Conditions on prominent internal possessors in Turkish

This chapter investigates the syntactic properties of the prominent possessor constructions in Turkish. Possessors of possessive phrases become prominent only in a set of well-defined constructions, namely, from within an adverbial clause, typically containing a body part idiom. These idioms have the structure NP-POSS V, where N is a noun of inalienable possession, V is an unaccusative verb, and the idiom itself is paraphraseable as a psych-verb. The chapter analyses the syntactic structure of these idioms and proposes that the subject position in the adverbial clause is occupied by PRO. PRO is in the c-command domain of the matrix subject and is the locus of the experiencer of the unaccusative verb. The possessor is coindexed with this experiencer via its morphosyntactic features.

Towards a typology of prominent internal possessors

It is generally assumed that properties of the phrasal head determine the properties of a syntactic phrase as a whole. This chapter shows that some possessive constructions present a challenge to these assumptions, since in such constructions internal possessors, standardly analysed as dependents of possessed head nouns, exhibit a number of head-like properties. These properties determine the behaviour of the whole phrase in the larger syntactic domain. Such possessors are referred to as ‘prominent internal possessors’ (PIPs). The chapter provides a typological overview of PIPs based on a survey of approximately sixty languages from different parts of the world. It discusses the role of PIPs in two syntactic processes, namely, indexing on the verb via grammatical agreement or pronominal incorporation and switch-reference, as well as accompanying functional effects. It also addresses the question of how the phenomenon of PIPs can be accounted for in theoretical terms.

Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir

Bashkir (Turkic) definite possessors are invariably coded by genitives. Bashkir quasi-coordinate constructions in which the non-finite clause is headed by the converb in -p normally require coreferential subjects, but are sometimes acceptable if there is coreference between a genitival possessor in either clause and the subject in the other clause. Typically, these prominent possessors are animate, topical, and affected by the event, the possessive relations are inalienable, and the respective possessed nominals are inanimate. However, none of these absolute requirements is obligatory; the possessor’s ability to control coreference is determined relatively: it must occupy the leftmost position in the clause and be more salient than other available noun phrases. The ability of genitival nominals in Bashkir to function as prominent possessors is related to their other exceptional properties: Bashkir genitives are used in many contexts where other languages switch to clause-level possessors.

Prominent possessor indexing in Gurindji

In Gurindji (Ngumpin-Yapa; Australia) bound forms that index the morphosyntactic features of predicate arguments can also index possessors. In prominent alienable possession constructions, internal possessors that are structural dependents of their possessive phrase are indexed for person and number when sufficiently discourse-prominent (e.g. when contrastively focussed), but otherwise do not trigger agreement. In contrast, possessors in inalienable possession constructions are always indexed by agreement clitics. This chapter proposes that examples of this type are not only semantically different from constructions with phrase-internal alienable possessors, but are also structurally different. While Gurindji presents us with genuine examples of prominent internal possessors, inalienable possessors in Gurindji are neither internal nor external possession in a syntactic sense, but rather are best seen as a third type of possession characterized by apposition.

Disjoint and reflexive prominent internal possessor constructions in Chimane

This chapter examines two types of prominent internal possessor constructions in Chimane (unclassified, Bolivia). In the first type, possessors internal to object arguments which are disjoint from the subject control object agreement on the verb. It is argued that disjoint prominent internal possessors (PIPs) control object agreement via a clause-level proxy which mediates the agreement relation. In the second type, possessors internal to patient-like arguments which are coreferential with the subject, (i.e. the subject’s ‘own’ possessions) are associated with a different agreement pattern in which no object agreement occurs on the verb. It is argued that in both cases, the possessive phrase headed by the possessed noun is associated with a secondary object function. In the case of the disjoint PIP, the external proxy of the internal possessor bears the primary object function. In the case of the reflexive PIP, there is no primary object function.

Extended agreement in Oneida (Iroquoian)

This chapter argues that prominent internal possessor patterns are present in Oneida but that the grammar of Oneida includes neither a prominent internal possessor nor an external possessor construction. The possessed nominal does not condition either what is marked on the pronominal prefix on the verb or the category of the pronominal prefix. Overall, which prefix the verb takes is determined by the verb’s lexical preferences when no inalienable body part is involved. The chapter argues that the relation between the externally expressed body part and the corresponding argument that the verb takes is one of extended agreement: the verb’s argument and the body part stand in a part–whole relation. This pattern is not unique to possession, but characteristic of the looser syntactic and semantic connection in Oneida between verbs and external nominals.

The syntax of possessor prominence in Maithili

Maithili (Indo-Aryan; India; Nepal) has a complex agreement system in which many terms and non-terms, including subjects, objects, obliques, extra-clausal ‘deictic referents’, and, crucially, possessors within any of these can potentially control agreement on the verb. Agreement is partly determined by grammatical function and argument structure, but in many instances the functional prominence of the agreement controller—determined by focus and referential features, including respect—overrides syntactic prominence. This is particularly clear when possessors internal to an argument or adjunct can control agreement, even though viable alternatives appear to be available. The functional prominence of the internal possessor also appears to have a syntactic correlate: the possessor that controls agreement may be in a more prominent position within the phrase headed by the possessed nominal, and this is what enables it to participate in clause-level syntactic processes.

Proximate possessors

This chapter describes possessive constructions in Tundra Nenets (Uralic) with a particular focus on the behavioural and functional properties of lexical possessors. While pronominal possessors always trigger agreement on the possessed noun, lexical possessors only do so in specific circumstances. Agreeing lexical possessors are referred to as prominent internal possessors (PIPs). The distribution of PIPs is restricted by other third person nominals in the clause. This is explained in terms of obviation: PIPs are inherently proximate and therefore are incompatible with other proximate elements. The chapter further shows that—in contrast to other lexical possessors—PIPs can control subjects of converbial clauses, and argues that it is their phrase-peripheral adjunct-like position that makes them accessible to the phrase-external syntax.