Possession and necessity: From individuals to worlds

Abstract This paper investigates the use of possessive morphosyntax to express modal necessity, as in the English use of have to . We claim that possessive modality constructions arise because both possession and necessity express a relation of inclusion between two arguments of the same semantic type: possession involves a relation of inclusion between two 〈e〉-type arguments, while necessity involves inclusion between sets of worlds. Differences between the two arise from their different syntax: possessive have expresses possession via syntactic transitivity, while modals conceal one argument within the modal head. The similarities and differences are captured within a realizational approach to morphology, in which vocabulary items like have and must are inserted to spell out structures consisting of formal features. The proposal is then extended from have -possession languages such as English to be -possession languages, focusing on possessive modality in Hindi-Urdu and Bengali. We argue that the possessive/modal head can be “applicative-like,” licensing oblique case on an argument that raises to its specifier. This account explains why possessive morphosyntax is uniformly used to express modal necessity, and not other modal meanings: the universal force of elements like have (to) follows from the inclusion relation expressed by possession. Possessive modality thus sheds light not only on the semantics of possession but also on the compositional syntax of modal operators.

[1]  Noam Chomsky.  Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[2]  Alec Marantz,et al.  No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon , 1997 .

[3]  H. Harley.  Subjects, events, and licensing , 1995 .

[4]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Light verbs and 'th'-marking , 1988 .

[5]  Elizabeth Cowper,et al.  Thematic underspecification: the case of have , 1989 .

[6]  Cornelia Ebert,et al.  Quantificational Variability Effects with Plural Definites: Quantification over Individuals or Situations? , 2010, J. Semant..

[7]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Some key features of distributed morphology , 1994 .

[8]  David Lewis.  Counterfactuals and Comparative Possibility , 1973 .

[9]  How to turn a (not-yet-)possessed DP into a predicate nominal in Cochabamba Quechua , 2014 .

[10]  T. Hoekstra.  Transitivity : grammatical relations in government-binding theory , 1984 .

[11]  Morris Halle,et al.  Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection , 1993 .

[12]  Andrea Cattaneo,et al.  It is all about clitics: The case of a northern Italian dialect like Bellinzonese , 2009 .

[13]  A. Kratzer.  The Notional Category of Modality , 2008 .

[14]  Winfried Lechner,et al.  AN INTERPRETIVE EFFECT OF HEAD MOVEMENT 1 , 2005 .

[15]  H. Harley,et al.  Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis , 2002 .

[16]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity , 2008 .

[17]  A. Kratzer.  Modals and Conditionals , 2012 .

[18]  Susana Bejar,et al.  PHI-SYNTAX: A THEORY OF AGREEMENT , 2003 .

[19]  Janell Watson.  Mother Earth, Mother City: Abjection and the Anthropocene , 2015, philoSOPHIA.

[20]  Jeremy Hartman,et al.  The Semantic Uniformity of Traces: Evidence from Ellipsis Parallelism , 2011, Linguistic Inquiry.

[21]  Daniel Harbour.  Morphosemantic Number:: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features , 2007 .

[22]  Frederik Theodoor Visser,et al.  An Historical Syntax of the English Language , 2002 .

[23]  Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald,et al.  Possession and Ownership: a cross linguistic perspective , 2013 .

[24]  Lisa Levinson.  Possessive with in Germanic: have and the Role of P , 2011 .

[25]  Scott Soames,et al.  Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English , 1979 .

[26]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic , 2012 .

[27]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  The Cartography of Syntactic Structures , 2009 .

[28]  T. Mohanan.  Argument structure in Hindi , 1994 .

[29]  Elizabeth Ritter,et al.  The function of have , 1997 .

[30]  Elizabeth A. Cowper.  The Geometry of Interpretable Features: Infl in English and Spanish , 2005 .

[31]  Michal Starke,et al.  Nanosyntax : A short primer to a new approach to language , 2010 .

[32]  Hakyung Jung.  The Syntax of the Be -Possessive: Parametric variation and surface diversities , 2011 .

[33]  H. Sigurðsson.  To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. , 2002 .

[34]  John R. Moore,et al.  What Does It Take To Be A Dative Subject , 2000 .

[35]  Kai von Finkel.  Quantifiers and ‘If’‐Clauses , 1998 .

[36]  Susanne Wurmbrand,et al.  Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure , 2001 .

[37]  R. Freeze.  EXISTENTIALS AND OTHER LOCATIVES , 1992 .

[38]  M. Baker,et al.  Passive Arguments Raised , 2018, Diachronic and Comparative Syntax.

[39]  Rajesh Bhatt,et al.  Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts , 2006 .

[40]  Richard S. Kayne.  TOWARD A MODULAR THEORY OF AUXILIARY SELECTION , 1993 .

[41]  Sali A. Tagliamonte,et al.  The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective , 2007 .

[42]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals , 1981, J. Philos. Log..