Russian Comitatives and the Ambiguity of Adjunction

There is a conundrum in the study of comitative constructions in Slavic. It has long been an assumption that the construction is best analyzed through two structurally distinct representations: noun modification by a comitative prepositional phrase and verb modification by a comitative prepositional phrase. Another analysis has been proposed that derives the distinctions in the construction not from differential attachment sites but rather via differential movement of comitative phrase and its host. In this view, the comitative phrase always adjoins to the host DP, but is sometimes stranded by movement. This paper presents empirical and theoretical arguments against these analyses using data from Russian. It is shown that both differential attachment site analyses and differential movement analyses cannot account for the construction. This conundrum is avoided by adopting a “decomposed Merge”-style analysis to derive structural ambiguity in the construction. Under this analysis the ambiguity is an effect of attachment type, not movement or attachment site. This analysis also provides a new avenue to capture the facts that pertain to plural pronoun comitatives. Russian is the test case here for the sake of concision; however the analysis should extend to the rest of the Slavic languages.

[1]  Richard K. Larson,et al.  The semantics of the plural pronoun construction , 2001 .

[2]  Chih-Chen Tang Comitative vs. Conjunctive Constructions in Paiwan , 2011 .

[3]  Hana Skrabalova Comitative constructions in Czech , 2001 .

[4]  STEFAN DYŁA,et al.  Quasi-comitative coordination in Polish , 1988 .

[5]  John Frederick Bailyn,et al.  Does Russian Scrambling Exist , 2008 .

[6]  H. Narrog Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2006. On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe , 2010 .

[7]  Bradley Larson,et al.  Arabic Conjunct-Sensitive Agreement and Primitive Operations , 2013, Linguistic Inquiry.

[8]  T. Stolz,et al.  On comitatives and related categories , 2006 .

[9]  Alexandre Arkhipov,et al.  Comitative as a cross-linguistically valid category , 2009 .

[10]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[11]  Jongil Kwon,et al.  TOPICS IN THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF , 2009 .

[12]  J. Bailyn A (Purely) Derivational Approach to Russian Scrambling* , 2003 .

[13]  Simin Karimi,et al.  Word order and scrambling , 2003 .

[14]  Beata Trawiński Plural Comitative Constructions in Polish , 2005 .

[15]  Cedric Boeckx,et al.  The biolinguistic enterprise : new perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty , 2011 .

[16]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Against Covert A-Movement in Russian Unaccusatives , 2011, Linguistic Inquiry.

[17]  David M. Perlmutter,et al.  Language-Internal Explanation: The Distribution of Russian Impersonals , 2003 .

[18]  A. Hestvik LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation , 1992 .

[19]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy , 2002 .

[20]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory , 1975 .

[21]  A. Alexiadou An Unaccusativity Diagnostic at the Syntax‐Semantics Interface: there ‐Insertion, Indefinites and Restitutive again , 2011 .

[22]  LEON STASSEN,et al.  AND-languages and WITH-languages , 2000 .

[23]  Robert Freidin,et al.  The Subject of Defective T(ense) in Slavic , 2002 .

[24]  K. Forster,et al.  Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension , 1997 .

[25]  Nick Thieberger,et al.  Steps toward a grammar embedded in data , 2009 .

[26]  Pieter Muysken,et al.  Parametrizing the notion 'head' , 1982 .

[28]  Richard S. Kayne The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[29]  Sergey Avrutin The structural position of bound variables in Russian , 1994 .

[30]  Louise Mcnally,et al.  Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation , 1993 .

[31]  Paul M. Pietroski,et al.  Basic Operations: Minimal Syntax-Semantics , 2010 .