Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Myler2016

Myler 2016: Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences #

[Myl16]

This study file connects the copula theory (Copula.lean) to empirical predictions and cross-linguistic data from [Myl16].

Contents #

Formerly Syntax/Minimalist/Copula.lean, dissolved into its single consumer (the rest of that file — GratificationType, FreeHead, voiceAllosemeForComplement, haveThetaPrediction, … — was dead). The copula v is a semantically vacuous light verb (⟦v⟧ = λx.x); its PF form is HAVE in a transitive-Voice environment, BE elsewhere (HAVE = BE + transitivity).

The surface realization of the copula, by Vocabulary Insertion.

Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    def Myler2016.instReprCopulaForm.repr :
    CopulaFormStd.Format
    Equations
    Instances For

      [Myl16] (89): v ⇔ HAVE / __Voice{D},φ ; v ⇔ BE / elsewhere. The HAVE environment is transitive Voice — hasD with a thematic, non-passive flavor.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        The copula VI as competing VocabItems (HAVE specificity 2, BE elsewhere).

        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          The VocabItem formulation agrees with copulaVI.

          HAVE ↔ Voice is transitive (external argument, not PF-only, not passive).

          The complement type of a HAVE sentence ([Myl16] §5).

          Instances For
            @[implicit_reducible]
            Equations
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              The reading of a HAVE sentence ([Myl16] table (100)).

              Instances For
                @[implicit_reducible]
                Equations
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Icelandic has two HAVE verbs (hafa and eiga) that carve up the possession domain based on the DP-internal structure of the complement.

                  [Myl16] §4.3 / Myler, Sigurðsson & Wood 2014:

                  • v ⇔ hafa / __Voice{D},φ ___Pred (complement contains PredP)
                  • v ⇔ eiga / __Voice{D},φ (elsewhere in transitive context)

                  The distribution:

                  • eiga: concrete possession, kinship (Poss head mediates, no PP possessor)
                  • hafa: body parts, abstract (root-introduced relation, PP possessor possible)
                  • Both work for non-possessive small clause complements (hafa only)

                  Generalizations: (90a) Clausal possession with eiga only if DP-internal possession CANNOT be expressed with a PP. (90b) Clausal possession with hafa only if DP-internal possession CAN be expressed with a PP.

                  Instances For
                    @[implicit_reducible]
                    Equations
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Does the DP-internal possession use a PP (preposition) to introduce the possessor? This is the bidirectional conditioning environment.

                      • hasPredP : Bool

                        Is there a PredP (small clause) in the DP structure?

                      • hasPPPossessor : Bool

                        Can the possessor be expressed with a PP inside the DP?

                      Instances For
                        def Myler2016.instDecidableEqIcelandicPossDP.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : IcelandicPossDP) :
                        Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For
                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            Icelandic VI rule for HAVE verbs. Bidirectional conditioning: looks at both Voice above AND complement below.

                            Equations
                            Instances For
                              theorem Myler2016.bodyPart_hafa :
                              icelandicHaveVI { hasPredP := true, hasPPPossessor := true } = IcelandicHaveVerb.hafa

                              Body parts and abstract nouns (PP possessor possible) → hafa.

                              theorem Myler2016.concrete_eiga :
                              icelandicHaveVI { hasPredP := false, hasPPPossessor := false } = IcelandicHaveVerb.eiga

                              Concrete and kinship (no PP possessor) → eiga.

                              Generalization (90a): eiga ↔ no PP possessor internally.

                              Generalization (90b): hafa ↔ PP possessor available internally.

                              Icelandic HAVE VI as proper VocabItems from the DM framework.

                              Two items compete via the Elsewhere Condition:

                              • hafa: specificity 1 (checks hasPredP = true)
                              • eiga: specificity 0 (elsewhere — matches any transitive context)

                              This parallels copulaVIRules for the English HAVE/BE alternation, but applies within the HAVE domain: both hafa and eiga realize transitive Voice, differing only in the DP-internal structure.

                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For

                                The VocabItem formulation agrees with the direct icelandicHaveVI.

                                The "too-many-meanings" puzzle: how can one construction (have) have so many different meanings?

                                [Myl16] (81): possession constructions can mean so many things because they involve sentencifying a meaning that comes from inside DP. The meanings are a syntactic natural class (all introduced by heads inside DP), not a semantic one. Since v = λx.x, ALL the thematic content comes from the complement and from Voice allosemy.

                                Formally: haveReading is injective — each complement type produces a distinct reading. This captures the claim that v contributes nothing: the complement alone determines the interpretation.

                                The "too-many-structures" puzzle: how can the same possessive meanings be realized in so many syntactically different ways across languages?

                                [Myl16] (93): possession relations originate inside DP (root-introduced or Poss-head-introduced). Since v is meaningless and makes no semantic demands, syntax alone decides where the possessor is first-merged. Combined with parametric variation in delayed gratification and the ±D property of functional heads, this generates the full typology from a small set of parameters.

                                Formally: the HAVE/BE distinction depends only on whether Voice is transitive, which is independent of the possession relation itself.

                                [Myl16]'s HAVE = BE + Voice_{D},φ provides the syntactic analysis underlying the have-verb predicative possession strategy from [Sta09b].

                                A language uses the have-verb strategy iff its possession construction has transitive Voice — exactly the copulaVI condition. Derived from copulaVI, not stipulated independently.

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  A language with transitive, θ-assigning Voice produces HAVE.

                                  A language with intransitive Voice produces BE (locational/existential).

                                  The relational HAVE reading requires the complement DP to have a Pred2 interpretation (either lexically relational or via π-shift). This is exactly NominalInterpType.pred2 from [Bar11].

                                  [Myl16]: "The meanings [of HAVE] are a syntactic natural class: all introduced by heads inside DP." For relational HAVE, the DP must supply a possessor slot — which is what Pred2 provides.

                                  The bridge: relational HAVE ↔ possessedDP complement ↔ NominalInterpType.pred2 (has relatum slot for possessor).

                                  Bare sortals (Pred1, no π) cannot appear in relational HAVE: "I have a cloud" requires a contextually supplied relation (π). Without π, the DP has no possessor slot, so no possessive reading.

                                  Delayed gratification connects to the inalienable/alienable distinction from NominalStructure.lean:

                                  • Inalienable possessor (Spec,nP): can undergo delayed gratification to Spec,VoiceP → yields relational HAVE with inalienable reading
                                  • Alienable possessor (Spec,PossP): can undergo delayed gratification to Spec,VoiceP → yields relational HAVE with alienable reading

                                  In both cases, the possessor starts DP-internally and percolates to Spec,VoiceP. The structural position inside DP determines the INTERPRETATION (kinship vs ownership), not whether HAVE surfaces.

                                  Inalienable possession is nP-internal (can affect gender under GLH); alienable possession is nP-external (cannot). This is orthogonal to whether the language spells out v as HAVE or BE.