{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031144781144781145, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003367003367003367, 'mean_word_length': 5.257894736842105, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Semantics of Case in Russian Secondary Predication

Secondary predicates in Russian are in the instrumental case (INST), or they agree in case (AGR) with their controlling argument in the main clause. The selection of case morphology depends on a complex interaction of a number of factors. Here, the focus is only on semantic factors that have direct theoretical implications for the individual-level predicate (ILP) vs. stage-level predicate (SLP) distinction. I analyze the semantic constraints on ILPs used as depictives, situation anchors, and restrictors in sentences expressing quantification over situations, that is, in contexts in which they appear to have SL interpretations. I will advance three main claims: First, ILPs in Russian do not here undergo a shift into SLPs, but rather retain their inherent IL status. Second, case morphology on Russian predicates does not encode the IL and SL status of predicates. Third, the ILP-SLP distinction cannot be temporally-based, as Carlson (1977) originally proposed. My exploration of this topic involves the interactions among morphological case, the situation-related structure and the quantificational structure of sentences.