Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T23:28:48.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2023

EINAR FREYR SIGURÐSSON
Affiliation:
The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, [email protected]
MILENA ŠEREIKAITĖ
Affiliation:
Princeton University, [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyze genitive of negation (GN) in Lithuanian. When the verb is negated, GN is realized on an object that would otherwise be realized as accusative. We demonstrate that Lithuanian GN is a syntactic (in line with Arkadiev 2016) and morphological phenomenon in contrast to Russian GN, whose realization is influenced by semantic factors (e.g. Kagan 2013). It differs from Russian (Pesetsky 1982) in that (i) it is always assigned to a DP which would otherwise bear structural accusative regardless of its semantic properties, and (ii) it cannot affect a structural nominative DP regardless of whether it is an external or internal argument. Lithuanian GN, in this respect, is similar to Polish GN (e.g. Przepiórkowski 2000, Witkoś 2008). We offer a three-layered approach to case, arguing that GN is a reflection of structural object case, assigned in syntax, then translated to morphological genitive case at PF and, finally, realized at Vocabulary Insertion (Halle & Marantz 1993). Thus, structural object case has two morphological realizations: as genitive under negation or as accusative in the absence of negation. Lithuanian also exhibits long-distance GN (Arkadiev 2016), showing that case boundaries can cross non-finite clauses without an overt CP element, suggesting these are not phases.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

This paper explores case at different levels in the derivation through an analysis of genitive of negation (GN) in Lithuanian (a Baltic language) and makes a clear division between case in syntax and case determined in morphology. We propose a three-layered approach to case: case is assigned in syntax (sometimes referred to as abstract Case), translated to morphological case in the Morphological Component (at PF) and finally realized late in the derivation at Vocabulary Insertion. Lithuanian GN is a reflection of structural object case assigned by v in syntax. At PF, this case is translated and subsequently realized as genitive case under negation. When negation is absent, the case realized is accusative.

GN is found in various Slavic and Baltic languages, most famously in Russian (e.g. Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1982, Pereltsvaig Reference Pereltsvaig1999, Partee & Borschev Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004, Kagan Reference Kagan2013). Broadly speaking, the nature of GN cross-linguistically can be divided into two categories: a semantic side and a syntactic side. While semantic properties have been shown to play an important role in Russian GN, Lithuanian falls into the syntactic category for the most part as we will show, together with at least Polish (e.g. Franks Reference Franks1995, Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Reference Przepiórkowski2000, Błaszczak Reference Błaszczak2001, Reference Błaszczak, Hanneforth and Fanselow2010, Witkoś Reference Witkoś2008).

Lithuanian GN has barely been studied in the generative framework (e.g. Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Holvoet and Nau2016). An illustration is provided in (1): The verb ‘read’ in (1a) assigns accusative case to its object, but when negation is added, its case is genitive (1b).Footnote 2 , Footnote 3 , Footnote 4

However, it is a well-known fact from Slavic languages that GN does not affect non-structural case (e.g. Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1982). This applies to Lithuanian as well, as exemplified with verbs like tarnauti ‘serve’, which take a DP with inherent dative case (2) (Anderson Reference Anderson, Holvoet and Nau2015, E.F. Sigurðsson et al. Reference Sigurðsson, Šereikaitė and Pitteroff2018, Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020).

It seems like Lithuanian GN applies to DPs with structural case, but not with non-structural case.Footnote 5 However, Lithuanian GN needs to be narrowed down further. We show that it is a type of case that tracks structural object case. GN is applied to DPs which would normally be in structural accusative case, but it does not affect nominative DPs of unaccusatives (3) and unergatives (4).

We demonstrate that GN in Lithuanian differs from Russian. First, Russian GN has been taken as an unaccusativity test: GN surfaces on subjects of unaccusatives, but subjects of unergatives are not affected by it (e.g. Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1982, also Section 2). This contrast is not found in Lithuanian as the argument of an unaccusative, as in (3), disallows GN. Second, while Russian GN is influenced by semantic factors (e.g. Bailyn Reference Bailyn1997, Partee et al. Reference Partee, Borschev, Paducheva, Testelets and Yanovich2011, Kagan Reference Kagan2013), we show that Lithuanian GN (in line with Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Holvoet and Nau2016) is a syntactic phenomenon (with an exception of two constructions) and its assignment is not based on semantic properties of a DP.

Polish patterns the same as Lithuanian in these respects (e.g. Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Błaszczak Reference Błaszczak2001, Reference Błaszczak, Hanneforth and Fanselow2010).Footnote 6 GN in Polish has been shown to surface on objects of transitive predicates that would normally be assigned accusative (e.g. Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Reference Przepiórkowski2000, Błaszczak Reference Błaszczak2001, Reference Błaszczak, Hanneforth and Fanselow2010, Witkoś Reference Witkoś2008). However, we show that Lithuanian GN can be narrowed down even further. Lithuanian GN is the realization of a structural case assigned by v. GN does not track a specific grammatical function (e.g. a direct object) or a specific θ-role (e.g. a theme). We demonstrate that it surfaces where structural accusative case would otherwise surface: on a direct object of transitives, an indirect object of ditransitives (such as ‘teach’) and the object of passive-like impersonals without a syntactically projected initiator. Importantly, Lithuanian shows that GN cannot appear on a direct grammatical object that is otherwise nominative.

As Lithuanian – as well as at least Polish – differs from Russian in interesting ways, it offers new challenges and leads to important questions regarding how case is determined and realized.

Based on evidence from GN, we demonstrate that while case is assigned in syntax (known as abstract Case; e.g. Vergnaud 1977/Reference Vergnaud, Freidin, Otero and Zubizarreta2008, Chomsky Reference Chomsky1981, Reference Chomsky1995, Legate Reference Legate2008), it is translated at the morphological component (at PF) and then realized late in the derivation (Halle & Marantz Reference Halle, Marantz, Hale and Keyser1993).Footnote 7 We argue that accusative and genitive under negation are two morphological realizations of the same structural case, namely structural object case assigned by v in syntax. This structural case is then translated into morphological case at PF which is either genitive when negation is present or accusative if negation is absent. Lastly, Vocabulary Insertion proceeds and realizes the phonological exponents of these case values. We therefore make a clear distinction between case at a more abstract level in the derivation, and its morphological translation and realization. One of the most important contributions of this study is a three-layered approach to case. Some approaches to case have two levels of case determination (e.g. Legate Reference Legate2008, Akkuş Reference Akkuş2020), i.e. syntactic case and its phonological realizations through Vocabulary Insertion. In contrast, we argue that Lithuanian GN requires us to posit three levels of determination.

Finally, whereas Legate (Reference Legate2008) shows that one and the same morphological case, absolutive, can realize two different syntactic cases, nominative and accusative abstract Cases, we demonstrate that this can also be the other way around: a single syntactic case can be realized by two different morphological cases, accusative and genitive, depending on the absence or presence of negation (also see Spencer Reference Spencer, Kulikov, Malchukov and de Swart2006 for a similar observation in Chukchee and Czech).

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 looks at previous approaches to Russian GN showing that Lithuanian GN differs in many ways from Russian. Section 3 distinguishes between GN and other types of genitives that exist in Lithuanian, e.g. the partitive genitive and intensional genitive. We argue that GN is a type of structural case that requires an analysis independent from the rest of genitives found in the language. Section 4 provides evidence for our central claim that GN is the realization of structural object case. We demonstrate that GN can only be applied to DPs that would normally receive structural accusative case. We also briefly show how Lithuanian GN differs in a few respects from Polish GN. Our analysis is presented in Section 5, where we show how structural object case can be realized either as morphological accusative or genitive. We employ H.Á. Sigurðsson’s (Reference Sigurðsson2012a, Reference Sigurðsson2012b) notion of case stars in syntax to account for case assignment. Case stars are translated to morphological case at PF and realized at Vocabulary Insertion. We also discuss long-distance GN and what consequences it has for phase theory. Section 6 examines two exceptions where GN is governed by semantic factors. Section 7 presents the conclusion. The data presented in Sections 2 and 6 were tested with three native speakers, and the data presented in Sections 3, 4 and 5 were tested with five native speakers. Some data also came from Google searches.

2. Previous approaches to Russian GN

Lithuanian GN has been claimed to be a syntactic phenomenon for the most part (Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Holvoet and Nau2016) and the same goes for Polish (e.g. Franks Reference Franks1995, Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Błaszczak Reference Błaszczak2001, Reference Błaszczak, Hanneforth and Fanselow2010). In contrast, Russian GN is, to a greater extent, influenced by semantic factors, which have led a number of researchers to adopt a semantic approach (e.g. Neidle Reference Neidle1988, Pereltsvaig Reference Pereltsvaig1998, Borschev & Partee Reference Borschev, Partee, Hajičová, Petr, Hana and Hoskovec2002, Partee & Borschev Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004, Kagan Reference Kagan2013). However, various syntactic approaches to Russian GN also exist (e.g. Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1982, Harves Reference Harves2002, Bailyn Reference Bailyn, Arnaudova, Browne, Luisa Rivero and Stojanović2004). For instance, a recent syntactic approach to Russian GN analyzes it through case replacement (Richards Reference Richards2013). In this section, we briefly discuss semantic accounts as well as a syntactic account, namely Richards’ replacement approach, proposed for Russian GN. We demonstrate that these analyses cannot account for Lithuanian GN, and thus Lithuanian deserves a distinct analysis.

2.1. Semantic approaches to GN

It has been observed that the distribution of Russian GN is governed by semantic factors, including specificity (Babyonyshev & Brun Reference Babyonyshev and Brun2002), definiteness (Bailyn Reference Bailyn1997) and the semantic type of a noun phrase (Kagan Reference Kagan, Friedman and Gibson2007, Reference Kagan2013, Partee et al. Reference Partee, Borschev, Paducheva, Testelets and Yanovich2011). For instance, the grammatical object of transitives may or may not be marked with GN depending on its definiteness properties (see Kagan Reference Kagan2013: 12). A definite theme favors accusative, as in (5b), with a definite object modified by the demonstrative pronoun and, in (6), with a proper noun. An indefinite theme is compatible with accusative and genitive, as in (5c).

Under negation, genitive is preferred over accusative when the object refers to an abstract entity, like ‘happiness’ in (7b). If the object refers to a concrete noun, such as ‘flower’ in (8b), only accusative has been reported to be available.Footnote 8

In equivalent Lithuanian examples, GN is always substituted for an accusative theme object regardless of whether it is definite, referential or indefinite (9).

Similarly, the theme object, be it a concrete entity or an abstract entity, is always genitive when negation is present (10).

It should also be pointed out that Polish GN, which is like Lithuanian GN in many respects, exhibits the same pattern where semantic properties of the object do not play a role as to whether the GN rule can be applied or not (e.g. Błaszczak Reference Błaszczak, Hanneforth and Fanselow2010).

The difference between Russian and Lithuanian is also reflected in the case marking of the theme of unaccusatives. Russian GN is famous for being an unaccusativity test (Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1982): GN is found with canonical unaccusatives like ‘arrive’ (11b) and passives (12b), but not with unergatives. However, GN is not always obligatory in these environments – sometimes nominative is also possible. See (11a) and (12a).

There is a difference in meaning between the nominative theme and the genitive theme under negation. (11a) has a reading where there is an answer such that it did not arrive, and the same goes for ‘the statement’ in (12a). These refer to a specific answer or a specific statement (an entity of semantic type e), and thus these examples presuppose the existence of a theme. However, when the theme is genitive, it has a reading where no answer and no statement exist, meaning that no existence of a theme is presupposed. On Partee et al.’s (Reference Partee, Borschev, Paducheva, Testelets and Yanovich2011) account, these are properties (of type <e,t>). They propose a semantic analysis – the Property-Type Hypothesis, discussed in Section 6 – to account for this pattern.Footnote 9

Whereas a property-type vs. e-type analysis is tenable for Russian, it is not for Lithuanian, in general. GN is ungrammatical in Lithuanian with passives and unaccusatives, as we show in (15)–(16) in Section 2.2 below, regardless of whether the theme is presupposed to exist or not – the theme is always nominative. Thus, this group of predicates differs from Russian unaccusatives. The same goes for the difference between the genitive/accusative alternation in transitive clauses: although it is crucial in Russian whether the object is of type e or <e,t>, it does not affect the outcome in Lithuanian. Recall our examples in (10).

To sum up, while Russian GN can be governed by semantic factors, Lithuanian does not follow the same pattern. Rather, Lithuanian GN applies to accusative theme grammatical objects irrespective of their semantic properties. It is disallowed in constructions with canonical unaccusatives, as opposed to Russian GN. Nevertheless, there is a small subset of unaccusative predicates in Lithuanian, namely locative-existential constructions with verbs of perception and existential predicates, that permit optional GN (see Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997: 667–673, Holvoet Reference Holvoet, Holvoet and Mikulskas2005: 143, Aleksandravičiūtė Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013). These indeed resemble Russian GN constructions, where genitive DPs are properties of type <e,t>, whereas nominative DPs are of type e. However, these exceptions, discussed in Section 6, do not contradict our claim that Lithuanian GN is a type of structural object case.

2.2. Syntactic approach to GN

Richards (Reference Richards2013) argues, based in part on data from Russian GN, that case is assigned in syntax.Footnote 10 We agree and, as discussed in Section 5, argue, furthermore, that case is realized late in the derivation, at Vocabulary Insertion at PF (Halle & Marantz Reference Halle, Marantz, Hale and Keyser1993). We demonstrate, nonetheless, that the case replacement analysis proposed by Richards cannot account for Lithuanian GN.

Richards (Reference Richards2013) gives an analysis of case replacement in Lardil and extends it to Russian GN. He splits case into meaningful and meaningless cases; the former category is meaningful at LF, the latter is not. Structural case is meaningless, whereas inherent case, such as instrumental case, is meaningful. In his approach to Russian GN, genitive case is assigned by a negation head to an argument of a transitive verb that originates as an object and has previously been assigned accusative case. After the meaningless structural case, namely accusative, has been assigned to a DP, it is deleted and replaced by genitive. However, GN cannot replace a meaningful case, like instrumental case in (13).

Russian GN also applies to arguments in the passive (see (14b) below) that – without negation – would have been assigned nominative (see also discussion above and example (12)). For Richards (Reference Richards2013), genitive case assignment under negation, like case stacking in Lardil, is subject to timing: genitive is assigned to an argument by negation before it moves to subject position, and nominative case (structural/meaningless case) cannot replace genitive. This analysis can also be extended to unaccusative predicates (see (11b) above).

However, Richards’ approach cannot be extended to Lithuanian. First, GN cannot replace structural nominative, neither in passives (15) nor canonical unaccusatives (16).Footnote 11 Thus, the theme argument that is a grammatical subject is not affected by GN, in contrast to Russian GN. Second, GN in Lithuanian is not sensitive to timing: the passive subject cannot be genitive regardless of whether it is in SpecTP (15a) or in situ (15b), which is also the case for unaccusatives (see (16a) and (16b)). One could have argued for Lithuanian, based on Richards’ analysis, that the DP in (15a) and (16a) moves to subject position before GN is assigned, which could explain the nominative case that is realized on the subject. However, the fact that nominative case is also realized in situ in (15b) and (16b) shows that GN in Lithuanian passives is not affected by the timing of case assignment; GN cannot be realized regardless of whether the DP moves or not.

Furthermore, Lithuanian long-distance GN, as in (17b), may pose a challenge for Richards’ approach.Footnote 12 In (17a), a predicate ‘teach’ takes an accusative object ‘children’ and an infinitival complement whose main verb ‘paint’ occurs with an accusative object ‘fence’. When the matrix predicate is negated, as in (17b), both the matrix object and the object of the infinitival clause are genitive. This phenomenon is known as long-distance GN (see Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Holvoet and Nau2016 and Section 5). Note that it is also possible for the object of the infinitive to bear accusative.

Under an account that places a case feature on NEG, it would have to be able to assign case to two DPs – in this case, to the object of ‘teach’ in the matrix clause and to the object of ‘paint’ in the infinitival clause. That is, the meaningless structural case assigned to both ‘children’ and ‘fence’ would be deleted and subsequently replaced by genitive case assigned by one and the same NEG head. Long-distance GN is not a problem per se for an approach that places a case feature on NEG – this could be accounted for by using, for example, a Multiple Agree approach, as discussed for Polish in Witkoś (Reference Witkoś2008). We, however, will propose a different syntactic approach to Lithuanian GN that successfully derives (15)–(17).

2.3. Interim summary

To summarize, we have reviewed semantic and syntactic approaches that have been used for Russian GN. While the choice of Russian GN can be semantically conditioned when applied to both transitives and unaccusatives, the distribution of Lithuanian GN is not restricted by these semantic factors. We argue that Lithuanian GN is a syntactic phenomenon that should not, however, be analyzed using a case replacement account, such as introduced by Richards (Reference Richards2013) for Russian. We introduce our syntactic approach in Section 5, but now we turn to the difference between GN and other types of genitive case in Lithuanian.

3. Different types of genitive case: GN is special

In this section, we distinguish Lithuanian GN from other genitives found in the language. A number of approaches to Russian GN suggest that GN patterns similarly to other genitives, especially the intensional genitive (e.g. Neidle Reference Neidle1988, Kagan Reference Kagan2013) or the partitive genitive (e.g. Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1982), and thus these cases should be given a unified analysis. In contrast, we argue that Lithuanian GN is different from other genitives, requiring a separate syntactic account. Lithuanian has other types of genitives, including the non-structural genitive determined by certain predicates, the intensional genitive, the partitive genitive and the genitive of evidentials.Footnote 13 Even though these overlap morphologically, we show that GN behaves differently from other types of genitives. Unlike other cases discussed here, we claim that Lithuanian GN is a realization of structural object case (see also at least Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski2000, who takes GN in Polish to be structural case).

3.1. Non-structural genitive

Some Lithuanian verbs marked with the reflexive -si- take a genitive object. These include stative experiencer-like verbs, such as baimintis ‘be afraid of’, gailėtis ‘be sorry’, gėdytis ‘be ashamed’, saugotis ‘beware of’, as well as verbs like šalintis ‘avoid’ (18) (for a full list, see Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997: 503).

In contrast, Lithuanian GN is not associated with a particular class of verbs. It occurs with both stative (19) and non-stative verbs (20) as long as the predicate can assign structural accusative case (see Section 4 for more examples).

The genitive assigned to an object with experiencer-type verbs in (18) exhibits properties of a non-structural case, whereas GN lacks these properties. The difference between the two is reflected in their behavior with the distributive preposition po ‘each’. DPs with a non-structural case are not compatible with po, whereas structural case DPs are. Po assigns accusative case to its argument, and a PP headed by po can occur in a position where, normally, a structural case is assigned (Anderson Reference Anderson2013, Reference Anderson, Holvoet and Nau2015, E.F. Sigurðsson et al. Reference Sigurðsson, Šereikaitė and Pitteroff2018, Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020). It can occur as an object (21b) or as a subject of a transitive (22b). In (22b), the preposition takes an accusative complement, and the assignment of nominative is blocked. We therefore take the accusative in (21b) to be assigned by po, but not the verb.Footnote 14

Anderson (Reference Anderson2013, Reference Anderson, Holvoet and Nau2015) observes that DPs with non-structural case cannot be complements of po. Verbs like tarnauti ‘serve’, which take an object with inherent dative case, are incompatible with this preposition. Neither accusative, which is the case normally assigned by po, nor inherent dative is grammatical in (23) (E.F Sigurðsson et al. Reference Sigurðsson, Šereikaitė and Pitteroff2018, Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020). Šereikaitė (Reference Šereikaitė2020) hypothesizes that PPs in Lithuanian have a strong phase head which blocks case assignment from outside. At the same time, the assignment of non-structural case, like inherent dative, is obligatory. The PP blocks this case assignment which results in ungrammaticality.

The genitive case of verbs like šalintis ‘avoid’ behaves like inherent case: a DP marked with this case cannot be embedded under po as in (24). The complement of po cannot be accusative either. The genitive case of these predicates requires obligatory assignment just like inherent dative in (23).

In contrast, adding a negation to a structural-case-assigning predicate, which in turn is followed by po, is grammatical.Footnote 16 This is illustrated with the verb gauti ‘receive’ in (25), whose object becomes genitive under negation. When po is present, it assigns accusative to its complement, and GN is not available (26) (for discussion of GN with PPs, see Section 5.2). The grammaticality of (26), where po assigns accusative under negation, suggests that GN itself behaves like structural case: its failure to be realized on the object does not cause the derivation to crash.Footnote 17

We have demonstrated that non-structural genitive in Lithuanian differs from GN. Non-structural case is associated with a certain group of predicates, and a DP bearing this case cannot be a complement of po. In contrast, GN does not exhibit properties associated with a non-structural genitive. It can occur with any predicate as long as that predicate assigns structural accusative case to its object, meaning that it is not licensed thematically like a non-structural case. Furthermore, it is compatible with the distributive preposition po, which can occur with the type of arguments that are normally assigned structural case.

3.2. Intensional genitive

Lithuanian has a class of so-called intensional predicates like norėti ‘want’, geisti ‘desire/crave’, laukti ‘wait’, trokšti ‘desire’ and tikėtis ‘hope’. They assign genitive case to their object, as in (27), which is a type known in the Slavic literature as ‘intensional genitive’. The accusative case is not available.

Building on Neidle (Reference Neidle1988), Kagan (Reference Kagan2013) argues that Russian intensional genitive and GN are the same phenomenon. The object of intensional predicates can be assigned genitive case but sometimes it can bear accusative, as in (28). This genitive patterns like Russian GN, which can also be optional with transitive predicates (see Section 2.1). However, Lithuanian intensional genitive cannot be replaced by accusative (27), and thus differs from the Russian genitive in (28).

