Article published in:
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

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: 03 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.13bru
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Löbner, S.
1985 Definites. Journal of Semantics 4(4): 279–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 279–333. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
2007 Bodies and their parts: An NSM approach to semantic typology. Language Sciences 29: 14–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar