On the Edge of Acceptability: Arguments for the Syntactic Dependence of the Flemish External...

51phrasis vol. 2009-2014 (2)

On the Edge of Acceptability: Arguments for the Syntactic

Dependence of the Flemish External Possessor on the Possessee DP

LIISA BUELENS & TIJS D’HULSTER1

GHENT UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

This paper provides arguments for a syntactic dependency between the possessorDP and the possessee DP in the Flemish External Possessor pattern (FEP). Inthe FEP-pattern, the possessor DP resides in a position external to the complexDP, which expresses the possession and hosts the possessee DP (Haegeman &van Koppen, 2011). We argue that syntactic dependency discerns the FEP-pattern from superficially similar patterns like the German Possessive PronounDative (Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) Non-Possessor Dative; GPPD). In theGPPD, the external possessor-like dative argument is base-generated in anaffectee position and does not carry the possessor role, only receiving a possessorinterpretation through coreference with the possessive pronoun in the lowerpossessee DP. Instead, an analysis of the FEP along the lines of the oneprovided for the German Definite Article Dative (Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006)Possessor Dative; GDAD) is applicable to the FEP. The external possessorcarries two theta-roles (affectee and possessor) and is syntactically dependent onits possessee DP (through either movement, control or binding). Furthermore,we present the results of a magnitude estimation norming test gauging thesyntactic acceptability of the FEP-pattern, showing that individual judgementson its acceptability vary, but that it is more often accepted in West-Flemishthan in Brabant dialects.

Introduction: Possession in Flemish – the external possessor pattern

In Flemish and Standard Dutch there are typically three ways of encodingpossession in the nominal domain: the prenominal ’s genitive (1a), the post-nominal prepositional van-possessor (1b), and the doubling pattern(Hendriks’ (2010) prenominal periphrastic possessor construction) (1c). Thedoubling pattern consists of a possessor DP, a possessive pronoun agreeing in

1 This research was possible due to funding by grants from BOF (BOF-01J13911) for Liisa Buelensand from FWO (3GOA4912W) for Tijs D’Hulster.

phrasis2009-2010-02.book Page 51 Friday, October 17, 2014 12:40 PM

LIISA BUELENS & TIJS D’HULSTER

52

gender, person and number with the possessor2, and a possessee NP.

(1) a. Marie’s velo prenominal ’s genitive3

Mary’s bikeb. de velo van Marie postnominal van-PP

the bike of Maryc. Marie eur velo doubling pattern

Mary her.f.sg bike‘Mary’s bike’

These semantically equivalent internal possession patterns all have thepossessor and possessee forming one constituent:

(2) a. Het is [Marie’s velo] die kapot is.

it is Mary’s bike that broken isb. Het is [de velo van Marie] die kapot is.

it is the bike of Mary that broken isc. Het is [Marie eur velo] die kapotis.

it is Mary her.f.sg bike that broken is‘It’s Mary’s bike that’s broken.’

In contrast, in the fourth way of expressing possession nominally, availableonly in Flemish, the possessor and possessee do not form one constituent.Instead, in the Flemish External Possessor pattern (FEP), as in other externalpossession patterns (cf. Deal, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a & 2013b), thepossessor DP resides in a position external to the possessee DP, higher in theclausal structure (3) (Haegeman, 2011; Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013;Haegeman & van Koppen, 2011).

(3) ’t Moest lukken dat [DPpossessor Marie] [AdvP toen just] [DPpossessee eur velo]

it had-to happen that Mary then just her.f.sg bikekapot was.

broken was‘It so happened that Mary’s bicycle was broken just then.’

The FEP is paradigmatically most alike to the internal doubling pattern (1c).Both consist of a possessor DP (Marie), a possessee NP (velo) and a possessive

2 In Flemish the possessive pronoun additionally also agrees in gender and number with the possessee(Haegeman, 2013).

3 In West-Flemish the prenominal genitive pattern has a variant spelled out as se/sen. Haegeman (2013)concludes that se/sen occupies the Poss head of the DP.


ON THE EDGE OF ACCEPTABILITY

53

pronoun (eur) agreeing in gender, number and person with the possessor andin gender and number with the possessee. However, the possessor DP in theFEP is separated from the possessee DP (made up out of the possessivepronoun and the possessee NP) (3). This is illustrated by the possibility of anintervening AdvP with clausal scope (toen just) (Haegeman & van Koppen,2011).

The FEP-pattern can occur with the possessee DP in subject (4a), object(4b) and predicate position (4c).

(4) ’t Moest lukken dat …4

it had-to happen thata. [Marie] toen just [eur velo] kapot was.

Mary then just her.f.sg bike.SUBJ broken was‘It so happened that Mary’s bike was broken just then.’

b. Hanne [Marie] toen just [eur velo] geleend had.

Hanne Mary then just her.f.sg bike.DO borrowed had‘It so happened that Hanne had borrowed Mary’s bike just then.’

c. het [Marie] toen just [eur verjaardag] was.

it Mary then just her.f.sg birthday.PRED was‘It so happened that it was Mary’s birthday just then.’

The next section sets out to discuss the main questions in the literature onexternal possession and goes on to discuss argument properties of the FlemishExternal Possessor. In section 3 the results of a magnitude estimationnorming test5 about the syntactic acceptability of the FEP-pattern arepresented, showing the geographical distribution of the pattern. Section 4covers two similar patterns in German: the German Definite Article Dative(Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) Possessor Dative; GDAD) and the German Posses-sive Pronoun Dative (Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) Non-Possessor Dative;GPPD). The German data are syntactically compared with the FEP-patternin section 5, showing that the FEP is syntactically more similar to the GDADthan to the GPPD. Section 6 provides a tentative analysis of the FEP-patternand section 7 concludes this article.

4 The subject-related FEP only occurs in subordinate clauses, while object- and predicate-related FEPalso occur in matrix clauses (cf. section 6).

5 A linguistic norming test aims to extensively describe the linguistic phenomenon in question byexamining where it occurs and how it patterns in comparison with other linguistic phenomena.Though purely descriptive, some elements of a norming test can lead to explanatory analyses but donot set out to do so.


lbuelens

Sticky Note

Unmarked set by lbuelens

lbuelens

Sticky Note

Marked set by lbuelens

lbuelens

Sticky Note


lbuelens

Sticky Note


lbuelens

Sticky Note


lbuelens

Sticky Note


lbuelens

Sticky Note



54

Background

External possession – the location of the possessor and its

connection to the possessee

Landau (1999) distinguishes two main questions in the external possessionliterature: what is the location of the external possessor and how does theexternal possessor attain its connection to the possessee? In this paper wediscuss certain possible answers to these questions by comparing the FlemishExternal Possessor pattern to two similar patterns in German described byLee-Schoenfeld (2006): the German Definite Article Dative and the GermanPossessive Pronoun Dative. The answer to the first question specified byLandau (1999) is not the focus of this paper, but can be answered in general:the position of the external possessor will be somewhere in the clausal spine.Lee-Schoenfeld (2006), following Landau (1999), suggests a position in thelower clausal spine, between VoiceP (or agentive vP) and VP for the Germandata. For Flemish, several positions for the various different options ofpossessee DP will be necessary: the subject-related FEP will need a position inthe higher clausal spine, above TP (or agentive vP) (Haegeman, 2011;Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013; Haegeman & van Koppen, 2011); theobject- and predicate-related FEP will need a position similar to the onesuggested for German. The position will also be associated with an Affecteeinterpretation.

As for the second question, there are two main answers: either the externalpossessor is base-generated external to the possessee DP and controls or bindsthe possessee DP from this position or the external position is base-generatedinside the possessee DP and has moved out of it to the external position. Theconnection with the possessee then is retained through the possessor’s trace inthe possessee DP.

Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) argues for such a movement analysis for theGDAD (as Landau (1999) does for Hebrew). In this paper, however, we willnot take a position on this matter. We merely argue for a syntactic depend-ency between the possessor and the possessee, leaving open the exact natureof this syntactic dependency. In doing this, we argue against a third (non-)option for the connection between the possessor and possessee: that ofsyntactic independency. For the German Possessive Pronoun Dative (Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) Non-Possessor Dative), which is superficially highly



55

similar to the FEP-pattern, Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) argues that the externalargument receives a possessor interpretation merely through coreference withthe possessive pronoun in the possessee DP. As such, the external argument isnot a real external possessor: the only thematic role it receives depends on itsposition in the clause and not on its relation with the possessee DP. TheFEP, however, does display strong syntactic dependency on its possessee DPand is a true external possessor.

External possession: argument status of the external possessor

Cross-linguistically, external possessors (cf. Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992)are described as syntactically dependent on the main verb, whereas theysemantically are the possessor of one of the arguments of the main verb (e.g.Landau, 1999; Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006; Deal, 2013a). As stated by Payne &Barshi (1999:3; emphasis [Buelens & D’Hulster]), this entails that in externalpossession the possessor and possessee no longer form a constituent:

[…] a semantic possessor-possessum relation […] expressed by cod-ing the possessor as a core grammatical relation of the verb and in aconstituent separate from that which contains the possessum.

This definition necessarily involves a deviation from Baker’s (1988)Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis, following the thematic unique-ness theory proposed by Carlson (1984). In external possession patterns thesemantic role of the external possessor is always at least dissociated from itsstructural position, since it is semantically at least a possessor role of thepossessee whilst at the same time it serves as a syntactic argument of the verb.Such an analysis is incompatible with the UTAH-view that strictly links onethematic role to one syntactic argument.

