Inalienable Possession Constructions Research Articles

VP-Internal Nominative in Multiple Nominative Constructions

The aim of this paper is to discuss two questions concerning multiple nominative constructions (MNCs) in Korean: whether or not all nominative-marked elements are subjects and how nominative marker can be realized on more than one nominal. As for the first question, I support that not all the nominatives represent the subjecthood of their bearer as mentioned by Mok (2005). Special attention is devoted to inalienable possession constructions (IPCs). I demonstrate with empirical evidence that the second nominative is not a grammatical subject but a VPinternal element. This finding carries over to the second question, arguing that the nominative case does not have to move up to T to be valued. It is valued within VP periphery. Consequently, this paper presents a possibility that apparent case marking does not always represent its syntactic position.

‘Onvervreemdbaar bezit’ verschillend benaderd

Abstract In this paper I explain the difference between the notions possessive dative and possessive accusative as used by me and other linguists like Vandeweghe (e.g. 1986 and 1987) and the notions dative and accusative inalienable possessors as used in ). It is not so much the difference in the descriptive system I want to focus on, but the difference in aim. Broekhuis et al. want to specify the syntactic encoding of ‘inalienable possession’ and come to the conclusion that the possessor of the inalienable possession is always the referent of an indirect object, be it on different syntactic levels. I want to explain why this is the case. This can be done by showing that the complex predicates in inalienable possession constructions are comparable to the dative verbs in constructions with a regular indirect object, due to the fact that they contain a constituent referring to inalienable possession. Our descriptions have much in common and if we see them as complementary, they can profit from each other.

The syntax of external and internal possessor variation in German inalienable possession

Abstract German inalienable possession constructions with a PP-embedded possessum come in three variants: (i) with external possessor (EP), (ii) with internal possessor (IP), and (iii) with doubly-marked possession (DMP). Choice of dat(ive) versus acc(usative) case adds two more options. To capture this variation with a formal-syntactic account, this contribution posits (a) possessor raising from Spec DP of the possessum to affectee vP, triggered by lack of case in Spec DP, for dat EPs, (b) a base-generation possessor-as-direct-object analysis of acc EPs, (c) gen(itive) as last resort, triggered by the lack of a case licensor in the verbal domain, for IPs, and (d) a combined base-generation and gen-as-last-resort analysis of DMPs.

Compositionality, lexical integrity, and agglutinative morphology

Based on morphological phenomena found mostly in Japanese, a highly agglutinative language, this paper investigates how we might approach intra-word compositionality in a manner faithful to lexical integrity. First, we observe some word-formation phenomena that seem to apparently contradict lexical (or morphological) integrity and ‘direct compositionality’. These involve mismatches -- bracketing paradoxes -- between morphological constituency vis-à-vis syntactic or semantic constituency. We also survey how researchers have dealt or would deal with instances of such mismatches. Upon concluding that these mismatches are not obstacles to direct compositionality or lexical integrity, an even more drastic bracketing paradox, namely, the one involving the sized inalienable possession construction is introduced as a case study to give the concept of direct compositionality a further stress test. The viability and, arguably, advantage of a direct compositional semantically-oriented (as opposed to syntactic) approach to word-formation is demonstrated. Finally, after a summary of the paper, further conceptual issues regarding compositionality and word-formation are taken up.

The Pragmatics and Syntax of German Inalienable Possession Constructions

Not available.

A Unified Approach to Floating Numeral Quantifier Constructions and Inalienable PossessionConstructions in Korean

Both floating numeral quantifier constructions and inalienable possession constructions have attracted much attention in the literature for a long time. Interestingly, there have been the same two major syntactic approaches to both the constructions. One is what is called the adverbial analysis and the other is what we call the stranding analysis. This is because the two constructions have some similar syntactic and semantic properties in common. In this paper, we investigate the similarities and differences between the two constructions and attempt to provide a unified approach to the two constructions under the stranding analysis, along with Predicate Licensing Condition.

Major Subject Honorification in Inalienable Possession Constructions

The subject honorification marker si-marked predicate must have an honorific subject in Spec-TP in order for the unchecked feature of the subject honorification marker si on T to be discharged in the Spec-head relation with the honorific subject. EPP raises the grammatical subject to Spec-TP, whereas the major subject (i.e., nominative possessor in multiple nominative constructions (MNCs, hereafter)) undergoes focus movement to Spec-FocP over TP. The honorific feature of the subject honorification marker si is classified into two kinds: One is discharged for the genuine subject and the other is discharged for the major subject. The nominative/topic-marked major subjects occupy Spec-FocP/CP, respectively. If in the inalienable possession construction, not the grammatical subject, but the major subject is honorific, the unchecked honorification feature of the marker si on T should percolate up to Foc/C in order to discharge its feature in the Spec-head relation with the honorific major subject in Spec-FocP/CP. As a result, this induces major subject honorification, which is what is at stake in this paper.

