Inalienable possession in locational constructions☆

Abstract

Abstract In this article, we will argue that Dutch inalienable possession constructions such as (1a) and (1b) have the same underlying structure in (2a): (1a) is derived by means of an obligatory movement of the predicate of the BIJ -phrase into the specifier of the locational PP, as in (2b); (1b), in its turn, is derived from the structure in (2b) by incorporation of the functor BIJ into the verb, as a result of which the NP is assigned dative Case. This analysis is consistent with Hoekstra's (1994) hypothesis, according to which inalienable possession is syntactically encoded by means of a functor P ( BIJ ) that takes the possessor as its internal and the possessum as its external argument: [ SC [ NP Possessum][P [ NP Possessor]]. 1. (1) a. Ik zet het kind bij Jan/hem op de linkerknie. I put the child with Jan/him on the left knee b. Ik zet Jan/hem het kind op de linkerknie. I put Jan/him the child on the left knee ‘I put the child on John's left knee’. 2. (2) a. … V … [ PP spec P loc [ SC NP 1 [BIJ NP 2 ]]] (underlying structure) b. … V … [ PP [BIJ NP 2 ] j P loc [ SC NP 1 t j ]] (=(1a)) c. … BIJ i + V [ PP [ t i NP 2 ] j F ∗2. [ PP t j P loc [ SC NP 1 t j ]]] (=(1b)) Independent evidence in favor of the proposal in (2) will be given, among which rather complex data involving island effects on movement from out of the locational PP. Further, the discussion will be complicated by interference of apparently similar, but actually quite different constructions, which we will discuss as well.