ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLVIII (2003), 1–17

Case Attraction in Comparative Constructions^*

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

The paper deals with the case marking of nouns in reduced comparative clauses in Lithuanian. A nominative, expected in a reduced comparative clause on the grounds of its subject function in the corresponding full comparative clause (as in Reikia gyventi kaip drugelis instead of Reikia gyventi (taip), kaip gyvena drugelis), is often optionally replaced with an oblique case, as the noun copies the case marking of the matrix clause noun for which it acts as a standard of comparison. This occurs (i) in adverbial comparative clauses introduced by (taip), kaip, e.g., Reikia gyventi kaip drugeliui instead of Reikia gyventi kaip drugelis, and (ii) in adjectival comparative clauses of the type (toks), kaip, e.g., Malonu gauti tokias dovanas kaip žaislus instead of Malonu gauti tokias dovanas kaip žaislai. This case attraction appears to be restrained by two factors: (i) an animacy hierarchy (pronouns and proper names rarely undergo attraction), and (ii) a case hierarchy (the nominative is often replaced with an accusative, less frequently with a genitive or dative, and virtually never with an instrumental).

1. INTRODUCTION

Akademinė Lietuvių kalbos gramatika and Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika distinguish comparative constructions, comparative expressions, and comparative sentences. The grammars provide no definition of any of these concepts (see Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 653, 893; Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 634, 690), and comparative constructions are not discussed separately. The distinction between these concepts is established on the basis of grammatical structure: comparative constructions consist of prepositions with nominal words, e.g., heavier than a stone, like one's father, the best of all. In their grammatical structure, comparative expressions are close to comparative sentences: sentences have an expressed predicate, whereas expressions do not. Comparative expressions are, as it were, reduced comparative sentences—repeated or readily recoverable information is omitted from the context, i.e., the finite verb form is omitted, e.g.:

(1) Believe me, your troubles will pass like the night.

Instead of using the verb praeiti (‘to pass’) twice (Patikėk, tavo vargai praeis, kaip praeina naktis ‘Believe me, your troubles will pass, as the night passes’), it is not repeated in the comparative sentence. According to the terminology used in Lithuanian grammars to date, the comparative subordinate clause in such cases becomes

The problem of case attraction was raised by Professor Axel Holvoet. He helped formulate the main conditions for case attraction, identify the types of comparative constructions, and formulate the conclusions. I am very grateful to him for this.

2 | VESLAVA ČIŽIK

– the main difference between comparative expressions, as already mentioned, is whether a predicate is present or absent (if the predicate is expressed, it is a comparative subordinate clause; if it is not expressed, it is a comparative expression). The formulations used by grammar authors imply that there could be some difference in meaning between a “comparative clause” and a “comparative expression” (cf. “however, they sometimes differ very little in meaning,” Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 634), but they do not indicate what that difference might be, so the existence of a difference in meaning must for now be regarded as unproven. Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian distinguishes comparative expressions of quality, quantity, and difference, and comparative clauses of quality, quantity, relation, and difference, i.e., the same semantic types are distinguished in both cases (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 690). From various perspectives, “comparative expressions” may be regarded as reduced comparative clauses, but since this concept is uncommon in the Lithuanian grammatical tradition, in this article constructions such as like the night in the sentence Your troubles will pass like the night will be called comparative constructions, not comparative clauses. Moreover, in the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language, a comparative expression is defined as “a construction expressing comparison” (Morkūnas, Ambrazas, eds., 1999: 379).

The comparative constructions discussed here consist of the comparative conjunction kaip ‘as/like’ and a particular word form, other than a finite verb form. That word forms the core of the comparative construction and is called its head word. If a finite verb form were used in any comparative construction, it would become a comparative clause. Although no verb is expressed in the comparative construction itself, it determines the form of the other words used in the construction, for example:

(2) I carry the gentle name of Lithuania to you like the sun in my hands.

In this sentence, the accusative form saulę ‘sun’ and the locative form rankose ‘in hands’ are determined by the syntactic properties of the verb nešti ‘carry’: vardą nešu, kaip nešu saulę rankose ‘I carry the name, as I carry the sun in my hands,’ even though the verb is not expressed in the comparative construction itself.

Grammar of the Lithuanian Language states: “If the head word of a comparative expression is declinable, it agrees in case with the declinable word functioning as the subject or object of the sentence” (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 657). The following examples are given:

(3) Now disaster struck like thunder.

(4) I loved you like my own child.

