Editing Inalienable possession (section)

====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.