inalienable possession and core arguments
Rijn, Marlou van
M.A.vanRijn at UVA.NL
Fri May 30 07:01:26 UTC 2014
This idea has been around for some time. Below are some standard references.
Lehmann, Christian. 1983. Rektion und syntaktische Relationen. Folia Linguistica 17. 339-378.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. On grammatical relationality. Folia Linguistica 19. 67-109.
Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying Adjuncts (Interface Explorations Series), 67-112. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Partee, Barbara H. 1997 . Uniformity vs. versatility: the genitive, a case study (appendix to Theo Janssen. 1997. Compositionality). In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, 464-470. Amsterdam & Cambridge, MA: Elsevier and MIT Press.
Marlou van Rijn
Van: Discussion List for ALT [LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org] namens Sergey Lyosov [sergelyosov at inbox.ru]
Verzonden: vrijdag 30 mei 2014 7:31
Aan: LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
Onderwerp: inalienable possession and core arguments
have you ever read/thought about reinterpreting “inalienable possession” (within noun phrases) in terms of nominal valency? I.e., certain semantic kinds of nouns display valency slots that have to be filled by all means (e.g., a kinship role ‘[one’s] son’, an action noun ‘[one’s] crossing [of something]’), and these core arguments are encoded differently from non-obligatory arguments. In zero approximation, an English example would be ‘Jacob’s son’ as against ‘the son of his old age.’ Akkadian is a language that is keen on morphologically opposing core and non-core arguments in its noun phrases.
Thank you very much,
RussianStateUniversity for the Humanities
6 Miusskaya pl. Moscow 125267, Russia.
Tel.: (7095) 250-6733, (7095) 250-6994.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp