Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The focus of this paper is the possessive relation arising in several configurations between the complement of a locative preposition ( ‘at/by’ and ‘towards’ in Russian, ‘by’ in Dutch and ‘to/at’ in Romanian, henceforth, -preposition, heading a PP) and another NP in the same clause. I will show that PPs can introduce a number of distinct possessive relations in function of the syntactic context and that languages differ subtly in the matter of which such relations are available in which contexts. I will attribute this variation to the different semantic domains of these possessive PPs (locus-modifiers as opposed to event-modifiers) arising from the lexical specification of the possessive relators lexicalized by these prepositions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, Mona
    2017 Affectedness. InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, ed. byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Available at doi:  10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom003
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arylova, Aysa
    2013 Possession in the Russian Clause: Towards Dynamicity in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Authier, Gilles
    2012Grammaire juhuri, ou judéo-tat, langue iranienne des Juifs du Caucase de l’est. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bally, Charles
    1926 L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues indo-européennes. InFestschrift Louis Gauchat, ed. byFranz Frankhauser and Jakob Jud, pp.68–78. Aarau: Sauerländer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belk, Russell W.
    1988 Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research15, pp.139–168. 10.1086/209154
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209154 [Google Scholar]
  6. Belvin, Robert
    1996 Inside Events: The Non-possessive Meanings of Possessive Predicates and the Semantic Conceptualization of Events, Doctoral dissertation, USC.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Belvin, Robert and Marcel den Dikken
    1997There, happens, to, be, have. Lingua101, pp.151–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berman, Ruth A.
    1981 Dative marking of the affected in Modern Hebrew. InTheoretical Issues in the Grammar of Semitic Languagesed. byHagit Borer and Youssef Aoun. MITWPL3, pp.150–179. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1988 On the grammar of local prepositions. InSyntax, Semantik und Lexikon, ed. byManfred Bierwisch, Wolfgang Motsch, and Ilse Zimmermann. Studia GrammaticaXXIX, pp.1–65. Berlin: Akademie.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boneh, Nora and Ivy Sichel
    2010 Deconstructing possession. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory28, pp.1–40. 10.1007/s11049‑009‑9087‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9087-z [Google Scholar]
  11. Broekhuis, Hans and Leonie Cornips
    1997 Inalienable possession in locational constructions. Lingua101, pp.185–209. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(93)00022‑Z
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(93)00022-Z [Google Scholar]
  12. Broekhuis, Hans, Leonie Cornips, and Maarten de Wind
    1996 Inalienable possession in locational constructions: an apparent problem. InLinguistics in the Netherlands 1996, ed. byCrit Cremers and Marcel den Dikken, pp.31–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brugman, Claudia Marlea
    1988 The Syntax and Semantics of ‘have’ and its Complements, Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Caha, Pavel
    2007 Case Movement in PPs. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers on Language & Linguistics 34.2. Special Issue on Space, Motion, and Result, ed. byMonika Bašić, Marina Pantcheva, Minjeong Son, and Peter Svenonius, pp.239–299.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 The German locative-directional alternation. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics13, pp.179–223. 10.1007/s10828‑010‑9039‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-010-9039-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chappell, Hilary and William McGregor
    1996a Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. InThe Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-whole Relation, ed. byHilary Chappell and William McGregor, pp.3–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110822137.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137.3 [Google Scholar]
  17. eds. 1996bThe Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-whole Relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110822137
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chodova, K. I.
    1966 Sintaksis predloga ѹ s roditel’nym padežom v staroslavjanskom jazyke. Scando-Slavica12, pp.96–114. 10.1080/00806766608600451
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00806766608600451 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chvany, Catherine V.
