The delimitation of the case system in Russian

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction

2. Different approaches to the distinguishing cases in Russian
2.1. The academical grammar viewpoint at the Russian case system
2.2. The extremist formal approach
2.3. The extremist functional approach
2.4. The distributional approach

3. Delimiting cases
3.1. Synthesis of cases
3.2. The second genitive: partitive genitive
3.3 The locative
3.4. The case of accounts: счетный падеж
3.5. The waiting case: ждательный падеж
3.6. The inclusive case: включительный падеж
3.7. Zalizniak's case system
3.8. The depriving case: лишительный падеж
3.9. The second dative: второй дательный

4. The comparison of all distinctive cases in Russian

Conclusions

Abbreviation

Bibliography

1. Introduction:

It is well-known that the Russian language has six cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, and prepositional. However, some linguists argue that Russian has a separate vocative, a locative and two genitives, such as partitive and nonpartitive genitives (Comrie 1986: 86). This term-paper demonstrates the development of the Russian case system. Since the considered subject is extremely large only three approaches will be demonstrated. The distributional approach proposed by Bernard Comrie will be compared to the approaches of A.A. Zaliznjak and A. N. Kolmogorov. This paper will begin with a quick look at the Russian case system represented by traditional academic grammars such as Russian Grammar edited by N. Ju. Švedova. Then, some new theories on delimiting cases will be presented and examined in practice. When dealing with delimiting cases, researchers have split the concept of case into two separate directions: the formal and the functional. Using different methods, linguists are trying to juxtapose these approaches to find out and eliminate the equivocations in Russian case system. There is no one-one correspondence between formal and functional approach. Finally, we will try to find out how large is the discrepancy between these two concepts in Russian and how many cases could be distinguished using these theories.

2. Different approaches to distinguishing cases in Russian

2.1 The academic grammar viewpoint at the Russian case system

И м57 P e6enxy j auiu , B uuiuiu T onmaidicxy H po3eauiu . (Mnemonics for Russian cases)

When trying to define cases, we face two problems. The first is how to delimit case from other categories such as number, gender, definiteness and prepositional collocation. Bernard Comrie defines this problem as “the external delimitation of case” (Comrie 1986: 87). This problem involves two sub-problems. The first is distinguishing the category of case from gender and number. The second is distinguishing case forms of a noun phrase from combination of a noun phrase with a preposition or adjectival derivatives of nominals. Fortunately, the second problem is barely typical for Russian. In the academic Grammar of Russian the case is defined in the following way:

Категория падежа — это словоизменительная категория имени , выражающаяся в системе противопоставленных друг другу рядов форм и обозначающая отношение имени к другому слову ( словоформе ) в составе словосочетания или предложения . Категория падежа представлена шестью рядами форм , каждая из которых является носителем определенного комплекса морфологических значений (Švedova 1980: 474f).

The traditional definition « категория имени ..., обозначающая отношение имени к другому слову ( словоформе ) в составе словосочетания или предложения .» does not solve any of the above denoted problems.

Further, the Grammar by Švedova defines only six cases:

Эти ряды обозначаються как 1) именительный падеж , 2) родительный падеж , 3) дательный падеж , 4) винительный падеж , 5) творительный падеж , и 6) предложный падеж (Švedova 1980: 475).

According to this definition there is no such case as vocative. Thus, how can we define such forms as 6odlce (bože), which is also a part of the contemporary language?

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

There are also some other words which have the form of vocative: Tocnoau (Gospodi), cmapue (star é e), omue (ot é e). Moreover, the form of vocative is used to address a person:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The existence of these forms can be a reason for suggesting that the Russian language has a separate vocative case.

The same can be suggested about the locative case. There is a clear distinction between a prepositional and a locative case. Some nominals have in prepositional after the prepositions в and на prosodic shift from [a] to [ у ].

For example:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Moreover, Russian has two different genitives. For instance:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

It is interesting, whether these forms can be defined as separate cases or are they variations of the same case?

All the above mentioned instances are related to “the form splitting” of the same case. There are, in fact, some instances where all cases are represented by one form.

A number of Russian nominals have only one form. They are considered to be indeclinable. (Comrie 1986: 86) For instance: польто (pal'to), жюри (žuri), кино (kino), манто (manto).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Does that mean that these words have just one case? Alternatively, do they have the same number of cases as any other nominal, but all forms are homonymous?

