|
|
1 | (66) |
|
1.1 The Domain of Inquiry |
|
|
1 | (10) |
|
1.2 The Architecture of the Grammar |
|
|
11 | (34) |
|
|
13 | (18) |
|
1.2.2 PF (The Morphophonological Component) |
|
|
31 | (9) |
|
1.2.3 LF (The Semantic Component) |
|
|
40 | (5) |
|
1.3 Consequences and Major Claims |
|
|
45 | (4) |
|
1.4 The Solution in a Nutshell |
|
|
49 | (14) |
|
1.5 Excursus: Why John is a doctor ≠ John has a doctor |
|
|
63 | (2) |
|
1.6 Structure of this Book |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
2 Previous Approaches to Predicative Possession |
|
|
67 | (110) |
|
2.1 The Scale of the Puzzles: Typological Work |
|
|
68 | (31) |
|
|
68 | (10) |
|
|
78 | (5) |
|
|
83 | (15) |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
2.2 The Freeze/Kayne Tradition |
|
|
99 | (24) |
|
2.2.1 The Foundations: Szabolcsi (1981, 1983, 1994) |
|
|
100 | (12) |
|
2.2.2 The Locative Paradigm: Freeze (1992) and P Incorporation |
|
|
112 | (7) |
|
2.2.3 A Modular Approach to BE vs. HAVE: Kayne (1993) |
|
|
119 | (4) |
|
2.3 Extensions and Reactions to the Freeze/Kayne Tradition |
|
|
123 | (26) |
|
2.3.1 Principles and Parameters and the HAVE/BE Question |
|
|
124 | (11) |
|
2.3.2 Acknowledging the Multiplicity of be Constructions |
|
|
135 | (6) |
|
2.3.3 Severing HAVE from be: Blaszczak (2007) |
|
|
141 | (2) |
|
2.3.4 Relating HAVE and BE via (In)transitivity |
|
|
143 | (4) |
|
2.3.5 Conclusions: The State of the Art on the Too-Many-(Surface)-Structures Puzzle |
|
|
147 | (2) |
|
2.4 Approaches to the Too-Many-Meanings Puzzle |
|
|
149 | (27) |
|
2.4.1 HAVE as Vague but Meaningful |
|
|
150 | (12) |
|
2.4.2 HAVE as Specific but Meaningless |
|
|
162 | (13) |
|
2.4.3 Section Conclusion: The State of the Art on the Too-Many-Meanings Puzzle |
|
|
175 | (1) |
|
2.5 Chapter Conclusion: Approaching Predicative Possession |
|
|
176 | (1) |
|
3 The Micro-Comparative Syntax of Possession in Quechua |
|
|
177 | (76) |
|
3.1 Outline of the Chapter |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
3.2 Background on Quechua and a Word on the Data |
|
|
178 | (4) |
|
3.3 Possession Sentences, Movement, and UTAH |
|
|
182 | (49) |
|
3.3.1 Three Arguments for (51) |
|
|
192 | (4) |
|
3.3.2 BE vs. BE-APPL: Against a Movement Approach |
|
|
196 | (6) |
|
3.3.3 Applicative -pu Is Semantically Null |
|
|
202 | (17) |
|
3.3.4 How Two Syntaxes Can Have the Same Semantic Result |
|
|
219 | (11) |
|
|
230 | (1) |
|
3.4 BE-APPL in Cochabamba vs. Santiago del Estero Quechua |
|
|
231 | (8) |
|
3.5 To HAVE and to hold Across the Quechua Family |
|
|
239 | (13) |
|
3.5.1 Santiago del Estero Has have |
|
|
240 | (4) |
|
3.5.2 have, BE and Parametric Variation: the View from Quechua |
|
|
244 | (8) |
|
|
252 | (1) |
|
4 Building and Interpreting HAVE Sentences |