The intensional genitive and GN are two distinct cases in Lithuanian. Recall that GN in Lithuanian cannot occur in the passive, as in (15) above. In contrast, the intensional genitive can be retained under passivization, as in (29a), and thereby may qualify as a non-structural case (Woolford Reference Woolford2006). It can also advance to nominative (29b), suggesting structural case. Hence, the intensional genitive shows mixed characteristics with respect to its status.Footnote 18

GN is compatible with the preposition po (recall (26)). The intensional genitive is different. A DP assigned intensional genitive cannot occur as a complement of po, and the accusative is ungrammatical also (30). Intensional genitive is obligatorily assigned, but po blocks the case assignment, which results in ungrammaticality.

To sum up, the intensional genitive is distinct from GN. It is a mixed case that falls between two categories. It must be obligatorily assigned like an inherent case, but it can advance to nominative in the passive (see Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020), just like a structural case. In contrast, GN does not show this ambiguity.

3.3. Partitive genitive

Yet another type of genitive is partitive genitive, also known as genitive of indefinite quantity (see Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997: 486 and Seržant Reference Seržant, Holvoet and Nau2014 for discussion). This type of genitive, shown in (31), denotes a part or indefinite quantity of something and is usually realized with singular mass nouns and plural count nouns.

Unlike GN, the partitive genitive is incompatible with a definite object, as shown in (32a). Lithuanian lacks definite articles and, therefore, we use a demonstrative šiti ‘these’ in (32) to reinforce a definite interpretation. In (32), a definite object DP is only possible when its case is accusative, as in (32b).

A unified account has been proposed for the partitive genitive and GN in Russian by Pesetsky (Reference Pesetsky1982), in which both cases are realized as genitive by a phonologically null quantifier (also see Pereltsvaig Reference Pereltsvaig1999, Bailyn Reference Bailyn, Arnaudova, Browne, Luisa Rivero and Stojanović2004, Reference Bailyn2012).Footnote 19 However, Lithuanian GN is not a partitive genitive case. First, the partitive genitive object cannot be definite, as in (32a), whereas a GN object can, as indicated by the availability of the genitive object with the demonstrative in (33).

Second, the partitive genitive cannot be assigned to singular count-noun DPs as in (34a): they are incompatible with an indefinite quantity interpretation like ‘some’. However, GN can occur with singular count-noun objects, as in (34b).

Lastly, the partitive genitive can also surface with passives, as in (35b), as well as with unaccusatives, as in (36b). Note that the theme in both cases occurs in a clause-final position due to (in)definiteness (also see fn. 14 for discussion).

In contrast, GN is incompatible with passives (37–38), or unaccusatives, as in (39) (see also Section 2.2). To ensure that we are testing GN rather than the partitive genitive in (39), we use the demonstrative šie ‘these’, which reinforces a definite interpretation otherwise impossible with the partitive genitive.

Given these differences, we take GN and the partitive genitive to be two distinct cases that deserve separate analyses. We do not attempt to give an analysis of the partitive genitive in Lithuanian.Footnote 21 However, we note that due to a number of semantic restrictions, the assignment of partitive genitive does not seem to be related to the assignment of structural case, unlike GN.

3.4. Genitive of evidentials

Lastly, the Lithuanian evidential construction (see Geniušienė Reference Geniušienė, Abraham and Leisiö2006, Lavine Reference Lavine2006, Reference Lavine2010, Spraunienė et al. Reference Spraunienė, Razanovaitė, Jasionytė, Holvoet and Nau2015, Legate et al. Reference Legate, Akkuş, Šereikaitė and Ringe2020, i.a.) presents yet another type of genitive case. This is a non-finite construction with a verb taking a non-agreeing passive morphology. A thematic subject that is typically in the nominative case in an active transitive (40a) appears in the genitive case in the evidential construction (40b). The grammatical object, that would otherwise be in the accusative, is realized in the nominative case.

Legate et al. (Reference Legate, Akkuş, Šereikaitė and Ringe2020) argue that the evidential genitive is a type of structural case assigned by an evidential head to the highest argument in the clause. Genitive of evidentials is realized on the subject of a transitive (40b), unergative (41a), unaccusative (41b) and passive (41c). It is thus associated with a subject position and assigned under A-movement to the highest argument, like structural nominative case.

By contrast, GN does not appear on a thematic subject of unergatives or transitives (42) or a grammatical subject of passives or unaccusatives (37–39). We conclude that GN is not assigned under A-movement, unlike the genitive of evidentials. In other words, it does not target the highest available argument that becomes a subject. Rather, as we argue in Section 4, it tracks structural accusative case.

3.5. Interim summary

We have distinguished between different types of genitives in Lithuanian and demonstrated that GN is different from the rest. An overview is given in Table 1. GN is not a non-structural genitive that is associated with a certain type of a θ-role. Thus it is not assigned thematically. The failure to realize GN, when po is used, does not result in ungrammaticality, unlike what happens with non-structural case. While Lithuanian has a class of mixed cases like the intensional genitive, which bears properties of both structural and non-structural case, the assignment of GN does not show this type of ambiguity. Furthermore, GN differs from the partitive genitive, which has a number of semantic restrictions. GN affects an object that would typically be marked with structural accusative case regardless of its semantic properties (e.g. definiteness). Thus, GN deserves its own analysis. Lastly, GN is not associated with a type of structural case that is assigned under A-movement to the highest argument in the clause as the genitive of evidentials. Even though it is a type of structural case (which has also been argued for Polish GN, see Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski2000), its assignment is not related to A-movement.

Table 1 Different types of genitives in Lithuanian.

4. Genitive of negation and structural accusative case

The central generalization of this paper is that Lithuanian GN is a realization of structural object case, assigned by v. We show that GN does not track a specific grammatical function (e.g. a direct object) nor does it track a specific θ-role (e.g. a theme). Instead, it is realized where structural accusative case would otherwise surface (e.g. on a direct object of transitives or an indirect object of ditransitives). Thus, GN strictly tracks structural object case. We argue that it is sensitive to syntactic rather than morphological case. GN does not apply blindly to all DPs that would appear with accusative; it is not realized on, for example, adjuncts (see Franks & Dziwirek Reference Franks and Dziwirek1993 for a similar pattern in Slavic). Furthermore, GN is banned from environments where a structural nominative case would be assigned. This applies to subjects and grammatical objects that are realized in the nominative, with or without negation. Lastly, non-structural case on arguments is not affected by negation, which is another piece of evidence for our claim that GN should be treated as structural case. Note that while Polish GN has been argued to apply to objects of transitives that would bear structural accusative case (Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999: §5.2, Reference Przepiórkowski2000), Lithuanian seems to exhibit a wider range of different constructions with structural object case, which allow us to pinpoint the exact nature of GN.

4.1. GN tracks structural accusative case

In this subsection, we demonstrate that GN occurs in various syntactic environments where structural accusative case would typically be assigned.

4.1.1. DPnom-DPacc environment

We start the discussion of GN by reviewing its behavior in DPnom-DPacc environments. A typical example of Lithuanian GN is in transitive clauses with negation where structural accusative case would otherwise surface, as in (43).

Under our account, the direct object is assigned structural case by v in transitive active constructions (for further details, see Section 5). The result is normally accusative, unless the DP is c-commanded by negation; then, genitive is the result. The same pattern can be observed with direct objects of ditransitives (44).

GN does not only apply to direct objects, as the indirect object of the ditransitive verb ‘teach’ is in the genitive under negation.Footnote 22 This suggests that GN does not track a particular θ-role (e.g. a theme, or a particular grammatical function – for example, a direct object). It can affect a goal – an indirect object – as long as that object can be realized in a structural accusative case as in (45) (see Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Holvoet and Nau2016 for more examples with ‘teach’).

In order to bear GN, the DP needs to be base-generated below negation. For example, when the verb in the to-infinitive in (46) is negated, the object of that clause, ‘same mistake’, is genitive, as it is base-generated below the negation. The matrix object ‘children’ is accusative, as it is base-generated above the negation.

However, a DP does not need to be under the semantic scope of negation to receive GN. This is reflected in the behavior of the topicalized direct object in (47) which retains its genitive case even when it takes scope over negation, and its surface position is not c-commanded by it.

All in all, the realization of GN is dependent on the syntactic structure, specifically whether or not a grammatical object case is assigned in the structure.

4.1.2. Impersonals

GN is found in impersonals like (48)–(50). Typically, these constructions include an accusative direct object and a subject that is not expressed overtly. Lavine (Reference Lavine, Holvoet and Nau2016) argues that impersonals like (48) have a nonvolitional causer that is not projected in syntax. Šereikaitė (Reference Šereikaitė2021) proposes that constructions like (49) also lack a projected external argument, which is interpreted as an existential ‘someone’. Regardless of whether there is a projected initiator or not, the assignment of accusative case in these constructions is possible. We take these impersonals to have v, which assigns structural case in syntax to a direct object, resulting in accusative case at PF – unless when negation is added, then the result is genitive.

These impersonals are similar to short passives (i.e. without by-phrases): both constructions lack a projected initiator in syntax (Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2022). However, the v in impersonals licenses accusative, while the assignment of accusative in Lithuanian passives is impossible.Footnote 23 Similarly, GN is possible in the impersonals in (48)–(50), but not in passives (e.g. (38)). The realization of GN does not require the presence of a syntactically projected agent; GN can appear in constructions that lack it as long as they license the assignment of structural object case.

Polish also has an impersonal construction with an accusative theme argument as in (51). Nevertheless, the Polish -no/-to construction, unlike the Lithuanian impersonals above, has been argued to have a projected null subject (Lavine Reference Lavine2005, Legate Reference Legate2014) and thus exhibits active voice characteristics. While the Polish data show us that GN is found in active impersonals with a fully projected agent, the Lithuanian data suggest that GN also occurs in passive-like constructions (i.e. without a projected external argument) as long as they license accusative case.

4.1.3. DPdat-DPacc environment

Lastly, GN appears in dative-accusative constructions. These take a dative subject followed by an object which is assigned structural object case realized with accusative. Crucially, the object becomes genitive when negation is present. Lithuanian pain-verb constructions (see Seržant Reference Seržant2013, Holvoet Reference Holvoet, Holvoet and Nau2016) with a dative possessor and an accusative theme belong to this class. The theme direct object is affected by negation – it is realized in the genitive case (52b).Footnote 24

However, in Polish, verbs like boleć ‘ache’, stać ‘afford’ and kosztowac̀ ‘cost’ take a nominative theme and an accusative possessor. Interestingly, the accusative is either retained on the DP under negation or it becomes genitive (Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Błaszczak Reference Błaszczak2001). That is, Polish exhibits optionality in these environments, unlike Lithuanian. It has been argued for Polish that the object of verbs like ‘ache’ is associated with two types of cases: (i) a structural one to which GN can apply and (ii) an inherent one, to which GN does not apply (ibid.).

Returning to Lithuanian dat-acc patterns, an accusative theme is found also in non-finite subordinate clauses with a dative subject (see Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997: 363, Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Gast and Diessel2012, Reference Arkadiev2017, Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020). It is in the genitive under negation (54).

To-infinitive clauses also belong to this class of constructions. The case of arbitrary PRO in Lithuanian is dative as illustrated by the agreement properties of the adjective vienas ‘alone’ in (55a) (see Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020; for similar facts in Russian, see Landau Reference Landau2008).Footnote 25 The theme object in this configuration is accusative (55a) but realized in the genitive under negation (55b).

To sum up, GN is not sensitive to whether a clause is finite or non-finite. Nor is it sensitive to the case of a subject, be it nominative (see Section 4.1.1) or dative. GN appears on a grammatical object as long as that object can be realized in structural accusative case when negation is absent. In addition to dat-acc constructions, Lithuanian also allows dat-nom constructions. If GN indeed tracks structural object case, then we predict that GN cannot be realized where nominative surfaces (e.g. in dat-nom constructions). We show that this prediction is borne out in the next subsection.

4.2. GN does not track nominative case

Here we discuss environments with structural nominative case that appears on a grammatical subject and a grammatical object. We demonstrate that GN cannot be realized on DPs which would normally be marked with nominative regardless of whether that DP is a subject or an object.

4.2.1. Nominative subjects

A structural-case-marked subject is realized in the nominative case in Lithuanian, whether or not negation is present in the clause. Examples follow with the thematic subject of a transitive verb (56a) and an unergative verb (56b).

The sole arguments of, for example, unaccusatives and passives, that originate as underlying objects, are realized as nominative under negation. In (57a)–(58a), the theme has moved to subject position (SpecTP). If it stays in its original object position, as in (57b)–(58b), it is still nominative. Hence, GN does not track a specific syntactic position. Rather, we argue that GN affects arguments that are assigned structural object case, typically accusative.

Lithuanian like-class verbs (e.g. patikti ‘like’, rūpėti ‘care’) present yet another argument for GN not tracking nominative. These constructions have a non-structural dative experiencer, followed by a nominative theme. The theme is a grammatical subject: it binds the subject-oriented anaphor savo and triggers agreement on the predicate, as in (59).Footnote 26 It cannot bind the anti-subject-oriented anaphor tavo. The theme is nominative in an environment with negation (60).

This is unlike the dat-acc construction in Subsection 4.1.3 where the theme, which typically bears accusative, is realized with GN. The dat-acc construction allows GN, whereas the dat-nom construction does not. The theme in the former bears structural object case, whereas the theme in the latter does not. The juxtaposition of the two constructions is another piece of evidence that GN is sensitive to the type of case the theme bears.

4.2.2. Nominative objects

We now investigate GN in environments with a nominative object. Evidence from evidentials in (61) (see also Section 3.4) demonstrates that GN does not merely track the grammatical function of a DP. In evidentials, the subject is genitive and the theme object is nominative.Footnote 27 The theme is a grammatical object: it binds the anti-subject-oriented pronoun instead of the subject-oriented anaphor savo (Lavine Reference Lavine2006). When negation is added, the object is nominative (62).

We could have predicted that GN affects all grammatical objects regardless of the type of case they are marked with. However, the facts from evidentials show that GN does not track a specific grammatical function, such as a grammatical object. Rather, GN affects DPs that would otherwise be realized with accusative case.

4.3. GN does not track non-structural case

We now turn to environments with non-structural case. GN cannot appear on arguments that are marked with a non-structural case – a common property of GN in Slavic languages as well (e.g. Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1982). This is shown below for direct objects (63) and indirect objects (64) that are assigned non-structural dative.

Quirky dative subjects can also be found in the language. Lack-class verbs (e.g. trūkti ‘lack’, užtekti ‘have enough’) take a dative subject and a genitive theme. As a subject, the dative DP binds the subject-oriented anaphor savo (65a) (see also Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020). GN cannot affect non-structural case subjects, as shown in (65).

4.4. GN does not track adjuncts

Lastly, we show that GN cannot be realized on adjuncts. Lithuanian measure adjuncts are marked with accusative case (e.g. ‘for x amount of time’); see (66a). Adverbial phrases like ‘every/each day’ also take an accusative temporal DP; see (67a). GN is nonetheless prohibited with these phrases; see (66b)–(67b).

From a morphological perspective, we could have expected GN to apply to all DPs that can be marked with accusative case, including adjuncts, contrary to fact. (66)–(67) suggest that GN does not track a particular morphological case but rather that it is sensitive to syntactic case. In other words, the accusative that appears on adjuncts is not assigned by v, and thus, GN does not apply in this environment.Footnote 28 , Footnote 29

4.5. Interim summary

We have demonstrated that GN is realized on DPs which (i) are c-commanded by negation and (ii) would otherwise be realized in the accusative case. The availability of GN is not restricted by scope; topicalized objects which are outside the scope of negation still must bear GN. Our main claim is that Lithuanian GN tracks structural object case. We have supported this finding by showing that GN does not track a specific grammatical function since neither a nominative grammatical subject nor an object is affected by GN. Furthermore, the availability of a GN object is not dependent on whether the subject is marked with nominative or dative, or whether the clause is finite or non-finite. In contrast, GN is realized on DPs which are assigned structural accusative case, e.g. the grammatical object of transitives, ditransitives, impersonals and pain-class verbs, and the indirect object of ditransitives. We summarize our findings in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of what type of case GN tracks.

5. Realizing structural object case as accusative and genitive

Below we present an analysis of Lithuanian GN. We propose that accusative and GN are two morphological cases derived from the same syntactic case – namely, structural object case. We argue that case is assigned in syntax (sometimes referred to as abstract Case; e.g. Legate Reference Legate2008) and then translated to morphological case at PF. Lastly, assuming a Distributed Morphology (DM) approach, morphological case is realized at Vocabulary Insertion (VI; e.g. Halle & Marantz Reference Halle, Marantz, Hale and Keyser1993). That is, we propose that case at PF is determined in two steps rather than making VI do all the work interpreting case assigned in syntax.

When structural object case is assigned and the derivation is transferred to the Morphological Component, prior to VI, it is translated to acc. The same applies under negation except that structural object case is translated to gen. We therefore have three layers of case: abstract syntactic case, abstract PF case (at which stage in the derivation syntactic case is translated to morphological case) and its realization. Furthermore, we examine case boundaries through long-distance GN, which is found in a few GN languages, including Polish. We suggest that case boundaries can cross non-finite clauses and that infinitival clauses without an overt CP element are not phases (see also Landau Reference Landau2008).

We do not place case on NEG, as in Richards (Reference Richards2013) or Witkoś (Reference Witkoś2008), who argues that ‘an amalgamated Probe’, NEG + v, checks GN; structural accusative case for him is checked in the same way but by a positive polarity head + v. For us, these are the same syntactic case, realized as accusative or GN. This is reminiscent of Przepiórkowski’s (Reference Przepiórkowski2000) HPSG account, who takes structural object case to be ‘resolved’ to accusative in the absence of negation but with it to genitive.

5.1. Translation and realization of case in the Morphological Component

For our analysis of Lithuanian GN, we adopt H.Á Sigurðsson’s (Reference Sigurðsson2012a, Reference Sigurðsson2012b) notion of case stars. We use them for expository purposes to emphasize a distinction between case in syntax and case at PF.Footnote 30 For him, arguments are A-licensed in syntax. At the Morphological Component (or deep PF, as he refers to it), A-licensing relations are translated accordingly, such that transitive v becomes v* – a v that assigns accusative. Dative is assigned by v*+ and genitive by v*++. Relations between (eventual) case assigners and DPs realizing case are established in syntax, but ‘case feature values’ (nom, acc, etc.) are determined at PF.

For us, however, v*, v*+ and v *++ assign case in syntax that is later realized morphologically as accusative, dative and genitive, etc. We refer to case assigned by functional heads like T, v*, etc., as syntactic case. This largely amounts to abstract Case (Vergnaud 1977/Reference Vergnaud, Freidin, Otero and Zubizarreta2008, Chomsky Reference Chomsky1981, Reference Chomsky1995, Legate Reference Legate2008). We assume that when DPs are assigned syntactic case, they are marked accordingly as, for example, DP0, DP*, DP*+ and DP*++. When the derivation is sent to PF, the DPs are still case marked as, for example, DP*; syntactic case then needs to be interpreted at PF. We might expect this to be done when Vocabulary items are inserted. However, we take this translation process of syntactic case at PF to take place earlier in the derivation. That is, at the Morphological Component, of PF, prior to VI, case diacritics on DPs are translated to morphological case features, as in (68).

When, for example, DP* is translated as DPacc, accusative percolates to all case values within the DP (see Norris Reference Norris2014 and E.F. Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson2017: §3 for feature percolation accounts). Subsequently, VI uses these values when inserting phonological exponents. We therefore suggest three levels of representation: abstract syntactic case, abstract PF case and its realization at VI. Note that the rules in (68) do not refer to Vocabulary items as we might expect if this took place at VI. In DM, Vocabulary items are inserted after concatenation and pruning, which are part of the linearization process (Embick Reference Embick2010, Reference Embick2015, Ingason Reference Ingason2016). At that point in the derivation, the tree structure is not available, and as a result, the c-command relation is no longer visible. However, we assume that when the syntactic case is translated into abstract PF case, the syntactic structure is still available.Footnote 31 As argued in Section 5.2, it is essential for long-distance GN to have access to the negation in the matrix clause when case in the embedded infinitival clause is determined.

Our model makes a clear distinction between case at syntax and morphological case. nom, acc, gen, etc., are morphological labels and reflect how the Morphological Component uses its finite inventory to interpret different syntactic structures. It does not have one morphological case for each syntactic case licensing relation; there is not a one-to-one relation between case in syntax and in morphology. For instance, two different syntactic cases can have the same realization. Lithuanian reflects this. As argued by E.F. Sigurðsson et al. (Reference Sigurðsson, Šereikaitė and Pitteroff2018) and Šereikaitė (Reference Šereikaitė2020), the indirect object of duoti ‘give’ in (69a) is assigned (non-structural) dative case by an Applicative head. Monotransitive verbs like vadovauti ‘manage’ also take a dative object (69b). However, this object bears structural case properties; unlike the dative indirect object of ‘give’, it can, for example, advance to nominative in the passive and is therefore argued to be assigned by v (E.F. Sigurðsson et al. Reference Sigurðsson, Šereikaitė and Pitteroff2018). This suggests a relationship between syntactic cases and their morphological representation, as in (69)–(70), where two distinct syntactic cases, DPAppl (see (69a)–(70a)) and DP*+ (see (69b)–(70b)), have the same morphological outcome, dat. The label DPAppl reflects here that dative case of indirect arguments is assigned by Appl but not v.