From these analyses of external possession, it follows that the Flemishexternal possessor pattern (3), to qualify as an external possessor in the cross-linguistic sense, must be shown to be an argument of the verb whilst alsocarrying a possessor interpretation. This is the case: the Flemish externalpossessor does display a number of properties characteristic of arguments.These properties also indicate that the internal doubling pattern does notalternate freely with the FEP-pattern (Haegeman, 2011; Haegeman & Danc-kaert, 2013; Haegeman & van Koppen, 2011).

phrasis2009-2010-02.book 5 Friday, October 17, 2014 12:40 PM


56

Affectedness interpretation

Apart from the possessor interpretation which is also present in the internalpossessor patterns (1), the Flemish external possessor is obligatorily inter-preted as an affected argument. Hole (2005:8) defines an affected argumentas an argument that is both consciously involved in and causally affected bythe eventuality at hand6. It is argued that the requirement for a(n external)possessor to be alive is a strong indication that the possessor is obligatorilyaffected by the event expressed in the clause (Hole, 2006). This requiremententails a “ban on the dead possessor” (Deal, 2010): a dead participant cannotbe affected by an event, and hence dead arguments cause unacceptablity instructures that require an affectee. As can be seen in (5), the “ban on the deadpossessor” is in effect for the FEP-pattern but not for the internal possessor:(5b), the external pattern, is only acceptable if the grandmother is alive; (5a),the internal pattern, is acceptable regardless of whether the grandmother isalive or not.

(5) a. … omdat ik [men grootmoeder eur ring] toen just kwijt was.

because I my grandmother her.f.sg ring then just lost wasb. … omdat ik [men grootmoeder] toen just [eur ring] kwijt was.

because I my grandmother then just her.f.sg ring lost was‘… because I had just then lost my grandmother’s ring.’

Furthermore, the external possessor is often, but not necessarily, associatedwith an inalienable possessee (sensu stricto or by extension) (Haegeman,2011). Such an association can be related to the affectedness restriction.Paykin & Van Peteghem (2003) remark that if the possession is inalienable,the verb not only directly affects the possessee, but also the possessor,entailing possessor affectedness. For example, in (6), Rita inalienablypossesses her leg and is therefore affected by it being broken.

(6) … dat Rita toen just eur been in de plaster zat

that Rita then just her leg in the plaster sat.‘… that Rita’s leg was in a cast just then.’

6 Affectees are here thus to be discerned from malefactive/benefactive arguments, contrary to how Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) appears to define them. Malefactive/benefactive arguments, which are commonlyexpressed by indirect objects, do not necessarily have to be involved in the event represented by thesentence. Affectees, on the other hand, are obligatorily (emotionally) involved in the event. Thisdistinction is not always made throughout the literature, but should be kept in mind.



57

So, the obligatory interpretation of affectedness argues in favor of thepossessor argument gaining an additional thematic interpretation and role.This means that the external possessor is both an argument of the possesseeand of the main verb. It also gives the argument two theta-roles: possessorand affectee. As the possessee DP (e.g. eur ring in 5b) is interpreted as havingthe same thematic role as the corresponding possessor-possessee DP in theinternal possessor pattern (e.g. men grootmoeder eur ring for 5a) (Haegeman,2011), the verb has an extra argument in the external possessor pattern. Assuch, the external possessor is indeed an extra affectee argument of the verb.Furthermore, it argues against UTAH, not only in dissociating semantic rolesfrom their syntactic arguments, but also in allowing for one argument to takeon two semantic roles, more in line with analyses of argument structure andits relation to the lexicon proposed by Jackendoff (1990) and Ramchand(2008).

Thematic restrictions (Haegeman, 2011)

Aside from the extra interpretation of affectee on the external possessor, thereis a restriction on which predicates can occur in the FEP pattern, indicatingthat the argument structure in which an extra external possessor argumentcan occur is restricted. The predicates that allow external possessors are eitherstative or resultative, with judgements varying about the acceptability ofother argument structures for the verb. Overall, it seems that the possessee –when subject – is unable to be an agent, which would follow from thethematic hierarchy (Alexiadou, Haegeman, & Stavrou, 2007:583). Since theagent is proposed to be the highest argument in the clause, it is impossible fora possessor to surface higher than a possessee agent. Hence the externalpossessor structure fails with possessee agents (7a-c show different degrees ofagentivity in the possessee)7.

7 However, within the thematic hierarchy of the DP, the possessor is higher than the agent role (Alexi-adou, et al., 2007). The agent within the DP can then possibly allow a possessor above, suggestingthat this may be possible at the clause level as well:

le portrait d’ Aristotle de Rembrandt de Pierrethe portrait of Aristotle of Rembrandt of Pierre

(Alexiadou, et al., 2007: 583)Furthermore, Kim (2011) shows that an experiencer can be structurally higher than an agent in Japa-nese indirect passives and Korean adversity passives. It must be kept in mind therefore that thethematic hierarchy is not a watertight argument against agent external possessors.



58

(7) a. *?? … dat [Karel] toen just [zijn moeder] een appel gegeten had.

that Karel then just his mother an apple eaten hadIntended: ‘… that Karel’s mother had just then eaten an apple.’

b. ? … dat [Karel] toen just [zijn moeder] een taart gekregen had.

that Karel then just his mother a pie received had‘… that Karel’s mother had just then received a pie.’

c. ? … dat [Karel] toen just [zijn moeder] de griep had.

that Karel then just his mother the flu had‘… that Karel’s mother had the flu just then.’

The above properties of argumentality, which can be found for all three vari-eties of the FEP-pattern (subject, object and predicate), indicate that thepossessor has an (affectee) argument status and is therefore an extra argumentin the structure, fulfilling the definition of external possessors.

For the subject-related FEP, even more argument characteristics can bedescribed: in the subject-related FEP, namely, the possessor takes on anumber of subject properties that are normally held by the subject possessee.

Subject properties of the external possessor the subject-related FEP

In the subject-related FEP-pattern the possessee DP subject is no longer thehighest argument of the clause, which results in the external possessor takingon some, but crucially not all, of the properties generally related to thesubject. The possessee DP, which remains higher than the predicate mergeposition, retains such subject properties as controlling T-agreement (Haege-man, 2011; Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013; Haegeman & van Koppen,2011).

The possessor DP, however, triggers er-insertion when it is indefinite,triggers Complementizer Agreement, and, like subjects, displays no WCOeffects. It seems, then, that in the subject-related FEP-pattern there are twosubject-like arguments in the clause: the possessee DP and the possessor DP.

Er-insertion (Haegeman, 2011; Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013)

In Flemish, indefinite subjects require er-insertion (8a), while definitesubjects do not (8b). An indefinite external possessor related to a subject



59

possessee, like a canonical indefinite subject, triggers er-insertion (8c), whilesuch definite external possessors do not (8d).

(8) a. … dan *(der) veel studenten underen GSM afzetten.

that there many students their.m.sg mobile off.switch‘… that many students switch off their phones.’

(Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013, (25b))

b. … dan (*der) de studenten underen GSM afzetten.

that there the students their.m.sg mobile off.switch‘… that the students switch off their phones.’

c. … dan *(der) veel studenten atent underen GSM af stoat.

that there many students always their.m.sg phone off.stands‘… that many students’ phones are always off.’

(Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013, (25a))

d. … dan (*der) de studenten atent underen GSM af stoat.

that there the students always their.m.sg phone off.stands‘… that the students’ phones are always off.’

Complementizer Agreement (Haegeman, 2011; Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013; Haegeman & van Koppen, 2011)

In West-Flemish, some speakers allow agreement of the complementizer withthe subject of the clause (9a). In the subject-related FEP, it is not the subjectpossessee that controls the Complementizer Agreement, but the externalpossessor. In (9a), an example without external possession, the comple-mentizer (omdan) agrees with the plural subject (André en Valère). A singularsubject would result in a singular complementizer. In the example withexternal possession the complementizer agrees with the plural externalpossessor (André en Valère) rather than with the singular subject (underencomputer) (9b). The inflected verb still agrees with the singular possesseesubject (was (sg) instead of woaren (pl)). In the internal doubling patternwith a subject possessee, the complementizer agrees with this subjectpossessee (9c), as it does with canonical subjects.

(9) a. … omda-n/*omdat [André en Valère] toen juste gebeld oan/*oat.

because.pl/*because.sg André and Valère then just phoned had.pl/*had.sg‘… because André and Valère called just then.’



60

b. … omda-n/*omdat [André en Valère] toen juste [underen computer]

because.pl/*because.sg André and Valère then just their computerkapot was/*woaren.

broken was.sg/*were.pl

(Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013, (24a-b))

c. … *omda-n/omdat [André en Valère underen computer] toen juste

because.pl/*because.sg André and Valère their computer then justkapot was/*woaren.

broken was.sg/*were.sg‘… because André and Valère’s computer broke down just then.’

It should be noted that the FEP-pattern is not dependent on Comple-mentizer Agreement: speakers who do not have CA, can still allow externalpossession. Conversely, speakers who do not have external possession, canstill allow CA. Additionally, external possession is also possible in sentencesthat do not require CA:

(10) Mee Valère toen juste zen computer kapot te zijn,…

with Valère then just his computer broken to be(Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013, (25b))

‘Since Valère’s computer was broken just then, …’

No WCO effect (Haegeman, 2011)

Like subjects, the Flemish external possessor does not give rise to WeakCross-Over effects. A subject moved across a co-indexed pronoun is fine(11a), whereas an object is not (11b). The external possessor, though not asubject in the strictest sense, allows the intervening co-indexed pronoun as ifit were a subject (11c).

(11) a. … dat [Valèrei] in zeneni bureau [zeneni GSM] atent afzet.

that Valère in his office his.m.sg phone always off puts‘… that in his office, Valère always switches off his mobile.’

b. * Wiei heeft in zeneni bureau Valèrej gebeld ti?

whoi has in hisi office Valèrej called ti

c. … dat [Valèrei] in zeneni bureau [zeneni GSM] atent af staat.

that Valère in his office his.m.sg phone always off stands‘… that in his office, Valère always has his mobile switched off.

(Haegeman, 2011:11 (39))



61

These three subject properties taken on by the subject-related externalpossessor, indicate that the external possessor indeed has argument status. Aswe assume that the object- and predicate-related external possessors are struc-turally similar to the subject-related external possessor, we can extrapolate theargument status of the subject-related external possessor to these types ofexternal possessors as well. In the following section, the results of thesyntactic acceptability norming test will be discussed, giving an indication ofthe geographical distrubion of the FEP-pattern and showing that while it issyntactically judged as acceptable by many, it is not a widely acceptedpattern.

Distribution of the Flemish External Possessor

Hypotheses

First observed in West-Flemish (Haegeman & van Koppen, 2011), the FEP-pattern is hypothesized to be associated with dialects, regiolects and‘tussentaal’8, but not with standard Dutch (Haegeman, 2011; Haegeman &Danckaert, 2013). In a preliminary informal survey on the acceptability ofthe FEP-pattern, Haegeman & Danckaert (2013) found that regional varia-tion seemed to play a role in the acceptability of the Flemish ExternalPossessor (table 1). The pattern seemed more readily accepted in the west ofFlanders (the provinces of West- and East-Flanders), while in the center ofFlanders the FEP-pattern seemed much less acceptable (table 1).

8 ‘Tussentaal’ (literally “in-between” language) refers to the register of language in between the dialectand the standard language. In Flanders, dialect, regiolect, ‘tussentaal’, and standard Dutch are spokenby a variety of speakers, who often have access to all or some of these registers and use them accordingto the context (Decaluwe, 2000-2001).

Table 1. Acceptability of the Flemish External Possessor (Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013)

Informants who accepted the FEPWest FlemishBilingual West-Flemish/FrenchEast-FlemishAntwerpBrabant

6/91/1

6/100/11/4

66%100%60%0%

25%Total 14/25 56%



62

As the pattern is not accepted in standard Dutch, its acceptability in thevarious regions of Flanders is as of yet unclear. The informal survey byHaegeman & Danckaert provides a rough picture of the acceptability of thepattern, yet a more formal norming test, questioning a larger number ofinformants can establish a more detailed picture of the geographical spread ofthe FEP-pattern’s syntactic acceptability. This section reports on the results ofa magnitude estimation formal syntactic acceptability norming test9,conducted in order to expand further on Haegeman & Danckaert’s (2013)informal survey.

The first hypothesis of the norming test was that, as in Haegeman &Danckaert (2013), more informants would accept the pattern in West-Flan-ders than in Brabant. The second hypothesis was that there would be varia-tion within the different dialect regions as well, as Haegeman & Danckaert(2013) indicated no total rejection in Brabant or total acceptance of the FEP-pattern in West-Flanders. This limited amount of speaker variation wasexpected to emerge in the larger samples as well.

Methodology

In magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability, the informant ispresented with a reference sentence (modulus), usually of medium accepta-bility. They are then asked to give this sentence a numerical value and tocompare the following stimuli sentences to this modulus by assigning thestimulus a numerical value in relation to the one given to the modulus. Forexample, if a participant has given the modulus a value of 25 and judges thestimulus to be twice as acceptable, they would give the stimulus a value of 50.If they judge a stimulus to be half as acceptable, they could assign a value of12.5. In the FEP norming test the stimulus was assigned the standard valueof 100. Magnitude estimation was chosen because it allows the informant alarge amount of flexibility in assigning acceptability scores to the sentences.This results in more detailed judgements that do not presume certain catego-ries of acceptability, but instead leave the distinction between acceptable andunacceptable to the informant (Bard, Robertson, & Sorace, 1996; Feather-ston, 2009).

9 Thanks go to Dora Alexopoulou who helped us with setting up and analysing the norming test.Thanks are also due to Ciro Greco for further guiding us through the results of the norming test.



63

Two versions of the norming test were made so as to capture thegeographical distribution of the pattern. One version aimed at informantsfrom Bruges (Brugge) – in West-Flanders, the other targeted informants inAntwerp (Antwerpen). These cities were chosen as representatives of theWest-Flemish (Westvlaams) and Brabant (Brabants) dialect families respec-tively to serve as differentiating pairs for the acceptability of the externalpossessor (Fig. 1).

The restriction of the pattern to dialectal use was an important concern insetting up the test, as dialect is usually written only in rare cases. Presentingthe informants with written stimuli could therefore hamper dialectal accepta-bility judgements and could rather encourage (prescriptive) judgements forstandard Dutch. To avoid such an approach to the data, spoken stimuli wereused in the norming test: the stimuli were recorded by native speakers of thedialects and presented as audio stimuli in the norming test.

In the norming test, acceptability judgements on the FEP were elicited,contrasting FEP (4a repeated here as 12) with the three patterns of internalpossession: the prenominal ’s genitive (13a), the postnominal prepositionalvan-possessor (13b), and the internal doubling pattern (13c). In order tocontrol for possible influence of different lexical verbs, all four conditionswere used in eight lexicalizations of the same type of possession, resulting ineach participant assessing every one of the four conditions twice, each time ina different lexical context. Therefore, four versions of each norming test wasmade, so all combinations of lexicalization and condition were available forassessment10.

Figure 1. Dialect Families in Flanders (Devos, 2006: 36)

10 A list of all stimuli, fillers and detailed results can be found at www.gist.ugent.be/tijsdhulster/FEP.



64

(12) ’t Moest lukken dat Marie toen just eur velo kapot was.

it had.to happen that Mary then just her bike broken was

(13) a. ’t Moest lukken dat Marie’s velo toen just kapot was

it had.to happen that Mary’s bike then just broken wasb. ’t Moest lukken dat de velo van Marie toen just kapot was

it had.to happen that the bike of Mary then just broken wasc. ’t Moest lukken dat Marie eur velo toen just kapot was

it had.to happen that Mary her bike then just broken was‘It so happened that Mary’s bike was broken just then.’

In addition to the 8 stimuli (each of the four conditions twice), informantswere asked to assess 24 filler sentences which had predicted acceptabilitiesranging from completely acceptable to very unacceptable. Of the 24 fillers,eight were designed to have high acceptability, eight fillers had one ormaximum two violations, such as weak island violations or agreementmismatch. The last eight fillers had multiple violations in the same sentence.

The norming test itself was designed using OnExp, online experimentalsoftware developed by Göttingen University and freely available for academicresearch.

Test Outline

Participants were informed that they would be asked to rate sentencesaccording to their grammaticality. They were first asked to provide biograph-ical information11. Then, the informants were presented with a line-basedpractise stage, in which they were shown lines of different lengths and wereasked to compare each line to a modulus line. This practise stage is includedin magnitude estimation experiments to ascertain that informants under-stand the concept of magnitude estimation. The informants are informedthat a line double the length of the modulus should get double the value ofthe modulus, a line half the length of the modulus a value half as large. Tradi-tionally, the informant is asked to assign a value of their choice to themodulus. However, the OnExp software is not yet suited to these particular

11 Biographical restrictions were also put on the participants to ascertain dialectal use: participants wereeligible if they were raised in the region around Bruges or Antwerp, were 50+ years old (as youngerpeople were feared to have lost more of their dialect and hence were less likely to accept the pattern;cf. Devos (2006) and Taeldeman (2001)), and raised by parents who themselves spoke the relevantdialect.



65

needs of magnitude estimation, so a modulus value of 100 was chosen foreach phase.

The next phase of the norming test was a sentence-based practise stage.The informants were presented with 6 recorded sentences which they had tocompare with a modulus sentence. Now the informants were instructed torate the sentence according to grammaticality12: a sentence twice as gram-matical as the modulus should receive double the value, a sentence half asgrammatical as the modulus should receive a value half as large.

After these two practise sessions, the norming test proper began. The testlooked and worked exactly as the last practise session. The informants werepresented first with the modulus sentence, and then with 32 sentences torate, following the exact same guidelines as in the practise session.

Results

In total, 44 informants participated in the West-Flemish version of thenorming test, and 27 in the Antwerp version13. The responses of the infor-mants were first checked for participants who might have inverted the scaleor had not grasped the concept of magnitude estimation. In the interpreta-tion of the results, 6 informants from Bruges and 2 from Antwerp wereexcluded for such reasons. The acceptability scores were then z-transformed(plotted so that every informant had a mean score of 0 with a standard devia-tion of 1, while still maintaining the same proportions between responses), sowe could compare the results of participants who used different numbers todescribe the scale of acceptability.

The results of the comparison of the FEP (12) with the three DP-internalpossession types (13) show that, whereas the three internal possessors onaverage score similarly, the external possessor scores significantly lower(Kruskal-Wallis rank test, p < 0.003 after Bonferroni correction), both in theAntwerp and in the West-Flemish versions of the test. In figures 2 and 3 theaverage scores for all four possessors are plotted, shown with the standarddeviation.

