3 6 ................................ ................................ ............................ 47 3 7 ................................ ................................ ............................ 47 3 8 ................................ ................................ ... 48 3 9 ................................ ................................ ......... 48 3 10 First conjugation endings for Polish nonpast verbs, am/ asz and em/ esz ...... 48 3 11 Second conjugation endings for Polish nonpast verbs, isz/ ysz ............. 49 3 12 Third conjugation for Polish nonpast verbs, esz ................................ ........... 49 3 13 Polish nonpast verb endings ................................ ................................ ............... 49 3 14 Polish past conjugation ................................ ................................ ....................... 50 3 15 Polish past verb endings: Person Number agreement ................................ ....... 50 3 16 Polish past verb endings: Gender Number agreement ................................ ....... 50 3 17 Conjugation of ................................ ................................ ............................ 51 3 18 Conjugation ................................ ................................ ........ 51 3 19 Conjugation pattern for ................................ ................................ ............... 52 3 20 Russian imperative forms ................................ ................................ ................... 52 3 21 Polish imperative derivation ................................ ................................ ................ 52

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 DM Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 29 2 2 Merger via Adjacency (Bobaljik 1994) ................................ ................................ 30 2 3 Russian Morphological Templa te (Halle 1995) ................................ ................... 30 2 4 Morphosyntactic Feature Matrix (Franks 1995) ................................ .................. 31 4 1 Russian Nonpast Lexical Insertion Rules ................................ ........................... 59 4 2 Polish Nonpast Person Number Lexical Insertion Rules ................................ .... 59 4 3 Polish Nonpast Verbalizing Suffix Lexical Insertion Rules ................................ .. 59 4 4 Russian Past Lexical Insertion Rules ................................ ................................ 60 4 5 Polish Past Lexical Insertion Rules ................................ ................................ ..... 60 4 6 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 61 4 7 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 61 4 8 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 62 4 9 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 62 4 10 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 63 4 11 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 63 4 12 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 64 4 13 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 64 4 14 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 65 4 15 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 65 4 16 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 66 4 17 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 66 4 18 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 67 4 19 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 67

PAGE 9

9 4 20 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 68 4 21 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 68 4 22 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 69 4 23 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 69 4 24 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 70 4 25 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 70 4 26 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 71 4 27 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 71 4 28 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 72 4 29 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 72 4 30 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 73 4 31 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 73 4 32 Structure at MS b efore Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 74 4 33 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 74 4 34 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 75 4 35 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 75 4 36 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 76 4 37 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 76 4 38 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 77 4 39 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 77 4 40 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 78 4 41 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 78 4 42 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 79 4 43 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 79 4 44 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 80

PAGE 10

10 4 45 Structure after Vocabulary Inserti on ................................ ................................ ... 80 4 46 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 81 4 47 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 81 4 48 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 82 4 49 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 82 4 50 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 83 4 51 Structure at Syntax ................................ ................................ ............................. 83 4 52 Structure at MS before Merger ................................ ................................ ........... 84 4 53 Merger of T and V ................................ ................................ ............................... 84 4 54 Structure after Merger ................................ ................................ ........................ 85 4 55 Structure after Vocabulary Insertion ................................ ................................ ... 85

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACC Accusative Agr Agreement Asp Aspect AUX Auxiliary COND Conditional Dat Dative Deriv. Derivational suffix DS D Structure DM Distributed Morphology F Female G Gender Inf. Infinitive Imperf. Imperfective INFL Inflection (syntactic head) INST Instrumental Interr. Interrogative p article LF Logical Form LOC Locative (Prepositional) c ase M Masculine MS Morphological Structure N Neuter Part. Participle Perf. Perfective PF Phonological Form

PAGE 12

12 PL Plural P N Person Number Pol Polish PST Past Refl Refle xive Rus Russian SG Singular SMPI Syntax Morphophonological Interface SS S Structure Theme Thematic suffix V PST Nonpast verb V PST Past verb VI Vocabulary Item VP Verb Phrase VS Verbalizing Suffix feat Phi features 1 1 st Person 2 2 nd Person

PAGE 13

13 Abstrac t of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts RUSSIAN AND POLISH VERBAL MORPHOLOGY: COMPARATIVE FEATURE ENCODING By Rose Beth Prince D ecember 2011 Chair: Brent Henderson Major: Linguistics The Slavic languages Russian and Polish exhibit notable similarities and differences in the way that they encode agreement on verbs. Case studies of Distributed Morphology (DM) in the Slavic family have generally not been comparative in nature. In this work I discuss comparatively the verbal structure and morphology of Russian and Polish verbs. In Distributed Morp hology (Halle and Marantz 1993 1994 ), phonological features are not assumed in syntax Rather, syntax manipulates sets of abstract features only. In this system, subject agreement is assumed to take place in the syntax between sets of interpretable agreement (or phi ) features in the subject DP and a set of unvalued/uninterpretable featur es in a functional head (typically T) A t Morphological Structure (MS), a diss ociated morpheme Agr is created and adjoined to T The phi features of T are then copied to Agr. Following the creation of Agr, vocabulary i nsertion rules which supply phonol ogical content to termial nodes, may apply to the Agr node s In this system, morphological paradigms such as the subject agreement paradigm arise due to the fact that vocabulary insertion rules may be underspecified relative to the features in the termina l nodes they apply to. When vocabulary i nsertion occurs, underspecified lexical insertion rules select the

PAGE 14

14 phonological content that matches the most features for a given context. When examining paradigms from related languages, such as those examined her e, one expects that variation in those paradigms would fall out from small differences in this system, either at the level of MS (disassociated nodes, impoverishement rules, etc.) or in the vocabulary rules themselves. I attempt to show this is the case fo r the Polish and Russian paradigms examined here.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Russian and Polish in the Slavic Context Russian and Polish respectively represent the verbal paradigms of East and West Slavic and have both evolved from their common ancestor, Prot o Slavic (later Common Slavic). The modern Slavic languages are generally characterized by rich agreement, case, and aspectual systems. Russian is the native language of nearly 144 million people living in Russia and other territories of the former Sovie t Union. Polish is spoken by appro ximately 40 million speakers living in Poland and many other countries around the world. The Russian verbal system is characteristic of other East Slavic languages, such as Ukrainian, while Polish exhibits characteristic s found in other West Slavic languages such as Czech and Slovak. Russian and Polish Verbs and Distributed Morphology In this study I argue that the theory of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993) efficiently captures the verbal agreement paradigm s of Russian and Polish The processes of a greement a nd morphological m erger establish the correct morpheme order in both languages before vocabulary i nsertion may occur. Outline of t his Study Chapter 2 provides an overview of the theory of Distributed Mo rphology, the morphological processes of agreement and m erger and recent Slavic verbal linguistic research in DM and through other theoretical frameworks. Chapter 3 is an overview of grammar as it relates to the verbal structures of Polish and Russian. In Chapter 4 I comparatively analyze the two languages in all tenses through DM via derivations and

PAGE 16

16 tree structures. Finally, Chapter 5 contains concluding remarks about this study and directions for future research in Slavic morphology.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 THEO RETICAL BACKGROUND Distributed Morphology This work assumes the theory of Distributed Morphology, or DM (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994). Crucial to DM is the relationship betw een vocabulary i tems (phonological information) and bundles of morphosyntactic fe atures. DM assumes a separationist model in which phonological features play no role in syntactic derivations. Rather, syntax manipulates abstract features residing in term in al nodes. Phonological information is then supplied post syntactically at vocabul ary i ns ertion (sometimes which occurs at the level of MS (Morphological Structure). Distributed Morphology differs fr om previous l exicalist theories in that it does not identify the l exicon a s the locus of all word creat ion. In traditional lexicalist theory, the l exicon is a comp onent of grammar comprised of syntactic/semantic content as well as phonological content Along with syntax, the l exicon serves to connect sound and meaning by establishing relationships between complex constituents and their respective components. DM separates the l exicon into several distributed lists: List 1, List 2, and List 3. List 1 contains the roots of a language (sans phonology) as well as grammatical feature bundles on which the synta x operates. List 2, the Vocabulary is the source of all phonological content that is added to terminal nodes after syntactic and morphological operations have occurred at SS and MS. By the Subset Principle, a vocabulary i tem is inserted into a terminal node if the features of the item match all or a subset of the features contained in the node If the vocabulary i tem contains a feature not present in the terminal node, vocabulary i nsertion does not occur. Vocabulary items

PAGE 18

18 thus compete for insertion int o a terminal node with t he morpheme that matches the greatest number of features winning being inserted List 3 the Encyclopedia, contains all special semantic content, including specific meanings of roots. DM was developed to capture the differe nt roles that sound and structure/meaning play in the syntax and the phonology. Syntax interpret s only the grammatical features of the morphemes and organizes them into hierarchical structure ; phonological information is opaque at this stage. Contrastive ly, the phonology has access to both phonological content and syntactic/semantic features. Morphology provides the link between syntax and phonology. In DM, verbs acquire inflectional features via purely syntactic operations or other operations that are dependent on syntactic structural requirements, such as head movement and Morphological Merger 1 (Marantz 1988, Halle and Ma rantz 1993, 1994; Halle 1997). Two morphological processes that can occur at MS are described in the following sections : a greement and m erger Agreement The process of phi fea ture agreement takes place in the syntax as phi features are copied from the subject DP in Spec TP to T. In languages such as Russian and Polish which have morpho phonologically independent agreement morphemes, a dissociated morpheme Agr is created at MS. P hi features that will receive phonological content at Vocabulary Insertion are copied from T to the Agr head. This process creates two terminal nodes, T and Agr, which can be targeted by vocabulary insertion r ules. 1 I assume that head movement and Merger are identical processes that occur at MS (Harley 2004). I will refer to this operation as Merger throughout the rest of this work.

PAGE 19

19 Morphological Merger and Adjacency Morphological Merger, like the syntactic process of head movement, joins two terminal nodes under a single node : Morphological Merger At any level of syntactic analysis (D structure, S structure, phonological st ructure), a relation between X and Y may be replaced by (expressed by) the affixation of the lexical head of X to the lexical head of Y. (Marantz 1988) Morphological Merger i s distinct from the process of F usion another morphological process that occurs at MS : F usion creates a single node from two nodes, while Merger maintains the two separate nodes under a category node. After Merger occur s, two VIs are inserted during vocabulary i nsertion under the categorical node. Closely related to (and perhaps a prerequisite for) Morphological Merger is the notion of Adjacency, posited by Bobaljik (1994) as a condition that enables affixation Adjacency An affix may merge with a stem with which it a) forms a complex head derived in the syntax, b) forms a complex head in the lexicon, or c) is adjacent to (Bobaljik 1994). Bobaljik characterizes the condition of Adjacency as an intermediate configuration in the mapping between syntax and phonology. Adjacency is concerned only with elements which may affect the mapp ing process, such as heads; traces, empty projections and adjoined items (i.e. adverbs) are irrelevant. Merger is similarly unaffected by traces or adjoined elements. Chomsky (1992) argues that lexical items are fully inflected upon insertion, and the verb along with its inflection raises to INFL at LF to check features established by the syntax. DM does not require a process of LF checking to satisfy the requirements for

PAGE 20

20 affixation; Adjacency creates an acceptable environment fo r Morphological Merger to occur between terminal nodes (say, V and T) The processes of Adjacency and Merger depicted in Figure 2 2 closely resemble those illustrated in the context of Russian and Polish syntactic trees illustrated in Chapter 4. Syncretism, Impoverishment, and Morphosyntactic Features Other potential operations assumed to be a part of MS include impoverishment rules. Such rules are responsible for deleting morphosyntactic features before vocabulary insertion takes place, often in specific morphosyntactic enviro nments The close relationshi p between syncretism and i mpoverishment reveals significant implications about inflectional features. As Frampton (2002) notes, i mpoverishment rules (or syntax morphology interface rules) ogical content; if these rules did not exist, linguistic innovation would only involve the incorporation of novel lexical items. Significantly, impoverishment rules can bleed the application of particular vocabulary insertion rules if some feature they de pend upon for insertion is deleted. Due to the Subset Principle, in such cases the result is that a less specified rule (one not specified for the deleted feature) will apply instead, often giving rise to syncretisms in the paradigm. T he Russian past has such an i mpoverishment rule which produces this exact outcome. Frampton explains that i mpoverishment indicates a bias toward the loss of inflectional morphological content and once these lexical items are eliminated it is difficult to reestablish featura l distinctions that once were upheld. Russian and Polish have both experienced this type of diachronic loss of surface features in varying degrees since the time of Proto Slavic and later Common Slavic, albeit in different ways.

PAGE 21

21 Slavic Morphology t hroug h DM Some work has been done in the area of Slavic through a DM perspective, although usually involving individual case studies and not of a comparative nature. Figure 2 3 depicts Halle ( 1995 ) analysis of Russian nominal and adjectival derivational mor phology, although his template for all m orphophonological items does include verbal elements (in fact, it applies to all Russian lexical categories except adverbs) In Russian, nouns, adjec tives, and verbs all require a t heme marker followed by an item fro m one of the categories of parenthesized content as well as inflection. Finite verbs include the t ense marker, whereas infinitives, gerunds, and participles have a separate set of suffixes. Halle attributes case syncretisms such as the Russian animate ac cusative genitive paradigm to r eadjustment rules that operate after vocabulary i nsertion The discussion of noun declension classes in Russian is beyond the scope of the VP: features such as gender, animacy, number (and case for nouns) are copied onto specifiers and adjectives dominated by the noun, just as phi features from the subject are copied from T to Agr at MS, as discussed in Halle (1997). Halle (1997) outlines the Russian present and past tense verbal paradigms along with corresponding underspecified lexical insertion rules He proposes that all phi features are copied onto an Agr node that is a sister of th e t ense node; the Agr node and t ense node remain disti nct under a single head and each receive phonolog ical information through insertion rules Alt hough all phi feature content (person, n umber, and g ender) is copied from the subject DP to the Agr node, not all three pieces of information are required to sel ect the correct vocabulary i tem for insertion. For instance, the insertion rules for the Russian nonpast in Figure 4 1 contain only

PAGE 22

22 information about person and number features, but not g ender. lexical insertion rules as well as his description of the a greement process in this work. In his work on n umber and conditional markers in Polish, Embick (1995) explores the difference in interaction between these two affixes and the verb stem. The structures in (1a b) and ( 2a c) are in free variation in modern Polish and demonstrate the optio nal preverbal placement of the p erson n umber marker and conditional particle. (1) a. Ty widzia e go 2.SG SEE PST M.SG 2.SG 3.SG.M.ACC b. Ty widzia go 2.SG 2.SG SEE PST.3.SG.M 3.SG.M.ACC (2) a. Ty widzia by go 2.SG SEE PAST COND 2.SG 3.SG.M.ACC b. Ty by widzia e go 2.SG COND SEE PST M.SG 2.SG 3.SG.M.ACC c. Ty by widzia go 2.SG COND 2.SG SEE PST.3.SG.M 3.SG.M.ACC Embick a naly zes previous accounts of the person number and conditional markers (see Dogil 1987, Booij and Rubach 1987, Aguado and Dogil 1989 and Borsley and Rivero 1994 ), which generally emphasized the effect of the person number marker on lexical phonological pr ocesses in the lang uage, such as /o/ r aising and stress. He argues that the locational restrictions and differences in interaction with different hosts are problems for the Lexicalist account. Diachron ic change indicates that the person number markers hi storically had a set of endings distinct from the indicative markers that essentially

PAGE 23

23 established them as inflectional endings on the conditional by auxiliary Embick posits that the person number markers are affixed to a null stem in the i ndicative moo d ; in the c onditional mood, the c onditional particle takes the place of a null stem. A u niform treatment for the person number markers regardless of their host (conditional marker, fronted wh word, verb stem) is one of the st rongest aspects of his argumen t, and it accounts for many facts regarding the distribution and optional movement of these markers and their interaction with a host Although I w ill not formally discuss the person/number inflectional markers in the context of DM in this work, my accoun t of the Polish verb paradigms and a greement is compatible with his ideas regarding the existence of a null stem in place of the conditional in i ndicative sentences. Embick is unclear about the placement of the person number Agr morpheme. He suggests tha t there is a possibility for the Agr node to be located either within an auxiliary node or as a ructure is correct within the VP. In this work the Agr node is always assumed to be a sis ter to the t ense node in both Russian and Polish, but the variable placement of the person number markers in Polish sentences creates multiple possibilities for future analysis. Slavic Morphosynta ctic Theory o utside of DM Other recent research in Slavic morphological and syntactic theory has been analyzed through various theoretical frameworks, which I will address in this section. Franks (1995) offers a comparative study of Slavic m orphosyntax and adopts a Principles and Parameters theory, although simi larities with DM can be found in aspects of his theoretical analysis. Franks describes a two stage process of vocabulary i nsertion in Figure 2 4 : at D structure morphological content is inserted (word stems) and featural Agr information remains underspec ified until later in the derivation at which