The opposite also exists where a single syntactic case can have two morphological reflections. We propose that structural object case in Lithuanian can have two realizations depending on whether negation is present or not. We argue that Lithuanian GN is not a realization of DP*++, which we would normally assume for non-structural (lexical) genitive case (assigned by v*++) of the type discussed in Section 3.1, but of DP*. That is, even though the outcome is genitive, GN is not a realization of non-structural case, as in (68d)/(71b), but of structural object case, as illustrated in (71a). Thus, we propose that even though DP* with structural object case is under normal circumstances realized as accusative case, it is realized as genitive under negation in Lithuanian. In other words, GN is a realization of structural object case assigned by v* when it is base-generated below negation.Footnote 32

In Lithuanian, the syntax of ‘I read a beautiful book’ (72a) is identical to ‘I didn’t read a beautiful book’ (72b) with respect to syntactic case features: when v* probes down and agrees with its object, v* assigns ‘a beautiful book’ structural object case, yielding DP*, whether or not negation is present. For concreteness, we assume that the thematic subject ‘I’ is introduced in the specifier of an agentive Voice (Kratzer Reference Kratzer, Rooryck and Zaring1996, Pylkkänen Reference Pylkkänen2008, Harley Reference Harley2013, Legate Reference Legate2014, i.a.) and moves to SpecTP. It receives its structural subject case from a finite T, resulting in DP0. We show the tree structure for these clauses in (73); we add NegP – which we assume to be generated above VoiceP – in parentheses, as it is absent in (72a).Footnote 33

These syntactic case features are in turn translated into morphological case features at the Morphological Component: DP0 as nominative and DP* as either genitive (see (74a)) if that DP is base-generated below negation or accusative (see (74b)), according to the Elsewhere Principle. The translation process uses the syntactic information available at this point to convert the syntactic case features into morphological case features. We show the translation rules for DP* below. This process takes place prior to VI. The abstract PF genitive or accusative case on the object DP in (72) percolates to the nominals within it, such that both ‘beautiful’ and ‘book’ are marked accusative/genitive prior to VI which, lastly, inserts phonological exponents.

It is important to note that the translation process in (74) is not to be interpreted as allomorphy rules where specific heads are realized at VI in a specific way in a certain environment (such as in the vicinity of negation). Allomorphy is usually governed by linear adjacency and cyclic locality (e.g. Embick Reference Embick2010, Reference Embick2015).Footnote 34 However, GN acts on a large scale as it applies to the whole DP, making all elements within the DP be interpreted and eventually realized as genitive case – that is, genitive percolates to all case values within the DP as shown for ‘beautiful book’ in (72b). Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.2, it is possible to have long-distance GN where the genitive in the embedded infinitival clause can be determined by negation in the matrix clause. Thus, GN does not comply with locality and adjacency constraints common to allomorphy.

After the translation process in (74), Vocabulary items are realized, at VI. We assume an xInfl node which expresses syntactic features of heads from which they are separated at PF (this node is similar to the Agr node in Embick Reference Embick1997, Reference Embick2015; see also the nInfl node in Ingason Reference Ingason2016, which applies to all nominals). In the DP object graži-os knyg-os ‘beautiful book’ in (72b), the feature values of nInfl (i.e. genitive and singular) are realized with the exponent -os in (75), and the same applies to aInfl, which is an adjectival node (Adamson & Šereikaitė Reference Adamson and Šereikaitė2019).

Turning to unaccusatives, we assume the structure in (77). They do not assign structural object case to their theme as they lack v*; the structure contains v, which does not assign case. Unaccusatives also lack agentive semantics, meaning they have no Voice head assigning an external argument θ-role. T assigns structural subject case to the theme, resulting in DP0 in syntax, which in turn is translated and realized as nominative, irrespective of the presence or absence of negation.

Our approach therefore explains why a sole argument of unaccusatives (and passives), generated in object position, does not bear genitive case.

Recall from Section 4, that under negation, dat-acc structures have a GN object, whereas dat-nom structures do not, as in (78)–(79) (repeated from (52b) and (60b)). We suggest that dat-acc verb phrases have a v*, whereas dat-nom verb phrases have a v. The former assigns structural object case to its object, resulting in DP*, whereas the object of the latter is assigned case by T, resulting in DP0.

Our approach reflects in an interesting way Legate’s (Reference Legate2008) approach to case in languages that have absolutive case as default (ABS=DEF languages). Legate argues for ABS=DEF languages, such as Niuean (see (80)), that morphological absolutive case realizes different syntactic cases, which she refers to as nominative and accusative Cases. The intransitive subject ‘Pita’ in (80a) is morphologically in the absolutive case, but syntactically, according to Legate, in the nominative Case. Likewise, the transitive object ‘tree’ in (80b) is also in the absolutive case morphologically, but its abstract syntactic Case is accusative.

Extending Legate’s account to the current approach, one and the same morphological case, absolutive, realizes both DP0 and DP* (see (81a); cf. also (70) above on two syntactic cases translated to dative in Lithuanian). The opposite pattern is also possible; namely, that the same type of structural case can have two distinct morphological realizations, as is the case in Lithuanian GN; see (81b).

Our analysis could potentially also be extended to accommodate Spencer’s (Reference Spencer, Kulikov, Malchukov and de Swart2006) approach to Chuckchee in which syntactic ergative case is sometimes realized as morphological locative case and sometimes as morphological instrumental case.

5.2. Case boundaries

Our approach to Lithuanian GN raises questions regarding phase (Chomsky Reference Chomsky and Kenstowicz2001) and case boundaries. Since GN is a syntax-morphology interface phenomenon, negation must be visible to the DP object at PF, suggesting that the whole VoiceP together with NegP will be sent to PF. For us, the phase is at least as big as NegP, as Neg has to be visible to DP* at PF for it to be translated to genitive.

Furthermore, Lithuanian GN exhibits long-distance dependencies across non-finite clauses which provide important insights into phases and boundaries of case determination: they are quite large as they include embedded infinitival clauses in long-distance GN, as in (17) above, repeated as (82). Note that Polish also allows long-distance GN across non-finite clauses, which also challenges the idea of phases as discussed by Przepiórkowski (Reference Przepiórkowski2000), Błaszczak (Reference Błaszczak2001), Witkoś (Reference Witkoś2008).

The matrix clause object ‘children’ in (82b) is genitive. The object of ‘paint’ in the infinitival clause can also be genitive.Footnote 35 , Footnote 36 This suggests that when DP* ‘fence’ in the infinitival clause is translated to morphological case, the negation in the matrix is visible to it. Therefore, long-distance GN is also subject to the rule in (74a).

However, long-distance GN cannot apply in wh-infinitives as in (83) with an overt CP element. It also does not apply past overt finite CP boundaries (84).Footnote 37

Assuming that case assignment and its realization is phase-bounded, we take long-distance GN to show that infinitival clauses in Lithuanian without an overt CP layer are not phases (see also Landau Reference Landau2008, who shows that infinitival clauses in Russian do not form a phase boundary). The infinitival clause in (83) and the embedded finite clause in (84) both have a CP element, kur and kad, respectively. Given that long-distance GN cannot be realized, we take these to be phases.

Further indication of overt CPs being the boundaries to GN is seen in full relative vs. reduced relative clauses. In (85a), negation is located outside the full relative clause. As the relative clause has an overt CP layer, it is a phase, and the case of the object in this clause is not affected by the matrix negation. In reduced relatives, there is no overt CP, and the object of this clause can bear GN (85b).Footnote 38

This suggests that full relative clauses constitute phase boundaries, whereas reduced relative clauses do not. Note that the structure of reduced relative clauses in Lithuanian merits further research, but it is outside the scope of this paper.

Finally, Lithuanian has prepositions like į, which assigns accusative to its complement. The accusative complement is not affected by negation, as in (86).

We treat PPs in Lithuanian as phases which prevent the features of the complement from being accessed by functional heads outside PPs (for a PP acting as a phase see, for example, Řezáč Reference Řezáč, Harbour, Adger and Béjar2008 and Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020).

5.3. Interim summary

We have provided an analysis of GN, arguing that it is a syntax-morphology phenomenon. We proposed that structural object case can be translated into two morphological cases at PF (i.e. either GN or accusative) depending on whether negation is present in the structure or not. This is not case allomorphy, as GN acts on a large scale and applies even to DPs in infinitival clauses. Lastly, instances of long-distance GN show that while finite clauses with an overt CP layer are phases, non-finite clauses lacking an overt C do not constitute phase boundaries.

6. The semantic side of GN in Lithuanian

In this section, we discuss the behavior of GN in existential constructions, which is different from the syntactic GN discussed so far in this paper. GN in these constructions is applied to the theme argument that otherwise would surface as a nominative grammatical subject. Thus, GN in these constructions resembles GN in equivalent constructions in Russian, which also sometimes appears in genitive instead of nominative (see Section 2; also see Partee & Borschev Reference Partee and Borschev2002, Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004, Partee et al. Reference Partee, Borschev, Paducheva, Testelets and Yanovich2011, Kagan Reference Kagan2013). Below, we show that the realization of GN in existential constructions is affected by semantic factors (in line with Holvoet Reference Holvoet, Holvoet and Mikulskas2005: 143, Aleksandravičiūtė Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013).Footnote 39

6.1. Semantically conditioned GN in a locative-existential construction

We begin our discussion of the semantic GN by looking at Russian. Russian has a nominative/genitive alternation in locative-existential constructions (Babby Reference Babby1980, Partee & Borschev Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004), as in (87). Both (87a) and (87b) state that Petja was not at some concert. However, only in (87a), where Petja is in the nominative, is it possible to proceed with the example and say that, in fact, there was no concert.

Following Babby (Reference Babby1980), Partee & Borschev (Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004) term the type in (87a) negated declarative sentences (NDS) and (87b) negated existential sentences (NES). To explain the contrast between NDS and NES, Partee & Borschev (Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004) focus on what they refer to as thing (Petja in the examples above) and location (the concert), one of which is a Perspectival Center (88), presupposed to exist.

The concert in (87b) is the Perspectival Center; thus, the location is presupposed and the existence of the concert cannot be denied. In other words, the NES in (87b) negates the existence of the thing (i.e. Petja) in the presupposed location (i.e. the concert) (see Partee & Borschev Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004: 218). In contrast, when the thing is the Perspectival Center, as in the NDS in (87a), Petja’s existence is presupposed and the location can be negated (i.e. it is possible to say that there was no concert).

Whether the thing or the location is presupposed affects case marking of the theme: when the thing (Petja) is presupposed, it is nominative, even under negation, whereas when the location is the Perspectival Center, the theme is marked with GN. The case in these situations is conditioned semantically.