12 The informants give acceptability judgements, but as the interest of the study lies in the syntacticacceptability of the pattern, the informants were specifically asked to assess grammaticality.

13 Informants were not rewarded for their participation.



66

The plots show that the external possessor is scored on average lower inAntwerp than in West-Flanders. The larger error bar (displaying standarddeviation in the figures above) for West-Flemish external possessors also indi-cates that there is a large amount of variation within the responses, more thanfor the Antwerp external possessors. This is illustrated by the spread of theresponses, shown in figures 4 and 5 for Antwerp and West-Flanders respec-tively.

Figure 2. Average ratings for possessors in AntwerpLegend: 1: Prepositional ‘van’-possessor, 2: Genitive-like ‘se’-possessor, 3: Doubling

possessor, 4: External Possessor

Figure 3. Average ratings for possessors in BrugesLegend: 1: Prepositional ‘van’-possessor, 2: Genitive-like ‘se’-possessor, 3: Doubling

possessor, 4: External Possessor



67

The choice of determining what z-score is needed for a sentence to be judgedacceptable is not a trivial one. The cut-off point between acceptable andunacceptable is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, the acceptabilityratings given to the doubling possessor can be used as some sort of bench-mark. The DP-internal doubling possessor scored on average 0.85 (0.84 forthe Antwerp, 0.86 for the West-Flemish data), and has a standard deviationof 0.5, so the cut-off point for acceptability of the external possession was putat 0.35.

The spread of the judgements (every bar on Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 representsthe averaged judgements on the external possessor of one informant) showsthat the informants from Antwerp predominantly gave negative scores to theexternal possessor (meaning they rated it less than the average of all sentencesthey rated). This indicates that most informants from Antwerp rejected thepattern. Only two speakers from Antwerp (out of a possible 25) rated theexternal possessor fairly high.

The spread of the West-Flemish data is much more diverse. About halfthe informants gave a negative score to the external possessor, the other halfscored the external possessor better than the average of their scores. However,the sloping aspect of the graph indicates that there is much speaker variation(as indicated by the larger standard variation in Fig. 3).

Table 2 shows an overview of the acceptability of the FEP for speakersfrom West-Flanders and Antwerp, compared with the results obtained fromHaegeman & Danckaert’s (2013) informal survey. In the pool of West-Flemish speakers, 13 out of the 38 participants rated the external possessorhigher than the cut-off point of 0.35, whereas this was the case for just 3 outof the 25 Antwerp informants.

Figure 4. Judgements of FEP per informant (Antwerp)

Figure 5. Judgements of FEP per informant (Bruges)



68

Discussion

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results. First of all, the FEP-pattern is established as an acceptable pattern. Secondly, as stated in our firsthypothesis, it is indeed more present in West-Flemish than in Antwerp:about three times as many informants from Bruges accepted the patterncompared to the informants from Antwerp. The second hypothesis, whichstated that there was at least some speaker variation to be expected, was alsoconfirmed by the results. The West-Flemish informants, in particular, had awide range of varying judgements. The Antwerp speakers rated the patternoverall as degraded, but a few informants did clearly accept the pattern.

Two similar patterns in German

Moving to the discussion of the German (external) possession data now, Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) describes two patterns in German which are similar to theFlemish External Possessor. Both patterns involve a dative argument that is insome way related to a possessee DP, but that is not internal to it (14) – (15):

(14) Mein Bruder hat [der Mami] leider [ihr Auto] zu Schrott gefahren.my brother has the mom.

DATunfortunately her car to scrap driven

‘Unfortunately, my brother totaled mom’s car.’(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:104 (6a); added adjunct [B&D])

(15) Mein Bruder hat [der Mami] leider [das Auto] zu Schrott gefahren.my brother has the mom.DAT unfortunately the car to scrap driven‘Unfortunately, my brother totaled mom’s car (totaled the car on mom).’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:104-105 (2a); added adjunct [B&D])

The first of these patterns, example (14), is what Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) callsthe Non-Possessor Dative, but which in this paper will be called the GermanPossessive Pronoun Dative (GPPD), for reasons of clarity. The GPPD has adative argument which is interpreted as the possessor of the possessee DP; in(14) der Mami is interpreted as the possessor of ihr Auto. The possessor isexternal to the possessee DP, which can be seen by the possibility for an

Table 2.

Haegeman & Danckaert (2013) Buelens & D’HulsterWest-FlemishBrabant

6/91/5

66%20%

13/383/25

34%12%



69

adjunct with clausal scope (leider) to intervene between the possessor and thepossessee.

The second pattern, in (15), is the Possessor Dative (Lee-Schoenfeld,2006), but will here be called the German Definite Article Dative (GDAD).This pattern, too, has a dative argument (der Mami) that is interpreted as thepossessor of the possessee DP (das Auto). The dative argument possessor is,again, external to the possessee DP, which is illustrated by the interveningadjunct (leider). The possessor and possessee are thus not one constituent.The crucial difference between the GDAD and the GPPD lies in the deter-miner: GDAD contains a definite article determiner whereas GPPD has apossessive pronoun determiner.

Even if these patterns are superficially similar to each other and only differin form with regards to their determiner, the analyses proposed by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) for both patterns are radically different. Whilst the dativeargument in the GDAD is analysed as a true external possessor, the sameargument in the GPPD is analysed as a mere affectee argument only veryloosely associated with the possessee DP. As such, the GDAD is the only onewhere there is syntactic dependency between the dative argument and thepossessee. The GPPD dative argument is syntactically independent from thepossessee DP.

In more detail, the GDAD is analysed by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) ashaving undergone movement out of the SpecDP of the possessee DP. In(15), repeated here as (16), the dative external possessor (der Mami) hasmoved out of the specifier of the possessee DP (das Auto) to a position on theclausal spine.

(16) Mein Bruder hat [der Mami] [das Auto] zu Schrott gefahren.

my brother has the mom.DAT the car to scrap driven‘My brother totaled mom’s car (totaled the car on mom).’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:104-105 (2a))

An analysis is given in (17). Following Landau’s (1999) analysis of externalpossession in Hebrew as involving a defective determiner, Lee-Schoenfeld(2006) proposes that the definite article in German is defective as well. If, asproposed, the German definite article is incapable of assigning case to thepossessor DP, this possessor needs to receive its case elsewhere in the struc-ture. To ensure that it does receive case, the possessor moves out of its base-generated SpecDP position to a higher position in the structure. SpecDP, the



70

traditional position for a possessor, is an escape hatch in the minimalistframework in which Lee-Schoenfeld works and thus, the movement islicensed. The higher position to which the possessor then moves, is proposedto be associated with the matrix verb of the sentence. The matrix verb,according to Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) must in some sense be able to have aninterpretation of affectedness which is formally reflected in that it licenses alight verb with an affectee interpretation. The specifier of this position in itsturn can license the case feature of the possessor DP and the derivation iscomplete. In this landing position of the possessor DP, the DP receives asecond theta-role from the light verb, that of an affectee. In the minimalistdynamic structure building framework such a second theta-role does notviolate the theta-criterion since the movement is motivated by the need forcase and not by the need of a second theta-role. In its landing position, thedative affectee external possessor remains syntactically dependent on thepossessee DP through its trace in SpecDP.

(17)

Mein Bruder hat der Mami das Auto zu Schrott gefahren.‘My brother totaled mom’s car (totaled the car on mom).’

(on the basis of: Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006: 127 (42))



71

The GPPD (14=18) dative argument on the other hand, is argued by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) to not be syntactically dependent on the possessee DP.Instead, the dative affectee argument is base-generated under an affectee-headand merely binds to the possessive pronoun in the possessive DP throughnormal pronominal binding. It is this possessive pronoun that establishes thepossessor relation.

(18) Mein Bruder hat [der Mami] leider [ihr Auto] zu Schrott gefahren.my brother has the mom.dat unfortunately her car to scrap driven‘My brother totaled mom’s car.’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:104 (6a); added adjunct)

The reason for movement in the case of the GDAD is the defective definitearticle determiner. However, if the determiner is a possessive pronoun insteadof an article, no defective determiner and thus no reason for movement ispresent in the structure. If there were an overt possessor argument, thepossessive pronoun would be capable of assigning dative case to it, and thepossessor could remain in situ. In the case of the GPPD, however, no suchovert possessor argument is present. The possessive pronoun expresses thepossessive relation, and corefers with an affectee argument which is present inthe clause and which c-commands it. Central to Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006)analysis is that this is a coincidental coreference: if there was no affecteddative argument in the clause, the possessive pronoun could as easily coreferwith the subject, as discussed in section 5.1. Under this analysis, then, thedative argument, which appears to be an external possessor, is merely anaffectee argument coincidentally corefering with the possessive pronoun. Thepossessor relation is established entirely within the possessee DP (19).


lbuelens

Sticky Note


lbuelens

Sticky Note



72

The analysis presented by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) sees the GDAD pattern as alogical extension of the internal possession doubling pattern in which thepossessive pronoun is substituted for a definite article. As the definite articleis incapable of licensing case to its specifier (whereas the possessive pronounassigns dative case to its specifier), the possessor has to move out to a positionin which its case can be licensed.