It is stated that “the comparative expression like thunder is attached to the verb struck, but its head word thunder agrees in case with the noun disaster functioning as the subject of the sentence. In the sentence I loved you like my own child, the head word of the comparative expression, child, agrees with the pronoun you functioning as the object” (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 657). This grammatical explanation is not precise. The grammar does not discuss cases in which there is no agreement, for example:

(5) We don’t need a person like Jonas.

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

3

Based on the rule formulated in the grammar, we would expect: We do not need a person like Jonas. But this usage is not observed, so we have no grounds for claiming that the head of a comparative construction agrees with the subject or object of the sentence—at least, not for claiming that agreement is the primary factor determining the form of the head of a comparative construction. The fact that the head is inflected does not in itself determine case agreement; this is not the primary principle governing case matching. The question therefore arises as to what actually determines or influences the use of a particular case. The determining, that is, primary, factor is the semantic function of the head of the comparative construction. Compare the sentences:

(6) The maiden blooms like a rose.

(7) And Vytukas loved him as his friend.

In the first sentence, the head rose functions as the subject, whereas in the second sentence the head friend functions as the object. The function performed by a noun can be established by reconstructing the full comparative sentence:

(8) The maiden blooms just as a rose blooms.

(9) And Vytukas loved him just as he loved his friend.

If we do not regard the reduced forms like a rose, like his friend as sentences, then we cannot define the functions of the nouns in terms of sentence constituents. We can speak only of the SEMANTIC FUNCTION retained in the comparative construction. In general, it can be defined as the subject or object function, depending on whether the noun performs the function of subject or of a (direct or indirect) object in the corresponding comparative sentence. The SEMANTIC FUNCTION in the comparative construction corresponds to the SYNTACTIC FUNCTION in the comparative sentence. If the noun functions as the subject, we would expect the nominative; if it functions as the object, we would expect another oblique case.

However, there are sentences in which the form of the comparative construction is adapted to the form of a noun in the main clause, even though their semantic functions do not coincide, for example:

(10) The water was cold; it took his breath away, and he had to gasp for air like a little fish.

If we reconstructed the comparative sentence (to gasp for air just as a little fish gasps for air), we would see that the head of the construction functions as the subject, so we would expect the nominative:

(11) The water was cold; it took his breath away, and he had to gasp for air like a little fish.

In this case, we encounter case attraction (case attraction or case assimilation). Attraction is the matching of the forms of two words that are not linked to one another by a direct syntactic relation (Matthews 1997: 29). In the sentence cited, the head of the comparative construction little fish agrees in case with the noun in the main clause

4 |

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

as its logical subject. There is a certain case matching, but in this instance we cannot call it true agreement, since using this term implies a certain syntactic relation: according to existing grammars, agreement is “the selection of the morphological form (case, number, gender) of a dependent word according to the head word” (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 480). When speaking of agreement, we would have to assign the term head to one of the nominal words and dependent to the other. But there is no direct relation between the nominal word in the main clause and the nominal word in the comparative construction. Moreover, agreement is not the norm, but only one possibility, since sentences in which the forms of nominal words do not agree are used more often. Therefore, in such cases it would be more accurate to speak of case attraction rather than agreement. This article seeks to determine when such cases of case attraction occur.

2. EXPERIMENT DESCRIPTION

In December 2002, thirty first-year students from the Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics at Vilnius University were surveyed (aged 18–20). They came from Vilnius, Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Klaipėda, Joniškis, Alytus, and Marijampolė. The students were given questionnaires twice, containing sentences in which case attraction could be expected (most of the sentences were devised; the article will also provide several examples from Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos, such sentences will be cited; several examples found in the Vytautas Magnus University corpus will also be included). Given two forms of a nominal word, students had to choose the one they considered correct, or both forms if they thought either could be used. In both rounds, various sentences were presented (75 different sentences in total; 2,250 responses were obtained), and both broader categories (membership in a particular part of speech) and subcategories (gender and number) were considered: the aim was to determine whether it mattered which part of speech (e.g., pronoun, proper/common noun) and which categorical properties (e.g., animate/inanimate, inflecting/non-inflecting for number, singular/plural) nouns used as heads of comparative constructions had (for more detail, see below). Case attraction occurs only in comparative constructions, so comparative clauses were not studied; they were used to bring out the semantic functions of the heads of comparative constructions and show why one or another form of nominal word is used. Only by reconstructing the entire comparative clause and using a finite verb form could the semantic functions of the heads of comparative constructions be understood. In this article, comparative constructions are divided into groups according to their syntactic functions in the main clause and the semantic functions of the nominal word within the comparative construction; these groups are, in turn, subdivided into types according to: 1) dependence on a particular sentence constituent, 2) membership in a particular category or subcategory. Whether case attraction is possible depends on the type. The statement “case attraction does not apply” means that none of the people surveyed used a sentence with attraction, or that the sentence was used by only one person (which would amount to about 2% of all sentences of a particular type and is considered an error). If case attraction applies, one can speak of optional attraction (sentences with attraction make up less than half of all sentences of a particular type)

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

5

and predominant attraction (sentences with attraction make up more than half of all sentences of a particular type).