PAGE 24

24 point it receives a lexical item that matches features specified by a morphosyntactic feature bundle. The general notion of vocabulary i nsertion involving the substitution of phonological content for morphosyn tactic feature bundles matc hes that of DM, although in DM all nodes are given equal treatment regardless of whether they possess stem or affixal status. exical entries (interpreted as VIs in my argument) complem notions of lexical i nsertion rules as well as the notion of syncretism : they must have access to full inflectional paradigms which consist of bundles of morphosyntactic features and their corresponding phonological content. Within each morphosyntactic fea ture matrix are smaller submatrices that specify separate binary morphological categorical relationships The feature matrix in F igure 2 4 is a representation of the Russian word knigu, book (ACC SG). Franks notes that all of the features of a morphologi cal category within a feature bundle are subject to the same morphological process es and underspecification designates that they will be treated in a uniform manner by these processes. Franks (1995) also outlines some of the differences between Russian a nd Polish that are central to my discussion: he posits that Agr morphemes in Russian (and East Slavic in general) can only be inserted as verbal affixes whereas Polish A gr morphemes must always be realized, whether it is on a verbal host or another type o f host ( Chapter 3) In the Russian nonpast there is no copula which Franks regards as an in dependent representation of Agr. Agr morphemes therefore have nothing to attach to in Russian nonpast constructions Simple sentences with only a subject DP and NP predicate take different cases on the predicate noun in Russian and Polish; in (2a) the

PAGE 25

25 ominative case ending, while in (2b) the P olish noun nstrumental. (2 ) a. (Rus) 1 SG student.M.SG .NOM b. Jest em student em (Pol) BE 1 SG student M.SG.INST The nominative i nstrumental case alternation does not apply in sentences with only a predicate adjective (3a b). In these constructions, b oth Russian (3a) and Polish (3b) exhibit a n ominative case ending on the adjec tive. Polish will only take a n om inative ending on the adjective if it is not part of a NP; if th ere is a full NP, it takes the i nstrumental throughout the NP (3c). Russian nonpast sentences do not have i nstrumental case endings in a NP (3d). (3) a Rus ) 3 SG handsome M.SG.NOM b. On jest przystojn y. (Pol) 3 SG BE.3.SG handsome M.SG.NOM c. On jest przystojn iem. (Pol) 3 SG B E.3.SG handsome M.SG.INST man M.SG.INST d (Rus) 3 SG handsome M.SG.NOM man.M.SG.NOM I will adopt the notion argued by Franks (1995) that the connection betwee n pro drop and Agr behavior in Slavic is one of parametric variation between East and West: Russian appears to be a non pro drop language with only gender/n umber agreement in the past, whereas Polish is pro drop and employs, in ad dition to gender and n umbe r agreement, an enclitic type person n umber auxiliary marker.

PAGE 26

26 Researchers who have analyzed the behavior of Slavic clitics have used various approaches such as Prosodic Inversion (Halpern 1992b, 1995) Incorporation (Borsley and Rivero 1994), Long Head Mov ement (Embick and Izvorski 1994, 1996 ), and PF 1995), although they generally acknowledge the importance of Merger and Adjacency in thei r work (Embick and Izvorski 1996 Franks and King 2000, Lavine 2001). Embick and Izvorski (1996 ) explore the word order of participle auxiliary elements in Slavic, arguing for instances of Morphological Merger inst ead of movement in the syntax. Many of the auxiliaries they discuss demonstrate enclitic behavior and are treated as such; in these cases the participle a uxiliary order is established through the merger of the clitic auxiliary and participle host. Constraints on the placement of clitics that occur in certain Slavic languages are illustrated in (4 a d) in Slovak (4 ) a. Ja so m sal list. (Slovak) 1 SG AUX 1 SG written letter (M) b. sal som list. c. sal list. d. sal som l ist. (Embick and Izvorski 1996 ) The Polish person number markers have a relatively free distribution but are prohibited from appearing further to the right than i mmediately following the verb (5 d): (5 ) a. Kiedy widzia e krlika? (Pol) When SEE PST M.SG 2.SG rabbit b. Kiedy widzia krlika? When 2.SG SEE PST rabbit c. Kupi l i lustro BUY PST M.PL 1.PL mirror d. Kupili lustro (Kipka 1989)

PAGE 27

27 Franks and King (2000) debate the clitic status of the Polish conditional marker by as it can appear in sentence init ial position and it must always act as a host for the person number markers whenever it occurs before the verb. However, when by appears following the verb, it must attach to the verb and ca nnot exist further to the right (6a b). (6 ) a. Zrobi by m prac DO PST COND 1 SG work F.SG.ACC b. Zrobi by m Franks and King (2000) attribute the unclear status of by to its synchronic change from an inflected clitic auxiliary modal to an uninflected modal clitic. The Eas t Slavic languages do not have auxiliary clitics; however, there is a preference for the conditional marker to appear fo llowing the verb or immediately following an overt subject DP analysis of Polish person number markers treats sing ular and plural markers differently : they argue that singular person number markers are inflectional when they occur on verbs and clitics when they occur on other hosts; plural person number markers are inflectional or clitics when they are conflated with a verb, and clitics when they occur on other hosts. Franks and King acknowledge the potential usage of Merger to account for the combination of the conditional AUX + Agr in Slova k, Polish, and colloquial Czech In his analysis of the / no/ to/ morpheme in Polish, Lavine (2001) argues for the use of Morphological Merger to account for the mismatch between morphosyntactic structure and the morphophonological component. The morphosyntactic features of the

PAGE 28

28 / no/ to/ morpheme are generated at SS and joined tog ether with the verb at MS when Merger occurs. Similar to the person number markers, there is an Adjacency requirement for the / no/ to/ auxiliaries that enables their subsequent merger with the verb. Summary In Chapter 2 I have provided an overview of the theory of Distributed Morphology and Slavic research conducted both within the theory of DM and in other theoretical frameworks. I have also outlined several morphological processes assumed to operate in Slavic: a greement, Adjacency, and Morphological Me rger. Agreement begins in the syntax, where phi features are c opied from the subject DP to a t ense node. At MS, the dissociated morpheme Agr is created and all phi feature informati on is copied to it. Tense and a greement features remain separate after a greement occurs The morphological process of Merger operate s after syntax and manipulate s adjacent terminal nodes before any phonological content is added. Various theoretical frameworks have been used to conduct Slavic linguistic s research aside from D M yet many studies acknowledge the use of Merger to account for certain linguistic phenomena such as participle auxiliary constructions and the mobi le behavior of the person number marker in Polish After discussing the DM and general Slavic theoretic al background, I will examine the grammar of Russian and Polish in Chapter 3.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2 1. DM Model

PAGE 30

30 Fig ure 2 2. Merger via Adjacency (Bobaljik 1994) Figure 2 3. Russian Morphological Template (Halle 1995)

PAGE 31

31 Figure 2 4. Morphosyntactic Feature Mat rix (Franks 1995)

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 3 OVERVIEW OF RUSSIAN AND POLISH GRAMMAR This chapter provides an overview of Russian and Polish grammar as it relates to this study with a focus on the structural aspects of the verbal system and morphology of both la nguages. Nominal and adjectival declension will therefore not be addressed. It should be noted, however, that the rich agreement system of Slavic languages requires that all adjectives agree with their head noun in a(n) DP/NP in terms of number, gender, and c ase features. The Russian Verbal System The nonpast Russian verb consists of an optional aspectual prefix, verb stem, a derivational morpheme (a theme vowel) that acts as a classificatory suffix, phi feature agreement (gender, number, p erson), and i n verbs that select it, a reflexive suffix (Townsend 1980, Timberlake 1993). (7) Russian Nonpast Verb Structure [ (Asp) [V PST ] [Deriv.] [ feat ] (Refl ) ]]]] Russian verb endings are mostly invariable, while verb stems vary to a large degree. The themat ic ligature, or theme vowel, is a suffix added to the verb stem Russian nonpast verbs are usually divided into two classes in Russian pedagogy depending on their thematic ligature; verbs classified as first conjugation have [ e ] or [ o ] if the stress is word final the choice being determined by lexical verb stress Second conjugation verbs have [ i ] as their thematic ligature. The Russian infinitive may take the following endings: [ Table 3 1 shows the endings for first conju gation verbs; Table 3 2 shows second conjugation verb endings. It should be noted that Rus sian nonpast verbs do not mark g ender features on the verb. In both conjugation classes 1 and 2, the t hematic ligature is absent from the first person