The next important research issue is the distinct forms of some nouns after the numerals from 'two' to 'four', e.g.: два шаг à (dva šagà), три час à (tri č asà), три мастерск ú е / мастерск ú х (tri masterskîe/masterskîh) . Kirschbaum’s Grammar says the following:

'Nach dem Nominativ bzw. Akkusative der Grundzahlwörter 2, 3, 4 und aller zusammengesetzten Grundzahlwörter, die das letztes Glied eine 2, 3 oder 4

enthalten, steht das gezählte Substantiv im Genitiv Singular (Kirschbaum 2001: 203).

It is noteworthy that the genitive singular of шаг (šag) and час ( č as) is ш à га (šàga) and ч à са ( č às а ) with a stem-stress vowel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

It is remarkable that the third genitive has desinence-stress. Thus, it is questionable, whether genitive III is a third form of genitive or is it a distinct case?

No doubt, the diachronic approach can explain the source of these forms but the aim of this paper is to find a distinction of such forms in contemporary language. To find the answers to all these questions, lets consider some theories of case delimitation. Thus, some of the cases discussed above will recur in the further explanations. While delimiting cases, linguists have distinguished a number of approaches. There are two 'extremist' approaches in distinguishing the internal delimitation of cases: formal and functional.

2.2 The 'extremist' formal approach

The roots of the extremist formal approach can be traced to the beginning of 19th century. With the development of mechanic oriented linguistics (the formalism), new methods and theories have appeared. One of them is the formal 'extremist' approach. The formal approach groups words of the same case according to their inflections, disregarding the meaning and function. Not only morphemes but also certain morphophonemic processes, such as prosodic patterns of case formation are relevant to this approach. Roman Jacobson (1871: 24) characterized this method as follow:

Man versucht die Form von ihrer Funktion und speziell die Einheit einer grammatischen Kategorie von der Einheitlichkeit ihres Bedeutens loszureißen. [...] es entstehen solche monströsen wissenschaftlichen Versuche wie eine Morphologie, welche auf die Formbedeutungen ganz und gar keine Rücksicht nimmt (Jakobson 1971: 24).

Marty, a supporter of formalism, defines cases as follow “die Kasus seien nicht Träger je eines generellen Begriffes, sondern vielmehr Träger eines ganzen Bündel von verschiedenartigen Bedeutungen”.¹ (Jakobson 1971: 24)

In order to illustrate how this approach works and to show all its disadvantages, let's take a look at the declension of two nouns sojuz 'union' and lapa 'paw' in the singular.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

There are, in fact, the same endings in distinct set of cases for each of these two nouns. Thus ending -a defines the nominative for lapa but the genitive for sojuz; -u defines the accusative for lapa but the dative for sojuz; -e defines the prepositional and the dative for lapa but only the prepositional for sojuz (Comrie 1986: 90).

From the purely morphological viewpoint the paradigm of these nouns reveals morphological homonymy. Stressing another disadvantage of this approach, Comrie writes “... the oppositions which it [the extremist formal approach] defines as significant play no role elsewhere in the description of Russian, i.e. they are not in fact significant oppositions in the structure of Russian”(Comrie 1986: 90). What is especially relevant here, it is the fact that there are no rules for nouns with the inflectional suffix -e or for nouns lacking an inflectional suffix.

2.3 . The 'extremist' functional approach

The 'extremist' functional approach groups words of the same case according their functions. A function of the noun depends on the relations between a noun phrase and the rest of the sentence. Each function is analogous to a particular case. As illustrations, we have tried to select case studies that are as prototypical as possible.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

[...]

¹ In his article, Jakobson refers to the notion of the “Bedeutung“ very similar to the way Comrie refers to the notion of „the function“ or “distribution”. For example, Jakobson says that instrumental is used in “der Bedeutung des Werkzeugs”. Using Comries definition it is possible to say that instrumental can fulfill the function of “ an instrument”. Nevertheless, there are some contradictions, Jakobson's term “Bedeutung“ refers in a large sense to the semantics of words, meanwhile speaking about “the function” Comrie appeals mostly to syntactic relation.