A similar construction exists in Lithuanian, which has a class of locative-existential predicates, such as būti ‘be’, egzistuoti ‘exist’, likti ‘remain’, atsirasti ‘appear’. Without negation, they occur with a nominative theme subject and a locative phrase. Nominative is grammatical when negation is present, as in (89a). Surprisingly, genitive can also be used, as in (89b), resulting in a different reading (Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997, Holvoet Reference Holvoet, Holvoet and Mikulskas2005, Aleksandravičiūtė Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013).Footnote 40

As suggested by Holvoet (Reference Holvoet, Holvoet and Mikulskas2005: 144) and Aleksandravičiūtė (Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013), we can use Partee & Borschev (Reference Partee, Borschev and Young2004)’s system to account for the contrast found in (89a) and (89b). According to Aleksandravičiūtė (Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013), the subject/thing is the Perspectival Center in (89a). The existence of the subject ‘students’ is presupposed, making the example in (89a) parallel to the Russian NDS in (87a). In both languages, the thing, functioning as a Perspectival Center, is marked with nominative. Aleksandravičiūtė (Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013) points out that ‘students’ is marked with the genitive case when location is the Perspectival Center, as in (89b). The same case marking in a similar semantic context is found in Russian, as evidenced by the NES in (87b). Unlike the syntactic GN discussed in Section 5, the semantic GN occurs in syntactic environments which lack structural object case. The realization of GN in these constructions seems to be based on the Perspectival Center.

6.2. Semantically conditioned GN with verbs of perception

A similar contrast is seen in another construction in Russian, in which nominative and genitive are both possible under negation but the genitive facilitates a different reading. Partee et al. (Reference Partee, Borschev, Paducheva, Testelets and Yanovich2011) discuss example (90) with a perception verb ‘see’.

When the thing is presupposed (as the Perspectival Center), as in (90a), Maša is of type e and she cannot be seen for some reason, even though she is present. Under such a reading, the DP is nominative. However, the case is genitive in (90b), indicating Maša’s non-existence in an implicit location (i.e. she may not be there at all). It is surprising that the thing in (90b) (and (87b)) is genitive, as Maša (as well as Petja) is the name of an individual, which is type e, and type e arguments in Russian are typically not genitive under negation. Partee et al. (Reference Partee, Borschev, Paducheva, Testelets and Yanovich2011), however, present a Property-Type Hypothesis (91) and argue for a type shift to a property (type <e,t>) which results in a different reading and different case marking.

For (90b), according to Partee et al., the type shift results in the reading ‘being Maša’, compatible with the genitive case. Overall, then, (90) suggests that there is a correlation between case marking and a semantic type.

Lithuanian has a similar perception verb construction with nominative/genitive alternations, depending on the meaning. Perception verbs with the reflexive clitic -si- like matyti-s ‘see-refl’, girdėti-s ‘hear-refl’ or jausti-s ‘feel-refl’ typically take a nominative theme subject (92); the theme cannot be accusative.Footnote 41

When negation is applied, however, the theme argument of these reflexive predicates occurs either in the nominative or genitive case, as in (93)–(94).

Aleksandravičiūtė (Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013) argues that there is a semantic difference between the use of the nominative or the genitive in this construction. Under her analysis, nominative presupposes the existence of the argument in question. Only (94), with the argument in the genitive case, but not (93), with nominative case, can have the reading where the girl is not seen because she is not visible, as she has never been a part of the picture (see Aleksandravičiūtė Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013 for discussion). This pattern is expected, as genitive case is not associated with the ‘existential commitment’ (Aleksandravičiūtė Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013): there is no evidence for the girl’s presence in the assumed location.

Nevertheless, not only nominative in (93), but also genitive in (94) facilitate the reading where the thing, ‘girl’, is not seen in the picture because, for example, her classmate was standing in front of her. In this respect, Lithuanian differs from Russian, as under the interpretation that presupposes the existence of the thing, the phrase is typically marked with nominative, not genitive. Hence, in certain Lithuanian constructions with negation, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the case marking and the reading, as opposed to Russian.Footnote 42 The observed pattern challenges the Perspectival Center Analysis and merits further research.

6.3. Summary

The overview given in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 shows that even though Lithuanian GN is syntactic for the most part, there is a semantic side that deserves a separate analysis. We have demonstrated that there are two components that distinguish semantic GN from syntactic GN in Lithuanian. First, it is sensitive to semantic factors, unlike syntactic GN. Building on Holvoet (Reference Holvoet, Holvoet and Mikulskas2005) and Aleksandravičiūtė (Reference Aleksandravičiūtė2013), we argued that the (un)availability of GN is related to referentiality and what Partee et al. (Reference Partee, Borschev, Paducheva, Testelets and Yanovich2011) call Perspectival Centers. Second, semantic GN can be realized in syntactic configurations where accusative case is typically not realized – in other words, where syntactic GN does not occur. Semantic GN does not track structural object case, meaning that it deserves a separate analysis from syntactic GN in Lithuanian, which we leave for further research.

Note that the contrast between nominative and genitive discussed for Russian and Lithuanian in Section 6.1 is also found in Polish. Błaszczak (Reference Błaszczak, Hanneforth and Fanselow2010) argues for a syntactic analysis, assuming two structures for the verb ‘be’ with the DP generated in two different locations (see also Holvoet Reference Holvoet, Holvoet and Mikulskas2005 for Lithuanian). However, as she notes, the construction discussed in Section 6.2 is not found in Polish. Her analysis presumably cannot straightforwardly be extended to Lithuanian if the two constructions in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 are to be given one and the same analysis.

7. Conclusion

We argued above for a morphosyntactic account of GN in Lithuanian. We showed that one syntactic case does not have to correspond to one morphological case and vice versa. Lithuanian provides evidence for this observation. One of the main contributions of this paper is demonstrating that GN tracks structural object case, assigned in syntax, which is usually translated and realized as accusative. Under negation, however, it is translated to genitive at the Morphological Component at PF. Thus, structural object case can have two morphological realizations. Importantly, the realization of these two morphological cases is not a type of allomorphy. While allomorphy is restricted by locality and adjacency, GN can be long-distance: it can operate on a large scale across non-finite clauses and, therefore, the realization of these cases should not be subsumed under allomorphy.

Some approaches to case (e.g. Legate Reference Legate2008, Akkuş Reference Akkuş2020) have two levels of case determination (i.e. syntactic case and its phonological realization through Vocabulary Insertion). In contrast, we argued that Lithuanian GN shows the need for three levels of case determination. First, case is assigned in syntax. Using H.Á. Sigurðsson’s (Reference Sigurðsson2012a, Reference Sigurðsson2012b) case star approach, structural object case on a DP is notated as DP*. Second, syntactic case is translated at the Morphological Component. DP* is generally translated to acc (accusative case). Under negation, however, it is translated to gen (genitive case). This genitive case percolates to the nominals within that DP*. Third, Vocabulary Insertion takes place and inserts phonological exponents for case values.

Our approach provides important insights for Case Theory. It shows that both syntax and morphology are two necessary components in case determination. We make a clear distinction between case in syntax and case in morphology, where the latter component translates syntactic relations using its finite inventory of morphological case features. That results in, for example, genitive case being used in Lithuanian to interpret various different syntactic cases, such as non-structural or intensional genitive, as discussed in Section 3. The opposite is also found in the language, where one and the same syntactic case – namely, structural object case – is translated to more than one morphological case, as is the case for genitive of negation and accusative when negation is not present.

While GN in many respects has been viewed as a semantic phenomenon in languages like Russian, we demonstrated that GN in Lithuanian is a syntax-morphology interface phenomenon, and it cannot be assimilated with other genitive cases found in the language (e.g. the partitive or intensional genitive). GN in Polish has also been shown to be syntactic: it applies to objects of transitive predicates. Nevertheless, the existing array of various constructions in Lithuanian has allowed us to pinpoint the exact nature of GN; that is, GN is the realization of a structural object case which appears on direct and indirect objects as well as the object of passive-like impersonals. Further research should focus on the exploration of constructions with long-distance GN.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Footnotes

We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and detailed comments which greatly improved the paper. Thanks go to Nikita Bezrukov, David Embick, Julie Legate and Jim Wood for comments and conversations on the paper. Furthermore, we would like to thank the audiences where the paper was presented: PLC 42 in 2018, CLS 54 in 2018, WCCFL 36 in 2018, FMART at UPenn in 2020, the syntax reading group at Yale in 2020 and NYU Syntax Brown Bag in 2021. We would also like to thank our consultants: Viktorija Barauskaitė, Laimutis Grigonis, Ieva Šereikaitė, Raminta Šereikienė, Ernesta Vytienė. The names of the authors are alphabetically ordered.

[2] This paper examines GN in Standard Lithuanian, which, as we argue, is obligatorily realized on DPs which would typically be assigned structural accusative case. Nevertheless, West, East and South Aukštaitian dialects may allow accusative when negation is present (Mikulėnienė & Morkūnas Reference Mikulėnienė and Morkūnas1997, Kozhanov Reference Kozhanov2017). We do not discuss this variation in these dialects.

[3] We follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules. Abbreviations used: 1/2/3 = 1st/2nd/3rd person, abs = absolutive, acc = accusative, act = active, agr = agreement, dat = dative, dist = distributive, erg = ergative, f = feminine, gen = genitive, GN = genitive of negation, inf = infinitive, ins = instrumental, loc = locative, m = masculine, n = neuter, neg = negation, nom = nominative, nposs = non-possessive, perf = perfect, pl = plural, ppp = past passive participle, pprp = present passive participle, prs = present, prv = preverb, pst = past, ptcp = participle, poss = possessive, refl = reflexive, sbjv = subjunctive, sg = singular.

[4] Note that GN is available in clauses with sentential negation. Phrasal negation, however, does not trigger genitive, as indicated below, and will not be discussed in this paper.

[5] This is not an unexpected pattern given that, in various languages, only structural case, but not non-structural case, can be replaced by other cases (e.g. Richards Reference Richards2013).

[6] We frequently point out similarities to Polish GN. Due to space, we cannot go into various interesting analyses of Polish, such as Przepiórkowski (Reference Przepiórkowski2000), Witkoś (Reference Witkoś2008), Błaszczak (Reference Błaszczak, Hanneforth and Fanselow2010).

[7] See also the distinction made between syntactic case and morphological case (s-case and m-case) in Lexical Functional Grammar (Spencer Reference Spencer, Butt and King2003, Reference Spencer, Kulikov, Malchukov and de Swart2006, Reference Spencer, Steinkrüger and Krifka2009). See also the clear distinction made between syntax and morphology in H.Á. Sigurðsson (Reference Sigurðsson and Boeckx2006).

[8] However, a reviewer disagrees, stating that the use of genitive in, for example, (8b) is fine, and so does Nikita Bezrukov, p.c., who finds both accusative and genitive acceptable in (7b) and (8b). The judgments reported in (7) and (8) are taken from Kagan (Reference Kagan2013).

[9] Their analysis is extended to transitive constructions. In (i-a), structural accusative is realized when ‘statement’ refers to a specific statement (of type e). When ‘no statement’ has been submitted, this is a property (of type <e,t>) and as a result, genitive is realized as in (i-b).

[10] Other syntactic approaches, like those by Pesetsky (Reference Pesetsky1982) and Bailyn (Reference Bailyn, Arnaudova, Browne, Luisa Rivero and Stojanović2004), suggest that GN, like other genitives in Russian, such as the partitive genitive, is assigned by a phonologically empty quantifier. Nevertheless, as we show in Section 3, Lithuanian GN patterns differently from other genitives, like the partitive genitive, and thus these analyses cannot account for this phenomenon. Whether Lithuanian partitive genitive can be accounted for by the same analysis as Russian partitive genitive is a separate question that we leave for further research.

