Possessive DPs are “complex” in the sense that they involve two distinct nominal expressions as components.1 In this paper I address the issue of characterizing the nature of the syntactic relation holding between these two nominal expressions in possessives whose possessum is arguably not a syntactic argument-taking category. This amounts to providing an account of what licenses the insertion of the possessor in the derivation of possessive DPs and in accounting for any further steps in the syntactic derivation which lead (...) to the structure which undergoes Spell-Out. (shrink)

Possessives are “complex” DPs: they involve two distinct nominal expressions as components.1 In this paper I address the issue of characterizing the nature of the syntactic relation holding between these two nominal expressions in possessives whose possessum is arguably not a syntactic argument-taking category. This task can be divided into two parts: (i) providing an account of what licenses the insertion of the possessor in the derivation of possessive DPs and (ii) accounting for any further steps in the syntactic derivation (...) which lead to the structure which undergoes Spell-Out. With respect to (i), I argue in favor of the proposal in (den Dikken, 1998) that in possessive DPs of the type considered here the possessor is licensed as complement of an empty preposition in the PP predicate of a small clause whose subject is the possessum. I provide some empirical support for this position using agreement data from Maasai. With respect to (ii), I depart from den Dikken’s proposal. I argue that prenominal possessors in English are not derived by DP-internal Predicate Inversion and outline two alternative analyses for the derivation of possessives in languages with prenominal possessors. Finally, I address the issue whether the postnominal position of possessors in Maasai is the product of further movement operations preceding Spell-Out or rather reflects the absence of overt syntactic derivation. (shrink)

; Some students in the audience liked the talk, but not all. The intuitive meaning of the sentences in (1) imposes restrictions (the material underlined in the glosses) that go beyond the meaning of logical disjunction or existential quantification: in formal logic, P ∨ Q is true if both disjuncts are, and ∃xP (x) is true if the P holds of all entities in the domain of quantification.

Traditional grammars of French or Italian treat NPs of this type as more or less ordinary indefinite NPs: the noun is preceded by an indefinite determiner – the partitive determiner – and the whole NP receives an indefinite interpretation.

An important ingredient in understanding such sentences is resolving the question of: level in/of what? protection from what? what sort of documents? danger from what? Each of these is an example coming from novels, television commercials, and news reports. In the first instance, it is from a commercial for a brand of computers. In the commercial, which is pushing the most recent version of that computer, the voice-over announces (1a) just as a teenager exults after having apparently accomplished something worthy (...) of jubilation in a computer game. The message is intentionally interpretable in multiple ways: You are taken to a new level in the game, you are taken to a new level in computing power/speed, and, being a commercial, one also reads that it takes you to a new level in life. The second example is a story caption in a local newspaper. The article is about the shortage of flu shot vaccine in the U.S., and the people are going to Canada for flu shots, seeking protection from contracting the flu. The third example, also from a newspaper report2, requires not just that the FBI agent sold some documents or other, but rather that they were sensitive confidential documents, likely purloined from the FBI itself. The final instance is from a novel. In the novel the protagonist, in seeking to solve a crime, has overlooked something which in retrospect appears terribly obvious. The character’s self-deprecation thus reads: Sherlock Holmes’ reputation as a master sleuth was in no danger of being diminished. Each example, in context, reads seamlessly and poses little challenge to attentive or even inattentive readers and listeners. (shrink)