Adjectivally headed construct states and the semantics of metonymic predication

Adjectivally-headed construct states such as (i) pose a problem for thematic role assignment, and for accounts of compositional semantic interpretation.(i)ha-yeledšxoreynayimDEF-boy.m.sgblack.m.sgeyes.f.pl“the boy has black eyes”Apparently, the external thematic role of the adjective šxor, is assigned to its complement, while it is not clear what thematic role is assigned to external argument of the whole phrase. Siloni (2002) and Hazout (2000) suggest that these constructions are inalienable possession constructions: the complement noun is a noun of inalienable possession and thus relational, and its external argument becomes the argument of the whole phrase. I argue that these are indeed inalienable possession constructions, but that the crucial relation is expressed by the adjectival head and not by the nominal complement: the adjectival construct state in (i) predicates of its subject the property “being black with respect to his eyes”. These constructions illustrate what I shall call “metonymic predication”, in which a property is predicated of an entity x in virtue of a relation that holds between x and a proper part of x. This allows us to give a simple syntactic analysis of these expressions and a straightforward compositional semantic analysis.

Morpho-semantic bracketing paradox and compositionality: The implications of the sized inalienable possession construction in Japanese

One challenge to lexical (or, more specifically, morphological) integrity – and more generally to compositionality of meaning – is bracketing paradox. Sized inalienable possession(SIP) in Japanese (e.g. ko-kubi‘small-neck’ in [VP[NPko-kubi-o]kasigeru] ‘small-neck-acctilt’) is an instance of bracketing paradox where morphological bracketing (such as above) and semantic bracketing (below) conflict with each other. Specifically, a prefix likeko- above acts as an adverbial modifier for a VP, not as a nominal modifier (i.e. [VPslightly (ko) [VPneck tilt]] ‘tilt one's neck slightly’). It is proposed that: (a) syntactically, an SIP expression and its ‘host’ verb are collocationally dependent, and (b) Semantically, either argument or adjunct SIP expressions are Montagovian functors. They take (or act upon) a predicate meaning as an argument to give rise to an appropriate interpretation. This has the effect of confining the unusual adverbial modification within SIP expressions. Without additional stipulations, the current proposal solves hitherto unnoticed empirical problems faced by previous syntactic accounts. In doing so, it avoids employing mechanisms contradicting morphological integrity, namely LF movement of a bound morpheme or co-indexing a word-internal element. Thus, at least in the domain of SIP, the current approach enables us to remain faithful to morphological integrity. A broader issue touched upon here is how compositional semantics is accomplished when it is superficially violated as above. This paper shows that strict adherence to iconicity between syntax and semantics is by no means a necessity for compositional semantics.

An analysis of Inalienable possession constructions in Japanese (Essays in Memory of the Late Professor Yukio Ito)

An analysis of Inalienable possession constructions in Japanese (Essays in Memory of the Late Professor Yukio Ito)

Case and Affectedness in German Inalienable Possession Constructions

Case and Affectedness in German Inalienable Possession Constructions

Dominant Language Transfer in Spanish Heritage Speakers and Second Language Learners in the Interpretation of Definite Articles

This study investigates dominant language transfer (from English) in adult Spanish second language (L2) learners and Spanish heritage speakers. We focus on contrasting properties of English and Spanish definite articles with respect to generic reference (‘Elephants have ivory tusks’ vs.Loselefantes tienen colmillos de marfil) and inalienable possession (‘Peter raised his hand’ vs.Pedro levantólamano). Thirty adult Spanish heritage speakers and 30 L2 learners of Spanish completed four written tasks (acceptability judgment, truth‐value judgment, picture‐sentence matching, and sentence‐picture acceptability judgment). The results show that the heritage speakers and the L2 learners exhibited dominant language transfer from English with the interpretation of definite articles in generic contexts; transfer effects were not as pronounced in the inalienable possession construction. We discuss the implications of these findings for heritage language research and teaching.