Georgi & Salzmann (2011), however, propose a different analysis of theinternal possession doubling pattern, where D, whether filled by a possessivepronoun or a definite article, never assigns case to its specifier. If this is correct,then Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) analysis can no longer explain movement of theexternal possessor through Case reasons. Georgi & Salzmann (2011), unfortu-nately, do not analyse any external possession patterns in German, and canthus not provide us with an alternative account. For this reason, and becausethe Flemish external possession data cannot be explained through case as the

(19)

Mein Bruder hat der Mami ihr Auto zu Schrott gefahren.‘My brother has totaled mom’s car.’

(on the basis of: Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006: 127 (42))



73

possessive DP lacks morphological case in Flemish, we will adopt Lee-Schoen-feld’s (2006) analysis for the German data, with the caveat that the trigger forthe movement of the possessor may have to be revised.

The Flemish External Possessor versus the German Datives

When we compare the surface structure of the two German dative patterns tothe Flemish External Possessor pattern, there is a striking similarity betweenthe GPPD (20) and the object-related FEP (21).

(20) Mein Bruder hat [der Mami] leider [ihr Auto] zu Schrott gefahren.my brother has the mom.

DATunfortunately her car to scrap driven

‘Unfortunately, my brother totaled mom’s car.’(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:104 (6a); added adjunct [B&D])

(21) Mijn broer heeft [ons ma] jammer genoeg [eur auto] pertetotal geredenmy brother has our mother unfortunately her car to.scrap driven‘Unfortunately, my brother totaled mom’s car.’

Both patterns involve a possessive pronoun in the possessee DP and a DP,interpreted as the possessor of that possessee, which is external to the possesseeDP, as evidenced by the intervening adjunct with clausal scope. This surfacestructure similarity would lead us to propose that the object-related FEPshould be analysed similar to the GPPD. In the GDAD (22), even thoughthere is a possessor external to the possessee DP, a definite article takes theplace of the possessive pronoun in the possessee DP. Using a definite article asthe determiner of the possessee DP is ungrammatical in Flemish (23)14.

(22) Mein Bruder hat [der Mami] leider [das Auto] zu Schrott gefahren.my brother has the mom.DAT unfortunately the car to scrap driven‘Unfortunately, my brother totaled mom’s car (totaled the car on mom).’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:104-105 (2a); added adjunct [B&D])

14 A pattern which does display possession without making use of a possessive pronoun, is the ‘ik heb deband lek’-construction (a), found almost exclusively in the eastern part of the Netherlands (van Bree,1981), or the possessive passive construction (b) in Heerlen Dutch (Broekhuis & Cornips, 1994):

a. Ik heb de band lek.I have the tire leaky‘I have a flat tire.’

b. Hem is de band lek.him is the tire leaky‘He has a flat tire.’

We will at present not go into these patterns, as the possession in these patterns is not nominal butverbal and as both patterns are unavailable in Flemish.



74

(23) * Mijn broer heeft [ons ma] jammer genoeg [de auto] pertetotal gereden.my brother has our mother unfortunately the car to.scrap driven

However, the syntactic properties of the FEP-pattern argue for a syntacticdependency of the possessor on the possessee. So, syntactically, the FEP-pattern is more similar to the GDAD than the surface structure wouldsuggest. Conversely, the FEP-pattern is syntactically less similar to the GPPDthan the presence of the possessive pronoun suggests. The syntactic proper-ties that argue for syntactic dependency in both the FEP and the GDAD willbe discussed in this section.

Lee-Schoenfeld (2006), following Landau (1999), presents a number ofarguments for a syntactic dependency limiting that dependency to a move-ment account. However, since syntactic dependency can appear in differentforms, many of these arguments are not specific to a movement analysis andthis paper will not be limited to movement. Instead, showing the similaritiesof the FEP with the GDAD, rather than with the GPPD, will merely pointtowards the syntactic dependency of the external possessor in the FEP-pattern on the possessee DP.

Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) arguments for a syntactic dependency of thepossessor DP on the possessee DP can be grouped into three categories:

1. semantic arguments: the affectee argument has an obligatory possessorinterpretation;

2. the c-command argument: the possessee must be c-commanded by thepossessor and/or by the verb;

3. locality restrictions: the possessee and the possessor must be clausemates and the possessor is unavailable for possessees within complexDPs.

Semantic arguments

As the GDAD does not have any other overt element in the sentence thatcould encode the intended possession relation between the dative argumentand its possessee, Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) argues that it is the only dative argu-ment that has an obligatory possessor interpretation. The GPPD, in contrast,has a possessive pronoun which can encode the intended possessive interpre-tation. This leads to the conclusion, as mentioned above, that the dativeargument in the GPPD does not obligatorily have a possessor interpretation.The possessive interpretation that is present is in a sense coincidental.



75

From this it follows that, in the GDAD, it is impossible for the possesseeDP to refer to any argument other than the dative affectee and thatconversely, the dative argument must receive a possessor interpretation. So, ifthe possessee DP were to refer to another argument in the clause, it ispredicted to be ungrammatical:

(24) * Mein Bruderi hat der Mami leider das Autoi zu Schrott gefahren.

my brother has the mom.DAT

alas the car to scrap drivenIntended reading: ‘My brother has totaled his car to the detriment of mum.’

Indeed, a reading for (24) where the subject is coreferential with the possesseeDP is ungrammatical. The same restriction holds for the FEP:

(25) * Ik heb gezien dat Angelai Karel toen just eur afwasi gedaan heeft.

I have seen that Angela Carl.m.sg then just her.f.sg dishes done hasIntended reading: ‘I have heard that Angela has just then done her dishes to the

benefit of Carl.’

In (25), Karel must be interpreted as the external affectee/possessor argu-ment. The reading where the subject of the sentence (Angela), is the possessoris not permitted15.

For the GPPD, on the other hand, the possessive pronoun can coreferwith any potential possessor that has matching φ-features. It follows thenthat there is no syntactic dependency relation between the dative affecteeargument and the possessee DP: the possessive pronoun need not refer to thedative affected argument if there are other possessors possible (26).

(26) ? Mein Bruderi hat der Mami leider sein Autoi zu Schrott gefahren.

my brother has the mom.DAT

alas his car to scrap driven‘My brother has totaled his car to the detriment of mum16.’

C-command

The second core argument for syntactic dependency in the FEP-pattern isthat of c-command. Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) shows that, in the GDAD struc-ture, the possessee DP must be c-commanded by the lexical verb. This

15 The reading where Karel is interpreted as the external affectee/possessor argument is also impossibledue to a gender mismatch between Karel and the possessive pronoun.

16 For example in a context where mother and son are on the same insurance package, and crashing hiscar will make both their premiums go up.



76

restriction, she argues, follows from the fact that the possessor must, at somepoint in the derivation, c-command the possessee in its base position. As thedative-assigning Affectee-v-head is lower than the subject-assigning v-head inLee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) analysis, a subject possessee enters the derivation toohigh for the possessor to c-command its base position (27a). When thesubject originates VP-internally, however, the possessor does c-command thepossessee in its base position (27b).

(27) a. * [Der Hund] ist [Lena] herumgelaufen.

the dog.SUBJ is Lena.DAT around.run‘Lena’s dog ran around.’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006: 112 (14b))

b. [Der Hund] ist [Lena] überfahren worden.

the dog.SUBJ is Lena.DAT over.driven PASS‘Lena’s dog was run over (by a car).’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006: 112 (15a))

In Flemish, it seems as if there are more positions for the Affectee-head: asidefrom one in a similar position to GDAD, there seems to be a position on themain spine (29), as possessee subjects are able to occur with the FEP-pattern (28).

(28) … dat [Lena] toen just [haaren hond] rondliep.

that Lena then just her dog.SUBJ ran.around‘Lena’s dog ran around just then.’

However, the c-command relation between the subject-related possessor andits possessee remains for Flemish and even seems to be stricter: the possesseeDP cannot move across its external possessor. The possessor must then, at alltimes, c-command the possessee, instead of merely at some point in the deri-vation, as is the case in German (F is an unspecified functional head in (29)introducing the external possessor into the structure).

(29)



77

Locality restrictions

The third, and most extensive group of arguments in favor of a syntacticdependency between the possessor and its possessee in the FEP and theGDAD are those concerning locality restrictions. This section comprisesarguments based on a clause mate condition, a ban on movement out ofcomplex DPs, and an argument-adjunct asymmetry.

Clause mate condition

In GDAD, the possessor and possessee cannot be separated by a ‘subject-containing category’ (Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:113). The intervention of suchcategories as IP or vP between the possessor and the possessee are thus impos-sible (30a). This means that the possessor and possessee must be clause mates.In (30b), no subject-containing category intervenes between the possessorand the possessee, as the verb versuchen selects a VP, whereas beschließenselects a vP17. Hence, the sentence is grammatical. In the Flemish equivalent,both are ungrammatical (31a-b).

The ungrammaticality of (31a) and (31b), however, does not show thatthere is – or is not – a clause mate condition in Flemish. The differencebetween the German and Flemish data can be explained by the fact that finiteverbs like versuchen in German do allow object movement from a lowerclause (32a), whereas in Flemish, finite proberen does not allow this (32b). Itseems, therefore, that (31b) is ungrammatical for independent reasons, notnecessarily because of the presence of a clause mate condition.

(30) a. * Jan hat Luise beschlossen [vP/IP die Haare zu waschen].

Jan has Luise.DAT decided the hair to wash‘Jan has decided to wash Luise’s hair’

b. Jan hat Luise versucht [VP die Haare zu waschen].