    1975On the Syntax of BE-Sentences in Russian. Ann Arbor: Slavica.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cienki, Alan
    1995 The semantics of possessive and spatial constructions in Russian and Bulgarian: a comparative analysis in cognitive grammar. The Slavic and East European Journal39, pp.73–114. 10.2307/308693
    https://doi.org/10.2307/308693 [Google Scholar]
  21. Comrie, Bernard
    1999 Spatial cases in Daghestanian languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung52, pp.108–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cornilescu, Alexandra, Anca Dinu, and Alina Tigӑu
    2017 Romanian dative configurations: Ditransitive verbs, a tentative analysis. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique62, pp.179–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Corver, Norbert
    1992a “Bij Marie in de nek”. Interne structuur en extractiegedrag. Gramma/JTT1, pp.21–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1992b Left branch extraction. InProceedings of NELS 22, ed. byKimberley Broderick, pp.67–84. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Creissels, Denis
    2009 Spatial cases. InThe Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. byAndrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, pp.609–625. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
    1998 Alienability splits and the grammaticalization of possessive constructions. InPapers from the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. byTimo Haukioja. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku60, pp.38–49. Turku: University of Turku.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2001 Kinship in grammar. InDimensions of Possession, ed. byIrène Baron, Michael Herslund, and Finn Sørensen, pp.201–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.47.12dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.47.12dah [Google Scholar]
  28. Deal, Amy Rose
    2013 Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry44, pp.391–432. 10.1162/LING_a_00133
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00133 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017 External possession and possessor raising. InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, ed. byMartin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk. Available at doi:  10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom047
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom047 [Google Scholar]
  30. Diffloth, Gérard
    1974 Body moves in Semai and French. InPapers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 19–21, 1974, ed. byMichael W. La Galy, Robert Allen Fox, and Anthony Bruck, pp.128–138. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. den Dikken, Marcel
    2003On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases. Ms., CUNY.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2006Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, Predicate Inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010 On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. InThe Cartography of Syntactic Structure, vol.6, ed. byGuglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, pp.74–126. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dowty, David and Chris Barker
    1992 Non-verbal thematic proto-roles. InProceedings of NELS 23, vol.1, ed. byAmy J. Schafer, pp.49–62. Amherst, Massachusetts: GSLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Evans, Nicholas
    1995A Grammar of Kayardild. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110873733
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873733 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gönczöl-Davies, Ramona
    2008Romanian: an Essential Grammar. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203432310
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203432310 [Google Scholar]
  37. Grashchenkov, Pavel and Vita G. Markman
    2008 Non-core arguments in verbal and nominal predication: high and low applicatives and possessor raising. InProceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. byNatasha Abner and Jason Bishop, pp.185–193. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gruber, Jeffrey S.
    1976Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Guéron, Jacqueline
    2006 Inalienable possession. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, pp.589–638. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch35
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch35 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hagège, Claude
    1993The Language Builder: An Essay on the Human Signature in Linguistic Morphogenesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.94
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.94 [Google Scholar]
  41. Haspelmath, Martin
    2017 Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft36, pp.193–231. 10.1515/zfs‑2017‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2017-0009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer
    1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Heine, Bernd
    1997Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  44. Herslund, Michael and Irène Baron
    2001 Semantics of the verb HAVE. InDimensions of possession, ed. byMichael Herslund, Irène Baron, and Finn Sørensen, pp.85–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Iordanskaja, Lidija and Igor Mel’čuk
    1995*Glaza Maši golubye vs. Glaza u Maši golubye: Choosing between two Russian constructions in the domain of body parts. InThe Language and Verse of Russia. In Honor of Dean S. Worth on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. byHenryk Birnbaum and Michael S. Flier, pp.147–171. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Isačenko, Alexandr V.
    1974 On ‘have’ and ‘be’ languages (a typological sketch). InSlavic Forum: Essays in Linguistics and Literature, ed. byMichael S. Flier. Slavistic Printings and Reprintings277, pp.43–77. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110888386‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110888386-006 [Google Scholar]
  47. Karvovskaya, Lena
    2018 The Typology and Formal Semantics of Adnominal Possession, Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kondrashova, Natalia
    1996 The Syntax of Existential Quantification, Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Koopman, Hilda
    2000 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. InThe Syntax of Specifiers and Heads, ed. byHilda Koopman, pp.204–260. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203171608
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kracht, Marcus
    2002 On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy25, pp.157–232. 10.1023/A:1014646826099
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014646826099 [Google Scholar]
  51. Le Bruyn, Bert, Henriëtte de Swart, and Joost Zwarts
    2016 From HAVE to HAVE-verbs: Relations and incorporation. Lingua182, pp.49–68. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  52. Leont’ev, A. P.
