In:Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 311–334
Inalienable possession
the status of the definite article
Published online: 3 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.13bru
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.13bru
We argue that the use of the definite article in French inalienable possession constructions does not lead us to abandon a unified analysis of definite articles. We face two challenges. First, the definite article in French inalienable possession constructions does not seem to convey uniqueness:
Jean l�ve la main
�John raises the hand� is felicitous independently of whether Jean has one or two hands. Second, if the definite article in these constructions is a run-of-the-mill definite article we seem to be left without an explanation for the variation between French and English that led both Gu�ron (1983, 1985) and Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992) to assume that the definite article in French is structurally different from the one in English.
References (31)
Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.
Alexiadou, A. 2003. Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. In From NP to DP: The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases, Vol.1 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 56], M. Coene & Y. D’hulst (eds), 167–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barker, C. 2005. Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, K. Ji-yung, Y. Lander & B. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.
. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds), 1109–1130. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Chappell, H. & McGregor, W. (eds) 1996. The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Parts Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cheng, L. & Ritter, E. 1987. A small clause analysis of inalienable possession in Mandarin and French. In Proceedings of NELS 18, J. Blevins & J. Carter (eds), 65–78. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds) 2001. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Grammar and Typology, 2 Vols [Studies in Language Companion Series 54-55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guéron, J. 1983. L ’emploi ‘possessif’ de l’article défini en français. Langue Française 58 : 23–35.
. 1985. Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Grammatical Representation, J. Guéron, J.-Y. Pollock & H. Obenauer (eds), 43–86. Dordrecht: Foris.
. 2006. Inalienable possession. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 589–638. Malden MA: Blackwell.
Hole, D. 2005. Reconciling ‘possessor’ datives and ‘beneficiary’ datives – Towards a unified voice account of dative binding in German. In Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein-Leisten (eds), 213–242. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Koenig, E. & Haspelmath, M. 1998. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, J. Feuillet (ed.), 525–606. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Koenig, J.-P. 1999. French body-parts and the semantics of binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(2): 219–265.
Lucas, C. 2011. Form-function mismatches in (formally) definite English noun phrases: Towards a diachronic account. In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 171], P. Sleeman & H. Perridon (eds), 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nicol, F. 1997. Syntaxe minimaliste et sémantique conceptuelle: Recherches sur la syntaxe et la sémantique comparées du français et de l’anglais. PhD dissertation, Université de Paris-X.
Ojeda, A. 1993. New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. In ESCOL ‘93: Proceedings of the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, A. Kathol & M. Bernstein (eds), 247–258. Ithaca NY: DMLL Publications.
Partee, B. 1989. Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In CLS 25: Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, C. Wiltshire, B. Music & R. Graczyk (eds), 342–365. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Seiler, H. 2001. The operational basis of possession: A dimensional approach revisited. In Dimensions of Possession [Typological Studies in Language 47], I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds), 27–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. In Syntax and Semantics: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, F. Kiefer & K. Kiss (eds), 179–274. San Diego CA: Academic Press.
Tellier, C. 1990. Underived nominals and the projection principle: Inherent possessors. In Proceedings of NELS 20, J. Carter, R.-M. Déchaine, B. Philip & T. Sherer (eds), 472–486. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Vergnaud, J.-R. & Zubizarreta, M.-L. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 595–652.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Berro, Ane, Ane Odria & Beatriz Fernández
Suijkerbuijk, Michelle, Sterre Leufkens & Marten van der Meulen
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
