Editing Inalienable possession (section)

===External possession===
[[File:External possession structure.png|thumb|'''External possession''' in French. The possessor is outside the phrase with the possessee (circled in red). Sentence adapted from Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (4b)]]
[[File:Internal possession structure - French.png|thumb|'''Internal possession''' in French. The possessor and the possessee are in the same phrase (circled in red). Sentence adapted from Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (6b)]]
Inalienable possession can also be marked with '''external possession'''. Such constructions have the possessor appearing outside the determiner phrase. For example, the possessor may appear as a dative complement of the verb.

French exhibits both external possessor construction and internal possessor construction, as in (23):<ref name=VZ/>

{{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number=(23) a.
|top= '''External possession:'''
|Le médecin '''leur''' {a examiné} la gorge.
|the doctor {'''to them'''} examined SG.DEF.DET throat
|'The doctor examined their throats.'
}}
{{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(23)}} b.
|top='''Internal possession:'''
|Le médecin {a examiné} '''leurs''' gorges.
|the doctor examined '''POSS(3PL)''' throat
|'The doctor examined their throats.'
|bottom= (Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (4b, 6b))
}}

However, those types of possessors are problematic. There is a discrepancy between the possessor appearing syntactically in an inalienable possession construction and what its semantic relationship to the inalienable noun seems to be. Semantically, the possessor of an inalienable noun is intrinsic to its meaning and acts like a [[Argument (linguistics)#Syntactic vs. semantic arguments|semantic argument]]. On the surface syntactic structure, however, the possessor appears in a position that marks it as an argument of the verb.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> Thus, there are different views on how those types of inalienable possession constructions should be represented in the syntactic structure. The binding hypothesis argues that the possessor is an argument of the verb. Conversely, the possessor-raising hypothesis argues that the possessor originates as an argument of the possessed noun and then [[syntactic movement|moves]] to a position in which on the surface, it looks like an argument of the verb.<ref name = "Kempchinsky 1992">{{cite book|last1=Kempchinsky|first1=Paula|editor1-last=Hirschbühler|editor1-first=Paul|editor2-last=Koerner|editor2-first=E.F.K.|title=Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages|date=1992|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|location=Philadelphia, PA|isbn=90-272-3591-0|pages=135–148|edition=20|chapter=The Spanish possessive dative construction: θ-role assignment and proper government}}</ref>

====Binding hypothesis (Guéron 1983)====
The binding hypothesis reconciles the fact that the possessor appears both as a syntactic and semantic argument of the verb but as a semantic argument of the possessed noun. It assumes that inalienable possession constructions are subject to the following syntactic constraints:<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/>

# There must be an obligatory possessor.
# The possessor must be in the same minimal [[locality (linguistics)#Dldomain|domain]] of the possessee.
# The possessor must [[c-command]] the possessee or its [[trace (linguistics)|trace]] (The c-command must occur in the underlying or [[Transformational grammar#Deep structure and surface structure|surface structures]] of the inalienable possession constructions.

[[File:Binding between possessor and possessee.PNG|thumb|300px|'''Inalienable possession binding:''': the possessor c-commands the possessee in its domain. The possessor and possessee constitute a lexical chain and receive the same theta-roles from the verb.]]
It is assumed that inalienable possession constructions are one form of [[anaphora (linguistics)|anaphoric binding]]: [[control (linguistics)|obligatory control]].<ref name="Blackwell Companion2"/> Thus, the possessor DP originates in the [[specifier (linguistics)|specifier]] of the verb; the fact that the possessor seems to be a semantic argument of the noun arises from the binding relationship between the possessor and the possessee DPs. The parallel between inalienable possession constructions and obligatory control can be seen in the examples below:<ref name=Nakamoto/>

{{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number=(24) a.
|top= '''Inalienable possession'''
|Jean<sub>i</sub> lève  la<sub>i</sub>  main
|Jean  raise the hand
|'Jean raises his hand.'
}}
{{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(24)}} b.
|top= '''Obligatory control'''
|Jean<sub>i</sub> veut  {{gcl|PRO}}<sub>i</sub>   partir
|Jean  want (Jean)  {to leave}
|'Jean wants to leave'
|bottom=(Nakamoto 2010: 80 (30a,b))
}}

The hypothesis accounts for differences between French and English, and it may also eliminate the ambiguity created by definite determiners.<ref name="Blackwell Companion2"/> According to the hypothesis, anaphoric binding in inalienable possession constructions relates to the [[theta-role|theta-features]] that a language assigns to its determiners.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> The hypothesis predicts that inalienable possession constructions exist in languages that assign variable theta-features to its determiners and that inalienable possession constructions do not exist in languages that lack variable theta-feature assignment.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> Therefore, inalienable possession is predicted to exist in [[Romance languages]] and also [[Russian language|Russian]] but not in [[English language|English]] or [[Hebrew]].<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> In the French sentence ''Il lève les mains'', the determiner ''les'' is assigned theta-features. Thus, it is understood as inalienable possession. However, in the English translation, the determiner ''the'' does not have theta-features since English is considered not to assign theta-features to its determiners. Therefore, ''the'' does not necessarily signify inalienable possession and so ambiguity surfaces.