3. TYPES OF COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Two types can be distinguished according to the syntactic function of comparative constructions: a) comparative constructions functioning as adverbials of manner (i.e., constructions with the conjunction kaip ‘as’ and the correlative word taip ‘so’), e.g.:

(12) Romas loves you like a son.

[[so [as a son]] loves]

b) comparative constructions functioning as attributes (i.e., constructions with the conjunction kaip ‘as’ and the correlative word toks, -ia ‘such’), e.g.:

(13) It is always nice to receive such gifts as toys.

[[such [as toys]] gifts]

The adverb taip ‘so’ and the pronoun toks, -ia ‘such’ may be omitted. If we reconstructed the full comparative clause, we would see that the head of first-type comparative constructions can have a dual function: either that of object or that of subject, e.g.:

(14) Romas loves you like a son. = Romas loves you as he would love a son.

(15) Why should we get angry like some unreasonable creatures? = Why should we get angry, as some unreasonable creatures would?

All comparative constructions functioning as attributes reflect a single type: the comparative construction toks kaip X ‘such as X’ reflects the comparative clause toks, koks yra X ‘such as X is’. The head of the comparative construction always functions as the subject (it corresponds to the subject function in the comparative clause), e.g.:

(16) It is always nice to receive such gifts as toys. = It is always nice to receive such gifts as toys are.

The examples provided show that case attraction is characteristic of sentences such as (15) and (16), in which the head of the comparative construction, despite functioning as the subject, takes the oblique case form of the main-clause word with respect to which the head of the comparative construction serves as the standard of comparison. Attraction is not characteristic of sentences such as (14), because in them the case form used for the head reflects the object function that this word performs in the comparative clause. Thus, the principle of case attraction can be specified as the use of an oblique case in place of the direct case expected on the basis of the semantic function in the comparative construction—

6 |

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

—function in the comparative construction. One special case will be discussed below, in which, in sentences such as (14), one oblique case (the accusative) is replaced by another oblique case (the genitive) under the influence of negation.

4. TYPES OF CASE ATTRACTION

4.1. First, we discuss cases in which the comparative construction functions as an adverbial of manner in the sentence, i.e. the cases illustrated by the examples (14) and (15) given above.

4.1.1. When the nominal in the comparative construction functions as an object, case attraction is in principle impossible. In sentences of this type, the form of the head of the comparative construction matches a certain nominal form in the main clause, but not because of attraction; rather, both nominal forms are governed by the valency of the same verb and perform the same object function:

genitive:

(17) I pity you as [I pity] a mother. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 664) (Sruoga).

cf. I pity you as I pity a mother

(18) The clerics feared him as [they feared] fire. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 523) (Mykolaitis-Putinas).

cf. they feared him as they feared fire

dative:

(19) I advise [you] as [I would advise] a friend. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 523) (Sruoga).

cf. I advise [you] as I advise a friend

(20) All she has to do is beckon with her finger—and everything is done as it would be for a true lady. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 523) (Simonaitytė).

cf. it is done for her as it is done for a lady

accusative:

(21) He carried her over the mountain through the juniper thicket like a wisp of down. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 664) (Cvirka).

cf. carried her, as he carried a wisp of down

(22) It beguiles you like little babies. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 664) (Sruoga).

cf. beguiles you, as it beguiles babies

instrumental:

(23) Marytė burst into tears as if showered with embers. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 664) (Vaižgantas).

cf. burst into tears, as if showered with embers

(24) In Adomukas’s world, there was no longer any loyalty one could rely on like a wall. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 665) (Vaižgantas).

cf. rely on, as one relies on a wall

In all these cases, the noun retains the same object case as that required by the verb used in the main clause and omitted in the subordinate clause. The case of the comparative construction is not determined by agreement with a particular noun in the main clause. Only one instance can be found in which the choice of case is influenced by a word in the main clause relative to which the main word of the construction functions as the standard of comparison. The accusative in the comparative construction can be replaced by the genitive if the verb in the main clause is negated, e.g.:

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

7

(25) Paulius loves nothing as much as chocolate.

cf. loves nothing as much as he loves chocolate

(26) The physics teacher has nothing left for anyone but me.

cf. has nothing left, except to scold me

(27) Romas respects no one as much as his friends.

cf. respects no one as much as he respects his friends

(28) Ona likes nothing as much as borscht.

cf. likes nothing as much as she likes borscht

This case attraction is optional: constructions retaining the accusative are also used, e.g.:

(29) Ana meets no one as often as Petras.