Jan has Luise.DAT tried the hair to wash‘Jan has tried to wash Luise’s hair.’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:113 (17b-c))

(31) a. * Jan heeft Louise besloten haar haar te wassen.

Jan has Louise decided her hair to wash‘John has decided to wash Louise’s hair.’

17 See Wurmbrand (2001) for an overview of restructuring infinitival constructions.



78

b. * Jan heeft Louise geprobeerd haar haar te wassen.

Jan has Louise tried her hair to wash‘John has tried to wash Louise’s hair.’

(32) a. Er hat ihr versucht zu erklären, was los war.

he has her tried to explain what wrong was

‘He has tried to explain to her what was wrong.’

(Hickey, 1987)

b. * Hij heeft haar geprobeerd uit te leggen wat er mis was.

he has her tried to-explain what er wrong was‘He has tried to explain to her what was wrong.’

However, example (33) does show that there is a clause mate condition inFlemish. Negative concord is possible between the negated external possessor(geeneenen student) and sentential negation (nie meer). This indicates that thepossessor is inside the clause and not in a clause-external position(Haegeman, 2011). This points to the FEP, as the GDAD, having a clausemate condition.

(33) … dat er geeneenen student toen juste [zenen GSM] nie meer anstund.that there no student then just his.m.sg mobile no more on.stood.sg

‘… that no student had their phone on at that moment.’(Haegeman, 2011: 10 (38))

Ban on movement out of complex DPs

Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) further notes that the GDAD dative argument cannotmove out of an embedded DP. If the possessee is inside a complex DP, theGDAD structure is ungrammatical.

(34) * Tim pflegte [Lena] [das Fohlen [der Stute]] gesund.

Tim treated Lena.DAT the foal the mare.GEN healthy‘Tim cured the mare’s foal which belongs to Lena.’


The reading of (34) where Lena possesses only the DP der Stute is impossible;in the only possible reading of (34), Lena possesses the entire DP [das Fohlen[der Stute]]. So, the only possible possessee DP is the entire complex DP andnot the DP embedded inside it. These facts are explained by syntacticdependency between the external possessor and the possessee: the complex



79

DP blocks movement out of the specifier of the embedded DP, rendering(34) ungrammatical. The same property is found in the FEP:

(35) * … dat [Lieven] toen just [het stuur [van [zijnen velo]] gebroken wasthat Lieven then just the handlebars of his bike broken were

‘… that the handlebars of Lieven’s bike were just then broken.’

(Haegeman, 2011: 11 (42a))

In (35) Lieven cannot be interpreted as a possessor of zijnen velo since it isembedded in a complex DP. Lieven can also not be interpreted as thepossessor of the entire complex DP, as the complex DP is introduced by thedefinite article which does not allow for a possessive interpretation inFlemish. If the complex DP is introduced by a possessive pronoun, theexternal possessor can be associated with the whole complex DP and throughcoreference with the DP within it.

In the GPPD, on the other hand, the possessee DP can be embedded in acomplex DP and still corefer with the dative affectee argument (36), evenwhen the complex DP is introduced by a definite article determiner. Thispoints towards a much looser syntactic relation between the two arguments,as they do not need to be as local as the GDAD and FEP possessor andpossessee need to be.

(36) Tim pflegte [Lenai] [das Fohlen [ihre Stutei]] gesund.

Tim treated Lena.DAT the foal her mare.GEN healthy‘Tim cured the foal of the mare which belongs to Lena.’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006: 113 (18b))

Argument-adjunct asymmetries

The last argument mentioned by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) to be discussed here,is that of an argument-adjunct asymmetry with regards to locality. FollowingLandau (1999), Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) remarks that GDAD possessee DPscannot occur in adjunct PPs that are not selected by the verb (37a). Example(37b) shows that it is not some lexical property of the verb that makes (37a)ungrammatical. However, the GDAD possessee DP is allowed within argu-ment PPs, selected by the verb, indicating direction, location or source, asillustrated by (37c).



80

(37) a. * Tim musste seiner Schwester [wegen der Katze] aufräumen.

Tim had.to his sister.DAT because.of the cat up.tidy‘Tim had to clean up because of his sister’s cat.’


b. Tim musste der Mami die Küche aufräumen.

Tim had.to the mom.DAT the kitchen up.tidy‘Tim had to clean up mom’s kitchen.’


c. Er stand der Braut [auf der Schleppe].

he stood the bride.DAT on the train‘He stood on the bride’s train.’


For German, this argument distinguishes between the different kinds ofsyntactic dependency and argues in favor of a movement account for theGDAD. Control (38) and binding (39) do allow a syntactic relation with anelement within an adjunct PP.

(38) Brittai hat sich [beim PROi Warmlaufen] vor dem Spiel verletzt.

Britta has self at.the warm.running before the game injured‘Britta injured herself while warming up before the game.’

(Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006: 121 (31))

(39) Timi lässt Lena nicht [neben sichi] essen.

Tim lets Lena not next.to self eat‘Tim doesn’t let Lena eat next to him.’


Thus, control nor binding could account for the argument-adjunct asym-metry which is found in the GDAD pattern. Instead, these data argue for amovement analysis where adjuncts are seen as opaque, but arguments astransparent for extraction (Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006:121).

Unfortunatly, Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) argument in favour of movementdoes not hold for the FEP. In Flemish, the possessee in the FEP pattern mustbe a full DP: if the possessee is within any type of PP, the sentence is ungram-matical (40a-b). This means that, while this asymmetry in German is a goodargument for movement over binding, the Flemish data remain inconclusiveon the matter.



81

(40) a. * Het kind legde zich vader [op zijn buik].

the child lay self father on his belly‘The child lay down on the father’s belly.’

b. * Tim moest zijn zus door eur kat opruimen.

Tim had.to his sister because.of her cat up.tidy‘Tim had to clean up because of his sister’s cat.’

Summary

In this section, we have claimed that the FEP is not syntactically independentfrom its possessee, displaying behavior which is more similar to the GermanGDAD than to the superficially more similar GPPD. The arguments for thisclaim are threefold.

First, the Flemisch external possessor constituent, as the dative constit-uent in the GDAD, is obligatorily interpreted as the possessor of thepossessee DP. In the GPPD this is not the case, as the possessive pronoun isargued to express the whole of the possessor relation, and the dative constit-uent can refer to a different participant in the event.

Second, there is a strict c-command relation which holds between theexternal possessor and its possessee in the GDAD. Lee-Schoenfeld (2006)argues that at some point in the derivation, the possessor must c-commandits possessee. In the case of the FEP, this c-command restriction is evenstronger: at all points in the derivation, the possessor must c-command thepossessee.

Third, the FEP displays locality restrictions which argue against syntacticindependence of the possessor: possessor and possessee must be clause matesand it is impossible for the possessor to move out of a complex DP. Whilethese locality restrictions argue for movement over binding in the case of theGerman GDAD, most arguments presented can also argue for a strongcontrol or binding relationship between the two. The arguments specific tomovement, distinguishing it from control and binding in German, do nothold for Flemish.



82

Flemish External Possessor: strict locality restrictions and an analysis

More locality restrictions on the Flemish External Possessor

The restriction on the intervention of arguments in the FEP is very strict.The external possessor’s relation to its possessee with regards to the interven-tion of arguments is much stricter than the relation between a subject and adirect object and the relation between an expletive and its associate. Thestrictness of these locality restrictions argue in favor of a (strong) syntacticdependency between the external possessor and its possessee.

As mentioned above, it is impossible for the possessee DP of the FEP-pattern to move across the structurally higher external possessor (Haegeman,2011; Haegeman & Danckaert, 2013) (cf. section 5.2.). For the subject-related FEP, the impossibility of the possessee to be moved across thepossessor discerns the relation between the possessor and possessee from theone between a Flemish subject and object. In Flemish, an object can bemoved across a(n indefinite) subject (Haegeman, 2011; Haegeman & Danc-kaert, 2013) (41). The possessee DP (underen GSM) cannot move across theindefinite external possessor (veel studenten) in 41b; in 42b, however, thedirect object (underen GSM) can move across the indefinite subject (veelstudenten).

(41) a. … dan der [veel studenten] atent [underen GSM] anstoat.

that there many students always their mobile on.stands‘… that many students’ phones are always on.’

b. * … dan der [underen GSM] [veel studenten] atent anstoat.

that there their mobile many students always on.stands(Haegeman, 2011: 11 (40))

(42) a. … dan der [veel studenten] atent [underen GSM] aanzetten.

that there many students.SUBJ always their mobile.OBJon.putb. … dan der [underen GSM] [veel studenten] atent aanzetten.

that there their mobile.OBJ many students.SUBJ always on.put‘… that many students always switch on their phones.’

(Haegeman, 2011: 11 (40))

Similarly, no subject can intervene between the external possessor and theobject-possessee. As illustrated in (43a), an adjunct can intervene between thepossessor and the possessee, but when a definite DP subject intervenes, the


lbuelens

Sticky Note



83

sentence is ungrammatical (43b). The movement itself is unproblematic, asthe movement of the entire DP object in (43c) shows.

(43) a. Pieter gaat [Theoi] nen keer [zijni handjes] wassen.

Peter goes Theo once his hands wash‘Peter will once wash Theo’s hands.’

b. * [Theoi] gaat Pieter nen keer [zijni handjes] wassen.

Theo goes Pieter once his hands washc. * [Theoi zijni handjes] gaat Pieter nen keer wassen.

