Russian paucal constructions within a general typology of numeral constructions
Iván Igartua & Nerea Madariaga
University of the Basque Country
Numeral constructions greatly differ cross-linguistically as far as their structure is
concerned. The main types (disregarding here word order variations) are roughly the
following (Hurford 1994, 2003):
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Numeral + Noun in the singular (or a number-indifferent form)
Numeral + Noun in the plural
Numeral + Classifier + Noun
Numeral + Preposition + Noun
Numeral + Noun in a certain case (DAT, GEN, PART)
Some linguistic systems make use of more than one device, depending on the numeral.
In such ‘split’ cases, lower numerals (paucals) tend to behave in a more adjectival
fashion (showing, for instance, agreement with the noun), whereas higher numerals are
more noun-like (Corbett 1978: 363-368).
The morphosyntactic behavior of numeral constructions (‘homogeneous’ or
‘heterogeneous’ agreement) crucially depends on the function fulfilled by the NP and
the case assigned to it (Babby 1987). When it is nominative or accusative, the
construction may exhibit government relations between the numeral and the noun (or,
rather exceptionally, the kind of ‘collaborative’ agreement that has been suggested for
examples like dva stola ‘two tables’ vs. dve lampy ‘two lamps’, Corbett 2006: 85). On
the contrary, when an oblique case is assigned to the NP, the numeral agrees in case
with the noun, a pattern reminiscent of Finnish (kaksi miestä ‘two.NOM men.PART.SG’
vs. kahden miehen ‘of two.GEN men. GEN.SG’).
In the nominative and accusative functions, intra-Slavic variation in the structure
of non-singular numeral constructions (especially paucal) is quite remarkable. On its
basis, at least four groups are readily identifiable:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Languages with Num + NounPL: Czech, Slovak, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian
(despite some prosodic differences)
Languages with Sg, Du, and Pl.: Slovenian, Sorbian.
Languages with Num + NounGEN (SG/PL): Russian, Serbian/Croatian (partly).
Languages devoid of noun declension but with a special numeral
(adnumerative) form: Bulgarian, Macedonian.
This classification can be further complicated if one takes into account the effects of
animacy on the lexical selection of the numeral: In Bulgarian, Slovak, and Sorbian, a.o.,
there are special numeral forms for animate referents, usually limited to paucal
numerals (2 through 5 or 2 through 6). In Bulgarian, for example, only dvama učenici
‘two disciples’ is allowed, *dva učenici would be wrong; cf. dva grada ‘two towns’.
This -ma has been analysed as a classifier. In Macedonian and Polish, in turn, this
differentiation does not seem to have such specific limits.
Russian holds a special position (even among the East Slavic languages) within
this typology of paucal constructions.
(i) There is clear-cut differentiation between paucals (dva, tri, četyre), including
compound numerals containing paucals, and other numerals;
(ii) Not in all Slavic languages, but clearly in Russian, animacy has an impact on
the morphology of paucal constructions (cf. vižu dva stola ‘I see two tables’ vs.
vižu dvux studentov ‘I see two students’), and there is some degree of variation
in the effects of animacy on paucals, which is unattested elsewhere in the
grammar;
(iii) Modifiers (determiners, adjectives) within a paucal construction show plural
morphology, a peculiarity that seems to have not many parallels (however,
Hopi numeral phrases can be adduced in this respect, cf. Sadler 2011);
(iv) Grammatical gender also determines different aspects of the pattern (which has
been reported to have parallels, for example, in Somali and Scottish Gaelic; cf.
Saeed 1999, Corbett 2000: 212).
In this work, we explore the typological parallels of the Russian paucal constructions
and contribute to the debate on these expressions by arguing that their historical
development can clarify certain aspects of their synchronic properties nowadays. We
partially follow the hypotheses acknowledging the existence of paucal morphology in
Russian (explicitly in Corbett 1993, Bailyn & Nevins 2008, Pereltsvaig 2010).
However, we show that the development of both nouns and adjectives associated with
paucal numerals (Žolobov 2003), as well as certain synchronic properties of the relevant
structures, suggest that the actual Russian paucal pattern is an instance of an ongoing
change and, as such, can be better described as a kind of hybrid in the sense that it
involves not only paucal (nominative) morphology, but also shares morphosyntactic
properties with the quantificational genitive we find in other parts of the Russian
grammar.
References
Babby, L. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 91–138.
Bailyn, J. & A. Nevins. 2008. Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In: Bachrach et al.
Inflectional Identity. OUP, 237-270.
Corbett, G. G. 1978. Universals in the syntax of cardinal numerals. Lingua 46: 355-268.
Corbett, G. G. 1993. The head of Russian numeral expressions. In: Corbett et al. Heads in
grammatical theory. CUP, 11-35.
Corbett, G. G. 2000. Number. CUP.
Corbett, G. G. 2006. Agreement. CUP.
Hurford, J. R. 1994. Typology of numeral-noun interaction. Proceedings of the Edinburgh
linguistics department conference ’94: 33-40.
Hurford, J. R. 2003. The interaction between numerals and nouns. In F. Plank (ed.), Noun
phrase structure in the languages of Europe, 561-620. De Gruyter.
Pereltsvaig, A. 2010. As easy as two, three, four? In: FASL 18, 418-435.
Saeed, J. I. 1999. Somali reference grammar. Benjamins.
Sadler, L. 2011. Indeterminacy, complex features, and underspecification. Morphology 21:
379-417.
Žolobov, O. F. 2003. K istorii malogo kvantitativa: Adnumerativnye formy prilagatel’nyx i
suščestvitel’nyx. Russian Linguistics 27: 177–197.