Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
10461200 Lingua 2005 22 Pages PDF
Abstract
In this paper we distinguish between the two instances of word-final -s characterizing English possessive forms: (i) the pronominal final -s of his̄ and (ii) the full-DP final -s of Mary's̄. We argue that the pronouns are morphologically complex, consisting of a nominative pronoun (he, you) and the endings -s or -r, which correspond to the copular forms is and are (he's̄, you're). As such, they are not real possessive markers, but rather, sg./pl. copulas, which together with the nominative pronoun yield a possessive pronominal form (his̄, your̄). We adopt the idea that the agreement between pronoun and copula is triggered in a spec-head configuration in a DP-internal agreement projection [E. Ritter, Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 13 (1995) 405; R.-M. Déchaine, M. Wiltschko, Linguist. Inq. 33.3 (2002) 409]. We further argue, in line with Kayne [Stud. Linguist. 47.1 (1993) 3] (and in contrast with den Dikken [M. den Dikken, (Anti-)agreement in DP, in: R. van Bezooijen, R. Kager (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1998, p. 95; On the structural representation of possession and agreement: the case of (anti-)agreement in Hungarian possessed nominal phrases, in: I. Kenesi (Ed.), Crossing Boundaries: Advances in the Theory of Central and Eastern European Languages, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1999, p. 137], that the -s of Mary's̄book and a book of Mary's̄ is not a copula, but rather a (singular) number marker akin to that found in the verbal domain (sheeats̄). Plural possessive DPs (the kids' mother), according to our analysis, are plural DPs (the kids) further marked with a null plural number morpheme 'ø' (the kids'ømother). We claim that this is the same as the (null) plural morpheme found in the verbal domain (she eats̄vs. they eatø).
Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities Arts and Humanities Language and Linguistics
Authors
, ,