Explaining the problem : how are free DPs in instrumental interpreted in Russian ?

Real Adjuncts in Instrumental in Russian* Assinj a Demjjanow and Anatoli Strigin ZAS Berlin { assinj al strigin } @zas.gwz-berlin.de An adjunct-DP in the free instrumental case occurs in a number of surface positions where the DP is syntactically optional. does not depend on any element in the sentence, and has a number of different interpretations. We introduce Bailyn's proposal which postulates a uniform syntactic environment for all the uses of instr. This calls for a uniform semantics of these DPs which can nevertheless accomodate the different interpretations. Starting with the hypothesis of Roman Jakobson about the semantics of the instrumental case we formulate a semantic interpretation theory based on abduction. We give a uniform semantics for three different adjunct uses of instr in this framework. In the concJuding part of the paper we discuss some possible alternatives and ramifkations as weH as questions and objections raised with respect to the treatment proposed in this paper. 1. Explaining the problem: how are free DPs in instrumental interpreted in Russian? Russian has six morphologically distinguishable cases I. DPs in the nominative or accusative are usually interpreted in the positions of verb arguments, where their interpretation can be easily described as basically that of a (generalised) quantifier which binds the occurrence of an argument variable of the verb. Instrumental case occurs in a number of surface positions where a DP is syntactically optional and does not depend on any element in the sentence. This use may be termedfree (DPs in the) instrumental case. The syntactic role of a free DP in the instrumental is usually that of an adjunct. We start by showing these uses, describing the problem of interpretation which these free DPs pose and our assumptions about the syntactic environment in which instr occurs in the uses we intend to examine. We choose a proposal which postulates a uniform environment for all the uses of instr, introduce the hypothesis of Roman J akobson about the semantics of the instrumental case and forrnulate our technical semantic interpretation apparatus which is based on abduction. Then we formalise some selected uses of DPs in the instrumental and explain those properties of them which seem to be amenable to the treatment proposed. In the concluding part of the paper we discuss some possible alternatives and ramifkations as weil as questions and objections raised with respect to the treatment proposed in this paper. The problem is how to characterise the semantics of such free DP adjuncts in the instrumental. The number of their rather different possible interpretations is great and we do not want to ascribe every such meaning to all possible DPs in instr, creating an unrnotivated and extreme polysemy. The move to assign some kind of meaning to the instrumental case, similar to the meaning of apreposition, is slightly better, but it nevertheless simply shifts the problem of extreme polysemy to this case meaning.Wierzbicka (1980), for instance, argues that there are seventeen very general meanings of instrumental. • We would like to thank Ilse Zimmennann for her comments on the draft . Opinions differ. Some, like Jakobson, see 8 cases. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17, 2000, 1-26 A. Demjjanow/A. Strigin We see this problem as apart of the larger problem of how to construct meanings in context. Consequently, we will propose a treatment which constructs these meanings from different ingredients in the context of interpretation. We will use an abductive theory of interpretation in this treatment. Some of the occurrences of the instrumental illustrating the difficulty will be reviewed now. We shall abbreviate the name of the morphological case-form to instr and the corresponding bunch of morpho-syntactic features as INSTR. The example is taken from Jakobson (1936) reprinted in Jakobson (1984). The translations ofthe DPs in the instrumental are in italics2 The brackets introduce the terminology. (I) a. On el reb' onkominstr ikru He ate childINSTR caviar He ate caviar as a child (temporal 1) b. On el pudamiinstr ikru He ate PUdINSTR caviar He ate caviar by the pood (36Ibs) (manner) c. On el lozkojinstr ikru He ate SPOOnINSTR caviar He ate caviar with a spoon (instrument) d. On el dorogojinstr ikru He ate roadINSTR caviar He ate caviar on the way (path) e. On el utrominstr ikru He ate morningINsTR caviar He ate caviar in the morning (temporal 2) f. On el gresnyminstr delominstr ikru He ate sinfulINSTR matterINSTR caviar He ate caviar I am sorry to say (idiomatic) The italicised prepositions clearly show that different relations between the DP in the instrumental and the rest of the sentence are involved. All these uses seem to be syntactic adjuncts.3 It is not obvious what the second term related to the DPs in instr should be, what the relations are and how they are associated with the syntax. J akobson proposed an interesting hypothesis to the effect that the meaning of the instrumental arises from its opposition tu some other case forms in Russian on the one side, and from the interaction with the context on the other side: . The instrumental itself denotes nothing more than peripheral status; it occupies the same position among the peripheral cases than the Nominative does among the full cases: that of the unmarked category . Everything other than peripheral status is given in individual uses of the I by the actual meaning of its referent and by the context, but not by the case form (Jakobson, 1936). 2 The literal translation of the idiom would be sinful matter. 3 We da not insist that they are DP-adjuncts, however. In fact, we will use a different syntactic adjunct structure of which the DP is apart.