[11] It should be pointed out that Polish GN patterns the same (e.g. Błaszczak Reference Błaszczak2001).

[12] Long-distance GN is rare in Russian but common in other Slavic languages like Polish or Slovene (see Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Holvoet and Nau2016: 74 for a detailed list of languages and further discussion).

[13] Lithuanian also has genitives that are realized inside nominals, e.g. the possessive genitive as in (i) (see Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997: 562–567). The possessive genitive and GN can be distinguished morphologically. For instance, 1st person singular and 2nd person singular pronouns have two genitive forms: the possessive mano ‘me.gen.poss’ vs. non-possessive manęs ‘me.gen.nposs’ (see Pakerys Reference Pakerys, Holvoet and Mikulskas2006: 132–133, Germain Reference Germain2017: 104–105, Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2020). Mano appears as a possessor and it cannot appear with GN, whereas manęs can (ii–iii), suggesting that these are distinct cases.

[14] The word order in (22b) is OVS rather than SVO due to indefiniteness effects. Po ‘each’ reinforces an indefinite interpretation of an agent. Generally, indefinite expressions in the language tend to occur post-verbally (see Gillon & Armoskaite Reference Gillon and Armoskaite2015).

[16] Note that the same behavior can be observed in Polish where po can be applied to an object that would normally be assigned structural accusative case. Adding a negation to the verb in constructions where po is applied to an object does not result in ungrammaticality (see Przepiórkowski & Patejuk Reference Przepiórkowski and Patejuk2013). We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.

[17] Note that we are not arguing that the accusative case assigned by po is structural case. An analysis of whether that is structural or non-structural case needs further research.

[18] Šereikaitė (Reference Šereikaitė2020) refers to the mixed case like the intensional genitive as marked structural case. Normally, non-structural case is assigned along with a θ-role. Šereikaitė (Reference Šereikaitė2020) suggests that marked structural case behaves like a structural case in not being assigned thematically. Rather, it is assigned by a thematic Voice head. However, this case also behaves like inherent case, thus is marked, in that it must be obligatorily assigned, and its assignment is insensitive to the featural makeup of the thematic VoiceP (e.g. active vs. passive). The obligatory nature of this case is confirmed by the preposition po in (30). The exact analysis of this type of genitive case is not crucial for our analysis of GN. However, it is worth pointing out that the intensional genitive is different from the non-structural genitive discussed in Section 3.1, as the latter cannot advance to nominative in passives and thus lacks properties associated with structural case.

[19] However, see Franks (Reference Franks1995) showing that in Polish, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian, the partitive genitive and GN behave differently and should not be subsumed under one account.

[20] Adapted from http://old.skrastas.lt/?data=2008-05-20&rub=1141817778&id=1288950939 (accessed on 12-07-2021).

[21] For various analyses of partitive genitive in Slavic, see Pesetsky (Reference Pesetsky1982), Neidle (Reference Neidle1988), Franks (Reference Franks1995), Bailyn (Reference Bailyn, Arnaudova, Browne, Luisa Rivero and Stojanović2004), Kagan (Reference Kagan2013).

[22] We take ‘children’ in (45) to be an indirect object of the ditransitive ‘teach’. Even though the status of indirect objects can vary cross-linguistically, this is in line with Citko’s (Reference Citko2011: 116–118) treatment of Polish uczyć ‘teach’ and Wood’s (Reference Wood2015: 233–235) treatment of Icelandic kenna ‘teach’. We assume indirect objects to be generated in SpecApplP, whereas direct objects are generated as the complement of the verb phrase or ApplP (see E.F. Sigurðsson et al. Reference Sigurðsson, Šereikaitė and Pitteroff2018). First, both internal arguments are DPs, which is expected of a double object construction (Pylkkänen Reference Pylkkänen2008). The accusative goal in (45a) is a DP rather than a PP because PPs are not affected by GN in Lithuanian (see 5.2), whereas this argument is. The genitive theme in (45a) is also a DP. The distributive preposition po (see 3.1), which cannot be stacked on PPs (i), can appear on it, as in (ii). The theme becomes accusative when it is a complement of po, as expected.

Furthermore, the goal DP in (45) c-commands the genitive theme as evidenced by binding facts. The goal binds the anti-subject-oriented pronoun , as indicated in (iii).

This is the same pattern as found with the verb ‘give’, which takes a dative case indirect object and an accusative direct object, as in (44). The relationship between these two arguments is such that the indirect argument c-commands the direct argument as in (iv) (also see Šereikaitė (Reference Šereikaitė2020) for this test). See, furthermore, (59) in Subsection 4.2.1, showing that the anti-subject-oriented pronoun cannot be bound by the subject. We thank an anonymous reviewer for asking us to clarify our position on the status of the accusative goal.

[23] The assignment of accusative is often viewed as being dependent on the syntactic presence of an external argument in a structure (e.g. Burzio Reference Burzio1986, Marantz 1991/Reference Marantz and Reuland2000, Kratzer Reference Kratzer1994, Reference Kratzer, Rooryck and Zaring1996, Woolford Reference Woolford, Brandner and Zinzmeister2003). However, in Lithuanian, the assignment of accusative and the presence of a projected external argument are dissociable from each other (see Lavine Reference Lavine, Holvoet and Nau2016, Šereikaitė Reference Šereikaitė2021).

[24] Polish has a somewhat similar dat-acc construction – see (i) – in which the direct object is expressed in genitive under negation, as mentioned by Rivero (Reference Rivero2003). However, its analysis has been debated. This construction differs from the Lithuanian construction in that it has a clitic się. Willim (Reference Willim, Rozwadowska and Bondaruk2020) argues that this construction has a non-thematic Voice where się carries neither $ \phi $ nor case features. However, Rivero (Reference Rivero2003) argues that this clitic is in nominative case. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this construction.

[25] See also H.Á. Sigurðsson (Reference Sigurðsson2008) for arguments that PRO has case.

[26] To illustrate subjecthood properties, using a 2nd person rather than a 3rd person argument in (59) is crucial as 3rd person active morphology, which does not distinguish between singular and plural, is default in the language and thus cannot be used to test the agreement facts. It is also worth pointing out that pronouns in Lithuanian generally tend not to occur sentence-finally in discourse-neutral situations, which explains why the nominative pronoun subject in (59) precedes the dative DP, whereas in (60), the nominative DP does occur sentence-finally.

[27] Lavine (Reference Lavine2006) argues that nominative in the evidential is a default case. Legate et al. (Reference Legate, Akkuş, Šereikaitė and Ringe2020) propose that it is assigned by a thematic Voice. We will not go further into this issue, but what is important for current purposes is that v does not assign case to its object, realized in the nominative case.

[28] There are various proposals regarding the assignment of accusative case to adjuncts (e.g, see Szucsich (Reference Szucsich2002) arguing that this case can be licensed by Asp(ect)P).

[29] In some cases, adjuncts can bear genitive when negation is present; see (i). However, (i) has a different reading from (66b). (i) means that he slept for ‘less than 36 hours’, whereas (66b) means he has ‘not slept 36 hours’. Franks & Dziwirek (Reference Franks and Dziwirek1993) discuss Slavic languages that permit genitive with adjuncts, which otherwise are accusative, only under ‘less than’ type of reading. They suggest that this is in fact partitive genitive, which denotes an indefinite quantity/part of something (see Section 3.3). Given the difference between (i) and (66b), we suggest that the genitive in (i) is not a true instance of GN and may rather be subsumed under partitive genitive.

[30] It is important for us to be able to (i) distinguish between case in syntax and case in morphology and (ii) derive morphological accusative and genitive (of negation) from the same syntactic case.

[31] That is in line with a number of studies on the syntax-morphology interface. For example, lowering, such as in English, requires hierarchical structure, but nonetheless, Embick & Noyer (Reference Embick and Noyer2001) argue that it takes place post-syntactically (see also Ingason & E.F. Sigurðsson Reference Ingason, Sigurðsson, Lamont and Tetzloff2017). To mention a few properties of Marantz’ (1991/Reference Marantz and Reuland2000) Dependent Case approach, where case is argued to be morphological, ‘[t]he morpho-phonology of case and agreement interprets S-structure relations between constituents’ (p. 22), the Morphological Component (“Morphological Structure” in Marantz 1991/Reference Marantz and Reuland2000) is assumed to preserve ‘all the syntactic relations of SS’ (p. 22) and the calculation of dependent case is based on the syntactic structure: ‘Dependent case is assigned by V+I to a position governed by V+I when […]’ (p. 25). An approach to agreement as that of Arregi & Nevins (Reference Arregi and Nevins2012) takes agreement to be established in syntax (Agree-Link), whereas the copying of $ \phi $ -feature values from a goal to a probe (Agree-Copy) takes place post-syntactically, relatively early at PF, while the derivation still has access to the hierarchical structure (see also Atlamaz & Baker Reference Atlamaz and Baker2018, Bhatt & Walkow Reference Bhatt and Walkow2013, E.F. Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson2017, Kalin Reference Kalin, Smith, Mursell and Hartmann2020). Furthermore, some works take head movement to take place early at PF even though it needs syntactic structure (see, for example, Harizanov & Gribanova Reference Harizanov and Gribanova2019 on amalgamation, which is a postsyntactic word-formation operation that includes both raising and lowering).

[32] A reviewer asks how the correct version of v is selected in the derivation. We assume that if the root does not demand a specific case, structural-case assigning v* is selected. For a non-structural genitive case, marked as DP*++, v*++ will be selected by specific roots. For a similar approach where roots are sensitive to different Voice heads, see Alexiadou et al. (Reference Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, Schäfer and Frascarelli2006). We can think of v*+ and v*++ as different flavors of v whose selection depends on roots. See also Svenonius (Reference Svenonius, Manninen, Nelson, Hiietam, Kaiser and Vihman2006) and Wood (Reference Wood2015) for discussion of different types of v; also see Woolford (Reference Woolford2006) for related discussion.

[33] The prefix ne- can be attached either to an auxiliary element or to a lexical predicate itself, as illustrated here with passives. For both cases, we assume that ne- is generated in the same place (i.e. above a VoiceP) and can either attach to the head above it, as in (i), or below it, as in (ii).

[34] Such an allomorphic approach would potentially be more fitting to the Czech syntactic dative case discussed in Spencer (Reference Spencer, Kulikov, Malchukov and de Swart2006), which can be realized with two different morphological datives. Spencer suggests that the realization of the two morphological datives is, in part, a syntactically-conditioned type of allomorphy.

[35] For some speakers, accusative in a to-infinitive clause under negation, as in (82b), is also possible. We hypothesize that for these speakers, a to-infinitive clause may be a phase boundary or, alternatively, embedded GN is optional. Some instances of long-distance GN in Polish have also been reported to be optional, as discussed and examined by Przepiórkowski (Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Reference Przepiórkowski2000) and Witkoś (Reference Witkoś2008). We leave this for further research.