That hypothesis, however, does not account for verbs allowing [[reflexive pronoun|reflexive]] anaphora (''Jean '''se''''' lave 'Jean washes himself').<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/>  To account for the grammaticality of such verbs, Guéron proposes that in an inalienable construction the '''POSS DP''' (possessor DP) and '''BP DP''' (body part DP) constitute two links of a [[lexical chain]], in addition to their anaphoric relation.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> The two links of a lexical chain must obey the same constraints as anaphora, which accounts for the locality restrictions on inalienable construals. Every chain is then associated with one theta-role. Inalienable possession surfaces as ungrammatical when the possessed DP and the possessor DP are assigned two different theta-roles by the verb. That explains why sentence (25b) is ungrammatical. The POSS DP is assigned an [[agent (grammar)|agent]] theta-role, and the BP DP is assigned a [[thematic relation|theme]] theta-role.

{{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number=(25) a.
|Jean lève  la  main
|Jean raise the hand
|'Jean raises his hand.'
}}
{{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(25)}} b.
|glossing3=yes|glossing=no abbr
|{Jean lave/gratte/chatouille} {la main.}
|{Jean wash/scratch/tickle}    {the hand}
|AGENT                          THEME
|'Jean washes/scratches/tickles the hand.'
|bottom=(Guéron 2007: 598 (40, 42))
}}

====Possessor-raising hypothesis (Landau 1999)====
[[File:Tree diagram of possessor-raising, movement from SpecDP to SpecVP.jpeg|thumbnail|'''Possessor-raising''' from SpecDP to SpecVP]]
Possessor-raising is a syntactic hypothesis that attempts to explain the structures of inalienable [[determiner phrase|DPs]]. Landau argues that the possessor is initially introduced in the specifier position of DP (Spec-DP), but it later raises to the specifier of the [[verb phrase|VP]]. The possessor DP gets its [[theta-role]] from the [[head (linguistics)|head]] D, which gives rise to the meaning that the possessor is related to the possessee.<ref name='Landau 1999'>{{cite journal|last1=Landau|first1=Idan|title=Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP|journal=Lingua|date=1999|volume=107|issue=1|pages=1–37|doi=10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00025-4}}<!--|access-date=22 October 2014--></ref>

Landau's analysis is made on the basis of several properties possessives in the data case in Romance languages.<ref name=Nakamoto/>

# The possessor dative must be interpreted as a possessor, not an object/theme.
# Possession interpretation is obligatory.
# The possessed DP cannot be an external argument.
# The possessor dative must c-command the possessed DP (or its trace).
# Possessive interpretation is constrained by locality. (Nakamoto 2010: 76)

[[File:French example of possessor-raising.jpg|thumb|Illustration of possessor-raising in French. Sentence adapted from (Guéron 2007: 611 (100b)]]
The French data below illustrate how the analysis is thought to work. The possessor ''lui'' originates in the specifier of DP as an argument of the noun ''figure''. That is equivalent to an underlying structure ''Gilles a lavé '''lui''' la figure''. The possessor raises to the specifier of VP, which is seen in the surface structure ''Gilles '''lui''' a lavé la figure''.

{{interlinear|lang=fr|number=(26)|glossing2=yes|glossing3=yes
|Gilles lui      {a lavé}     {la  figure}
|Gilles him.DAT  washed       {the face}
|[{TP Gilles} {[VP '''lui<sub>i</sub>'''} {a lavé} {[DP '''t<sub>i</sub>''' la figure]]]}
|'Gilles washed his face'
|bottom=(Guéron 2007: 611 (100b))
}}

According to Guéron, a benefit of the hypothesis is that it is consistent with principles of [[syntactic movement]] such as locality of selection and [[c-command]]. If the position to which it must move is already filled, as with a [[transitive verb]] like ''see'', the possessor cannot raise, and the sentence is correctly predicted to be ungrammatical.<ref name = "Blackwell Companion"/>

{{interlinear|lang=he|number=(27)|glossing3=yes|glossing4=yes
|top='''Hebrew'''
|* Gil ra'a le-Rina et ha-panim
|{} Gil saw {to Rina} the face
|{} {[TP '''Gil<sub>j</sub>'''} {[VP '''t<sub>j</sub>''' ra'a} {[DP le-Rina} et {ha panim]]]}
|{} NOM {} *{{gcl|DAT}} {} ACC
|'Gil saw Rina's face'
|bottom=(Guéron 2007: 613 (109))
}}

However, some languages like Russian do not have to raise the DP possessor and can leave it ''[[in situ]]'' and so it is unclear why the possessor would ever have to raise.<ref name = "Blackwell Companion"/> Possessor-raising also violates a [[Syntactic movement#Islands and barriers to movement|constraint on syntactic movement]], the '''specificity constraint''': an element cannot be moved out of a DP if that DP is [[specificity (linguistics)|specific]].<ref name = "Blackwell Companion"/> In (23), the DP ''lui'' is specific, but possessor-raising predicts it can be moved out of the larger DP ''lui la figure''. Such movement is excluded by the specificity constraint.