Transfer effects in the interpretation of definite articles by Spanish heritage speakers

This study investigates the role of transfer from the stronger language by focusing on the interpretation of definite articles in Spanish and English by Spanish heritage speakers (i.e., minority language-speaking bilinguals) residing in the U.S., where English is the majority language. Spanish plural NPs with definite articles can express generic reference (Los elefantes tienen colmillos de marfil), or specific reference (Los elefantes de este zoológico son marrones). English plurals with definite articles can only have specific reference (The elephants in this zoo are brown), while generic reference is expressed with bare plural NPs (Elephants have ivory tusks). Furthermore, the Spanish definite article is preferred in inalienable possession constructions (Pedro levantó la mano“Peter raised the hand”), whereas in English the use of a definite article typically means that the body part belongs to somebody else (alienable possession). Twenty-three adult Spanish heritage speakers completed three tasks in Spanish (acceptability judgment, truth-value judgment, and picture–sentence matching tasks) and the same three tasks in English. Results show that the Spanish heritage speakers exhibited transfer from English into Spanish with the interpretation of definite articles in generic but not in inalienable possession contexts. Implications of this finding for the field of heritage language research and for theories of article semantics are discussed.

Multiple Case Sharing and Syntactic Structure

In this paper, I propose that multiple Case marking in Korean is a result of Case sharing among verbal head, Tense head and maximal projections in-between. I first show that multiple Case marking in floating quantifier constructions and inalienable possession constructions is not a uniform phenomenon and must be treated separately in syntax. Specifically, I argue that floating quantifiers show obligatory Case sharing whereas inalienable possessor may show optional Case agreement in certain derived contexts. I develop an analysis for the diverging Case patterns under the framework arguing that syntactic agreement is feature sharing. I adopt a series of arguments that Case agreement is T-feature agreement. I show that the current approach may capture a systematic correlation between underlying constituency and optional/obligatory Case agreement. I employ a Magnitude Estimation Task to obtain quantifiable psychological data for multiple Case marking constructions in Korean.

Inalienable possession constructions in French

This paper discusses two questions: (1) what determines the Case of a possessor DP in inalienable possession (IPoss) constructions in French? and (2) How are the similarities between IPoss constructions and Obligatory Control construals accounted for? I will argue here that if Obligatory Control PRO is a copy/trace resulting from the movement of the controller as proposed by Hornstein (2001), IPoss constructions should also be derived through possessor raising and that the landing site of the possessor DP and its Case are determined by a syntactic representation of verb semantics.

한정성 효과: 한정성 제약과 비한정성 제약

I argue that Definiteness Effect (DE) should include Indefiniteness Restriction (IR) as well as Definiteness Restriction (DR). DR is exhibited by existential constructions, predicate nominals, inalienable possession constructions, and verbs with semantic features like [((CAUSE TO) COME TO) EXIST]. IR is caused by some existence presupposition of aspectual adverbs, aspectual verbs, repetitives, and topic markers. The environments for DR and IR determine the (in)definiteness of Korean bare noun phrases which otherwise can be used either way. The neutralization of DR is also induced by focus which imposes a certain amount of structure on the event quantification. Van der Sandt''s (1992) Presuppositions-as- Anaphora-Theory is effectively used to account for those examples from DR, ID, and the neutralization of BR. (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)

French Body-Parts and the Semantics of Binding

This paper discusses the grammar of the French Inalienable Possession Construction (IPC). It is argued that the IPC involves an unexpressed reflexive anaphor. The antecedent of this reflexive anaphor must satisfy a semantic condition which requires consideration of thematic lexical entailments. The model-theoretic nature of this constraint suggests that the range of semantic information relevant to syntactic processes goes beyond the formal configuration of semantic metalanguages. It also shows that the semantic conditions which anaphors can impose on their antecedents are not restricted to thematic ranking or center of perspective restrictions. An analysis of the construction within Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar is provided.

Spatial terms, polysemy and possession in Longgu (Solomon Islands)

Lexical exponents of the proposed semantic primitives above, under, inside and on the side are identified in Longgu (Solomon Islands). It is argued that the first three of these exponents are polysemous between a semantically primitive relational sense and a secondary topological sense. A number of issues relating to the morphosyntax of the exponents are discussed, including their status as ‘local nouns’, the significance of the fact that their basic syntactic frame employs the same system of person-number agreement suffixes as the inalienable possession construction, and the difference between this basic frame and a rarer ‘associative construction’. There is also a brief discussion of the status of the hypothetical primitive ‘ on’ in Longgu.

Inalienable possession in locational constructions☆

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.

Inalienable possession in locational constructions

In Broekhuis and Cornips (1995), it has been argued that Standard Dutch inalienable possession constructions such as (la) and (lb) have the same underlying structure in (2a): (la) 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); (lb), 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 of the examples in (1) is consistent with Hoekstra's (1994) hypothesis according to which inalienable possession is syntactically encoded by means of a functor P {BIJ in this case) that takes the possessor as its internal and the possessum as its external argument: [sc [NP Possessum][P [NP Possessor]].