Cover not available
Part of
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 311–334

Inalienable possession

the status of the definite article

ORCID logo
We argue that the use of the definite article in French inalienable possession constructions does not lead us to abandon a unified analysis of definite articles. We face two challenges. First, the definite article in French inalienable possession constructions does not seem to convey uniqueness: Jean l�ve la main �John raises the hand� is felicitous independently of whether Jean has one or two hands. Second, if the definite article in these constructions is a run-of-the-mill definite article we seem to be left without an explanation for the variation between French and English that led both Gu�ron (1983, 1985) and Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992) to assume that the definite article in French is structurally different from the one in English.
Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.13bru
References (31)
References
Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2003. Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. In From NP to DP: The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases, Vol.1 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 56], M. Coene & Y. D’hulst (eds), 167–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, C. 2005. Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, K. Ji-yung, Y. Lander & B. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds), 1109–1130. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. & McGregor, W. (eds) 1996. The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Parts Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. & Ritter, E. 1987. A small clause analysis of inalienable possession in Mandarin and French. In Proceedings of NELS 18, J. Blevins & J. Carter (eds), 65–78. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Cornips, L. 2003. Heerlens Nederlands. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds) 2001. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Grammar and Typology, 2 Vols [Studies in Language Companion Series 54-55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. 1983. L ’emploi ‘possessif’ de l’article défini en français. Langue Française 58 : 23–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Grammatical Representation, J. Guéron, J.-Y. Pollock & H. Obenauer (eds), 43–86. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2006. Inalienable possession. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 589–638. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, A. 1944. Il tend les mains vs. il tend ses mains. Studies in Philology 41(3): 457–481.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hole, D. 2005. Reconciling ‘possessor’ datives and ‘beneficiary’ datives – Towards a unified voice account of dative binding in German. In Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein-Leisten (eds), 213–242. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koenig, E. & Haspelmath, M. 1998. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, J. Feuillet (ed.), 525–606. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. 1999. French body-parts and the semantics of binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(2): 219–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4(4): 279–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 279–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucas, C. 2011. Form-function mismatches in (formally) definite English noun phrases: Towards a diachronic account. In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 171], P. Sleeman & H. Perridon (eds), 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicol, F. 1997. Syntaxe minimaliste et sémantique conceptuelle: Recherches sur la syntaxe et la sémantique comparées du français et de l’anglais. PhD dissertation, Université de Paris-X.
Ojeda, A. 1993. New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. In ESCOL ‘93: Proceedings of the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, A. Kathol & M. Bernstein (eds), 247–258. Ithaca NY: DMLL Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 1989. Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In CLS 25: Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, C. Wiltshire, B. Music & R. Graczyk (eds), 342–365. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. 2001. The operational basis of possession: A dimensional approach revisited. In Dimensions of Possession [Typological Studies in Language 47], I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds), 27–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. In Syntax and Semantics: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, F. Kiefer & K. Kiss (eds), 179–274. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tellier, C. 1990. Underived nominals and the projection principle: Inherent possessors. In Proceedings of NELS 20, J. Carter, R.-M. Déchaine, B. Philip & T. Sherer (eds), 472–486. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. & Zubizarreta, M.-L. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 595–652.Google Scholar
Vikner, C. & Jensen, P. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2): 191–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2007. Bodies and their parts: An NSM approach to semantic typology. Language Sciences 29: 14–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Suijkerbuijk, Michelle, Sterre Leufkens & Marten van der Meulen
2022.  De dochter doet een powernap . Linguistics in the Netherlands 39 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.