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.

The goal of this work is twofold. First, it aims to account for double genitive constructions in Serbian. Second, it aims to re-evaluate the DP hypothesis in light of their existence in Serbian. Based on evidence from the categorial status of possessives, argumenthood in the nominal domain, the morphosyntactic structure of nominalizations, and the assignment of the genitive case, it is argued that DP projection must be assumed in Serbian.

Based on data from a wide range of languages, the book discusses the ways in which case interacts with meaning.

Hybrid nouns have a morphological shape that doesn’t match their semantic interpretation. Such nouns pose clear and interesting questions for the nature of grammatical features. For instance, how does a single feature contribute distinct information values to different components of the grammar? Furthermore, what does this observation reveal about the syntax, often taken to mediate between the morphology and the semantics? This book studies hybrid nouns and argues that a single grammatical feature is comprised of two halves, a semantic half and a morphological half, that coexist in the syntax before being sent to the respective interfaces. Viewing features in this way allows us a new look at numerous types of hybrid nouns, such as Imposter constructions, nouns of collection, as well as nouns like ‘furniture’ that straddle the mass-count distinction. Moreover, the study of the agreement patterns of hybrid nouns shows that semantic features behave differently to morphological features under agreement, providing a novel insight into the nature of the mechanism that underlies morphosyntactic agreement.

This book addresses the foundational question of category distinctions and challenges the traditional views from the modern theoretical and experimental perspective. Its focus is on the noun-verb, noun-adjective distinctions and categories occupying the "grey zone" between standard categories (e.g., nominalizations). This book will be of interest for researchers and students of linguistics and cognitive sciences.

An essential guide to Russian syntax, which examines major syntactic structures and grammatical puzzles of the language.

This manuscript is a revision of my 1982 MIT dissertation of the same name. A previous version of sections of chapters 1 and 5 appeared as 'Case Agreement in Russian', in The Mental Representation of Gram matical Relations, edited by Joan Bresnan, MIT Press, 1983. I am grateful to MIT Press for permission to reproduce parts of that article here. I would like to express my appreciation to Catherine V. Chvany, who has read several versions of this manuscript over the years, and provided encouragement and invaluable comments. Thanks go also to Johanna Nichols whose careful reading and useful suggestions have improved the book. I am also deeply grateful to Joan Bresnan, Ken Hale, Morris Halle, Beth Levin, and Jane Simpson for helpful discussions of the material contained herein. For sharing their native intuitions, special thanks go to Alina Israeli, Boris Katz, and Evgenij Pinsky, and to Liza Chernyak, Volodja Gitin, Victoria Koff, Larissa Levin, Victoria Schiller, and Elena Semeka-Pankra tova. Joyce Friedman, Beth Levin, and Jane Simpson kindly provided assistance with bibliographical references and proofreading. This manuscript was prepared using the computer facilities at Boston University, and lowe a large debt of gratitude to the following people for providing access to equipment and technical assistance: William H. Henneman, Philip Budne, Barry Shein, and Paul Blanchard. IX INTRODUCTION The study of case, once primarily of interest to philologists, has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves from syntacticians.