Editing Inalienable possession (section)

===Interaction with coreference===
There are few grammatical distinctions between alienable and inalienable possession in English, but there are differences in the way coreference occurs for such possessive constructions. For instance, examples (21a) and (21b) have interpretations that differ by the type of (in)alienable possession:
{|
|-
|
 (21) a. Lucy<sub>1</sub> raised her<sub>1/2</sub> horse [alienable] 
      b. Lucy<sub>1</sub> raised her<sub>1/*2</sub> hand [inalienable] 
|}
In example (1a), the pronominal possessor (''her'') can refer to ''Lucy'' or to another possessor not mentioned in the sentence. As such, two interpretations of the sentence are possible: 
{|
|-
|
 i)  The horse belongs to Lucy, and Lucy raised this horse
 ii) The horse belongs to someone else, but Lucy raised the horse
|}
However, in example (21b), the pronominal possessor (''her'') can only grammatically refer to Lucy. As such, the hand being discussed must belong to Lucy.
[[File:Anaphoric binding.png|thumb|The pronominal possessor (''her'') of the inalienable noun (''hand'') is c-commanded and co-indexed by an antecedent DP (''Lucy'') that is in its domain]]

Therefore, the pronominal possessor patterns with pronominal binding in the alienable construction, but the pronominal possessor patterns with anaphoric binding in the inalienable construction.<ref name="Blackwell Companion2" /> In anaphoric binding, an anaphor requires a coreferent antecedent that c-commands the anaphor and that is in the domain of the anaphor.<ref name="Sportich et al. 2014">{{cite book |last1=Sportiche |first1=Dominique |last2=Koopman |first2=Hilda |last3=Stabler |first3=Edward |title=An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory |date=2014 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons Inc. |isbn=978-1-4051-0017-5 |page=165 |edition=1}}</ref> For example (1b) to obey those conditions, the pronominal possessor must refer to ''Lucy'', not to another possessor that is not mentioned in the sentence. Thus, by having only one grammatical interpretation, (1b) is consistent with anaphoric binding. On the other hand, the interpretation of alienable constructions such as 1a can be ambiguous since it is not restricted by the same properties of anaphoric binding.