(30) Kristina takes care of nothing as much as the car.

(31) Saulius likes nothing as much as cakes.

Sentences with attraction account for 45.6%, while sentences without attraction account for 54.4%. No influence of the categorical properties of nominals was observed—case attraction occurs with pronouns, proper nouns, and common nouns alike (nor is it affected by properties such as number or whether the referent is animate or inanimate).

In this case, one object case (the accusative) is replaced by another object case (the genitive). This distinguishes this type of attraction from most types of attraction, in which an object case replaces a subject case.

4.1.2. We will also discuss cases in which the nominal in the comparative construction functions as the subject. Several types can be distinguished.

4.1.2.1. The comparative construction functions as an adverbial of manner dependent on a finite verb. Case attraction is not characteristic of sentences of this type, because the nominal in the main clause functions as the subject and has nominative form, e.g.:

(32) He behaves like a small child. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 657).

cf. he behaves as a child behaves

(33) I myself will sow and mow, toil alongside the people as my ancestors did. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 656).

cf. I will toil as my ancestors toiled

4.1.2.2. The function of the comparative construction is that of an adverbial of manner dependent on an infinitive serving as the subject. Sentences of this type are characterized by attraction. The comparative construction characterizes the infinitive in the main clause, which serves as the subject of the sentence, e.g.:

(34) There was nothing else left to do but curl up like a hedgehog into a ball.

cf. to curl up as a hedgehog curls up

(35) The losers had nothing else to do but flee like coyotes.

cf. to flee as coyotes flee

8 |

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

(36) Little honor to disappear like a water bubble. Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 665) (Cvirka).

cf. to disappear, as a water bubble disappears

In this case, comparative constructions correspond to comparative clauses with finite verb forms. When the verb is omitted, the head word of the comparative construction enters the impersonal environment of the main clause and, under its influence, takes the form of the logical subject characteristic of impersonal infinitival constructions—the dative. This case form is more usual, although the nominative is also used, e.g.:

(37) If a dog knocks a child down, it is necessary to curl up into a little ball as quickly as possible, like a hedgehog, and lie motionless.

Such clauses belong to those with predominant attraction (clauses with attraction make up 76.7%, while clauses without attraction make up 23.3%).

4.1.2.3. The function of the comparative construction is that of an adjunct of manner dependent on an infinitive functioning as an object. The comparative phrase characterizes the infinitive functioning as an object. According to what the head word of the comparative construction is coreferential with, several subtypes can be distinguished:

a) the implicit subject of the infinitive is coreferential with the subject of the main clause (e.g.: he promised to sing = he promised that (he) would sing). In terms of case usage, this type does not differ from the case discussed earlier (4.1.2.1), where the comparative construction functions as an adjunct of manner dependent on a finite verb (clauses (32), (33)), e.g.:

(38) He promised to sing like a nightingale.

cf. to sing the way a nightingale sings

b) the implicit subject of the infinitive is coreferential with the object of the main clause—the logical subject (e.g.: he needs to live = it is necessary that he live). In terms of case usage, this type does not differ from cases in which the adjunct of manner depends on an infinitive functioning as the subject (4.1.2.2), e.g.:

(39) I am not saying that one needs to live like a butterfly all one’s life—it won’t work if a person has a family and children and will have to be responsible for them.

cf. one needs to live the way a butterfly lives

Here, too, case attraction is usual.

c) the implicit subject of the infinitive is coreferential with the direct object of the main clause (e.g.: he taught her to sing, i.e. he succeeded in getting her to learn to sing), e.g.:

(40) He taught her to sing like a skylark.

cf. to sing the way a skylark sings

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

9

Sentences of this type are also characterized by a predominance of case attraction (sentences with attraction account for 58.7%, while sentences without attraction account for 41.3%).

As the examples show, the syntactic structure of the main clause has a significant influence on case selection. If the main clause has an impersonal structure and the comparative construction functions as an adverbial of manner describing the infinitive used in this impersonal construction, there is a strong tendency to replace the subject nominative with the subject dative characteristic of impersonal constructions. If the main clause has a personal construction (even though the comparative construction functions as an adverbial of an infinitive dependent not on a finite verb form but on a form of one), the nominative is retained.

