Verbs in Russian are inflected for [±REAL] and [±PERF] (perfective), base-generated features of the I(nflection) node, and for [±ITER(ative)], a base-generated feature of the V nodes. I may be lexicalized with one of the verbs for ‘be’, which are [–REAL] by, [+REAL], [+PERF] budet, and [–PERF] 0, in which case the verb receives nonfinite form. Or I may remain empty, in which case the verb raises to it and receives finite form. V consists of P(refix), which is sometimes null, and a lower V. Either V node may be specified [±ITER]. In the unmarked case, the upper V is [–ITER], but it switches to [+ITER] to implement a [–PERF] specification on I when P is lexicalized. The upper V can be [+ITER] independently of the [±PERF] feature of I, and this accounts for much of Aktionsart.

This article examines spatial relations in contemporary Ukrainian as connectedness in space between an object (Located Entity) and a spatial orienting point (Spatial Frame). The spatial relations discussed here are those conveyed by the prepositions v ‘in’ and na ‘on’ when used with four verbs of positioning: visaty/povisyty ‘hang’, stavyty/postavyty ‘stand’, klasty/poklasty ‘lay’, and sadyty/posadyty ‘seat’. The study focuses on whether, and to what extent, the directional placement expressed with these verbs can be coded with the locative case instead of the prescribed accusative. The data demonstrate that the use of the locative case for the directional placement is common in Ukrainian; however, this use is acceptable only under certain conditions. It is shown that the most important factor that influences the acceptability of the locative is the degree of verb and utterance Transitivity, which depends on grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic factors. Specifically, high-transitivity and low-transitivity contexts are associated with accusative and locative cases, respectively. In addition, the analysis underscores the importance of a pragmatic approach to the study of Ukrainian case.

Previous research on children’s use of non-finite verb forms in finite contexts—Root Infinitives (RIs)—distinguished two types of the latter: those that describe an on-going activity (“extensional”), and those that are produced in the context of children’s wishes, desires, or intentions (“intensional”). This study provides a syntactic account of children’s intensional RIs. I argue that the aspects of the children’s grammar involved in generating intensional RIs (e.g. Tense/Agr system) are completely adult-like. On the basis of a quasi-experimental study of the spontaneous speech corpus of the Russian child, Varvara (CHILDES, Protassova 1988, MacWhinney and Snow 1990), I show that the syntactic structure of an intensional RI is that of a complement of an intensional predicate like want in adult Russian. The intensional predicate itself undergoes PF deletion under identity with its linguistic antecedent, in accord with the theory of surface anaphora of Hankamer and Sag (1976). The linguistic antecedent may be recovered in two ways: 1) from the previous discourse recorded in the transcript; 2) from the child’s ”internal monologue” which is assumed to be part of the linguistic discourse by virtue of the child’s Theory of Mind, a naive psychological framework underlying the young children’s system of knowledge and beliefs. Although RIs accounted for in the second way are not adult-like, their non-adult status is not due to any property of children’s grammar, but is a result of a particular stage in psychological development.