Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–40

Deconstructing possession

Article

Abstract

The paper argues that clausal possession is to be decomposed into three distinct, independently attested, syntactic configurations, each associated with its own meaning. These include Location, represented as an ordinary small clause, the Part-Whole relation, which always has a complement structure within DP as its source, and an applicative structure ApplP, the source of (in)alienable possession, where humans are treated as special. The analysis we propose focuses on Palestinian Arabic and extends to English clausal possession and its realizations across have and be. Palestinian Arabic overtly distinguishes a number of ingredients which in other languages enter into possession less transparently: It marks Location and Part-Whole relations by distinct prepositions, it features a full-agreement/no-agreement distinction associated with scope, and, lacking have, it keeps separate P° and be, the ingredients often assumed to enter into its composition. The picture which emerges is partly familiar and partly new. We argue that the notion possession is never linguistically encoded as such, since none of the underlying representations proposed is associated exclusively with possession. We also argue that the subject in possessive clauses is a derived subject with both have and be. We attribute the differences between Palestinian Arabic and English to a difference in their agreement systems, which in conjunction with Economy, forces P° to extract from its PP, and leads to the formation of have. If we are correct, the cross-linguistic distribution of have and be may further reduce to parametric differences in agreement systems.

Keywords

Possession Location Part-Whole Applicatives Domain extension Agreement alternation Locative Inversion EPP Economy Palestinian Arabic English 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand. 2007. Psych nouns and the structure of predication. In Vol. 36 of Proceedings of NELS, eds. Amy Rose Deal et al., 89–102. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  2. Åfarli, Tor. 2007. Invisible phi-features do not exist: evidence from expletive constructions in English and Norwegian. Talk given at the workshop: The sound patterns of syntax, Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 2003. Syntax of scope. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  4. Bailyn, John. 2004. Generalized Inversion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 1–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, Irene, Michael Herslund, and Finn Sørensen. 2001. Dimensions of possession. Typological Studies in Language 47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  6. Barker, Chris. 1991. Possessive descriptions. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  7. Belvin, Robert. 1993. The two causative haves are the two possessive haves. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 19–34. Google Scholar
  8. Belvin, Robert. 1996. Inside events: the non-possessive meanings of possessive predicates and the semantic conceptualization of events. PhD dissertation, USC, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  9. Belvin, Robert, and Marcel den Dikken. 1997. There, happens, to, be, have. Lingua 101: 151–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale 2. Paris: Gallimard. Google Scholar
  11. Biberauer, Theresa, and Ian Roberts. 2008. Cascading parameter changes: internally-driven change in Middle and Early Modern English. In Grammatical change and linguistic theory: the Rosendal papers, eds. Thórhallur Eythórsson and Jan Terje Faarlund, 79–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  12. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-Theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, eds. David Adger, Susana Béjar, and Daniel Harbour, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Borer, Hagit. 1986. I-Subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 375–416. Google Scholar
  14. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Vol. 2 of The normal course of events: structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative Inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70: 72–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burge, Tyler. 1972. Truth and mass terms. Journal of Philosophy 69: 263–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–115. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  22. Cowell, Marc W. 1964. A reference grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  24. Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates across categories. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Google Scholar
  25. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Teun Hoekstra, and Johan Rooryck. 1994. Augmented and non-augmented HAVE. In Proceedings of langues et grammaire 1, eds. Léa Nash and George Tsoulas, 85–101. Saint-Denis, Paris: Université Paris 8. Google Scholar
  26. den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Copulas. Paper presented at GLOW Tromsø; unpublished manuscript, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/HIL. Google Scholar
  27. den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. ‘Pluringulars’, pronouns, and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: the syntax of predication, Predicate Inversion and copulas. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. den Dikken, Marcel, and Alma Næss. 1993. Case dependencies: the case of Predicate Inversion. Linguistic Review 10: 303–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2005. Genitives and determiners. In Possessive and beyond: semantics and syntax, eds. Jiyung Kim, Yuri A. Landers, and Barbara H. Partee. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 29: 115–132. Google Scholar
  31. Doron, Edit. 1983. Verbless predicates in Hebrew. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Google Scholar
  32. Doron, Edit, and Caroline Heycock. 1999. Filling and licensing multiple specifiers. In Specifiers: minimalist approaches, eds. David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett, and George Tsoulas, 69–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  33. Dowty, David, and Chris Barker. 1992. Non-verbal thematic proto-roles. In Vol. 23 of Proceedings of NELS, 49–62. Amherst: GSLA. Google Scholar
  34. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  35. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  36. Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other Locatives. Language 68: 553–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Godard, Danièle 1992. Extraction out of NP in French. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10: 233–277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
  39. Guéron, Jacqueline. 2006. Inalienable Possession. In The Blackwell Companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert, Henk Van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans, and Bart Hollenbrandse, 585–634. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  40. Harley, Heidi. 1998. You’re having me on! Aspects of have. In La Grammaire de la possession, eds. Jacqueline Guéron and Anne Zribi-Hertz, 195–226. Nanterre: PUBLIDIX, Université Paris X. Google Scholar
  41. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2: 29–68 Google Scholar