PAGE 33

33 singula r and third person plural forms. T he conjugation class determines the third person plural ending (the [ i ] ligature selects [ at/ jat] and the [ e ] ligature selects [ ut]). While I recognize the practical necessity of identifying Russian verb endings as eit her first or second conjugation in a classroom setting, I will refer to the verbal suffixes without their supporting ligature in this study. Table 3 3 shows Russian verb endings as they will be discussed throughout this work. The structure of the Russian past differs from that of the nonpast in that it possesses what is traditionally ca The L morph eme marks past tense on the verb In addition, the Russian past often resembles the infinitive more closel y, as it is formed by subtracting the infinitival ending and affixing the L morpheme and the agreement suffix. Furthermore, t he Russian past tense verb shows gender and number feature distinctions and does not mark p erson features. (8) Russian Past Verb S tructure [ (Asp) [V +PST ] [L morph] [ feat] (Refl) ]]]] Table 3 4 shows a sample past conjugation, with the L morpheme and Gender Number marker s uffixed onto the verb stem; Table 3 5 shows the endings separately. Russian Irregular Verb Forms As in most languages, there are verbs in Russian t hat are irregular and do not fit the paradigms described above. As there are many types of irregular Russian verbs, I will highlight a few of the more common ly used verbs. Consonant/vowel mutations often indicate irregularity in verb conjugation, and the individual exceptions must be memorized by a learner or native speaker of Russian. Table 3 6 shows the conjugation for 7 shows the conjugation for

PAGE 34

34 Both of these high frequency verbs appear to exhibit a similar conjugation pattern, using [ m] for first person singular endings and epenthesizing a [ d ] in the nonpast pl ural forms. The past forms of are normal; on the surface, the past endings of appear normal but are clearly not formed by simply removing the infinitival ending and affixing the L morpheme and gender n umber suffix. Another fairly productive typ e of irregular verb does not have the L morpheme in the past tense masculine forms; Table 3 8 shows the present tense conjugation of demonstrates a stem consonant shift in both tenses. Table 3 9 illustrates the irregula r past tense conjugation. Some other verbs of this type include [le and The Polish Verbal System The Polish nonpast verb consists of an optional aspectual prefix, the verb stem, a verbalizing suffix similar to the derivational suffix foun d in the Russian nonpast, phi feature agreement, a nd a reflexive suffix if the verb stem selects it (Swan 1983, Czaykowska Higgins 1988, Rothstein 1993). (9) Polish Nonpast Verb Structure [ (Asp) [V PST ] [VS] [ feat] (Refl) ]]]] Like Russian, Polish non past verb endings do not show very much variation, but their stems vary largely. The Polish infinitive may appear with the following endings: [ c [ ts ] if the stem underlyingly ends with a velar or a velar + [ n]. Polish ver bs are usually divided into three conjugation classes; the first and

PAGE 35

35 second conjugation classes both have two possible shapes for verbal suffix determined by phonological factors while the third conjugation class has only one set. Conjugation class I is characterized by am/ asz ( em/ esz) first person and second person singular endings, and a sample conju gation is shown in Table 3 10 for both suffix types. Conjugation class II is characterized by for first person singular and either isz or ysz for the second pe rson singular. Table 3 11 shows the endings of second conjugation verbs. Conjugation class III is characterized by for first person singular and esz for sec ond person singular. Tabl e 3 12 shows the ending of third conjugation verbs. As with the Russian verb suffixes, I will use the Polish nonpast suffixes without their thematic vowel throughout this st udy. Table 3 13 lists these suffixes. The Polish past tense verb consists of an op tional aspectual prefix, the verb stem, an L morpheme, subject agreement, and the reflexive suffix if applicable Unlike the nonpast, Polis h past tense verbs inflect for gender, person, and number; the gender number morpheme and the person n umber morphem e follow the L morpheme. The L morpheme can take two forms in Polish: [ l ] before a front vowel, and [ w ] elsewhere. (10) Polish Past Verb Structure [ (Asp) [V +PST ] [L morph] [ Gender Number ] [Person Number] (Refl) ]]]]] Table 3 14 shows the past tense p aradigm for Polish verbs Table 3 15 shows person n umber agreement suffixes separately. As Table 3 14 demonstrates, there is no person n umber agreement for third person singular or plural in the Polish past tense. Table 3 16 shows gender n umber agreement suffixes; M SG* denotes first and second person only, as third person masculine

PAGE 36

36 singular for ms are completely unmarked for gender, number, and p erson and end with the L morpheme. Polish Irregular Verb Forms Most irregular verbs in Polish exhibit a consona nt mutation in the stem and/or have past forms that look completely anomalous compared to their nonpast counterparts In this section I will provide sample conjugations of several irregular Polish verbs in all tenses. Table 3 17 shows the conjugation pat tern for 18 shows the conjugation pattern for [viedzi and Table 3 19 shows the conjugation pattern for The past tense paradigms of and exhibit a similar patt ern: all of the singular forms exhibit a vowel alternation before the L morpheme ( e to a ), while in the plural forms, the masculine endings are true to the verb stem and the feminine endings continue the vowel alternation. The past tense conjugation o f is normal; the nonpast exhibits forms that do not match the infinitive/verb stem. Other irregular Polish verbs include [b Polish does not have any irregular verbs that do not have the L morpheme attached in the past tense as Russian does Tense Tense in Russian The Russian imperfective tense can be used t o express situations of any type in the past, present, and future tense. The future tense is constructed in two ways: the combination of an auxiliary (the verb [b or a perfective aspectual prefix attached to the verb stem Perfective verbs distinguish past

PAGE 37

37 or future ; past perfective verbs are typically used to express situations that are conceptualized a s being complete, culminated or ended. T he future perfective (also referred to as simple future) expresses the completion of a future situation (11 a c) demonstrate uses of the Russian imperfective to express past, present, and future actions; (12 a b) show the usage of the Russian perfective to express future and past events. (11 ) a (past imperf.) [fchera vecherom ona smotrel a televizor] Last night 3 .SG.F WATCH SG.F television b (present imperf.) Alyona LIVE 3.SG in Moscow F.SG.LOC c. (future imperf.) f futbol] Tomorrow day 1.SG BE 1.SG PLAY inf. in football (12 ) a (future perf.) [ja pro u etu knigu] 1 .SG perf READ 1.SG this F.SG.ACC book F.SG.ACC ( to completion ) b (past perf.) [on z 3 .SG.M perf DO SG.M refl. home assignment Tense in Polish Tense functions similarly in Polish as it does in Russian: the imperfective is realized in the past, present, and future tenses and the perfective only i n the past and future tenses T he main difference between the two languages lie s in the distinction between constructions of the compound future in the imperfective tense. Russian creates this construction through a conjugated form of the infinitive

PAGE 38

38 form of an imperfective verb; in Polish, there are two options for forming the compound future. In one construction, there is a conjugated form of the verb [b the third person past tense form of an im perfective verb ; person n umber agreement is absent from the imperfective verb in this context The other construction also includes a conjugated form of followed by the infinitive of the imperfective verb, identical to the Russian compound future cons truction. The first construction roughly translates as the will be Both are considered correct by native speakers of Polish, although the + pa st tense construction is more frequently used (Swan 2002). (13 a b) demonstrate the two constructions for the imperfective compound future tense. (13 ) a. Czy sz ( + third person past tense) [ch b ie sh studijovaw] Interr. BE 2.SG STUDY 3.SG.M b. Czy sz studiowa ? ( + imperfective infinitive) [ch b ie sh studijova Interr. BE 2.SG STUDY Inf. Aspect Aspectual distinctions in S lavic languages are among the richest features of their verbal systems. In both Russian and Polish, these distinctions are expressed through the use of imperfective or perfective verbs, depending on context and intent of the speaker. Perfective verbs des cribe situations in their entirety as well as completed or culminated situations Imperfective verbs describe all other situations and are unmarked aspectually ; as a result, they may be appropriate for various contextually determined uses. The most commo n uses for imperfective verbs include but are not

PAGE 39

39 limited to: (i) progressive, (ii) statement of fact, and (iii) habitual. Nearly all verbs are either perfective or imperfective, but not all verbs are members of an aspectual pair. Aspect is distinguish ed on verbs through several different strategies: (1) the use of prefixes on simple imperfectives to create perfective verbs Once attached to the verb, they alter the semantics of the verb, e.g. Rus. [pro [po of time is specified ) ; (2) suffixes can be added to perfective verbs to produce an imperfective verb, e.g. Rus. (perf.) form, [raskaz (3) stem suppletion i.e. Pol. (imperf.) Mood Both Russia n and Polish have three moods: indicative, c ondi tional, and i mperative. In this section I will briefly discuss the uses of each mood type. Indicative The i ndicative mood is used in Russian and Polish to describe events/actions that have already occurred, are currently taking place, or will take place i n the future. It can be used in statements, questions, and exclamations with markers to indicate tense; generally, all stat ements that are not considered imperative or conditional are in the i ndicative mood. Conditional The c onditional mood is used in a v ariety of ways in both Russian and Polish to denote irrealis situations. Russian uses the invariable particle [b ] and the past tense to indicate both hypothetical conditions and the subjunctive mood ; Polish uses the particle by [b ] followed by past tense person number markers. In Russian the

