Genitive case

Abstract: Introduction Background assumptions Evidence for configurationality Linearly ordered topic and focus S-Structure and encoding discourse functions Focus in yes-no questions An overview of LFG Case assignment and the genitive of negation In a theory without movement Capturing head-movement Conclusion.

Abstract: A proposal for a radical new view of case morphology, supported by a detailed investigation of some of the thorniest topics in Russian grammar. In this book, David Pesetsky argues that the peculiarities of Russian nominal phrases provide significant clues concerning the syntactic side of morphological case. Pesetsky argues against the traditional view that case categories such as nominative or genitive have a special status in the grammar of human languages. Supporting his argument with a detailed analysis of a complex array of morpho-syntactic phenomena in the Russian noun phrase (with brief excursions to other languages), he proposes instead that the case categories are just part-of-speech features copied as morphology from head to dependent as syntactic structure is built. Pesetsky presents a careful investigation of one of the thorniest topics in Russian grammar, the morpho-syntax of noun phrases with numerals (including those traditionally called the paucals). He argues that these bewilderingly complex facts can be explained if case categories are viewed simply as parts of speech, assigned as morphology. Pesetsky's analysis is notable for offering a new theoretical perspective on some of the most puzzling areas of Russian grammar, a highly original account of nominal case that significantly affects our understanding of an important property of language.

Abstract: How do personal pronouns (like he and she) and reflexives (like himself and herself ) relate to noun phrases (like the man and a woman) in terms of phrase structure? If we think that they are all noun phrases, and that the man consists of a determiner followed by a noun, should he be viewed as a determiner (possibly followed by a null noun) or as a noun (possibly preceded by a null determiner)? Postal’s article addresses this question and argues that pronouns like he are determiners, followed by a noun which is either deleted or, when followed by a restrictive relative clause, realized as one, whereas reflexives like himself consist of a determiner (him) plus the noun self. Postal’s proposal can be broken down into three main components. The first is that what we call pronouns are not in fact a subtype of noun. The second is that pronouns are a subtype of determiner, closely related to definite articles. The third is that pronouns, though not themselves nouns, are followed by a noun that is usually not pronounced. Postal’s view is that pronouns, like canonical determiners such as the, are added in the course of the syntactic derivation, and that their phonological realization depends on the features of the head noun. For example, if the head noun consists of a set of features that includes [+Pro, +Human, +Definite, +Masculine, +III, −II, −I, +Nominative], the determiner is he. But if the head noun consists of the features [+Pro, +Reflexive, +Human, +Definite, +Masculine, +III, −II, −I, +Genitive], the determiner is him and the resulting form himself. One advantage of this proposal is that it straightforwardly accounts for the fact that pronouns behave like definite noun phrases in many ways. This is because a