Cases in which the comparative construction depends on an infinitive functioning as the object of the main clause warrant separate discussion. In this case, case attraction can differentiate between two syntactic interpretations. Sentence (41), without attraction, has two syntactic and semantic interpretations, whereas sentence (42), with attraction, has only one:

(41) She taught her to sing like a lark. (i) ‘She taught her to sing the way a lark sings’. (ii) ‘She taught her to sing the way a lark would have taught her’.

(42) She taught her to sing like a lark. ‘She taught her to sing the way a lark sings’.

It should be assumed that case attraction is functionally motivated in this instance: it indicates that the comparative construction is related to the infinitive to sing, and not to the main verb taught.

4.1.2.4. The function of the comparative construction is that of an adverbial of manner dependent on a converb. Sentences of this type are also characterized by a predominance of case attraction (sentences with attraction account for 60.6%, while sentences without attraction account for 39.4%). The comparative construction describes the converb, for example:

(43) When she began to sing like a nightingale, everyone fell silent. cf. when she began to sing, as a nightingale sings

As the research data show, the comparative construction’s dependence on a converb encourages the use of the dative, as in the case of the infinitive.

4.2. It is more difficult to identify the factors that determine case attraction when the comparative construction functions as an attribute. Such are comparative constructions with the conjunction like and the correlative word such. As already mentioned, comparative constructions with this function cannot be classified according to the semantic functions of their head words, because they all perform just one function—that of subject. Since all comparative constructions of this type function as attributes of nouns, the construction used in the main clause (personal or impersonal, etc.) cannot have a direct influence in this case, though it may have an indirect influence, since the structure of the main clause determines the choice of case form for the noun denoted by the comparative construction. To determine the influence of case, the constructions under study were grouped according to the case that, when attraction is applied, would replace the nominative:

10 |

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

(a) according to attraction, the nominative would be replaced by the genitive – NOM / GEN

(b) according to attraction, the nominative would be replaced by the dative – NOM / DAT

(c) according to attraction, the nominative would be replaced by the accusative – NOM / ACC

(d) according to attraction, the nominative would be replaced by the instrumental – NOM / INSTR.

The influence of case forms was indeed observed: attraction is very often applied when the nominative can be replaced by the accusative (c); attraction is generally not observed when an instrumental form is used in the main clause—the nominative is not replaced by the instrumental in the comparative construction (d); in cases where the noun phrase in the main clause is expressed in the genitive or dative, attraction is sometimes observed and sometimes not (a, b).

Next, an attempt was made to determine which other factors—not syntactic ones, but rather the categorical properties of the noun phrase itself—might determine the occurrence of attraction when constructions are used both with case attraction and without it, that is, in sentences of types (a) and (b). The inquiry began with more general categories, namely parts of speech. It turned out that pronouns are interpreted differently from nouns. An attempt was also made to determine with which nouns case attraction is applied and with which it is not. In this respect, the opposition between proper and common nouns proved significant. Finally, an attempt was made to determine whether other categorical properties of nouns have an effect: “animate: inanimate,” “countable: uncountable,” “singular: plural.” The survey did not make it possible to establish whether these subcategories have an effect.

4.2.1. Let us discuss the first group—NOM / GEN, where, in cases of attraction, the nominative case is replaced by the genitive. As already mentioned, the inquiry began with an attempt to determine with which noun phrases case attraction is possible and with which it is not. It was established that attraction does not apply to pronouns:

(44) I don’t need a friend like you.

cf. a friend such as you are

(45) Few people like us remain.

cf. people such as we are

(46) *I don’t need a friend like you (genitive).

(47) *Few people like us (genitive) remain.

Next, an attempt was made to determine with which nouns case attraction is possible and with which it is not. It turned out that attraction does not apply to proper nouns, e.g.:

(48) You have not yet seen people like the Baranauskai family.

cf. people such as the Baranauskai family are

(49) She does not like men such as Antanas.

cf. such as Antanas is

(50) *You have not yet seen people such as the Baranauskai family.

(51) *She does not like men such as Antanas.

It was not possible to determine the influence of other factors. It seems that attraction applies to all common nouns:

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

| 11

(i) with countable common nouns denoting persons, cf. (52), (53); however, sentences with the nominative are more often used, cf. (54), (55):

(52) I do not need a child such as a drug addict.

(53) No one respects people such as drunkards.

(54) I do not need a child such as a drug addict.

(55) No one respects people such as drunkards.

(ii) with countable common nouns denoting inanimate objects: things, names of actions, and abstract entities, cf. (56), (57); case attraction is also rare in these instances, and nominative forms are used more often, cf. (58), (59):

(56) Documents such as passports should not be shown to just anyone.

(57) He did not expect an ending such as prison.

(58) Documents such as passports should not be shown to just anyone.

(59) He did not expect an ending such as prison.

(iii) with uncountable common nouns, cf. (60), (61): here too, the number of instances of case attraction is much lower than the number of instances without attraction, which are more common, cf. (62), (63):

(60) In Classical Chinese, there is no abstract word such as truth.

(61) We do not want troubles such as expenses.

(62) In Classical Chinese, there is no abstract word such as truth.

(63) We do not want troubles such as expenses.

All instances of case attraction in which the nominative is replaced by the genitive, as well as cases in which case attraction does not occur, can be summarized—see Schema 1.

SCHEMA 1. NOMINAL CATEGORICAL PROPERTIES THAT DETERMINE THE PROBABILITY OF ATTRACTION

12 |

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

The italicized part of this schema could be refined through further research: it is possible that certain values of the categorical features mentioned are associated with a higher or lower probability of attraction, but so far no such correlations have been identified.

4.2.2. The same study was also conducted on sentences of the second group—NOM / DAT, in which

in cases of attraction, the nominative should be replaced by the dative. As in the first case, the study sought to determine with which nouns case attraction is possible and with which it is not, and what influence noun categories and properties have. The survey showed that the situation is the same as in the first case: attraction does not apply to pronouns and proper nouns, but is possible with all common nouns.

Case attraction does not apply to pronouns, e.g.:

(64) I would not entrust such a matter to someone like you.

(65) Students like you will be able to pass the exam.

(66) *I would not entrust such a matter to someone like you.

(67) *Students like you will be able to pass the exam.

Case attraction also does not apply to proper nouns, e.g.:

(68) Everything goes well for a man like Artūras.

(69) People like the Kalniai don’t care about anything.

(70) *Everything goes well for a man like Artūras.

(71) *People like the Kalniai don’t care about anything.

Case attraction applies to common nouns:

(i) countable common nouns denoting persons or living beings, cf. (72), (73); use of the nominative is more usual, cf. (74), (75):

(72) Birds such as sparrows are not afraid of the cold.

(73) Hares are not frightening to a beast such as a lion.

(74) Birds such as sparrows are not afraid of the cold.

(75) Hares are not frightening to a beast such as a lion.

(ii) countable common nouns denoting inanimate objects, cf. (76), (77); use of the nominative is more usual, cf. (78), (79):

(76) Americans pay a great deal of attention to things such as cars.

(77) A mechanism such as a bicycle needs both wheels.

(78) Americans pay a great deal of attention to things such as cars.

(79) A mechanism such as a bicycle needs both wheels.

(iii) uncountable common nouns, cf. (80), (81); as in the preceding cases, the nominative form is more usual, cf. (82), (83):

(80) An event such as a wedding requires at least two people.

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

13

(81) He devotes too much attention to an activity such as painting.

(82) An event such as a wedding requires at least two people.

(83) He devotes too much attention to an activity such as painting.

All cases of case attraction in which the nominative is replaced by the dative, as well as cases in which case attraction does not occur, can be presented in summary form (see Schema 1).

4.2.3. The same kind of study was carried out using accusative and instrumental examples: sentences containing pronouns, proper nouns, and common nouns were presented (both inflected and indeclinable for number, and in various forms). No evidence was found that noun categories influenced the more frequent use of sentences with case attraction in the third case or the possibility of attraction in the fourth case; for example, in the third group—NOM / ACC—the nominative can always be replaced by the accusative, regardless of the noun with which it occurs.

(i) Case attraction is possible with pronouns, but nominative forms are used more often; compare (84), (85) and (86), (87):

(84) It is difficult to surprise people like us.

(85) It is difficult to cheer up a gloomy person like you.

(86) It is difficult to surprise people like us.

(87) It is difficult to cheer up a gloomy person like you.

(ii) Case attraction is possible with proper nouns, although nominative forms are more usual; compare (88), (89) and (90), (91):

(88) She was not ashamed to have a husband like Brazauskas.

(89) People such as Petrauskas can be cited as an example to everyone.

(90) She was not ashamed to have a husband like Brazauskas.

(91) People such as Petrauskas can be cited as an example to everyone.

