Nigerian , Literatures, Cultures & Policy Reforms

Festschrift Series No.6

l~ --- Table of Contents

Dedication V Preface VI

Section A: in History & Society

1. Linguistics & Social Responsibility: The Challenge for the Nigerian Linguist -Ayo Bamgbose

25 Years of the Linguistic Association of : Some Reflections on the Achievements & Challenges Facing Nigerian & African Studies 17 -E. NO/lie Emenanjo

3. Marginalization of Nigerian Languages in Nursery & Primary Schools: Path to Indigenous Language Death in Nigeria 33 -Chinyere Ohiri-Aniche

4. Language Use in the Nigerian Educational System: Problems and Prospects 49 -Rebecca O/adipo

5. Code-Mixing among Igbo Speakers 61 - V C Onumajuru f 1. • 6. Code-Switching among YorubaiEnglish Bilinguals & its Implications for Teaching & Learning 69 -Margaret T Lawani

7. Code-Switching Patterns and their Pragmatic Functions among Hausa Speakers 79 -Ramlatu Jibir Daura & I.A. Olaofe

8. Negotiating the Local in the Global Context: Tooling the Nigerian Video Film for Language Empowerment and Cultural Preservation 89 -Ogaga Okuyade

9. Nigerian Languages as Instrument for Conflict Resolution & Peace for National Development 99 -Juliana Chizobam Eze

10. Nigerian Languages and the Millennium Development Goals: The Way Forward 107 - V.0. Babalola

11. Meaning and Content in HIV/AIDS Sensitisation Campaigns in Nigeria: Missing Links or Misplaced Priorities? 115 -Baba Mai Bello HAl

';~"12.------~------~~Towards the Development of Igbo Expressions for Communicating and Disseminating Information about HIV IAIDS 131 r -Emma Asonye

13. Harnessing Language & Education as Tools for Economic Empowerment 139 -Foluso Okebukola . " 14. Policy Crisis and the Development of in Nigeria 147 -Maria-Helen E Ekah

15. Multilingualism & National Development: The Nigerian Situation 57 -R.o. Farinde • 16. Language Empowering through Competition: The Case of Bwatiye 165 -Patrick Keran Bleambo

17. Language & the Teaching of HI VIA IDS Life Coping Skills in Schools 175 -Theresa Ohi Odumuh 18. Processes of Integration in Group Relations: Implication for Language Planning in Nigeria and National Unity 189 -Iknezam Ozuru

Section B: Literatures, Cultures, Stylistics & Discourse Analysis

19. Embellished Language: The Tool of the Poet's Message in A.N. Akwanya's Pilgrim Foot 201 -F. 0. Orabueze

20. The English Language and the African World View: The Nigerian Case Study 221 -Lateefah B. Adeit e

21. Nigerian & Dramaturgy in Soyinka'sThe Beatification of Areaboy 229 -Ojo Olorunleke 22. Nigerian Languages in Peace and Conflict Resolution: The Case of Ezeigbo's The Last of the Strong Ones 235 -Rebecca Okon Usoro 23. Nigerian Languages and Conflict Resolution: The Case for Proverbs and Figurative Expressions 245 -Mohammed Laminu Mele 24. Speech Acts Interaction with Cohesive Ties 257 -Rosarri C. Mbisike 25. On the Tripartite Structure ofHausa Informal Conversation 271 -Abubakar Muhammad

26. Satirizing Politicians & Public Officers in Nigerian Newspapers 289 - 'Rotimi Taiwo , I ix

27. Innovation & Creativity in Language Use: A Study of the Language of SMS Text Messages 303 -Mbuk A. Utuk

28. Dynamics of Language: The Yoruba Example 311 -Solomon Olanrewaju Makinde

29. A Contrastive Study of Aspects of Semantics of some English and Yoruba Lexical Items 319 -Yemi Ogunsiji

30. Stylistic Features of Igbo Orature in Ezenwa-Ohaeto's The Voice of the Night Masquerade 327 - Uchenna Oyali

/ 31. The Treasures of Ibiwari Ikirikos Oily Tears oj the Delta 343 -I. U. Opara

32. An Analysis of Fish Names in Oguta Culture: Implications for the Millennium Development Goals 353 -Appolonia U. Okwudishu