Theo his hands goes Pieter once wash

The relation between the external possessor and its subject DP possessee is,similarly, more local than the one between an expletive and its associate. Inbetween an expletive (der) and its associate (veel studenten) a definite objectcan intervene (44b). A direct object (dat appartement) cannot intervenebetween the external possessor (Lieven) and its subject DP possessee (zijnmoeder) in (44d) (Haegeman, 2011).

(44) a. … dan der (spytig genoeg) [veel studenten] [dienen boek]

that there (sadly enough) many students.SUBJ that book.OBJ

tegenwoordig nie kennen.

nowadays not knowb. … dan der (spytig genoeg) [dienen boek] [veel studenten]

that there (sadly enough) that book.OBJ many students.SUBJ

tegenwoordig nie kennen.

nowadays not know‘… that unfortunately, many students nowadays do not know that book.’

(Haegeman, 2011: 12 (44a-b))

c. … da Lieven toen just [zijn moeder] [dat appartement] geërfd

that Lieven then just his mother.SUBJ that apartment.OBJ inheritedhad.

hadd. * … da Lieven toen just [dat appartement] [zijn moeder] geërfd

that Lieven then just that apartment.OBJ his mother.SUBJ inheritedhad.

had(Haegeman, 2011: 12 (44d))



84

Towards an analysis

Concluding from the comparison between the German patterns and the FEP,it is clear that the FEP is most alike the GDAD pattern in that both require asyntactic dependency of the possessor argument on the possessee DP.However, the FEP displays even stricter locality restrictions than the GDAD,indicating that the relationship between the possessor and the possessee DP isdifferent in the Flemish pattern. The analysis proposed for the GDADpattern by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) will not suffice for the Flemish data. Notonly do these specific locality restrictions discern the Flemish data from theGerman, as we saw, in Flemish it is at this point impossible to distinguishbetween a movement analysis or a control/binding one (see section 6.3.3.).As Flemish also does not display morphological case to the same extent asGerman does, the Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) movement analysis, motivated byreasons of Case, will not do for Flemish.

Firstly, recall that the main argument against control and binding, andthus in favor of movement, for Lee-Schoenfeld (2006), is the adjunct-argu-ment extraction asymmetry: GDAD external possessors cannot be extractedfrom an adjunct, but only from an argument. This asymmetry is not appli-cable to Flemish, where possessors cannot be extracted out of PPs even if thePP is an argument of the verb. So, the one argument that Lee-Schoenfeld(2006) provides for the distinction between movement and binding/controlcannot explain the FEP-pattern. The arguments presented in this paper thusallow us to argue that the FEP has syntactic dependency of the externalpossessor on the DP but do not allow us to identify the exact nature of thatdependency. In the analysis presented below, we will use the trace-notationto signify this syntactic dependency, but it should not be taken as repre-senting movement per se.

The second major difference between the GDAD and the FEP is the factthat case is proposed as a trigger for movement for the German data (Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006), bearing in mind that their proposal is not uncontested(Georgi & Salzmann, 2011). Such trigger for movement is unlikely in the FEPsince, frst of all, the FEP-pattern has a possessive pronoun, which Lee-Schoen-feld take to be capable of case assignment. There is no difference in possessivemarker between the internal doubling pattern and the external possessor inFlemish, so if we do not assume that the possessive pronoun can assign case inFlemish, an explanation needs to be given for the internal doubling pattern.


lbuelens

Sticky Note



85

Secondly, Flemish definite determiners and full DPs do not seem to havea morphological case system anymore, and whilst there is evidence of dativecase in some pronominal contexts18, it seems unlikely that the FlemishExternal Possessor pattern is one of them. As can be seen in (45) below, if apronoun, where morphological case is still most visible, occurs in the FEPpattern, it takes on different forms. When it is related to a subject possesseeDP (45a-b), the pronoun occurs as a nominative, when related to an objectpossessee DP, it surfaces with either the dative or the accusative pronoun,with judgements varying as to whether the pronoun can still be analysed as apossessor or surfaces as a mere indirect object pronoun. With the predicate-related FEP, case on the pronoun is even less clear. These data indicate thatthe case system in Flemish is at this point highly unstable, rendering case as atrigger for movement a dubious explanation of the pattern. More so since thesame case restrictions arise in the internal doubling pattern, not distin-guishing it from the FEP.

(45) a. %? … dat [zie ier] toen juste [eur scheerapparaat] kapot was19.

that she.NOM here then just her razor broken wasb. * … dat [eur ier] toen juste [eur scheerapparaat] kapot was.

that she.DAT here then just her razor broken was‘… that her razor was broken just then.’

(Haegeman, 2011, (30a-31a))

c. %? … dat [zie ier eur scheerapparaat] toen juste kapot was.

that she.NOM here her razor then just broken wasd. * … dat [eur ier eur scheerapparaat] toen juste kapot was.

that she.DAT here her razor then just broken was‘… that her razor was broken just then.’

This leaves us with no reason for a movement analysis for Flemish. Recallthat for the GDAD, the motivation of an external possessor moving out ofthe possessee DP was for a case-associated reason: the possessor could not getits dative case feature saturated inside the possessee DP due to the defective

18 The female personal pronoun has two oblique forms eur and ze. Both can be used both in accusativecontexts, but some dative contexts require eur:

Het past eur /*ze.it suits her.DAT /her.ACC‘It suits her.’

19 (45a) receives the %? scoring since pronominal possessors DPs are always difficult in the externalpossessor; full DPs are strongly preferred.



86

definite article determiner. In Flemish, Case does not seem to be the reasonfor movement.

A tentative analysis

In this section, a tentative analysis of the object-related FEP pattern will bepresented, taking into account the similarities between the FEP and theGDAD. Namely, there is syntactic dependency between the externalpossessor and its possessee in both patterns. Secondly, the analysis for theFEP will also take into account the deviations from the analysis of GDAD.The object-related FEP pattern is chosen for the extended analysis since it isthe FEP-pattern most closely related to the GDAD, which also has an objectpossessee.

Following the analysis of the GDAD presented by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006)(see also section 5) and the analysis of the possessive DP proposed byHaegeman (2004), our analysis (46) assumes that the possessor DP (Theo) isin some sense related to the canonical position of possessors in the doublingpattern, SpecDP. This position is often proposed for possessors in thedoubling pattern, as it allows the possessive pronoun to reside in D,explaining the different distributional data of the possessive pronouncompared to the genitive ‘s/se(n) (Haegeman 2004). This position has asadded attraction that it is an escape hatch position in minimalist generativeframeworks allowing the possessor to move from this position, as adopted byLee-Schoenfeld (2006) and left open as a possibility in the analysis for theFEP presented here. Even if we do not take it as evident that the externalpossessor is base-generated in this position, the syntactic dependency it hason this position allows it to retain its possessor theta-role, which is assignedto the SpecDP position by the possessive pronoun (zijn).

The possesive pronoun (zijn), is taken to reside in D, in Flemish taken tobe capable of assigning accusative (or dative) case to its possessor andassigning the theta-role of Possessor to SpecDP. The possessee NP (handjes)is the complement of D.

The entire possessee DP is in the object position of the complement ofthe verb (wassen) which first merges with the complement, assigning it atheme or patient role. The VP is then augmented by the adverbial phrase(toen just).


lbuelens

Sticky Note



87

In between the Adverbial phrase VP and the little vP introducing theagent subject to the structure, is where the external possessor is taken to besituated. Following Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) we take the external possessor tobe ascribed an Affectee role, though we define Affectee in a different manner(see footnote 4). The Affectee role is introduced by a light verb (cf. Larson,1988; Ramchand, 2008 for VP-shells) similar to how a.o. an initiatior isintroduced to the structure in Ramchand (2008). The Affectee light verb,which is phonologically null, assigns the Affectee role to its Specifier positionwhere the FEP is either moved to or from where it binds or controls thepossessee DP. Different from the GDAD analysis (Lee-Schoenfeld, 2006) isthat the external possessor occurs with a possessive pronoun in Flemish, andcan thus already receive its case in the SpecDP position where it receiveseither accusative or dative (or oblique) case. Its position in the specifier ofAffectee v, merely contributes to its argument nature and its Affectee role,but does not obviously assign case to the position. If it does assign case, thecase that is assigned is the same as the one that can be assigned by the posses-sive pronoun in SpecDP.

The structure is finished by introducing the subject of the verb (Peter)into SpecvP, merged on top of the Affectee vP continuing the vP shell. Herethe subject receives its Agent role from the agentive little v. This is where theverb ends up in the structure, moving from V through Affectee v to Agent vand receiving its finite inflection (gaat wassen).

The restrictions on locality then follow from the closeness of the possesseeDP and the Specifier position of the Affectee v. The Adverbial Phrase is takento be transparent for this kind of syntactic dependency between the externalpossessor in the specifier of the Affectee light v and the SpecDP positionwhere the external possessor receives its Possessor role and constructs its rela-tionship with the possessee DP. In such an analysis then, the possessor isboth an argument of the verb and of the possessee, both syntactically andsemantically.



88

The analysis of the subject-related and predicate-related FEP are assumed tobe similar to the object-related FEP in that the possessor will always berelated to SpecDP where it receives its Possessor role and is associated to thepossessee DP and where it can potentially receive case. The possessor willthen always be assumed to be associated with a little v Affectee head, but it isthe position of this little v Affectee head that will differ in the different struc-tures, in contrast to German where only one little v Affectee head positionseems to be available, the one associated with an object possessee. The subjectlittle v Affectee head will be higher in the clause; (47) presents a sketch of thepossible position of the subject-related FEP.

