ABSTRACT
Case morphology functions to determine the readings of coreference vs. anticoreference traditionally ruled by a separate UG module, the binding principles. Considering case as checking (matching or covaluation) of formal features and the pronominal enclitics as object agreement inflections, we claim that the reflexive agreement (or enclitic se) is a central piece in the system of morphological oppositions that UG makes available for the evaluation of similar vs. different in the referential calculus of DP arguments that co-occur in the minimal functional complex (MFC) of the clause or in the minimal discourse unit (MDU). This novel hypothesis on the function and meaning of case is based on (i) the strict identification of D as a pronoun; (ii) the discourse relational function of D; and (iii) the set-theoretic notions of pertinence and inclusion, which are independently needed for the semantics of nominals. In addition to discarding the binding principles, the pronominal function of D is automatically generalized to account for anaphoric D+XP structures, such as the so-called “nominalized” ADJ in Romance, traditionally treated by ellipsis or as containing an empty N.
