The Principle of Lexical Satisfaction
The Principle of Lexical Satisfaction (PLS) has several consequences for the distribution of Case in Russian. In general, it prohibits Case alternations that are possible with configurational Case from occurring when lexical Case is involved. For example, NPs bearing configurational Case may also be marked genitive (the so-called partitive genitive), as illustrated in (1).
(1)
As (2) demonstrates, this kind of alternation is not allowed with lexically Case-marked NPs.
(2)
In (2a) the object of the preposition s ‘with’ is lexically Case-marked instrumental; thus, (2b) violates the PLS.
The genitive of negation is another phenomenon is Russian where a configurational Case alternates with genitive Case marking. For example, the subject of a negative finite clause may occur in the nominative or genitive, as in (3).
(3)
Since subjects in Russian never occur with lexical Case, this alternation is generally permissible. However, with objects of verbs the genitive of negation is only permissible when it alternates with configurational accusative Case. This alternation, which is similar in character to (3), is illustrated in (4).
In contrast to configurational Case, lexical Case does not alternate with the genitive of negation—as predicted by the PLS. Thus, in (5) the genitive of negation is not allowed in alternation with the lexically Case-marked objects in the dative and instrumental Cases.
(5)
As far as we can determine, the lack of a Case alternation between a lexical Case and the genitive of negation is a purely syntactic phenomenon and has no apparent explanation in terms of semantic differences between verbs that require lexically Case-marked objects and those that take configurationally Case-marked objects.
Passive constructions provide yet another instance where lexical and configurational Case are clearly distinguished. As is standard in so many of the world’s languages, the accusative object in an active sentence shows up as the nominative subject of the corresponding passive sentence. (6) gives the paradigm for configurational Case active/passive constructions.
(6)
In effect, (6a) and (6bi) illustrate an accusative/nominative Case alternation for the underlying object knig-. (6bii) shows that accusative Case is not licensed in subject position, and (6biii) demonstrates that the passive form čitaetsja does not allow a Case marked lexical object. Thus, Russian passives appear to involve something like the “Case absorption” hypothesized for English passives.
The corresponding paradigm for a verb that imposes lexical Case on its underlying object is given in (7).
(7)
(7bi) violates the PLS under the assumption that the lexical property +_____ DAT of podražat’ is not affected by passive morphology. If passive morphology had the effect of canceling the lexical Case property of the verb, then (7bi) should be well formed, contrary to the facts. Under the assumption that the NP inostrannym metodam is a constituent of VP, (7biii) shows that the passive form of the verb does not allow a lexical NP in object position. Passive morphology therefore has the same effect on configurationally and lexically Case-marked objects. (7bii) demonstrates that the lexically Case-marked NP is not properly licensed in subject position. Thus, there is no possible way to satisfy both the lexical Case property of the verb and the Case properties of the passive construction in general.
