The syntax of external and internal possessor variation in German inalienable possession
-
Vera Lee-Schoenfeld
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.
Abbreviations
- acc
accusative
- AP
adjective phrase
- D
determiner
- dat
dative
- DMP
doubly-marked possession
- D.O.
direct object
- DP
determiner phrase
- EP
external possessor
- f
feminine
- gen
genitive
- IP
internal possessor
- NP
noun phrase
- nom
nominative
- P
preposition
- PF
phonological form
- PP
prepositional phrase
- poss
possessor
- subj
subject
- V
verb
- vP
little vP (agentive or affective verb phrase)
- VP
lexical verb phrase
References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7Search in Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432.10.1162/LING_a_00133Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2005. Reconciling “possessor datives” and “beneficiary datives” – toward a unified account of dative binding in German. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications, 213–242. Tübingen: Narr.10.1515/9783110913798.213Search in Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96.10.1075/la.154.01horSearch in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2012. Understanding English-German contrasts (3rd revised edn). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107. 1–37.10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00025-4Search in Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. German possessor datives: Raised and affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9. 101–142.10.1007/s10828-006-9001-6Search in Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2007. Beyond coherence: The syntax of opacity in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.114Search in Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2012. Case and affectedness in German inalienable possession constructions. Linguistische Berichte 232. 399–416.10.46771/2366077500232_2Search in Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera & Gabriele Diewald. 2014. The pragmatics and syntax of German inalienable possession constructions. In Herman Leung, Zachary O’Hagan, Sarah Bakst, Auburn Lutzross, Jonathan Manker, Nicholas Rolle & Katie Sardinha (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 289–313.10.3765/bls.v40i0.3145Search in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin & Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2004. Direkte und indirekte Partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen (2nd revised edn). ASSIDUE, Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt Nr. 13.Search in Google Scholar
Lindauer, Thomas. 1998. Attributive genitive constructions in German. In Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds.), Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, 109–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.22.06linSearch in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2006. Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. In Jackie Bunting, Sapna Desai, Robert Peachey, Chris Straughn & Zuzane Tomkova (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Volume 2: The Parasessions, 47–67. Chicago, IL.: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Poole, Ethan. 2015. A configurational account of Finnish case. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21(1). Article 26. http://repository.upenn/edu/pwpl/vol21/iss1/26.Search in Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3). 205–238.10.1111/1467-9612.00044Search in Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique, Hilda Koopman, & Edward Stabler. 2014. An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2007. Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte Beschreibung des Deutschen (2nd revised edn). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Non-central usages of datives
- The dative of agent in Indo-European languages
- Dative subjects in Germanic
- Dem Herrgott sei Scheenster
- The syntax of external and internal possessor variation in German inalienable possession
- External possession and constructions that may have it
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Non-central usages of datives
- The dative of agent in Indo-European languages
- Dative subjects in Germanic
- Dem Herrgott sei Scheenster
- The syntax of external and internal possessor variation in German inalienable possession
- External possession and constructions that may have it