    2005 Влияние типа генитивного отношения на конструкции с внешним посессором в русском языкеКомпьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии5, pp.364–368.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lestrade, Sander
    2006 Adpositional case, MA thesis: Radboud University Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Livitz, Inna
    2012 Modal possessive constructions: Evidence from Russian. Lingua122, pp.714–747. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lødrup, Helge
    2009 External and internal possessors with body part nouns: the case of Norwegian. SKY Journal of Linguistics22, pp.221–250.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    2001 Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: the history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry32, pp.275–302. 10.1162/00243890152001771
    https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001771 [Google Scholar]
  57. Luraghi, Silvia, Erica Pinelli, and Chiara Naccarato
    2018The preposition u in Modern Standard Russian. Ms., University of Padua.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Markman, Vita
    2009 Applicatives TO, FROM, and AT: On dative and locative possessors in Russian. InProceedings of the 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol.2, ed. byAnisa Schardl, Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman, pp.123–134. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Matushansky, Ora
    2008 A case study of predication. InStudies in Formal Slavic Linguistics. Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5, ed. byFranc Marušič and Rok Žaucer, pp.213–239. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2010 Russian predicate case, encore. InProceedings of FDSL 7.5, ed. byGerhild Zybatow, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor, and Ekaterina Pshehotskaya, pp.117–135. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2012 On the internal structure of case in Finno-Ugric small clauses. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics1, pp.3–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2016 Case as a complex of features. Paper presented atTIN-dag 2016, Utrecht, February 6, 2016.
  63. . [to appear]. The case of restricted locatives. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung23.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Matushansky, Ora, Nora Boneh, Léa Nash, and Natalia Slioussar
    . [to appear]. To PPs in their proper place. InProceedings of FASL 26 ed. by Tania Ionin and Jonathan MacDonald. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Nam, Hye Hyun
    2013 Конструкции с внешним посессором в русском языке как диатетическое явление и их семантико-дискурсивные функции. Russian Linguistics37, pp.175–191. 10.1007/s11185‑013‑9109‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-013-9109-7 [Google Scholar]
  66. Neumann, Dorothea
    1996 The dative and the grammar of body parts in German. InThe Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation, ed. byHilary Chappell and William McGregor, pp.745–779. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110822137.745
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137.745 [Google Scholar]
  67. Nichols, Johanna
    1988 On alienable and inalienable possession. InHonor of Mary Haas, ed. byWilliam Shipley, pp.475–521. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110852387.557
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852387.557 [Google Scholar]
  68. Padučeva, E. V.
    2004 Splitting of possessive NPs and external possessor in Russian. InPossessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, ed. byJi-yung Kim, Yury A. Lander, and Barbara H. Partee. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics29, pp.351–363. Amherst, Massachussetts: GLSA Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Paykin, Katia and Marleen van Peteghem
    2003 External vs. internal possessor structures and inalienability in Russian. Russian Linguistics27, pp.329–348. 10.1023/A:1027373010332
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027373010332 [Google Scholar]
  70. Pereltsvaig, Asya
    2008 Split phrases in colloquial Russian. Studia Linguistica62, pp.5–38. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2007.00141.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00141.x [Google Scholar]
  71. Pesetsky, David
    2013Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  72. Philippova, Tatiana
    . [to appear]. Ambivalent adpositions and “P-stranding” in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Pshekhotskaya, Ekaterina A.
    2012 Косвенное дополнение как субкатегоризованный и несубкатегоризованный актант (на материале русского языка), Doctoral dissertation, Moscow State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Pylkkänen, Liina
    2002 Introducing arguments, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Ritter, Elisabeth and Sara Thomas Rosen
    1997 The function of have. Lingua101, pp.295–321. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00024‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00024-1 [Google Scholar]
  76. Rooryck, Johan
    2017Reconsidering inalienable possession in French. Ms., Leiden University.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Sæbø, Kjell Johan
    2009 Possession and pertinence: the meaning of have. Natural Language Semantics17, pp.369–397. 10.1007/s11050‑009‑9047‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9047-5 [Google Scholar]
  78. Šatunovskij, I. B.
    2000 Predloženija naličija vs. bytijnye i lokativnye predloženija v russkom jazyke (Presence-sentences vs. existential and locative sentences in Russian). InLogičeskij analiz jazyka: jazyki prostranstv (Logical Analysis of Language: Languages of Space), ed. byN. D. Arutjunova and I. B. Levontina, pp.189–197. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kultury.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Scholten, Jolien
    2018 The Ins and Outs of External Possession – A Micro-comparative Perspective, Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Seiler, Hansjakob
    1973 Zum Problem der sprachlichen Possessivität. Folia Linguistica6, pp.231–250. 10.1515/flin.1973.6.3‑4.231
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1973.6.3-4.231 [Google Scholar]
  81. 1983Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Seliverstova, O. N.
    1973 Semantičeskii analiz predikativnyx pritiažatel’nykh konstruktsij s glagolom byt’. Voprosy jazykoznanija22, pp.95–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 2004Труды по семантике (Trudy po semantike). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Stassen, Leon
    2009Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Storto, Gianluca
    2003 Possessives in context: Issues in the semantics of possessive constructions, Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Svenonius, Peter
    2008 Projections of P. InSyntax and Semantics of Spatial P, ed. byAnna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen, pp.63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120.04sve
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.04sve [Google Scholar]
  87. 2010 Spatial P in English. InThe Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol.6, ed. byGuglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, pp.127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Tham, Shiao Wei
    2006 The Definiteness Effect in English have sentences. InProceedings of the 2004 Texas Linguistics Society Conference, ed. byPascal Denis, Eric McCready, Alexis Palmer, and Brian Reese, pp.137–149. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Timberlake, Alan
    2004A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Tsedryk, Egor
    2008 Possesseurs datifs devant syntagmes prépositionnels. InActes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2008/Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. bySusie Jones. Available athomes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/actes2008.html
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 2017 Locatives and datives in Russian: to be AT or to be TO, and how high can they be?Paper presented atWorkshop “Datives and beyond”, UAB, January 26–27, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Tsunoda, Tasaku
    1996 The possession cline in Japanese and other languages. InThe Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-whole Relation, ed. byHilary Chappell and William McGregor, pp.565–630. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110822137.565
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137.565 [Google Scholar]
  93. Vikner, Carl and Per Anker Jensen
    2002 A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica56, pp.191–226. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00092
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00092 [Google Scholar]
  94. Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick O’Connor
    1990An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1988The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  96. Yanko, T. E.
    2000 Bytovanie i obladanie: konstrukcii s glagolom byt’ (Being and possession: constructions with the verb byt’ ‘be’). InLogičeskij analiz jazyka: jazyki prostranstv (Logical Analysis of Language: Languages of Space), ed. byN. D. Arutjunova and I. B. Levontina, pp.198–211. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kultury.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Zimmerling, A. V.
    2000 Обладать и быть рядом. InЛогический анализ языка. Языки пространств, ed. byN. D. Arutjunova and I. B. Levontina, pp.179–188. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Zwarts, Joost
    2005 The case of prepositions: Government and compositionality in German PPs. Paper presented atIsrael Association for Theoretical Linguistics 21, The Technion, Haifa, June 22–23, 2005.
  99. 2006 Case marking direction: The accusative in German PPs. Paper presented atCLS 42, Chicago, April 6–8, 2006.
  100. Zwarts, Joost and Yoad Winter
    2000 Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information9, pp.169–211. 10.1023/A:1008384416604
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008384416604 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (in)alienable; locative; part-whole; possession; possessive control
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error