PAGE 40

40 particle usually follows the verb, but it is not required to; in P olish, the by particle and person number markers must either affix to the verb or to a preverbal clausal element, such as gdy [gd j The Russian particle can as in (14 c) In (14 d), the particle directly follows the subject and not the verb for emphasis; this is similar to by atta ching to an element higher in the clause in Polish. (14 a d) illustrate conditional sentences in Russian. (14 ) a. [ja sam na pisal b jemu] 1.SG refl. PERF WRITE M .SG COND. 3.SG.M.Dat b [eto b l o b xorosho] That BE PST Neut.SG COND. good c. [v mog l i b pri exa 2.PL BE ABLE PST PL COND. PERF ARRIVE Inf. around three d [ja b ne po sh l a] 1.SG COND. NEG. PERF GO PST F.SG The conditional c an be used to express wishes (15 a b), thoughts /opinions (16a b), or desires (17 a b) in both Russian and Polish In Russian subordinate clauses, the particle is incorporated into [shtob (15 ) a (Rus) ela ju shtob t mok WISH 1.SG COND. 2.SG BE ABLE.PST.M.SG HELP Inf. 1.SG.DAT b. y, by przy jecha a (Pol) ch e b jexa w a] W ISH 3.SG that COND 2.SG PERF ARRIVE PST 3.SG.F

PAGE 41

41 ( 16 ) a [m ne s m shtob eto b l o tr udno] 1.PL NEG PERF CONSIDER 1.PL COND this BE PST N.SG difficult [being] b. czy by on mg to [v tpij ch b on mug w to DOUBT 1.SG COND. 3.SG.M BE ABLE PST.3.SG.M that z rozumie z rozumie PERF UNDERSTAND Inf (17 ) a (Rus) [ja ne xoch u shtob t govori l pro eto] 1.SG NEG WANT 1.SG COND. 2.SG TALK PST M.SG about this b. Chc by tego ni e robi (Pol) [x z e b w] WANT 1.SG that COND 2.SG that NEG DO PST 3.SG.M Finally, the conditional may be used in Russian and Poli sh clauses of purpose, as in (18 a d): (18 ) a [ona otkr l a okno shtob ne b arko] 3.SG.F OPEN PST F.SG window COND NEG BE PST N.SG so hot b [ja pri shol shtob vam ob etom] 1.SG PERF ARRIVE PST.M.SG COND TELL Inf. 2.PL.DAT about it c. Pracuj by m mia [pra uj z e by m dze] WORK 1.SG COND 1.SG HAVE 3.SG.M money g in order to d. Studiuj by m z da a egzamin. z e by m z da w a egzamin] STUDY 1.SG COND 1.SG PERF PASS PST 3.SG.F exam

PAGE 42

42 Imperative The i mperative mood in Russian and Polish is used to express commands and requests In Russian, it is formed by dropping the third person plural suffix and adding either or for the singular/ informal f orm or for the plural/polite form. Table 3 20 demonstrates the creation of the imperative in Russian through the third person plural. The Polish imperative is formed very similarly to the Russian imperative, except that the imperative end ings are added to the third person singular form instead of third person plural. The imperative endings are for 2 nd person singular/informal forms and cie for 2 nd person plural/formal forms. The formation of the imperative in Polish is dependent on t he conjugation class of the verb. Table 3 21 demonstrates the derivation of a variety of imperatives in Polish. Gram matical Case and Verb Government Resea rch on a greement within NPs has typically asserted that the elements of a NP agree in gender, number, and case with the head NP (Anderson 1982). Babby (1987) alters this claim: in Russian quantifier phrases, the head noun controls the number and gender of its constituents, but not case. He argues that case is assigned to on (N m ) and then percolates down to all appropriate lexical categories (modifiers and complements) in a phrase. He also discusses with the head noun and others agree i n c ase with the quantifier (19a b) and (20 a b) In (19 does no t agree with it in case. In (20 oes not agree with it in case. The source of case

PAGE 43

43 assignment in Russian quantifier phrases is rarely agreed upon in the literature and is beyond the scope of this work. (19 ) a Posledn ie pjat but l ok la st NOM.PL five.NOM bottles GEN.PL b. posledn l ok last GEN.PL five.NOM bottles GEN.PL (20 ) a. dobr ut l ok good GEN.PL five.NOM bottles GEN.PL b. dobr l ok good NOM.PL five.NOM bottles GEN.PL Oblique cases are normally assigned in Russian and Polish by a specific lexical item, such as the Russian verb a dative NP complement ( 21 ) Its idiosyncratic dative case requirement is specified in the lexical entry of the verb. Verbs may take complement NPs in diff erent cases depending on their individual lexical entries. The Polish verb rozmawia instrumental or locative NP complement, depending on the context; in (22 ), a locative complement follows the verb. (21 ) bjedn vsegda zavid ujut bogat m poor.NOM.PL a lways envy 3.PL rich DAT.PL (22 ) My rozmawia my o literatu rze. [m rozmawia m 1.PL TALK 1.PL about literature SG.LOC

PAGE 44

44 Reflexive Verbs In both Russian and Polish, the reflexive particle may be selected by the verb for various semantic purposes, including reflexivity and reciprocity Other v erbs are prohibited from appearing with the reflexive particle. When attached to the verb, the reflexive particle does not always create a purely reflexive meaning on the verb; cf. Rus. [pros When the reflexive particle is required to be attached to the verb, it indicates reflexive action experienced by the agent of the sentence, as in (23 a b): (23 ) a (Rus) china t sa] Man.SG.NOM SHAVE 3.SG Refl b. Kot myj e. (Pol) [kot sh m je] Cat.SG.NOM Refl. WASH 3.SG The reflexive particle can also be used to indicate reciprocal action on a verb, as demonstrated in examples (24 a b): (24 ) a (Rus) eni l i 3.PL PERF MARRY PST PL Refl b. Spotyka l i w kawiarni. (Pol) [spot ka l i sh f kaviarni] MEET PST M.PL 1.PL Refl in caf LOC.

PAGE 45

45 Passive voice is expressed in Russian and Polish through the use of the reflexive; in these instances it occurs on verbs where it may op tionally be attached. (25 a c) sho ws examples of the passive construction in both languages. (25 ) a (Rus) jat sa] In Moscow new houses BUILD 3.PL Refl b (Rus) t sa portn m] Suit.SG.NOM CUT 3.SG Refl tailor SG.INST c. Wod gotuj e. (Pol) [vod sh gotuj e] Water F.ACC Refl COOK 3.SG Summary In Chapter 3 I have d iscussed the morphology of Russian and Polish verbs including tense, aspect, mood, and case In both languages, verbs play a crucial role in synt ax and semantics and exhibit morphologically rich agreement characteristics. I have also discussed the endings of the nonpast and past tenses for Russian and Polish, which will be presented a second time in the following chapter as lexical insertion rules Other linguistic processes, such as a greement and m erger, will be discussed in Chapter 4

PAGE 46

46 Table 3 1. First conjugation endings for Russian nonpast verbs, [ e ] and [ o ] endings Infinitive Person/Number Verb stem + ending Gloss 1 SG [chita ju ] 2 SG [chita je ] 3 SG [chita je t ] 1 PL [chita je m ] 2 PL [chita je t e ] 3 PL [chita jut ] 1 SG u ] 2 SG d jo ] 3 SG d jo t ] 1 PL d jo m ] 2 PL d j o t e ] 3 PL d ut ] Table 3 2. Second conjugation endings for Russian nonpast verbs Infinitive Person/Number Verb stem + ending Gloss 1 S G [govor ju ] 2 SG [govor i sh ] 3 SG [govor i t ] 1 PL [govor i m ] 2 PL [govor i ] 3 PL [govor jat ] Table 3 3. Russian nonpast verb endings Person/Number Suffix 1 SG [ u/ ju] 2 SG [ 3 SG [ t] 1 PL [ m ] 2 PL [ t e ] 3 PL [ ut/ jut] or [ at/ jat]