  42. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heller, Daphna. 2002. Possession as a lexical relation: evidence from the Hebrew construct state. In WCCFL 21 Proceedings, eds. Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts, 127–140. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  44. Henry, Alison, and Siobhán M. Cottell. 2007. A new approach to transitive expletives: evidence from Belfast English. English Language and Linguistics 11: 279–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heycock, Caroline 1994. The internal structure of Small Clauses. In Vol. 25 of Proceedings of NELS, 222–238. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  46. Hoekstra, Teun. 1994. HAVE as BE plus or minus. In Paths towards Universal Grammar: studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, eds. Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini, 199–215. Washington: Georgetown studies in Romance Linguistics. Google Scholar
  47. Hoekstra, Teun, and René Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: how any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hornstein, Norbert S. 1994. An argument for minimalism: the case of antecedent contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 455–480. Google Scholar
  50. Hornstein, Norbert S., Sara Rosen, and Juan Uriagereka. 1995. Integrals. http://www.ling.umd.edu/Courses/Ling819/Papers/Integrals.pdf.
  51. Hoyt, Frederick M. 2000. Agreement, specificity effects, and phrase structure in rural Palestinian Arabic existential constructions. MA Thesis, Cornell University. Google Scholar
  52. Jackendoff, Ray 1990. On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427–456. Google Scholar
  53. Jensen, Per Anker, and Carl Vikner. 2004. The English prenominal genitive and lexical semantics. In Possessives and beyond: semantics and syntax UMOP 29, eds. Jiyung Kim, Yuri A. Lander, and Barbara H. Partee, 3–27. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  54. Jonas, Dianne, and Jonathan Bobaljik. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236. Google Scholar
  55. Johnson, Kyle, and Satoshi Tomioka. 1997. Lowering and mid-size clauses. In Proceedings of the Tübingen workshop on reconstruction, 185–205. Tübingen, Germany. Google Scholar
  56. Kayne, Richard S. 1993/2000. Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection. In Parameters and universals, 107–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  57. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  58. Kuno, Susumu 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333–378. Google Scholar
  59. Landau, Idan 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107: 1–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Landau, Idan 2009. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  61. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α : conditions on its application and output. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  62. Law, Paul. 1994. Remarques sur la construction existentielle en haïtien. Revue québécoise de linguistique 23: 139–167. Google Scholar
  63. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. “Postverbal” subjects and the mapping hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 691–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mahajan, Anoop 1994. The ergativity parameter: have-be alternation, word order and split ergativity. In Vol. 24 of Proceedings of NELS, 317–331. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  65. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL. Cornell Linguistics Club, 234–253. Republished in Eric Reuland, 2000. Arguments and case: explaining Burzio’s Generalization, 11–30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  66. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Sam Mchombo, 113–150. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  67. McCloskey, James, and Kenneth Hale. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 487–533. Google Scholar
  68. McNally, Louise 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mohammad, Mohammad A. 1988. On the parallelism between IP and DP. In Vol. 7 of Proceedings of WCCFL, ed. Hagit Borer, 241–254. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  70. Mohammad, Mohammad A. 1998. The syntax of indefinite subjects in equative sentences in Palestinian Arabic. The semitic archive: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/semitic/private/pdf/sisespa.pdf
  71. Mohammad, Mohammad A. 2000. Word order, agreement and pronominalization in standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  72. Moro, Andrea. 1990. There-raising: principles across levels. Paper presented at GLOW Cambridge. Google Scholar
  73. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: predicative nominals and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  75. Nash, Léa. 1998. A propos de «être» et «avoir» en géorgien. In «Être» et «Avoir»: syntaxe, sémantique, typologie, ed. Alain Rouveret, 171–196. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Google Scholar
  76. Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  77. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1998. Possession in sentences and noun phrases. The semitic archive: www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/linguistics/semitic/pdf/ur.pdf.
  78. Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Weak NPs in have sentences. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in formal semantics: selected papers by Barbara H. Partee, 282–291. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  79. Partee, Barbara H., and Vladimir Borschev. 2004. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument modifier ambiguity. In Modifying adjuncts, eds. Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, Series: Interface Explorations, 67–112. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  80. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  81. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  82. Rapoport, Tova. 1987. Copular, nominal and small clauses: a study of Israeli Hebrew. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  83. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara T. Rosen. 1997. The function of have. Lingua 101: 295–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  85. Rizzi, Luigi, and Ur Shlonsky. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English Locative Inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 341–361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rouveret, Alain. 1991. Functional categories and agreement. The Linguistic Review 8: 353–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sichel, Ivy. 1997. Two pronominal copulas and the syntax of Hebrew nonverbal sentences. In Texas Linguistics Forum 38: 295–306, eds. Ralph Blight and Michelle Moosally. Google Scholar
  89. Sichel, Ivy. 2009. Agreement, surface position, and scope. Manuscript The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Google Scholar
  90. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In Vol. 27 of Syntax and semantics: the syntactic structure of Hungarian, eds. Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss, 179–274. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  92. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 595–652. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations