Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of Genitive vs ...

‘I will not be at your concert.’
b. (Ja) nie bede na twoim koncercie. (agentive)
INOM NEG BE1.SG.FUT at your concert
‘I will not be at your concert.’
3.1.4 Further evidence for (non)agentivity
The discussion in the previous sections has shown that while GEN “subjects” cannot be
interpreted as agents, NOM subject allows for such an interpretation. This claim is additionally
supported by two other tests, which are discussed below, namely (i) occurrence as imperatives
and (ii) occurrence as ‘pofectives’.
The first test is illustrated in (35) below. 41 It shows that it is possible, though not very
common, to use bywac and byc in imperative forms as long as the subject is understood as an
agent, i.e., as someone who is able to perform what is required of him or her. Thus, for instance,
one cannot use a sentence like Badz na stole ‘Be on the table’, if the addressee of the imperative
is an inanimate object, e.g., a newspaper (unless, of course, the newspaper is
anthropomorphized). Particularly interesting are the examples (35d) and (35e). The regular
imperative form in (35d), in which the unexpressed subject would correspond to the NOM form
(cf. TyNOM nie badz ‘lit.: You2.SG.NOM not be’ (‘Don’t be’)) has an agentive interpretation: the
addressee has control over his being or not being at home, or, to put it differently, he or she can
volitionally cause the required state (of being or not being at home). In contrast, (35e), where the
hortatory particle niech is used (cf. Swan 2002:242), cannot be understood agentively. Rather,
(35e) is understood as a (somewhat funny) wish that it might so happen (‘let it be so’) that the
addressee will not be at home. Notice that if the “addressee” is a third person, as in (35f), this is a
perfectly licit sentence.
(35) a. Bywaj czesciej u nas!
BE2.SG.IMP.HABIT more often at us
Lit.: ‘Be more often at our house!’ (≈ ‘Come to visit us more often!’)
b. Nie bywaj tak czesto w nocnych lokalach!
41 Actually, this test has been cited by Lakoff (1966) as one of the tests for isolating stative verbs. Levin and
Rappaport Hovav (1995:170f.) point out, however, that the tests cited by Lakoff, rather than isolating stative
verbs, “turn out to isolate agentive from nonagentive verbs.”
28