(46)

Peter gaat Theo toen juste zijn handjes wassen.‘Peter will just then wash Theo’s hands.’



89

Here the subject-related FEP is situated in a position between CP and vPintroducing the subject-phrase (here a patient-role). This position inbetweenCP and vP could explain the locality restrictions on this particular form ofthe FEP since its upper domain is restricted as it is situated on the edge of theCP and vP domain. Crossing the subject-related external possessor is impos-sible for A-arguments, since there is no position availabe in the A-domainabove the FEP position20.

The predicate-related FEP will occupy a position similar to the object-related FEP but in a predication structure rather than in a full verb argumentstructure.

The analysis of the Flemish data presented here then proposes a syntacticdependency between the external possessor and its related possessee DP. Thesyntactic dependency is signified by the trace-notation in the trees, whichshould be taken to represent control, binding or movement. The FEP-pattern is then, as the GDAD, an example of true external possession wherethe external possessor is defined as an argument which is both the semantic

(47)

… dat Peter toen juste zijn velo kapot was.‘… that Peter’s bike was broken just then.’

20 This also could explain why the subject-related FEP is not possible in matrix clauses. Flemish is amatrix V2-language and since the subject-related FEP occupies a position above the subject, thecanonical subject position would be unavailable for the subject in a matrix clause, resulting inungrammaticality since all sentences require the subject-position to be filled, as suggested to us byLiliane Haegeman.



90

argument of the possessee DP (the Possessor), and a syntactic argument ofthe verb (the Affectee). The syntactic argument status of the externalpossessor is formalized through a vP-shell structure, in the line of work byRamchand (2008), where each v-head adds an argument to the structureresulting in an additional semantic role as well as a syntactic argument. TheFEP-pattern, however, differs from the GDAD in the nature of the syntacticdependency argued for. The FEP appears with a possessive pronoun identicalto its internal possession pattern, arguing against any case-related reasons formovement. The nature of the syntactic dependency of the FEP is thus as yetundefined. Furthermore, the FEP has more flexibility as to what kinds ofpossessee DPs it is related: i.e. it can be related to almost all arguments of theverb (subjects, objects and predicates). As these possessee DPs are all locatedat different positions in the structure of the clause, and since the externalpossessor always c-commands its possessee, it follows that there must be morethan one available little v Affectee head in Flemish. The exact position of thelittle v Affectee head explains the differences in locality restrictions and ininterpretation of the Affectee (cf. footnote 5). It also explains the restrictionon embedded contexts for the subject-related FEP.

Conclusion

In this paper, the phenomenon of the Flemish External Possessor (FEP)pattern was discussed. The syntactic acceptability of the FEP was testedthrough an online magnitude estimation norming test in two Flemishregions. The pattern is accepted mainly in the west of Flanders, althoughthere were people from the center of Flanders (Antwerp) who accepted thepattern as well. These results corroborate the findings of Haegeman andDanckaert’s (2013) informal survey, where it was found that speakers ofWest- and East-Flemish accepted the pattern, whereas speakers from Brabantmostly rejected it.

This paper argued for a syntactic dependency between the externalpossessor of the FEP and its possessee, contrary to the superficially similarGerman Possessive Pronoun Dative (GPPD) pattern (Non-Possessor Dativein Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) terminology) briefly discussed by Lee-Schoenfeld(2006). The FEP seems in fact structurally closer to the German DefiniteArticle Dative (GDAD) pattern (Lee-Schoenfeld’s (2006) Possessor Dative),



91

which involves the movement of the external possessor out of the SpecDP ofits possessee.

Like the GDAD, the FEP is clearly not syntactically independent fromthe possessee. This is shown by locality conditions, c-command restrictionsand the obligatory interpretation of the affected argument as the possessor ofthe possessee. In these aspects, the FEP patterns with the GDAD rather thanwith the GPPD.

However, while Lee-Schoenfeld (2006) proposes a movement analysis forthe GDAD, this is not readily transferable to the FEP-pattern. The mainargument for possessor movement proposed by Lee-Schoenfeld (2006), doesnot hold for Flemish. While the possibility of movement out of argumentPPs and the impossibility of movement out of adjunct PPs in German pointsto a movement account of the GDAD, both are impossible in Flemish. TheFEP can only be related to DPs, movement out of any PP is impossible.

Furthermore, no case reason for movement can be easily detected asFlemish case is highly eroded. The remaining traces of the case system canonly be found in pronouns, which resist the FEP-pattern. Even when usingthese pronouns to test for case, dative case is not available for all Flemishexternal possession patterns, so it becomes dubious whether case assignmentcould be a possible drive for the external possessor pattern in Flemish at all.As such, the question of the nature of the Flemish External Possessor’ssyntactic dependency on the possessee DP remains: has it moved, asproposed for the GDAD, or is it base-generated in its external position,binding or controlling a null element in the possessee? What is clear,however, is that the different FEP-patterns require the availability of at leastthree distinguishable Affectee-introducing functional positions in the clause:one related to a possessee subject, one to a possessee object and one to apossessee predicate. This is in contrast to the German data where only onesuch position is proposed.

References

Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L., & Stavrou, M. (2007). Noun Phrase in the GenerativePerspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.



92

Bard, E., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude Estimation of LinguisticAcceptability. Language, 72, 32-68.

Broekhuis, H., & Cornips, L. (1994). Undative constructions. Linguistics, 32, 173-189.

Deal, A. R. (2010). A-thematic possessor raising, object shift and the syntax ofvalence. In UC Santa Cruz Colloquium.

Deal, A. R. (2011). Possessor raising. In: Harvard University.

Deal, A. R. (2012). Possessor raising. In Handout. Syntax & Semantics Circle. UCBerkeley.

Deal, A. R. (2013a). External Possession and Possessor Raising. In M. Everaert & H.van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Companion to Syntax (2nd edition ed.): Wiley-Black-well.

Deal, A. R. (2013b). Possessor Raising. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 391-432.

Decaluwe, J. (2000-2001). Belgisch Nederlands versus Nederlands Nederlands. HetTaallandschap in Vlaanderen, 49-58.

Devos, M. (2006). Genese en structuur van het Vlaamse dialectlandschap. In J.Decaluwe & M. Devos (Eds.), Structuren in talige variatie in Vlaanderen (pp. 35-61). Gent: Academia Press.

Featherston, S. (2009). A scale for measuring well-formedness: Why syntax needsboiling and freezing points. In S. Featherston & S. Winkler (Eds.), The fruits ofempirical linguistics, vol. 1: Process (pp. 47-73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haegeman, L. (2011). Adding positions: External possessors in (West) Flemish. InCASTL – State of the Sequence 2. Tromsø.

Haegeman, L. (2013). Two Prenominal Possessors in West Flemish. In K. Börjars, D.Denison & A. Scott (Eds.), Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Posses-sion (Vol. 199, pp. 219-251). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Haegeman, L., & Danckaert, L. (2013). Multiple subjects in Flemish: the externalpossessor. In C. Rhys, P. Iosad & A. Henry (Eds.), Minority languages, microvari-ation, minimalism and meaning: proceedings of the Irish Network in FormalLinguistics. (pp. 2-23). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Haegeman, L., & van Koppen, M. (2011). Complementizer agreement and the rela-tion between C° and T°. To appear. Linguistic Inquiry.

Hendriks, J. (2010). Prenominal possessor doubling constructions in (West)Germanic: reassessing the evidence for grammaticalisation. In R. Hendery & J.Hendriks (Eds.), Grammatical Change: Theory and description (pp. 27-48).Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Hickey, R. (1987). Sie hat ihn versucht zu erreichen. On interlocking in present-dayGerman syntax. [Festschrift for Werner Hüllen on his 60th birthday]. In W.



93

Lörscher & R. Shulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 271-281). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Hole, D. (2005). Reconciling ‘possessor’ datives and ‘beneficiary datives’: towards aunified voice account of dative binding in German. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöll-stein (Eds.), Event arguments: foundations and applications (pp. 213-242).Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Hole, D. (2006). Extra argumentality – affectees, landmarks, and voice. Linguistics,44, 383-424.

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kim, K. (2011). High applicatives in Korean causatives and passives. Lingua, 121,487-510.

Landau, I. (1999). Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua, 107, 1-37.

Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-391.

Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2006). German possessor datives: raised and affected. JCGL, 9,101-142.

Paykin, K., & van Peteghem, M. (2003). External vs Internal possession structuresand inalienability in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 27, 329-348.

Payne, D. L., & Barshi, I. (1999). External possession. In S. Z. Gildea, Fernando(Ed.), Typological studies in language Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taeldeman, J. (2001). De regenboog van de Vlaamse dialecten. In Het Taallandschapin Vlaanderen (pp. 1-14). Gent: Academia Press.

van Bree, C. (1981). Hebben-constructies en datiefconstructies binnen het Neder-lands taalgebied. In: Leiden University.

Vergnaud, J.-R., & Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1992). The definite determiner and the inal-ienable constructions in French and English. LI, 23, 595-652.

Wurmbrand, S. (2001). Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.


On the Edge of Acceptability: Arguments for the Syntactic Dependence of the Flemish External...

Documents

Transcript of On the Edge of Acceptability: Arguments for the Syntactic Dependence of the Flemish External...