Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

STUF - Language Typology and Universals

Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung

Editor-in-Chief: Stolz, Thomas


CiteScore 2018: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.231
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.343

Online
ISSN
2196-7148
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 69, Issue 1

Issues

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

Vera Lee-Schoenfeld
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Germanic & Slavic Studies/Linguistics, The University of Georgia, 209 Joseph E. Brown Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0005

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.

Keywords: inalienable possession; internal vs. external possession; possessor dative; possessor raising; genitive as last resort

References

  • Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

  • Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.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.Google Scholar

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96.Google Scholar

  • König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2012. Understanding English-German contrasts (3rd revised edn). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107. 1–37.Google Scholar

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. German possessor datives: Raised and affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9. 101–142.Google Scholar

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2007. Beyond coherence: The syntax of opacity in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2012. Case and affectedness in German inalienable possession constructions. Linguistische Berichte 232. 399–416.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.

  • 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.

  • 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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Schütze, Carson. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3). 205–238.Google Scholar

  • Sportiche, Dominique, Hilda Koopman, & Edward Stabler. 2014. An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2007. Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte Beschreibung des Deutschen (2nd revised edn). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-01

Published in Print: 2016-04-01


Citation Information: STUF - Language Typology and Universals, Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 113–129, ISSN (Online) 2196-7148, ISSN (Print) 1867-8319, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0005.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in