Section C: Applied Linguistics

33. Issues in Translating Ibibio Salutations into French 367 -Efflong Ekpenyong

34. Developing a Course-Effective Programme in the Teaching of English & Communication Skills in Ahmadu Bello University 377 -Ode Johnson Ekpeme

35. The Relevance of Grammatical Theories to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in a Second Language Environment 397 -E. T. Babalola

36. Grammatical Errors in the Written English of Level 100 Students of Literature and their Pedagogical Implications 417 -Alexander Kure

37. Child Language Research in Nigeria: The State of the Art 429 -Tajudeen Yaqub Surakat

38. ICT in Language Teaching & Leaming: Challenges and Prospects 445 -M.A. Rahman & I.A.Adeleke

39. Indigenous Languages & Universal Basic Education: Some Challenges 451 -Charles Okon Effiong r Section 0: Formal Linguistics

40. Phonological Processes and Their Effect on Lexical Tones in Urhobo 461 -Rose 0. Aziza

41. Structural in Igbo: Evidence from Mgbidi 475 -A niechi B. Ohu

42. A Lingu istic Introduction to the MQfQIi Dialect of Yoruba 487 -Felix Abidemi Fabunmi

43. Aspects of the Phonology of the Okun Dialects 505 -Arokoyo, Bolanle Elizabeth

44. Word-fonnation Processes in Nigerian English 513 -Oyatogun, Aituari Taiwo

45. Noun Class Vestiges in Odual 523 -Ethelbert E. Kari

46. The Determiner in the Igbo Nominal Phrase 545 -Grcg Orji C. Obiamalu

47. The Indivisibility of {ai-} in Standard Yoruba 557 -Oye Taiwo

48. Lexical Analysis of Polysemy in Owere Igbo 565 -Christie Omego

49. Meaning and the Interpretation of Signs and Symbols 581 -Olufunmilayo M. Ogunkeye

50. Directions of Research on Gender & Semantic Markedness 593 -Frances Ngozi Chukwukere

1. The Semantics & Morphosyntax of the 91-relation in J Yoruba Genitive Constructions 603 -Oladiipo Ajiboye

52. Diagnostics for Distinguishing between SVO & SOV Languages: Evidence from English & Batonu -Issa 0. Sanusi

53.The Pronoun System in Oko-Osanyen 621 -Akeem Segun Salawi:

54. Hausa Verb Bases & the Selection of Operating Grade 635 -A.H. Amfani 55. The Syntax of Reflexives in Yoruba 649 -Rafiu. K. Adewale

56.The Limit of Bidirectional Spread in OkQ Vowel Harmony System 657 -Joseph Dele Atoyebl

. ,~ xi

57. Honorific Distinctions as Reflexes of Deixis & Modality: Implications for Effective Communication 673 -P.E. Ejele

58. Elements of Kalabarj-Uo Syntax 685 -Otelemate G Harry

Section E:

A Brief Profile of Professor Emeritus Ayo Bamgbose 715

r TI,e Nigerian Linguists Festschrift Series No.6 2007 (pp, 603-612)

51. The Semantics & Morphosyntax of the 91-rclation in Yoruba Gcnitive Constructions

()ladiip9 Ajib oye University oj

This paper examines the semantics and morpho-syntax of the 9l-relations found in Yoruba genitive constructions, claiming that such a relation can be pragmatically determined (via discourse-linking), lexically determined via the inherent meaning of relational nouns or as inalienable body-part nouns. It establishes that in Yoruba, it is possible to have a genitive relation without possession; but, conversely, all cases of nominal possession show some kind of genitive relation. It proposes a small clause vP as the base structure from which all the attested genitive constructions in the language can be derived.

1 Introduction The notion of ~l-relation is to express ways by which lexical entities enter into relations with one another in the grammar of a language. This relation can take place in semantics or syntax. The entities in such a relation can be a verb and a noun; two nouns etc -: The focus of this paper is to discuss the semantics and morphosyntax of ~H-relation of nominal expressions in Yoruba genitive constructions as shown by the example in (1). I start by defining the terms that I frequently use in the paper in § 1.1 and S 1.2.

1.1 "Possessive" versus "Genitive" Attempts have been made to draw a distinction between "possessive" and "genitive" construction in the literature. For example, in semantics (Borer 2004), this kind of phrase is referred to as possessive because the focus is on meaning. Once possessive is mentioned, semantic consideration necessarily comes in, whereas "genitive" denotes a morphosyntactic (not semantic) relationship between a nominal and some other item, which may not necessarily be a nominal. I The terms "genitive" and "possessive" as used in this paper therefore refer to constructions where two simple nouns enter into some relation with one another either at the semantic or syntactic level (Storto 2003). Following from above, I conclude that the terms "genitive" and "possessive" are different names for the same kind of nominal expression.'

'TIH.:re is even a trend to decompose possession syntactically into location, I3E and IIA VE. See Bcnvctustc (1971); Freeze (1992); Harley (1995); Partee and Borschev (2002) 2 Following standard practice, I analyze genitive in terms of Case (Lindauer 1998). {J04 Nigerian Languages, Literatures & Cultures

1.2 Possessor and Possessum The other two terms that I use very often are Possessor and Possessum. Following from the established fact in § 1.1, a possessum NP does not necessarily mean an item possessed by X. Neither is it the case (hat a possessor NP always refers to the one who possesses X. Rather, the two simply represent the two arguments that are ill some semantic or syntactic relation. In the small clause, which I propose as the base structure (contra Ajiboyc 2005), the 91 heads the phrase and projects to 91 P. The Possessor 0 ccupies the Specifier position whereas the Possessum is in the complement position.

(I) 91P (S pec---ifier)------_

Possessor 91 (Complement) Possessum

I claim that this Possessor-Possessum structure is the base of all gcmuvc constructions in Yoruba. Any deviation from this linear order in the surface syntax is accounted for via raising. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. §2 and§3 discuss the semantics of R-relation in nominal and verbal domains respectively. In ~4, I give a morphosyntacic account of the ~H-relation in those environments and conclude in ~5.

2 Two kinds of 9l-relation in nominal domain Nouns enter into a relation with each other in one of two ways: as pragmatically determined via discourse-linking or as lexically determined via the inherent meaning of relational nouns or as inalienable body-part nouns. I try to establish that the inherent meaning of the posses sum determines the kind of relation that holds between it (possessum), and the possessor.

2.1 Discourse-linked 91-relations First is the kind of 91 relation that is Discourse-linked. This relation is pragmatically determined. According to Higginbotham (1983), an examp\c such as (2a) is interpreted as in (2b).

(2) a. iwe e Ferni book MT~ F. 'Femi's book'

b. :Jx [iwe (x) i\ R(T,x)] = there exists x, x is a book and x stands in some relation R to Femi The 9?-relatioll in Yorubti Genitive Constructions 605

The R relation has its value supplied by discourse. This is the sense in which it is said to be Discourse linked (D-linked).

(3) Simple N Possession ______R is 0-1 inked R Ferni ------>< ~H ~ iwe

To say that the 91-relation is D-linked therefore means that a genitive phrase needs a proper discourse setting before an accurate reading can be obtained. Thus the example in (2): iwe e Ferni 'Fernis cutlass' needs a discourse context for the relation to be understood. For example, depending on the context, the book in question could be as given in 4.

(4) a. the book that Ferni read b. the book that Femi drew a picture of c. the book that Femi sang a song about d. the book that Femi owns e. the book that Ferni threw into the river when he was fishing

According to Ajiboye (2005), the discourse-linked otherwise known as paragmatically determined R relation genitive constructions fall into three subtypes: genitives of possession, of depiction and of modification.

2.1.1 Genitive of possession Whilc the genitive of possession 111 (5) corresponds to the semantic notion or possess ion,

(5) a. ilc e Ferni genitive of possession house MT~ F. 'Fernis house'

b. owo 0 Bunmi money MT~ B. 'Bunmis money'

2.1.2 Genitive of Depiction The genitive of depiction in (6) is ambiguous between possession and depiction.

6 a. aworan an F~J11i genitive of depiction picture MT~ F. 'Femi's picture' r b. ere e Solaarln statue MT~ S. 'Solarin's statue' GOG Nigerian Languages, Literatures & Cultures

2.1.3 Genitive of Modification !\s for the genitive of modification in, it is never construed as a possessive relation (cr. Partee and Borschev 1999: 174). As with any modification, this type of ~ genitive sheds more light to the noun that occupies the position of the possessor NP.

(7) a. akoni oselu astute politician 'an astute politician'

b. cgbontagi oniroyln genitive of modification gem journalist 'a gem of a Journalist'

2.1,4 Analysis These three subtypes of genitive construction are all instances of the relation R. [ represent that of R relation with genitive of depiction in (8).

(8) Simple N Depiction ______9l is ~H pragmatically- determined Ferni ~ R aworan

2.2 Lexically determined 9{-relations In addition to these pragmatically determined R-relations, another R relation IS found with relational and inalienable nouns.

2.2.1 Relational nouns The relational nouns like bobd 'father', where the relation is supplied by the meaning of the noun itself. Thus, R is lexically determined. In (9), under its most salient reading. hirbd means 'someone who stands in the father-of relation'. 'Ferni's father' does not need a discourse context for the relation to be understood: the person in question is unambiguously understood to be the one who stands in the father-of relation to Femi (cr. Dechaine 1993: 127).

(9) a. baba a Ferni father MTIl T. 'Tundes father'

b. 3x [babci (x) I\. baba (x,T) = There exists x, x is baba 'a father' such that x is the father of Femi The fll-relatioll in Yorubd Genitive COIIStruCtiOIlS G07

When we say that R is lexically determined, the idea is that for relational nouns such as bubt) 'father', it is the noun itself that supplies the relation ~H, as in (10).3

(10) Relational Nouns = ~His lcxic ly determined

Fcrni

2.2.2 Inalienable nouns The other type of lexically determined R relation is found with inalienable nouns, which include body-part nouns such as apa 'arm' (II) (cf. Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992; Muhlbauer 2004).

(1 I) a. apa a Ferni arm MTIl F. 'Fernis arm'

b. :Jx [apa (x) A. apa (x,T) I t = There exists x, x is apo 'an arm' such that x is the ann of Ferni

Such inalienable nouns have a special part-of relation (Dcchaine 1993: 127-133; \ Muhlbauer 2004a,b; 2005; Partee and Borschev 1999). Observe that the inalienable R relation is not discourse linked. Thus, as with relational nouns, the \ inalienable R relation is also lexically determined as in (12). In ap« a F~lIIi 'Fernis arm', this means the arm that is a part of Femi: It is a component or his \ body, under its most salient reading."

(12) Inalienable Nouns ______R is lexically determined apa -;l~ "------Tu~e

Another case to consider is shown in (13). In (13a), both nouns are animate. In that case Femi does not possess his boss, but instead the genitive simply allows for the satisfaction of the R relation, since if you are a boss, you must be somebody's boss. Further, there are cases like (13b) where apa 'arm', contextually means 'sleeve'; metaphorically the gown can be thought to possess the sleeve just as I possess my own arm via the part-whole relation (cf. Muhlbauer 2004; Partee and Borschev 1999).

JHowever, discourse linking is also possible with relational nouns in an appropriate context. Imagine the following scenario. "Every member of a community centre's 'Father's Group' was assigned a counselor. Counselor Felli; 's father was very enthusiastic about the centre's program but Counselor Tit; 's father had no real interest in the group at all." In this context, discourse linking would take precedence over the kinship interpretation. However, such "forced contexts" are not considered here. 4 See Burton (1995) for a discussion of the less salient readings of inalienable nouns. 608 Nigerian Languages, Literatures & Cultures

(13) a. [Qga a Ferni] master MT~ F. 'Femi's master'

b. [apa (a) agbada] arm MT~ garment 'a garment's sleeve'

The simple N possession has an open semantic relation R whose content is provided by the context (i.e. pragmatically determined). For the other two types of genitives, namely relational nouns and inalienable body part nouns, the R relation is lexically determined. To summarize, in Yoruba, it is possible to have a .genitive relation without possession. Conversely, all cases of nominal possession show some kind of genitive relation. In (14a), apo 'a bag' cannot be possessed by bola 'shoes' in any obvious way, although the shoes stand in a relation to the bag, e.g. by occupying the bag in spatial terms. But even though possession as such is not found in (14a) it is no less genitive than (14b) which can have a clearly possessive construal along the lines of 'the money that Fcrni has'.

( 14) a. [apo 0 bata] bag MT~l shoe 'a bag of shoes'

b. [owo 0 Ferni] Money MT~ F. 'Femi's money'

Based on (14), the conclusion must be that the notion of possession comes slightly different from that of genitive.