[36] Examples like (82b) are not instances of Neg-raising where negation of the embedded clause has raised to the matrix clause. If that were the case, we would expect (82b) to be interpreted as ‘Parents taught children not to paint the fence’. However, this interpretation is not possible.

[37] The same is true of Polish; see Witkoś (Reference Witkoś2008: 248–249).

[38] While all speakers we have consulted agree that GN is ungrammatical in a full relative clause (85a), there is speaker variation w.r.t. acceptability of GN in reduced relatives, as in (85b). While all speakers allow long-distance GN to some extent, there are speakers who prefer accusative.

[39] Recall that choice of case in Lithuanian may be semantically conditioned. The partitive genitive, for example, shows this type of behavior (see Section 3.3).

[40] In rare cases, copular constructions with an adjectival predicate also permit a nominative-genitive alternation with negation, as in (i) (Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997: 668). However, this alternation is restricted given that most copular constructions with adjectives disallow genitive (ii) (see Harves Reference Harves2002, Reference Harves, Lavine, Franks, Filip and Tasseva-Kurktchieva2006, Reference Harves2013 for a similar restriction in Russian).

[41] Without the reflexive clitic, these predicates take an accusative DP argument in an active transitive clause which obligatorily becomes genitive in the presence of negation, as expected.

[42] This group of perception verbs in an infinitive form can occur in constructions with the copula būti (Sirtautas Reference Sirtautas1971, Ambrazas et al. Reference Ambrazas, Geniušienė, Girdenis, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Valeckienė and Valiulytė1997: 668, Arkadiev Reference Arkadiev, Holvoet and Nau2016). The theme argument is nominative and behaves like a subject. Just like the copular construction discussed in Section 6.1, this construction also allows the theme to become genitive (i–ii).

References

Adamson, Luke & Šereikaitė, Milena. 2019. Representing gender and defaults: Evidence from Lithuanian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4.1, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. 2020. On Iranian case and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38, 671727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleksandravičiūtė, Skaistė. 2013. The semantic effects of the Subject Genitive of Negation in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 4, 938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187211. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas, Geniušienė, Emma, Girdenis, Aleksas, Sližienė, Nijolė, Tekorienė, Dalija, Valeckienė, Adelė and Valiulytė, Elena. 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Anderson, Cori. 2013. Case and event structure in Russian and Lithuanian. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Anderson, Cori. 2015. Passivization and argument structure in Lithuanian. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Voice and argument structure in Baltic, 289322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2016. Long-distance genitive of negation in Lithuanian. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 3781. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2012. Participial complementation in Lithuanian. In Gast, Volker & Diessel, Holger (eds.), Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective: Data-driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax, 285334. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2017. Two types of non-agreeing participles in Lithuanian: Implications for the theories of agreement and case. Presented at 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, University of Zurich, Switzerland, 1013 September.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlamaz, Ümit & Baker, Mark C.. 2018. On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax 21.3, 195237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, Leonard Harvey. 1980. Existential sentences and negation in Russian. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria & Brun, Dina. 2002. Specificity matters: A new look at the new genitive of negation in Russian. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, 4766. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria A. 1996. Structural connections in syntax and processing: Studies in Russian and Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 1997. Genitive of negation is obligatory. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 5. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2004. The case of Q. In Arnaudova, Olga, Browne, Wayles, Luisa Rivero, Maria & Stojanović, Danijela (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12, 135. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2001. Covert movement and the genitive of negation in Polish. Linguistics in Potsdam 15, 185.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2010. A spurious genitive puzzle in Polish. In Hanneforth, Thomas & Fanselow, Gisbert (eds.), Language and logos: Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics, 1747. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Walkow, Martin. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31, 9511013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir & Partee, Barbara H.. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In Hajičová, Eva, Petr, Sgall, Hana, Jirí & Hoskovec, Tomáš (eds.), Travaux de Circle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle série), vol. 4, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Malden, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language, 152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Malden, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4, 555595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven & Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1993. Negated adjunct phrases are really partitive. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 2, 280305.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 2006. Passives in Lithuanian (in comparison with Russian). In Abraham, Werner & Leisiö, Larisa (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function, 2961. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germain, Allison. 2017. Non-nominative subjects in Russian and Lithuanian: Case, argument structure, and anaphor binding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie & Armoskaite, Solveiga. 2015. The illusion of the NP/DP divide: Evidence from Lithuanian. Linguistic Variation 15.1, 69115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harizanov, Boris & Gribanova, Vera. 2019. Whither head movement? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37.2, 461522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125, 3457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harves, Stephanie. 2002. Unaccusative syntax in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Harves, Stephanie. 2006. Non-agreement, unaccusativity, and the external argument constraint. In Lavine, James E., Franks, Steven, Filip, Hana & Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 14: The Princeton University meeting, 172188. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Harves, Stephanie. 2013. The genitive of negation in Russian. Language and Linguistics Compass 7.12, 647662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2005. Intranzityvinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai [Types of intransitive sentences: existential, locative and possessive sentences]. In Holvoet, Axel & Mikulskas, Rolandas (eds.), Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [The exploration of grammatical functions], 139160. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2016. Argument marking in Baltic and Slavonic pain-verb constructions. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 83107. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl. 2016. Realizing morphemes in the Icelandic noun phrase. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl & Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2017. The interaction of adjectival structure, concord and affixation. In Lamont, Andrew & Tetzloff, Katie (eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 8998. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2007. Property-denoting NPs and non-canonical genitive case. In Friedman, Tova & Gibson, Masayuki (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XVII, 148165. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2013. Semantics of genitive objects in Russian. A study of Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive Case. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2020. Opacity in agreement. In Smith, Peter W., Mursell, Johannes & Hartmann, Katharina (eds.), Agree to agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme, 149179. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna & Maskaliūnienė, Nijolė (eds.). 2016. Passive constructions in Lithuanian: Selected works of Emma Geniušienė. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozhanov, Kirill. 2017. Studying variation in case marking: The genitive of negation in Aukštaitian dialects of Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 8, 97114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. The event argument and the semantics of voice. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26.4, 877924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2005. The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13.1, 75117.Google Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2006. Is there a passive evidential strategy in Lithuanian? Proceedings from the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 4155. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2010. Mood and a transitivity restriction in Lithuanian: The case of the inferential evidential. Baltic Linguistics 1, 115142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2013. Passives and near-passives in Balto-Slavic: On the survival of accusative. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian (eds.), Non-canonical passives, 185213. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2016. Variable realization in Lithuanian impersonals. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 107137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 55101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne, Akkuş, Faruk, Šereikaitė, Milena & Ringe, Don. 2020. On passives of passives. Language 96.4, 771818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991/2000. Case and licensing. In Reuland, Eric (ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 1130. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2006. Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. In Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane & Ndayiragije, Juvénal (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 2746. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikulėnienė, Danguolė & Morkūnas, Kazys. 1997. Dveniškių šnektos tekstai [Texts of Dieveniškės dialect]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1988. The role of case in Russian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2014. A theory of nominal concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Pakerys, Jurgis. 2006. Veiksmo pavadinimo konstrukcija lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje [Action noun constructions in Lithuanian grammar]. In Holvoet, Axel & Mikulskas, Rolandas (eds.), Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai [The exploration of nominal constructions: the studies of Lithuanian grammar], 121149. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Borschev, Vladimir. 2002. Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001, 102. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/102.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Borschev, Vladimir. 2004. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. In Young, Robert B. (ed.), Proceedings from SALT XIV, 212234. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Testelets, Yakov & Yanovich, Igor. 2011. Russian genitive of negation alternations: The role of verb semantics. Scando-Slavica 57, 135159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1998. Genitive of negation in Russian. Proceedings of IATL 13, 167190.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. The Genitive of negation and aspect in Russian. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 111140.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999. Case assignment and the complement/adjunct dichotomy. Ph.D. dissertation, Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2000. Long distance genitive of negation in Polish. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 119158.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam & Patejuk, Agnieszka. 2013. The syntax of distance distributivity in Polish: Weak heads in LFG via restriction. Proceedings of LFG13, 482502.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2013. Lardil “case stacking” and the timing of case assignment. Syntax 16, 4276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Řezáč, Milan. 2008. Phi-agree and theta-related case. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David & Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 83129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, Mara Luisa. 2003. Reflexive clitic constructions with datives: syntax and semantics. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 11, 469494.Google Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 1992. Thematic constraints on selected constructions in English and Polish. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2013. Rise of canonical objecthood with the Lithuanian verbs of pain. Baltic linguistics 4, 187211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2014. Independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Grammatical relations and their non-canonical encoding in Baltic, 257301. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2017. Deriving case, agreement and Voice phenomena in syntax. Ph.d. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr, Šereikaitė, Milena & Pitteroff, Marcel. 2018. The structural nature of non-structural case: On passivization and case in Lithuanian. Proceedings of LSA 3.31, 115.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006. Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement Systems, 201237. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 403450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012a. Case variation: Viruses and star wars. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35, 313342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012b. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 191227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirtautas, Vytautas. 1971. Konstrukcijų buvo matyti, girdėti…struktūra [The structure of constructions One could see/hear]. Kalbotyra 22, 7179.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. A realizational approach to case. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), The proceedings of the LFG’03 conference, 387401. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Syntactic vs. morphological case. Implications for morphosyntax. In Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej & de Swart, Peter (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2009. Realization-based morphosyntax: The German genitive. In Steinkrüger, Patrick O. & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), On inflection, 173218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spraunienė, Birutė, Razanovaitė, Auksė & Jasionytė, Erika. 2015. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Voice and argument structure in Baltic, 323365. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2006. Case alternations and the Icelandic passive and middle. In Manninen, Satu, Nelson, Diane, Hiietam, Katrin, Kaiser, Elsi & Vihman, Virve (eds.), Passives and impersonals in European Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://goo.gl/Ihgh4S.Google Scholar
Szucsich, Luka. 2002. Case licensing and nominal adverbials in Slavic. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, 249270. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2020. Voice and case phenomena in Lithuanian morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2021. Active existential in Lithuanian: Remarks on Burzio’s generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 52.4, 747789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2022. Impersonals, passives, and impersonal pronouns: Lessons from Lithuanian. Syntax 25.2, 188241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1977/2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on “Filters and control,” April 17, 1977. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 315. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willim, Ewa. 2020. Polish impersonal middles with a dative as syntactically derived experience events. In Rozwadowska, Bożena & Bondaruk, Anna (eds.), Beyond emotions in language. Psychological verbs at the interfaces, 245318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2008. Genitive of negation in Polish and single-cycle derivations. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 247287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2003. Burzio’s generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nominative objects. In Brandner, Ellen & Zinzmeister, Heike (eds.), New perspectives on Case Theory, 299327. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 111130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Different types of genitives in Lithuanian.

Figure 1

Table 2 Summary of what type of case GN tracks.