In recent work we have come to challenge assumptions that we shared (Borschev and Partee 1998a) with Babby (1980) concerning the role of Theme-Rheme structure in accounting for the nominative-genitive alternation in negated existential sentences (the NES construction, in the terms of Babby (1980), the classic work which we are building on). The challenge is exemplified most clearly in our example: (i) (Ja iskal kefir.) Kefira v magazine ne bylo. (I looked-for kefir.) Kefir-GEN-m-sg in store NEG was-n-sg '(I was looking for kefir.) There wasn't any kefir in the store.' It is an important part of the explanatory structure of Babby 1980 that in sentence (i), the Theme is v magazine and the Rheme is kefir- (byl-). Babby takes Theme-Rheme structure to be crucial for determining the scope of negation, and scope of negation to be a necessary condition in licensing the occurrence of the genitive of negation. But arguments from word order, intonation, and pragmatics have convinced us that kefira in example (i) must be considered (part of) the Theme, and not the Rheme. We
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 84 citations exist upstream.