Two types of possessive forms in English

Abstract

In this paper we distinguish between the two instances of word-final -s characterizing English possessive forms: (i) the pronominal final -s of hi s ̄ and (ii) the full-DP final -s of Mary’ s ̄ . 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 ( hi s ̄ , you r ̄ ). 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’ s̄ book and a book of Mary’ s̄ is not a copula, but rather a (singular) number marker akin to that found in the verbal domain ( she eat s ̄ ). 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’ ø mother). We claim that this is the same as the (null) plural morpheme found in the verbal domain ( she eat s̄ vs. they eat ø ).