(iii) Case attraction is possible with common nouns:

(iii a) with countable common nouns denoting persons or living beings, although sentences with the nominative are also more frequent; cf. (92), (93) and (94), (95):

(92) Not everyone can afford such a luxury as a child.

(93) You won’t see such creatures as snakes everywhere.

(94) Not everyone can afford such a luxury as a child.

(95) You won’t see such creatures as snakes everywhere.

(iii b) with countable common nouns denoting inanimate objects: things, action names, and abstractions; in this case too, nominative forms are more usual; cf. (96), (97) and (98), (99):

(96) It is always nice to receive such gifts as toys.

14 |

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

(97) Deputies rarely keep such things as promises.

(98) It is always nice to receive such gifts as toys.

(99) Deputies rarely keep such things as promises.

(iii c) with uncountable common nouns; as in the previous cases, sentences with the nominative case are more frequent; cf. (100), (101), (102) and (103), (104), (105):

(100) Season such food as cottage cheese with sour cream.

(101) Such a foodstuff as sugar is also produced from sugar beets.

(102) Many people like such food as bacon.

(103) Season such food as cottage cheese with sour cream.

(104) Such a foodstuff as sugar is also produced from sugar beets.

(105) Many people like food such as bacon.

4.2.4. Fourth group – NOM / INSTR. According to the survey data, the instrumental does not replace the nominative, regardless of the categorial properties of the nominal expressions:

(i) case attraction does not apply to pronouns, e.g.:

(106) One can be proud of parents such as you.

(107) It is easy to become someone like you.

(108) *One can be proud of parents such as you (instrumental).

(109) *It is easy to become someone like you (instrumental).

(ii) case attraction does not apply to proper nouns, e.g.:

(110) Only the Zasranai can boast of acquaintances such as the Sopranos.

(111) With a man like Paleikis, she was prepared for anything.

(112) *Only the Zasranai can boast of acquaintances such as the Sopran ais.

(113) *With a man like Paleikiu, she was prepared for anything.

(iii) case attraction does not apply to common nouns:

(iii a) countable common nouns denoting persons or animate beings, e.g.:

(114) You can always turn into someone like your father.

(115) Every child is fascinated by creatures of nature such as kittens.

(116) *One can always become one such as a father.

(117) *Every child is fascinated by such creatures of nature as kittens.

(iii b) to common nouns inflected for number that denote inanimate objects: things, names of actions, abstractions, e.g.:

(118) I would not suggest believing in such nonsense as gossip.

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

15

(119) Not everyone likes to take an interest in such events as murders.

(120) *I would not suggest believing in such nonsense as gossip.

(121) *Not everyone likes to take an interest in such events as murders.

(iii c) to common nouns that are not inflected for number, e.g.:

(122) To contract such a disease as leprosy is not dangerous.

(123) *To contract such a disease as leprosy is not dangerous.

The sentences in the first three groups (with the genitive, dative, and accusative) show optional attraction: in the first case, sentences with attraction make up 14.9%; in the second, 10.2%; in the third, 17.8%; attraction does not apply in the sentences of the fourth group (with the instrumental).

5. CONCLUSIONS

Case attraction is characteristic of comparative constructions, but not of comparative clauses. A distinction should be made between optional case attraction (sentences with attraction make up less than half of all sentences of a particular type) and predominant case attraction (sentences with attraction make up more than half of all sentences of a particular type).

Three instances of case attraction can be distinguished:

– the function of the comparative construction is an adjunct of manner, and the function of the head word is an object; under the influence of negation, the accusative is replaced by the genitive, e.g.: Love no one as much as your mother (instead of as your mother);

– the function of the comparative construction is an adjunct of manner, and the function of the head word is a subject; the nominative is replaced by an oblique (object) case, e.g.: The child had to fall ill like a hedgehog (instead of like a hedgehog);

– the function of the comparative construction is an attribute, and the function of the head word is a subject; the nominative is replaced by an oblique (object) case, e.g.: Season a dish like cottage cheese (instead of like cottage cheese) with sour cream.

Attraction may be encouraged or impeded by various factors. The following factors were observed:

• negation: the use of negation in the main clause affects the agreement of nominal forms, although there is no negation in the comparative construction;

• non-finite forms (infinitive, participle): when a comparative construction functions as an adjunct of manner and describes an infinitive or participle, there is a strong tendency to apply case attraction;

• the categorical properties of nominals:

– the inherent categorical properties of a nominal (part of speech, proper/common), – case.

