Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:07:50.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language-Internal Explanation: The Distribution of Russian Impersonals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

David M. Perlmutter and
John Moore
David M. Perlmutter*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
John Moore*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Department of Linguistics, 0108, UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0108 [dperlmutter@ucsd.edu]
[moorej@ucsd.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article exemplifies language-internal explanation. It seeks to document and to explain the inability of Russian impersonal clauses to be infinitival. We argue that this gap is the consequence of two independent facts of Russian grammar: a case restriction on a silent expletive pronoun and the requirement that subjects of infinitival clauses be dative. These clash in infinitival contexts, which explains the gap. The explanation is language-internal in that it relies on no putatively universal principles. At the same time, each type of device posited is needed independently in the grammars of other languages. Our result bears on the issue of what language-particular properties expletives may have, on the issue of whether silent expletives exist, and on the more general theoretical issue of whether clauses are required to have subjects universally.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , December 2002, pp. 619 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aissen, Judith L. 1990. Towards a theory of agreement controllers. Studies in relational grammar 3, ed. by Postal, Paul M. and Joseph, Brian D., 279–320. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Avrutin, Sergey, Franks, Steven; and Progovac, Ljiljana (eds.) 1993. Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The MIT meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard. 1980. Existential sentences and negation in Russian. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard. 1989. Subjectlessness, external subcategorization, and the projection principle. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 32.2.7–40.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard. 1998. Subject control as direct predication: Evidence from Russian. Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut meeting, ed. by Bošković, Željko, Franks, Steven, and Snyder, William, 17–37. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard, and Franks, Steven. 1998. The syntax of adverbial participles in Russian revisited. Slavic and East European Journal 42.483–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 1995. A configurational approach to Russian ‘free’ word order. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Blevins, Jim. 2001. Passives and impersonals. Cambridge: Cambridge University, ms.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of theme-rheme structure reconsidered. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (Nouvelle série) 4, ed. by Hajičová, Eva and Sgall, Petr, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20.1–50.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1974a. Impersonal subjects in Russian. Foundations of Language 12.103–15.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1974b. The second dative: A transformational approach. Slavic transformational syntax, ed. by Brecht, Richard D. and Chvany, Catherine V., 123–50. (Michigan Slavic Materials, No. 10). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Conrad, Rudi. 1969. Transformationsanalyse russischer Infinitivkonstruktionen. Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven, and Greenberg, Gerald. 1988. Agreement, tense, and the case of subjects in Slavic. Chicago Linguistic Society 24.2.71–86.Google Scholar
Galkina-Fedoruk, E. M. 1958. Bezličnye predloženija v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Gerald, and Franks, Steven. 1991. A parametric approach to dative subjects and the second dative in Russian. Slavic and East European Journal 35.71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1932. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Charisteria V. Mathesio oblata (Cercle Linguistique de Prague), 74–83. [Reprinted, 1966: Readings in Linguistics 2, ed. by Eric Hamp, Fred Householder, and Robert Austerlitz, 22–30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6, 240–88. [Reprinted, 1966: Readings in Linguistics 2, ed. by Eric Hamp, Fred Householder, and Robert Austerlitz, 51–89. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klenin, Emily R. 1974. Russian reflexive pronouns and the semantic roles of noun phrases in sentences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University dissertation.Google Scholar
Komar, Eric S. 1999. Dative subjects in Russian revisited: Are all datives created equal? Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Seattle meeting, ed. by Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Coats, Herbert, and Vakareliyska, Cynthia M., 245–64. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Kondrashova, Natalia. 1993. Agreement and dative subjects in Russian. In Avrutin, et al., 255–85.Google Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2000. Topics in the syntax of nonagreeing predicates in Slavic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University dissertation.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, and Akimova, Tanya. 1993. Inversion and antipassive in Russian. In Avrutin, et al., 286–318.Google Scholar
Marlett, Stephen A. 1984. Personal and impersonal passives in Seri. In Perlmutter & Rosen, 217–39.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2001. On the distribution of subject properties in Irish. Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, ed. by Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley, 157–92. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel'čuk, I. A. 1974. O sintaksičeskom nule. Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij, ed. by Xolodovič, A. A., 343–61. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo 'Nauka,' Leningradskoe otdelenie.Google Scholar
Moore, John, and Perlmutter, David M. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18.373–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol Jan. 1988. The role of case in Russian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papov, M. V. 1960. O častjax reči v russkom jazyke. Filologičeskie nauki 4.3–14.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978a. Evidence for inversion in Russian, Japanese, and Kannada. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978b. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4.157–89.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1982. Syntactic representation, syntactic levels, and the notion of subject. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 283–340. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1983. Personal vs. impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.141–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1984. The inadequacy of some monostratal theories of passive. In Perlmutter & Rosen, 3–37.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 2001. In what ways can finite and nonfinite clauses differ? Evidence from Russian. Paper presented at the Conference on finiteness, University of Konstanz (Germany).Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M. 1974. Lectures on relational grammar. Amherst, MA: Summer Linguistics Institute of the LSA.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M. 1984a. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In Perlmutter & Rosen, 81–125.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M. 1984b. Impersonal passives and some relational laws. In Perlmutter & Rosen, 126–216.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Rosen, Carol G. (eds.) 1984. Studies in relational grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Zaenen, Annie. 1984. The indefinite extraposition construction in Dutch and German. In Perlmutter & Rosen, 171–216.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Peškovskij, Aleksandr. 1956. Russkij sintaksis v naučnom osveščenii. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Učebno-Pedagogičeskoe Izdatel'stvo Ministerstva Prosveščenija RSFSR.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1988. Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19.635–70.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth J. 1985. Missing subjects in German. Studies in German grammar, ed. by Toman, Jindřich, 193–229. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1994. Dative subjects in Russian. Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, the Ann Arbor meeting: Functional categories in Slavic syntax, ed. by Toman, Jindnch, 129–72. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1975. Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. Slavic and East European Journal 19.123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar