Non-Correlation between D and I Joseph Galasso University of Essex 1997 Abstract In this paper, we argue (contra Hoekstra et al: 1996b) against any observed Correlation between D and I . However, in the process of dismantling the correlation, we uncover that a Structural Correlation in fact holds, a correlation basically stating that before any feature deficits can persist (i.e., underspecification), the IP-Functional stage must first be established. In more concrete terms, this Structural Correlation (referred to in this paper as the I-to-D Correlation) stipulates two points: (i) that a Subject/Object DP can't go underspecified (i.e., +/-FF (FF=Formal Feature)) before the onset of the IP-stage; and, as a consequence, (ii) all Subjects/Objects-DPs prior to the stage where they capacitate checking, instantiate (a posteriori) Objective/Accusative Case (via default). In sum, the above observations redefine how the young child comes to use the premodifying Determiners e.g., the/my/mine. Stage-I suggests a pre-underspecification stage. N+N (Genitive) constructions are used alongside sporadic usage of my/mine. The usage of the determiner The is fully productive from the earliest files. Early usage of the determiners My and Mine may indicate that these Poss(essive) Nom(inals) are, in fact, analogous to the use of The—i.e., without their formal features of Genitive Case—hence, all DPs (at this stage) would possibly mark for +Def(initeness) only. In this sense, the child may freely interchange between analogical The and My/Mine for the same type of logical expression: [ DP D [+def] + N]; as in The-My/Mine book, etc. There is some preliminary evidence to suggest that the child's early (overgenerated) use of mine's (in the literature) may indeed be account for in this manner: [ DP Mine [D 's] N book]]. i In short, while The-My/Mine examples are attested, we would not predict the overt morphological marking of possessive 's for this stage--which would be a clear indication of the acquisition of Case/Agreement morphology. Stage 2 shows a clear pattern of underspecifications [+/- T/Agr] as well as the emergence of possessive nominal ‘s/your/his constructions.