No abstract

The argument-modifier distinction is less clear i n NPs than in VPs since nouns do not typically take arguments. The clearest cases of arguments in NPs are found in certain kinds of nominalizations which retain some "verbal" properties (Grimshaw 1990). The status of apparent arguments of non-deverbal relational nouns like sister is more controversial.Genitive constructions like John's teacher, team of John's offer a challenging testing ground for the argument-modifier distinction in NPs, both in English and cross-linguistically. In the analyses of Partee (1983Partee ( /1997 and Barker (1995), the DP in a genitive phrase (i.e. John in John's) is always an argument of some relation, but the relation does not always come from the head noun. In those split analyses, some genitives are arguments and some are modifiers. By contrast, recent proposals by Jensen and Vikner and by Borschev and Partee analyze all genitives as arguments, a conclusion we no longer support.In this paper, we explore a range of possible analyses: argument-only, modifier-only, and split analyses, and we consider the kinds of semantic evidence that imply that different analyses are correct for different genitive or possessive constructions in different languages. For English, we argue that a split analysis is correct and we offer some diagnostics for distinguishing arguments from modifiers.

Arrived-M.SG answer-NOM.M.SG from regiment 'There was an answer from the regiment.' The affirmative ADS and AES sentences differ (obligatorily) in the order of subject and verb, while in the negative sentences, where the difference between NDS and NES is marked by case, the word order can vary; we return to this important point later. Here are some more standard examples. 5 (3) a. NDS: Stok talyx vod ne nabljudalsja. Runoff-NOM.M.SG melted water NEG was.observed-M.SG 'No runoff of thawed snow was observed.' 6 b. NES: Stoka talyx vod ne nabljudalos'. Runoff-GEN.M.SG melted water NEG was.observed-N.SG 'No runoff of thawed snow was observed.' (= There was no runoff.) (4) a. NDS: Moroz ne èuvstvovalsja. Frost-NOM.M.SG NEG be.felt-M.SG 'The frost was not felt.' (E.g. we were dressed warmly). b. NES: Moroza ne èuvstvovalos'. Frost-GEN.M.SG NEG be.felt-N.SG 'No frost was felt (there was no frost).' (5) a. NDS: *(#) Somnenija ne byli. 7 Doubts-NOM.N.PL NEG were-N.PL b. NES: Somnenij ne bylo. Doubts-GEN.N.PL NEG were-N.SG 'There were no doubts.' (6) a. NDS: Lena ne pela. Lena-NOM.F.SG NEG sang-F.SG 'Lena didn't sing.' b. NES: *(#) Leny ne pelo. Lena-GEN.F.SG NEG sang-N.SG 10 The most common term in Russian corresponding to Babby's "existential sentences" is bytijnye predloženija; see Arutjunova (1976, 1997), Arutjunova and Širjaev (1983). The contrasting term "declarative" is not widespread in the English-language literature, and is perhaps not the best choice. The Russian alternative preferred by Arutjunova and Paduèeva is "sobytijnye" predloženija, 'eventive sentences'.

1.Background: Possessives and the argument-modifier distinction in NPs.Possessive constructions like John's teacher, John's team, John's cat, friend of John's offer an interesting test-bed for the argument-modifier distinction in NPs, both in English and cross-linguistically. Many, perhaps all, possessives seem to have some properties of arguments and some of modifiers, but some seem more argument-like and some more modifier-like. Recent proposals by Jensen and Vikner (1994), Vikner and Jensen (ms.1999), Partee and Borschev (1998), Borschev and Partee (1999a,b) analyze all possessives as argument-like, a conclusion we are no longer sure of. It is not easy to settle the question of whether there is a substantive difference between these two "roles" of possessives, and it may well be the case that all or many possessives play both roles at once.One central question about possessive constructions, then, is the following: Are all, some, or no possessives arguments of nouns, and if so, which ones (and how can we tell?), and of what kind, and at what 'level' of analysis?Within this larger question, we discuss here a relevant narrower question: Do predicate possessives provide strong evidence against a unified treatment of all possessives as arguments? Possessives/genitives and related constructions.The terminology surrounding "possessives" and "genitives" is confusing, since the correspondences among morphological forms, syntactic positions, grammatical relations, and semantic interpretations are complex and debated, and vary considerably across languages. For clarification, let us distinguish at least the following: 2 a. Possessive pronouns: E. my, his; R. moj 'my', ego 'his'; E. predicative forms mine, his and postnominal forms of mine, of his.

No abstract