The fact that case attraction is not observed with pronouns and proper nouns may be conditioned by M. Silverstein’s ANIMACY HIERARCHY (outlined briefly in the article: Anderson 1985; see also Kavaliaūnaitė 2001). Attraction is generally not applied to words occupying a high position in the animacy hierarchy, namely pronouns and proper nouns. In both these cases, the exception consists of sen-

16 |

VESLAVA ČIŽIK

… with the accusative: this case’s propensity to undergo attraction is so strong that it overcomes even the factors that inhibit attraction.

According to the survey data, the propensity for attraction is strongest with the accusative, that is, when the nominative should be replaced by the accusative under the rule of attraction. The propensity is weakest with the instrumental (the instrumental almost never replaces the nominative), while the genitive and dative occupy an intermediate position. Schema II shows two hierarchies that can be used to determine the likelihood of attraction: one is based on animacy, the other on case. The higher a word is in either of these hierarchies, the lower the likelihood of attraction. Factors of both types may intersect; for example, in the case of the accusative, attraction also applies to pronouns and proper nouns:

SCHEMA II. LIKELIHOOD OF ATTRACTION ACCORDING TO THE ANIMACY HIERARCHY AND CASE

likelihood of attraction according to animacy ↓ pronouns proper nouns common nouns; likelihood of attraction according to case ↓ instrumental dative and genitive accusative

The results of the study suggest that the possibility of attraction is determined not only by animacy but also by the CASE HIERARCHY. This hierarchy was formulated by Keenan and Comrie (1977), but was initially applied to sentence constituents (grammatical functions), rather than case forms. Later, hierarchies of case forms themselves also began to be used (e.g., Pittner 1991). The case hierarchy (case hierarchy) should be understood as a hierarchy that determines the likelihood of a noun being affected by a particular syntactic rule, depending on its case form or on the case form it may acquire when that rule is applied. The higher a case is in the case hierarchy, the more readily nouns bearing that case form are affected by certain syntactic operations, or the more readily nouns may acquire that case form if those syntactic operations are applied. For German, Pittner proposes the following hierarchy: nominative < accusative < oblique cases (dative, genitive, prepositional phrases) (Pittner 1991: 47). The functional motivation for the case hierarchy could be related to Jakobson’s proposed model of case arrangement: cases occupying peripheral positions in Jakobson’s schema (e.g., the instrumental) could occupy lower positions in the case hierarchy (cf. Jakobson 1984).

The case hierarchy derived from the survey data shows the same distribution of cases; however, due to the limited amount of material, it was not possible to determine the order in which the genitive and dative should occur in this hierarchy. It can be represented as follows:

LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA

17

SCHEMA III. THE CASE HIERARCHY AS A FACTOR DETERMINING THE LIKELIHOOD OF ATTRACTION

nominative < accusative <

genitive

< instrumental

dative

The rules of attraction can be formulated as follows: (i) the higher a word is in the case hierarchy, the more readily it is accessible as the starting point of the attraction mechanism; in fact, only two cases are replaced by other cases in attraction: the nominative and the accusative. Both are replaced by cases lower in the hierarchy;

(ii) the higher a word is in the case hierarchy, the more readily it can be introduced as the result of attraction (English target); as mentioned above, the nominative is most often replaced by the accusative and least often (if at all) by the instrumental; the genitive and dative occupy an intermediate position; their relative positions in the hierarchy remain unclear, at least the study conducted provides no basis for assigning these cases different positions in the hierarchy.

A much larger survey could help revise and refine these results, determine more precisely the positions of the genitive and dative in the case hierarchy, and perhaps identify other factors in case attraction.

LITERATŪRA

AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1996: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

ANDERSON, S. R. 1985: Inflectional morphology. Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon, Cambridge University Press, 151–201.

JAKOBSON, R. 1984: Contribution to the general theory of case: general meaning of the Russian cases. Russian and Slavic Grammar. Studies 1931–1981. Edited by L. R. Waugh and M. Halle, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 106), 59–103.

KAVALIŪNAITĖ, G. 2001: Adesyvas Chylinskio Naujojo Testamento vertime. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 93–111.

KEENAN, E. L., COMRIE, B. 1977: Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1), 63–99.

MATTHEWS, P. H. 1997: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford: University Press.

MORKŪNAS, K., AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

PITTNER, K. 1991: Freie Relativsätze und die Kasushierarchie. Feldbusch, E., ed., Neue Fragen der Linguistik, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 341–347.

ULVYDAS, K., red. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mintis.

Veslava Čižik

Gauta 2003 03 25

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]