PAGE 47

47 Table 3 4. Russ ian past conjugation Infinitive Gender/Number Verb stem + ending Gloss M SG [gotovi l ] F SG [gotovi l a ] N SG [gotovi l o ] PL [gotovi l i ] Table 3 5. Russian past verb endings Gender/Number L morp heme Gender Marker morpheme M SG [ l ] F SG [ l ] [ a] N SG [ l ] [ o] PL [ l ] [ i] Table 3 6. Conjugation of Person/Number Nonpast Gender/Number Past 1 SG [je m] M SG [je l ] 2 SG [je F SG [je l a] 3 SG [jes t] N SG [je l o] 1 PL [jed i m] PL [je l i] 2 PL [jed i t e] 3 PL [edj at] Table 3 7. Conjugation of Person/Number Nonpast G ender/Number Past 1 SG [da m] M SG [da l ] 2 SG [da F SG [da l a] 3 SG [das t] N SG [da l o] 1 PL [dad i m] PL [da l i] 2 PL [d ad i t e] 3 PL [dad ut]

PAGE 48

48 Table 3 8. Present Tense Conjugation of Person/Number Nonpast Gender/Number Past 1 SG [pek u] M SG [pjok ] 2 SG [pech jo F SG [pek l a] 3 SG [pe ch jo t] N SG [pek l o] 1 PL [pech jo m] PL [pek l i] 2 PL [pech jo t e] 3 PL [pek ut] Table 3 9. Past Tense Conjugation of Person/Gender/Number Past 1 M SG [pjok ] 2 M SG [pjok ] 3 M SG [pjok ] 1 F SG [pek l a] 2 F SG [pek l a] 3 F SG [pek l a] 3 N SG [pek l o] 1 M/F PL [pek l i] 2 M/F PL [pek l i] 3 M/F PL [pek l i] Table 3 10. First conjugation endings for Polish nonpast verbs, am/ asz and em/ esz Infinitive Person/Number Verb stem + ending Gloss [p 1 SG pyt a m [p t a m ] 2 SG pyt a sz [p t a sh ] 3 SG pyt a [p t a ] 1 PL pyt a my [p t a m ] 2 PL pyt a cie [p t a ] 3 PL pyt a [p t a ] 1 SG umi e m [umi je m ] 2 SG umi e sz [umi je sh 3 SG umi e [umi je ] 1 PL umi e my [umi je m ] 2 PL umi e cie [umi e ] 3 P L umi e [umi e ]

PAGE 49

49 Table 3 11. Second conjugation endings for Polish nonpast verbs, and isz/ ysz Infinitive Person/Number Verb stem + ending Gloss [m 1 SG [m ] 2 SG i sz [m i sh ] 3 SG i [m i ] 1 PL i my [m i m ] 2 PL i cie [m i ] 3 PL [m ] [sw 1 SG [sw sh ] 2 SG y sz [sw sh sh ] 3 SG y [sw sh ] 1 PL y my [sw sh m ] 2 PL y cie [sw sh ] 3 PL [sw sh ] Table 3 12. Third conjugation for Polish nonpast verbs, / esz Infinitive Person/Number Verb stem + ending Gloss 1 SG kupuj [kupuj ] 2 SG kupuj e sz [kupuj e sh ] 3 SG kupuj e [kupuj e ] 1 PL kupuj e my [kupuj e m ] 2 PL kupuj e cie [kupuj e ] 3 PL kupuj [kupuj ] Table 3 13. Polish nonpast verb endings Pers on/Number Suffix 1 SG m/ [ m/ ] 2 SG sz [ sh] 3 SG 1 PL my [ m ] 2 PL cie [ 3 PL (j) [ (j) ]

PAGE 50

50 Table 3 14. Polish past conjugation Infinitive P/G/N Verb stem + ending Gloss 1 M SG mwi e m [muvi w e m ] 1 F SG mwi a m [muvi w a m ] 2 M SG mwi e [muvi w e ] 2 F SG mwi a [muvi w a ] 3 M SG mwi w ] 3 F SG mwi a [muvi w a ] 3 N SG mwi o [muvi w o ] 1 M PL mwi l my [muvi l i m ] 1 F PL mwi my [muvi w m ] 2 M PL mwi l cie [muvi l i ] 2 F PL mwi cie [muvi w ] 3 M PL mwi l i [muvi l i ] 3 F PL mwi y [muvi w ] Table 3 15. Polish past verb endings: Person Number agreement Person/Number Suf fix 1 SG m [ m] 2 SG [ 3 SG 1 PL s my [ sh m ] 2 PL 3 PL Table 3 16. Polish past verb endings: Gender Number agreement Gender/Number Suffix M SG* e [ e] F SG a [ a] N SG o [ o] M P L i [ i] F PL y [ ]

PAGE 51

51 Table 3 17. Conjugation of P/N Nonpast P/G/N Past 1 SG m a m [m a m] 1 M SG mia e m [mia w e m] 2 SG m a sz [m a sh] 1 F SG mia a m [mia w a m] 3 SG m a [m a] 2 M SG mia [mia w e 1 PL ma -my [m a m ] 2 F SG mia a [mia w a 2 PL m a cie [m a 3 M SG mia w ] 3 PL m a [m a j ] 3 F SG mia a [mia w a] 3 N SG mia o [mia w o] 1 M PL mie l i my [mie l i m ] 1 F PL mia y my [mia w m ] 2 M PL mie l i cie [mie l i 2 F PL mia y cie [mia w 3 M PL mie l i [mie l i ] 3 F PL mia y [mia w ] Table 3 18. Conjugation pattern for P/N Nonpast P /G/N Past 1 SG wiedz 1 M SG widzia e w e m] 2 SG widz i i sh] 1 F SG widzia a w a m] 3 SG widz i] 2 M SG widzia e w e 1 PL widz i i 2 F SG widzia a w a 2 PL widz i i 3 M SG widzia w ] 3 PL widz [vidz 3 F SG widzia a [vi w a] 3 N SG widzia o [vi w o] 1 M PL widzie l my [vi l i m 1 F PL widzia y my [vi ia w s m ] 2 M PL widzie l i cie [vi l i sh 2 F PL widzia y cie [vi ia w 3 M PL widzie l i [vi l i ] 3 F PL widzia y [vi ia w ]

PAGE 52

52 Table 3 19. Conjugation pattern for P/N Nonpa st P/G/N Past 1 SG bior [bior ] 1 M SG bra e m [bra w e m] 2 SG bierz e sz e sh] 1 F SG bra a m [bra w a m] 3 SG e] 2 M SG bra e [bra w e 1 PL e m ] 2 F SG bra a [bra w a 2 PL e 3 M SG bra w ] 3 PL bior [bior ] 3 F SG bra a [bra w a] 3 N SG bra o [bra w o] 1 M PL bra l i my [bra l i m ] 1 F PL bra y my [bra w m ] 2 M PL bra l c ie [bra l i 2 F PL bra y cie [bra w 3 M PL bra l i [bra l i ] 3 F PL bra y [bra w ] Table 3 20. Russian imperative forms Infinitive 3 rd PL Imperative (informal/formal) Gloss brat ber ut ] beri ( t e )] Take vstat vstan ut ] vstan t e )] Stand v jti ] v jd ut ] v jdi ( t e )] Leave govorit govor jat ] govori ( t e )] S peak delat dela jut ] dela ( t e )] Do jest ed jat ] jesh t e )] Eat pomnit pomn jat ] pomni ( t e )] Remember spat sp jat ] )] Table 3 21. Polish imperative derivation Infinitive 3 rd SG Imperative (informal/formal) Gloss pisz e [pish e] pij e [pij e] niesi e] cie kup i [kup i] [m i [m i] cie ) [m [zach zaczni e e] zacznij/zacznijcie [zach czek a [chek a] czekaj(cie) [cheka idzi e [i e] [ch czyt a [ch t a] czytaj(cie) [cz ta

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 4 COMPARATIVE RUSSIAN AND POLISH VERBAL MORPHOLOGY In this chapter I will discuss the verbal morphology and feature agreement of Russian and Polish through the theory of DM. The agreement paradigms of these two languages are different, although some of the same processes operate a t the level of MS. The essential differences between the East and West Slavic paradigms can be accounted for by underspecified lexical insertion rules. Lexical Insertion Rules In this section I list the lexical insertion rules for all tens es of Russian an d Polish verbs. Recall that lexical insertion rules operate on terminal nodes in order to supply them with phonological content. The lexical insertion rules I use in this work for both languages are underspecified. Russian N onpast The Russi an nonpast is characterized by person and n umber features. Figure 4 1 shows the lexical i nsertion rules for the Russian nonpast. Polish N onpast Similar to Russian, th e Polish nonpast exhibits only person and number features, and not gender. Figure 4 2 shows the lexica l i nsertion rules for the Polish nonpast. Note that the Polish system is more complex, with different insertion rules for 3 SG and PL as well as a verb class difference within 1 SG forms. Preceding the person number morpheme is a verbalizing s uffix (VS), which attaches directly to the nonpast verb stem and appears at MS as a dissociated morpheme ( similar to Agr) I will follow Czaykowska class system here,

