3. Inalienable Possession, PRO-Inclusion and Lexical Chains

Guéron, Jacqueline

doi:10.1515/9783112328064-004

Cited by 20 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All of these properties, I propose, can be explained by the imposition of an affectee θ role on the possessor. The analysis presented here is consistent with a crosslinguistically robust generalization that external possessors need to be mentally affected by the event (Guéron 1985, Kempchinsky 1992, Haspelmath 1999, Landau 1999, Hole 2004, Lee‐Schoenfeld 2006, Deal 2017).…”

Section: Assignment Of θ Roles In Possessives and Applicativessupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The idea that in some languages external possessors are base generated externally to the possessee has a long pedigree; see Deal 2017 for an overview. Typically in such analyses, the external possessor comes to be interpreted as a possessor because it binds some kind of variable, perhaps a null pro or PRO, inside the possessed DP (Guéron 1985, Borer & Grodzinsky 1986). I argue instead that the argument in Spec,ApplP comes to be interpreted as the possessor of the theme by delayed saturation , also known as delayed gratification (Wood 2014, 2015, Myler 2014, 2016, Kastner 2016, 2017, Wood & Marantz 2017).…”

Section: Proposal: Two Routes To Epmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, I consider two alternative analyses of EP‐via‐Appl structures that the standard machinery of Minimalist syntax makes available, and I argue that neither is a good fit for the data. The first is a binding analysis, schematized in (71a), in which the possessor is base generated in Spec,ApplP and binds a null pronoun inside the possessee (Guéron 1985, Borer & Grodzinsky 1986, Authier 1988, Kempchinsky 1992). The second is a movement analysis, schematized in (71b), in which the possessor is base generated inside the possessee and moves to Spec,ApplP (Landau 1999, Lee‐Schoenfeld 2006, Rodrigues 2010, Deal 2013).…”

Section: Against Binding or Movement In Ep Via Applmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two Kinds of External Possession in Mississippi Choctaw

Tyler¹

2020

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External possession refers to the phenomenon where a DP is marked as an independent argument in its clause but is interpreted as the possessor of another argument. Choctaw makes extensive use of external possession, but, puzzlingly, it comes in two distinct morphological profiles. Previous work has assumed these to be surface morphological variants, but this article shows instead that external possession in Choctaw is derived by two distinct mechanisms. One mechanism involves building a DP with an internal possessor and raising the possessor out to a higher, left‐peripheral position. The alternative mechanism involves building two unconnected DPs, one in an internal‐argument position and one in a high applicative phrase, and identifying the higher DP with the possessor θ role of the lower DP in the process of semantic composition, by a mechanism known as delayed saturation. I demonstrate that this latter mechanism can generate external possession of objects and unaccusative subjects, depending on whether there is an external argument, and is subject to a host of interpretative restrictions that the movement‐based mechanism is not. Thus I show not only that external possession can be derived by two different mechanisms but also that those mechanisms may coexist in the same language.

show abstract

Section: Assignment Of θ Roles In Possessives and Applicativessupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Proposal: Two Routes To Epmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Against Binding or Movement In Ep Via Applmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two Kinds of External Possession in Mississippi Choctaw

Tyler¹

2020

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A wide range of studies on inalienable nouns across languages share the conclusion that inalienable nouns are associated with a syntactically present inalienable possessor as their inherent implicit argument (e.g. Alexiadou 2003 for Greek;Ritter & Rosen 2014 for Blackfoot;Huang, Li &Li 2009 andNiu 2016, among other studies that we return to in the next section, for Mandarin Chinese; and Guéron 1985, Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992, and Nakamoto 2010see Chappell &McGregory 1996 andCoene &D'hulst 2003 for various other languages).…”

Section: Inalienability and Implicit Arguments Of Rnsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Local versus long-distance bound implicit arguments of inalienable relational nouns in Chinese

Ke¹,

Pires²

2021

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that inalienable relational nouns in Mandarin Chinese, specifically kinship nouns (KNs, e.g. father, sister) and body-part nouns (BPNs, e.g. head, face), have an implicit reflexive argument. Based on a syntactic comparison between KNs, BPNs, locally and long-distance bound reflexives, we argue that the implicit reflexive arguments of BPNs must be locally bound, whereas that of KNs can either be locally or long-distance bound. We conclude that these two types of implicit arguments in Mandarin Chinese correspond to locally and long-distance bound reflexives, respectively. We analyze this difference in connection with binding theory and a theory of logophoricity. We argue that the implicit argument of BPNs is a locally bound anaphor and cannot be used as a logophor, whereas that of KNs can, supporting a proposal that the logophoric property leads to long-distance binding, as argued by Huang & Liu’s (2001) for reflexives in Mandarin Chinese.

show abstract

“…According to this descriptive account, the presence of the possessive determiner sus in (10) is attributable to (or made possible by) the absence of a clitic pronoun coreferential with Luisa, the owner of the inalienably possessed object (feet). Guéron (1983;1985;2006) argues that Structure II involves a binding relationship between the clitic and the determiner of the body part DP. In her analysis, determiners in Romance languages have variable theta features 3 that allow for feature binding.…”

Section: Description Of the Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

<i>Me, mi, my</i>: Innovation and variability in heritage speakers’ knowledge of inalienable possession

Giancaspro

Sánchez

2021

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates variability in heritage speakers' (HSs) knowledge of inalienable possession in Spanish (e.g., me rompí el brazo: 'I broke my arm'). By testing HSs' productive and receptive knowledge of this property, the study fills an important gap in the literature and, furthermore, explores whether differences in performance across productive and receptive modalities reflect grammatical innovation at the level of underlying representation. Thirty HSs (16 advanced proficiency, 14 intermediate proficiency) and 15 Spanish-dominant controls (SDCs) completed two experimental tasks, each testing both inalienable and alienable object contexts. Results from the Elicited Production Task show that the HSs exhibit significant variability. Unlike the SDCs, who almost categorically produce clitics to communicate the inalienability of objects, the two HS groups rely more heavily on possessive determiners, alternating frequently between the "target" form (Clitic + DefDet: me rompí el brazo) and three different " innovative" variants (e.g., NoClitic + PossDet: rompí mi brazo). Results from the Acceptability Judgment Task complicate this finding by revealing that the HSs, despite their productive variability, make all of the same within-group distinctions as the SDCs, suggesting that they retain systematic receptive knowledge of inalienable possession. To explain these seemingly contradictory patterns, as well as the strong effect of Spanish proficiency on HSs' performance across tasks, we suggest that HSs' variability is consistent with English to Spanish influence at the level of bilingual alignments, transient storage mechanisms proposed by Sánchez (2019) to account for gradient and variable performance in multiple bilingual contexts.

show abstract

3. Inalienable Possession, PRO-Inclusion and Lexical Chains

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Two Kinds of External Possession in Mississippi Choctaw

Two Kinds of External Possession in Mississippi Choctaw

Local versus long-distance bound implicit arguments of inalienable relational nouns in Chinese

<i>Me, mi, my</i>: Innovation and variability in heritage speakers’ knowledge of inalienable possession

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About