To be with X is to have X: comitatives, instrumentals, locative, and predicative possession

Abstract

Comitatives and instrumentals are characterized by markedly different behavior as to their combinability with additional functions. This is especially the case with possession and locative: normally, possession is compatible with comitative as an additional function, whereas the instrumental does not enter combinations with possession easily. Similarly, instrumentals display a propensity to associate with additional locative functions from which the comitative tends to be banned. However, if expressions of predicative possession involve a marker that also has the function of encoding the instrumental, such combinations of functions generally involve the comitative as well. Likewise, if markers fulfil both a comitative and a locative function, they typically express the instrumental as well. These combination patterns are attested in quite a variety of languages of different genetic, areal, and typological background. On the basis of these empirical facts - mainly drawn from examples of predicative possession - the concept of bridging function is introduced. Bridging functions serve the purpose of legitimizing/facilitating combinations of functions that are otherwise incompatible with each other. The recurrent patterns and the concept of bridging function are discussed with reference to recent hypotheses on the nature of possession and the relationship that holds between classes of functions.