Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 29, Nijmegen
Edited by Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs and Dominique Nouveau
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13] 2018
► pp. 95–110

External possession in Brazilian Portuguese

Null possessors as null anaphors

| University of CaliforniaSanta Cruz
External possession, a phenomenon where the DP interpreted as possessor is a syntactic dependent of the clause, appearing outside a possessive structure, is instantiated in a variety of ways cross-linguistically. A number of recent proposals have understood these constructions to involve A-movement operations. This paper presents evidence that a movement approach to external possession in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) makes incorrect predictions about its locality restrictions, including island effects and sensitivity to discourse factors. I provide an analysis in which the dependency between possessor and possessum is mediated by null anaphors, which are also shown to display logophoric behavior.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: the phenomenon and issues
  • 2.External possession in Brazilian Portuguese
    • 2.1Discourse antecedents
    • 2.2Lack of c-command
    • 2.3Intervention effects
    • 2.4Island effects: the view from relative clauses
  • 3.Null possessors as null anaphors: binding and logophoricity
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.13.07due
References (16)
References
Borer, Hagit, and Yael Grodzinsky. 1986. “Syntactic vs. Lexical Cliticization: The Case of Hebrew Dative Clitics”. In Syntax and Semantics 19: The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed.by Hagit Borer. 175–217. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle, and Dominique Sportiche. 2016. “Anaphor Binding: What French Inanimate Anaphors Show”. Linguistic Inquiry 47 (1): 35–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1975. “The Logophoric Pronoun in Ewe: Its Role in Discourse”. Journal of West African languages 2: 141–177.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. “Possessor Raising”. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 391–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duek, Karen. 2015. “Null Anaphors and Logophoricity in External Possession in Brazilian Portuguese”. Ms, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Floripi, Simone, and Jairo Nunes. 2009. “Movement and Resumption in Null Possessor Constructions in Brazilian Portuguese”. In Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, ed. by Jairo Nunes, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1985. “Inalienable Possession, PRO-inclusion and Lexical Chains”. In Grammatical Representation, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron, Hans G. Obenauer and Jean-Yves Pollock, 43–86. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1974. “Les pronoms logophoriques”. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69: 287–310Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 1999. “Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP”. Lingua 107 (1):1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. “German Possessor Datives: Raised and Affected”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 101–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1992. “Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry: 261–303.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1991. “Anaphors and Logophors: an Argument Structure Perspective.” In Long distance anaphora. ed. by Jan Koster and Eric Reuland, 283–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2010. “Possessor Raising through Thematic Positions.” In Movement theory Control, ed. by Norbert Hornstein and Maria Polinsky, 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. “Aspects of Logophoricity”. Linguistic Inquiry: 445–479.Google Scholar