PAGE 54

54 depicted in Figure 4 3, modifying it to make the seventh class the elsewhere c ase. 2 Czaykowska outlined in Chapter 3; the verb class or conjugation type is a property of the verb root. Russian P ast The Russia n past tense inflects only for gender and number and not p erson, as reflected by the lexical insertion rules fo r the past tense, listed in Figure 4 4. The Slavic past tense L morpheme is invariable in regular Russian verbs; it appears as a null morpheme in the masculine singular form of irregular type ver bs. Thus the L morpheme in the Russian past tense demonstrates a case of contextua l allomorphy triggered by both tense and a greement features. Allomorphy is both inwards and outwards sensitive, as it is triggered by both the irregular verb stem (e.g., ) as well as the features of the Agr morpheme, [M SG]. This account offers inwards sensitive allomorphy is triggered by morpho phonological features ( such as conjugation class) and outwards sensitive allomorphy is triggered by morp ho syntactic features (such as a greement). The optional reflexive marker may take two forms, [sja] after consonants and Polish P ast The Polish pa st tense inflects for person, gender, and n umber features. Unlike Russian, the L morpheme in Polish may take two different forms; one before front vowel s and the other elsewhere. Figure 4 5 shows the l exical insertion rules for the person number marker, gender n umber marker, and L morpheme. The gender number 2 Here I assume verb class to be a diacritic feature of the phonology of the verb stem. When roots are inserted into terminal node V, they contain diacritic features that r ules may be sensitive to.

PAGE 55

55 rules reflect the insertion of e for 1 and 2 SG M, indicated by the [+Participant] feature, which includes both the speaker and the hearer. The 3 SG M form is the elsewhere case. The reflexive par ticle has one form in all tenses in Polish, ] It should be noted that the person n umber markers do not have a form for the third person singular or plural, only first and second person. Nonpast Sample Derivations and Tree Structures In this se ction I will illustrate the process of nonpast ve rb creation from the syntax to vocabulary i nsertion and the changes in tree structure that accompany this process. (26 a d) demo nstrate derivations from MS to vocabulary i nsertion of n onpast Russian and Poli sh verbs, including imperfective and perfective verbs as well as verbs that require the reflexive particle. (26 ) a. verb: (imperf.) (Rus) MS /(Asp) V PST + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion + + Output [ b. verb: MS /(Perf) V PST + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion + + + Output [ c. verb: [ nch dance MS /(Asp) V PST + VS + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion + y + + sz Output [ ysz d. verb: [usw MS /(Perf) V PST + VS + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion u + + y + + my Output [us Figure 4 6 4 10 illus trate the tree structures of (26 a), reading In the syntax, phi features are copied from the subject DP in spec TP onto T. T is then split into T and Agr at MS, with Agr being a dissociated morpheme that

PAGE 56

56 receive s all phi feature data. After m erger of T and V occurs, the correct order of morphemes is established. 3 Figure 4 11 4 15 illustrate the trees of (26 b) (26 b) includes a perfective prefix and requires AspP as part of the tree. Aside from the aspect ual prefix, the processes of (26b) are identical to (26 a), including the copying of phi featu res to T in the syntax, the addition of Agr at MS, and the m erger of T and V during MS. Figure 4 16 4 20 illustrate the trees o f sentence (26 c), ysz The Polish nonpast includes a n additional morpheme, the VS (verbalizing s uffix), that appears at MS as a dissociated morpheme attached to V. Like Russian, m erger of T and V produces the correct morpheme order. Figure 4 21 4 2 5 illustrate sentence (26 d), us Sentence (26 d) demonstrates the same syntactic and morphological processes that occ ur in the Polish sentence of (26 c), the only difference being the inclusion of a perfective aspectual prefix. Agr and VS are added as dissociated morphemes at MS as part of T and V, respectively. Past Tense Sample Derivat ions and Tree Structures In this section I will illustrate the morphological processes and changes in tree structure that occur in past tense Russian and P olish verbs. The processes of agreement and m erger function in the same manner as the nonpast. The L morpheme, which marks past tense, is realized in all Polish verbs and all regular Russian verb stems. Approximately 15 20 verb stems in Russian select a null L morpheme for the 3 Merger.

PAGE 57

57 masculine singular form only; the other three forms function normally. (27 a f ) demo nstrate derivations from MS to vocabulary i nsertion of past tense Russian and Polish verbs, including imperfective and perfective verbs and irregular Russian masculine singular forms. (27 ) a. verb: [v MS /(Asp) V PST + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion + + + Output b. verb: [ watch MS /(Asp) V PST + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion + + Output [ watched c. verb: MS /(Asp) V PST + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion + + Output [ d. verb: MS /(Asp) V PST + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion + + Output [ e. verb: MS /(Asp) V PST + T + Agr (Refl) / Vocabulary Insertion mieszka + + Output [mieszka f. verb: [skonch MS /(Asp) V PST + T + Agr (Refl)/ Vocabulary Insertion s + ko + + a Out put [ Figure 4 26 4 30 illus trate the tree structures of (27 a), Like the Russi an nonpast, phi feature are copied from the DP to T during syntax. At MS, the dissociated morpheme Agr is created and phi fea tu res are then realized as Agr. Vocabulary i nsertion inserts the L morpheme into T, as it is selected by the PST feature. Figure 4 31 4 35 illus trate the tree structures of (27 b), watched

PAGE 58

58 Fig ure 4 36 4 40 illus trate the tree structures of (27 c), Although is one of the irregular verb stems tha t selects a null L morpheme, (27 c) surfaces with the L morpheme because of the gender and number features in Agr. Figure 4 41 4 45 illustrate the tree structu res of t he irregular form in (27 d), A null morpheme is inserted into T instead of the regular L morpheme as a result of the verb stem as well as the features in Agr, [M SG]. Since Agr also receives a null morpheme at vocabulary i ns ertion, the masculine singular past tense form surfaces as the stem. Figure 4 46 4 50 illus trate the tree structures of (27 e), mieszka Since there is not a verbalizing s uffix in the past tense of Polish verbs, the only dissocia ted morpheme created a t MS is Agr. The processes of agreement and m erger are the same as in the Russian past tense. Figure 4 51 4 55 illus trate the tree structures of (27 f), Summary In Chapter 4 I have illustrated the change in structure that occurs between the SS level (syntax) and PF (post vocabulary i nsertion). At MS, the dissociated morpheme Agr emerges in both languages and the verbalizing s uffix in Polish is added in the nonpast ; these dissociated morphemes do not overtly exist in the syntax I have shown that m erger of T and V occurs at MS in both languages in all tenses to produce the correct order of morphemes before any phonological content is added. The lexical insert ion rules specified in the initial portion of thi s chapter insert the appropriate phonological exponent depending on context. Both Russian and Polish demonstrate overt marking of the past tense with the L morpheme; the nonpast is unmarked.

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4 1. Russian Nonpast Lexical Insertion Rules Figur e 4 2. Polish Nonpast Person Number Lexical Insertion Rules Figure 4 3. Polish Nonpast Verbalizing Suffix Lexical Insertion Rules

PAGE 60

60 Figure 4 4. Russian Past Lexical Insertion Rules Figure 4 5. Polish Past Lexical Insertion Rules

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 6. Structure at Syntax Figure 4 7. Structure at MS before Merger

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 8. Merger of T and V Figure 4 9. Structure after Merger

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 10. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion Figure 4 11. Structure at Syntax

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 12. Structure at MS before Merg er Figure 4 13. Merger of T and V

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 14. Structure after Merger Figure 4 15. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4 16. Structure at Syntax Figure 4 17. Structure at MS before Merger

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 18. Merger of T and V Figure 4 19 Structure after Merger

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 20. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion Figure 4 21. Structure at Syntax

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4 22. Structure at MS before Merger Figure 4 23. Merger of T and V

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4 24. Structure after Merger Figure 4 25. Structure a fter Vocabulary Insertion

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4 26. Structure at Syntax Figure 4 27. Structure at MS before Merger

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 28. Merger of T and V Figure 4 29. Structure after Merger

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4 30. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion Figure 4 31. Structu re at Syntax

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 32. Structure at MS before Merger Figure 4 33. Merger of T and V

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 34. Structure after Merger Figure 4 35. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 36. Structure at Syntax Figure 4 37. Structure at MS b efore Merger

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 38. Merger of T and V Figure 4 39. Structure after Merger

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4 40. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion Figure 4 41. Structure at Syntax

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 42. Structure at MS before Merger Figure 4 43. Merger of T and V

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 44. Structure after Merger Figure 4 45. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4 46. Structure at Syntax Figure 4 47. Structure at MS before Merger

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4 48. Merger of T and V Figure 4 49. Structure after Merger

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4 50. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion Figure 4 51. Structure at Syntax

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4 52 Structure at MS before Merger Figure 4 53. Merger of T and V

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4 54. Structure after Merger Figure 4 55. Structure after Vocabulary Insertion

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTE R 5 CONCLUSIONS In this work I have presented the verbal morphology paradigms of Russian and Polish through the theory of Distributed Morphology. Through the use of m erger and underspecified lexical insertion rules, DM is able to capture the Slavic data. The lexical insertion rules of both languages reveal the similarities, differences, and complexities of Russian and Polish verbs. For instan ce, the process of phi feature a greement operates the same way in both languages, but it requires two Agr nodes in the Polish past tense (gender number and person n umber) and only one in the Russian past tense (gender n umber) DM also captures the inwards and outwards sensitive allomorphy of irregular Russian M SG past tense forms well Two notable problematic eleme nts for DM in Slavic are the reflexive particle and aspect. The Slavic reflexive particle can carry a wide variety of semantic content depending on the verb with which it occurs and other contextual cues. A th o rough analysis of grammatical aspect through the DM lens would answer many questions that remain regarding the motivations for and functionality of aspect in Slavic verbs. In addition, a broader comparative view within the Slavic family would be helpful to examine in greater depth the simil ariti es and differences in a greement of East, West, and South Slavic verbs Clitics and clitic clusters, a topic of much debate in Slavic linguistics, would be worth exploring through DM in order to approach these phenomena from a different angle Including d ata from a South Slavic language would capture a much more complete view of the be havior of Slavic verbal systems within the the ory of Distributed Morphology.

PAGE 87

87 LIST OF REFERENCES AGUADO M., and G. DOGIL 1989. Clitics in lexical phonology: Alleged countere vidence. Linguistische Berichte 120 99 116. BABBY, LEONARD. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. NLLT 5 91 138. B ETHIN C HRISTINA Y. 1992. Polish s yllables: T he role of prosody in phonology and m orphology Columbus: Slavic a. HO PA OB B OBALJIK J ONATHAN D AVID. 1994. What does adjacency do? MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: The Morphology Syntax Connection ed. by H. Harley and C. Philips, 1 32. Cambridge : MIT Press 1983. Leningrad: Nauka B OOIJ G EERT E., and J ERZY R UBACH 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology. Linguisti c Inquiry 18. 1 44. B ORRAS F.M., and R EGINALD F RANK C HRISTIAN 1971. Russian syntax: Aspects of m odern Russian syntax and v ocabulary Oxford: Clarendon Press. B ORSLEY R OBERT D., and M ARIA L UISA R IVERO 1994. Clitic auxiliaries and incorporation in Polis h. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12.3 Z ELJKO 1995. Participle movement and second position cliticization in Serbo Croatian. Lingua 96. 245 266. C HOMSKY N OAM 1992. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers i n Linguistics 1 Cambridge: MIT Press C OMRIE B ERNARD 1976. Aspect Cambri dge: Cambridge University Press CORBETT G REVILLE G. 1987. The morphology/syntax interface: Evidence from possessive adjectives in Slavonic. Language 63.2. 299 345. C ORBETT, GR EVILLE G 1994. Systems of grammatic al number in Slavonic. The Slavonic and East European Review 72.2. 201 217. C UBBERLEY P AUL V. 2002. Russian: A linguistic i ntroduction New York: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 88

88 C ZAYKOWSKA HIGGINS, EWA 1988. Investigation s into Polish morphology and phonology Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation D OGIL G RZEGORZ 1987. Lexical phonology and floating affixation in Polish. Phonologica 1984 London: Cambridge University Press. D ZIWIREK K ATARZYNA 1994. Polish s ubjects New York: Garland. E MBICK, DAVID 1995. Mobile inflections in Polish. Proceedings of NELS 25:2 ed. by J.N. Beckman, 127 142. Amherst: University of Massachusetts E MBICK, DAVID, and ROUMYANA I ZVORSKI 1994. On l ong head movement in Bulgarian. East ed. by J. Fuller, H. Han, and D. Parkinson, 104 115. Cornell University: DMLL Publications. E MBICK D AVID, and ROUMYANA IZVORSKI 1996. Partic iple auxi liary word orders in Slavic. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting Ann Arbor: Mic higan Slavic Publications F LIER, MICHAEL S., and RICHARD D. BRECHT. 1985. Issues in Russian Morphosyntax Columbus: Slavica F RAMPTON, JOHN. 2002. Syncretism, impoverishment, and th e structure of person features. Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society Meeting 38 F RANKS, STEVEN 1995. Parameters of Slavic m orphosyntax New York: Oxford University Press. F RANKS, STEVEN 1998b. Clitics in Slavic. Workshop on Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Spencer, IN. F RANKS, STEVEN, and TRACY HOLLOWAY KING 2000. A handbook of Slavic c litics New York: Oxford University Press. 1992. iew Columbus: Slavica H ALLE, MORRIS. 1995. The Russian declens ion. Perspectives in Phonology ed. by J. Cole and C. Kisseberth, 321 353. Stanford: CSLI. H ALLE, MORRIS 1997. Distributed morpholo gy: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: Papers at the Interface ed. by B. Bruening, Y. Kang, and M. McGinnis, 425 449. Cam bridge: MIT Press

PAGE 89

89 H ALLE, MORRIS, and ALEC MARANTZ 1993. Distributed morphology and the pi eces of inflection. The View from Building 20 ed. by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111 176. Cambridge: MIT Press. H ALLE, MORRIS, and ALE C MARANTZ 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on phonology and morphology ed. by A. Carnie and H. Harley, 275 288. Camb ridge: MIT Press. HALLE, MORRIS, and ORA MATUSHANSKY 2006. The morphology of Russian adjectival inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 37.3. 351 404. H ALPERN, AARON 1992b. Topics in the placement and morphology of c litics Stanford: Stanford University dissertation. H ALPERN, AARON 1995. On the morphology and placement of c litics S tanford: CSLI Publications. H ARLEY, HEIDI 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hie rarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21 Cambridge: MIT Press. HARLEY, HEIDI 2004. Merge, conflation, and head movement: The first sister p rinc iple revisited. Proceedings of NELS 34 University of Massachusets Amherst: GSLA H ART, DAVID K. 1996. Topics in the structure of Russian: An i ntroduction to Russian l inguistics Columbus: Slavica J AKOBSON, ROMAN 1984. Russian and Slavic g rammar : Studies 1931 1981 ed. by L. Waugh and M. Halle. Berlin: Mouton KIPKA, PETER 1989. Impers onals and inflection in Polish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10 Cam bridge: MIT Press 1998 Moscow: C ulture of Russian Language LAVINE, JAMES. On a new (affixal) AUX in Polish. Generative Linguistics in Poland 2 ed. by 134 Wars aw: Polish Academy of Sciences. M ALZOFF, NICHOLAS 1984. E ssentials of Russian g rammar. Chicago: Passport Books M ARANTZ, ALEC 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics ed. by M. Hammond and M. Noonan, 253 270 San D iego : Academic Press.

PAGE 90

90 M ARANTZ, ALEC 1997a. the privacy of your own lexicon. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4:2 ed. by Alexis Dimitriadis, 201 225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. R OTHSTEIN, ROBERT A. 1993. Polish. The Slavonic l anguages ed. by B Comrie and G. Corbett. London: Routledge S CHENKER, ALEXANDER M. 1964. Polish declension: A descriptive a nalysis The Hague: Mouton S WAN, OSCAR 1983. A concise g rammar of Polish Was hington D.C.: University Press of America. SWAN, OSCAR 2002. A grammar of c ontemporary Polish Bloomington: Slavica. T IMBERLAKE, ALAN. Russian. The Slavonic l anguages ed. by B. Comrie and G. Corbett. London: Routledge T OWNSEND, CHARLES 1980. Russian word f ormation. Columbus: Slavica. W J ACEK 1998. The syntax of clitics: Steps t owards a minimalist a ccount W ORTH D EAN 1977. On the structure and history of Russian: Selected e ssays Munchen : O Sagner

PAGE 91

91 BIOGRAPHICAL SKE TCH Rose Beth Prince was born in Franklin Square, New York. In the fall of 2005, Rose began her studies at the University of Florida, where she g raduated in s pring 2009 with a inguistics. She began graduate sc hool at the University of Florida in f all 2009. During the summer s of 2010 and 2011 Rose studied Russian at Indiana University on a FLAS fellowship and a Title VIII fellowship, respectively She will graduate in December l inguistics and continue her education at Indiana University as a Ph.D. student in the Department of S lavic Languages and L iteratures, focusing on Slavic l inguistics.