|
|
253 | (54) |
|
4.1 The Syntax and Semantics of Have |
|
|
256 | (37) |
|
4.1.1 Cases Where the Meaning of a Have Sentence = That of Have's Complement (If Voice = Expl) |
|
|
256 | (21) |
|
4.1.2 Cases Where the Meaning of a Have Sentence = That of have's Complement+That of Voice (If Voice ≠ Expl) |
|
|
277 | (16) |
|
4.2 A Loose End: Modal Have |
|
|
293 | (2) |
|
4.3 A Language with Two HAVEs: Icelandic |
|
|
295 | (6) |
|
|
301 | (6) |
|
5 Consequences and Comparisons |
|
|
307 | (38) |
|
5.1 Comparing the Approaches |
|
|
307 | (4) |
|
|
307 | (3) |
|
|
310 | (1) |
|
5.2 Problems for the Freeze/Kayne Approach |
|
|
311 | (17) |
|
5.2.1 Problems for Freeze (1992) |
|
|
311 | (9) |
|
5.2.2 Problems for Kayne (1993) |
|
|
320 | (8) |
|
|
328 | (1) |
|
5.3 Crucial Predictive Differences |
|
|
328 | (15) |
|
5.3.1 The Nature of Definiteness Effects in HAVE Sentences |
|
|
329 | (7) |
|
5.3.2 Have Is Transitive, Not Unaccusative |
|
|
336 | (7) |
|
|
343 | (2) |
|
6 Extending the Typology I: Predicativization |
|
|
345 | (40) |
|
|
347 | (3) |
|
6.2 -yog-Marked Phrases Are Nominal (for at Least Some Speakers) |
|
|
350 | (4) |
|
6.2.1 Distributional Argument #1: Nominals but Not PPs Can Stand Alone in Argument Position |
|
|
351 | (2) |
|
6.2.2 Distributional Argument #2: Nominal Plural Morphology |
|
|
353 | (1) |
|
6.2.3 Reassuring Distributional Facts: Modification by Numerals and Determiners |
|
|
354 | (1) |
|
6.3 Against Decompositional Approaches to -yoq |
|
|
354 | (6) |
|
6.4 -yoq and the Semantics of Predicativization |
|
|
360 | (6) |
|
6.5 The Comparative Syntax of Predicativization |
|
|
366 | (18) |
|
6.5.1 The Accidental Participle |
|
|
370 | (4) |
|
6.5.2 Restrictions Against Kinship and Other Social Relations |
|
|
374 | (3) |
|
6.5.3 Modification Requirements |
|
|
377 | (5) |
|
6.5.4 A Typology of Predicativization |
|
|
382 | (2) |
|
|
384 | (1) |
|
7 Extending the Typology II: The WITH-Possessive |
|
|
385 | (18) |
|
7.1 Re-introducing WITH-Possessives |
|
|
385 | (1) |
|
7.2 Levinson's (2011) Approach |
|
|
386 | (6) |
|
7.3 WITH-Possessives in Icelandic and Bantu |
|
|
392 | (7) |
|
7.3.1 Vera Med in Icelandic |
|
|
392 | (5) |
|
|
397 | (2) |
|
7.4 Conclusion: Syntax and Semantics in WITH-Possessives |
|
|
399 | (4) |
|
8 Conclusions and Prospects |
|
|
403 | (18) |
|
8.1 Summary of the Proposal and Arguments |
|
|
403 | (7) |
|
|
410 | (10) |
|
8.2.1 Prospects for an Extension to BE and HAVE as Aspectual Auxiliaries |
|
|
411 | (4) |
|
8.2.2 A Sketch of an Extension to HAVE in Existential Constructions |
|
|
415 | (2) |
|
8.2.3 Some Open Questions |
|
|
417 | (3) |
|
|
420 | (1) |
Appendix: Adaptation to the System of Francez (2009) |
|
421 | (4) |
Bibliography |
|
425 | (20) |
Index |
|
445 | |