This paper examines the process by which subject properties are acquired by noun phrases not previously having those properties. The evidence presented indicates that behavioral subject properties (like the ability of an NP to delete under EQUI) are acquired historically prior to subject coding properties (like nominative case-marking and control of verb agreement).

The range of interpretations of new zero-derived denominal verbs in English is accounted for here without resorting to the novel theoretical devices proposed by Clark & Clark 1979. In addition, a method of treating the semantics of morphologically derived words is exemplified, wherein a sparse semantics combines with general principles of conversation to provide interpretations for such words in context.

Modern Hebrew is examined as an instance of an (S)VO language—in that, like Russian (but unlike English or French), it has a wide range of sentence-types lacking an overt grammatical subject. These include (a) the semantically and structurally related classes of existential and possessive sentences; (b) impersonal sentences with 3pl. verbs which may function in place of agentless passives; (c) dative-marked experiential sentences with predicates such as ‘cold’ or ‘sad’; and (d) environmental comments about time, weather etc. Typological correlates of a language's tolerance for subjectless constructions are then suggested: thus Hebrew, while basically SVO, makes wide use of verb-initial constructions; the language is not ‘subject-dominant’, either structurally or pragmatically; and it tolerates numerous fronting operations. It is concluded that the class of constructions which may be subjectless across languages is not random, but predictable along the lines suggested for Hebrew.

This study shows that, in contexts of optional application, reflexivization in Russian is governed by a class of secondary reference conditions: person, referentiality, set reference, and collectivity. The evidence presented goes against the prevailing assumption that coreference is the sole reference condition on reflexivization.

Along with three traditional inflectional categories of Modern Russian numerals and adjectives (gender, number, and case), a fourth category is proposed: animacy, relevant in the accusative case for all Russian adjectives and some Russian numerals (ODIN ‘one’, DVA ‘two’, OBA ‘both’, TRI ‘three’, čETYRE ‘four’, and all collective numerals of the type DVOE ‘two’, TROE ‘three’, …) Thus, in Ja vižu krasivogo junošu ‘I see a handsome youth’, krasivogo ‘handsome’ is represented as KRASIVYJ(masc, sg, an, acc), as opposed to krasivyj ‘beautiful’ in Ja vižu krasivyj dom ‘I see a beautiful house’: KRASIVYJ(masc, sg, inan, acc). Two methodological principles are formulated: THE PRINCIPLE OF EXTERNAL AUTONOMY OF CASE FORMS (two different nominal word-forms cannot represent the same case if they are distributed according to external context), and THE PRINCIPLE OF SIMPLEST RESTRICTION (the subset of a paradigm for which a category is judged to be relevant should be specified by only one inflectional category). Seven facts about Russian morphology and syntax are cited to support the introduction of animacy for numerals and adjectives. Two further problems are discussed: the relationship between animacy and other inflectional categories of Adj and Num in Russian, and the relevance of animacy for Adj and Num lexemes.

It is commonly believed that agents constitute a single primitive category, distinct from other categories such as patient. This paper challenges such an assumption, arriving at three conclusions: (a) A variety of rules classify agents into affected vs. non-affected types. (b) These rules group affected agents with other affected roles such as patient, dative, and experiencer. (c) The affected/non-affected distinction is more basic than role distinctions such as agent and patient. Among the correlates claimed here for the affected/non-affected contrast is ‘causee’ case-marking, an area that has attracted recent controversy in Comrie 1976 and Cole 1976.