3 9"l-rclation in verbal domain Observe that just as the nominal R relation is compatible with a wide range of pragmatically conditioned interpretations, as in (15a), so too is the verbal R relation, as in (15b).

(15) a. nominal 9\-relation (possessor/genitive) .t. iw6 e T~nd6 book MT~ T. (i) 'the book that Tunde owns' (ii) 'the book that Tunde wrote' (iii) 'the book about Tunde ' The fN-relatioll ill Yorub d Genitive Constructions 609

b. verbal ~H-relation (possessor/genitive) Tunde ni iwe T. have book (i) 'Tunde owns a book' (ii) 'Tunde wrote a book' (iii) 'Someone wrote a book about Tunde'

Furthermore, just as lexical properties of nouns determine the R-relation, so too do lexical properties of arguments determine the relation expressed by a light verb.? For example, in ( 16a) the 91-relation is pragmatically determined by discourse- linking while in (16b-c) the R-relation is determined by the lexical properties of the relation and inalienable noun respectively.

(I G) a. b ata a Bunrni disco urse-linking shoe MT~ B. 'Bunmi's shoes'

b. ~gbQn on Bunmi relational elder MT~ B. 'Bunmi's brother'

c. apa a Bunrni inalienable arm MT~ B. 'Bunmi's arm'

Similarly, in (17) it is the inherent lexical properties of the object argument that determine how light verb je 'eat, ingest' is interpreted. In (17a),j? isu translates to 'eat yarn'; in (17b)j~ gbese translates literally as 'eat debt', i.e. to be in debt; in (17c) j~ egba 'eat cane' translates as 'to be caned'. Thus, just as the co-argument relation between [ARG 1 v ARG2] is determined by the lexical properties of

[ARG2] in the Possessive/genitive constructions of (J 7), so too is the co-argument relation between [ARG 1 ie ARG2] determined by the lexical properties of [ARG2) in (15).

(17) B91<1 Jy isu B. eat yam 'Bolu ate yams.' b. BolLI je gbese experiencer-t heme B. eat debt 'Bolu is in debt.'

c. BolLI j<; egba experiencer-tlienie B. eat cane r 'Bolu received some strokes of cane.'

II define light verbs as verbs whose meaning and valence arc determined exclusively by nouns with which they combine. 610 Nigerian Languages, Literatures & Cultures

What is reported of the genitive and possessive parallels the case or nominative Case and the external theta-role of the verb. While many arguments with nominative Case are also agents, and many agents bear nominative Case, the correlation is not on one-to-one basis. For example, in (18a), Rolake is agent, in (18b) the same Rolake is the experieneer, whereas in (18e) Rolake is the possessor. In all three examples, Rolake is assigned Nominative Case.

( 18) a R9hlk~ W akara R. , eat bean cake 'Rolake atc the bean cake' 8: Agent Case: Nominative

b. R91ak~ feran akara R. likes bean cake 'Rolakc likes bean cakes.' 8: Experiencer Case: Nominative

e. Rolake ni akara R. have bean cake 'Rolake has a bean cake.' 8: Possessor Case: Nominative

DcJsing (1998: 93-94) observes that though "the relation between possessor and possessum is semantically different from the relation between the subject and the verb, it seems to be morphosyntactically the same relation." On that view, genitive is defined in terms of structural Case.

4 The morphosyntactic realization of the 9\-relation in Yor ub a The overt realization of the R-relation elements found in Yoruba is morphosyntactically conditioned. To this end, In Ajiboye (2005), it is observed that there are three kinds of genitive constructions in Yoruba:

( I 9) a. Nominal genitive b. Nominal plus ti construction c. Verbal genitive

The examples in (20) illustrate these three types. In (20a) the possessum and the possessor are separated by a mid tone mora (u) herein referred to as the genitive marker (henceforth mid tone mora (MT~». Similarly, the example in (20b) parallels the example in (20a) in the sense that the possessurn and the possessor are also separated by mid tone element: ti, (20b). The example in (20c) is the sentential counterpart of (20a). This is a kind of possessive, which is assigned by the verb IIi 'have'.

,,1 • The 91-re/atioll ill Yorubti Genitive Constructions 611

(20) a. Nominal genitive ilc e Bunrni possessum MT~ possessor house MT~ B. 'Bunmis house'

h. Nominal pills ti construction eran ti Bunmi possessutn c possessor animal of B. 'Bunmis animal'

c. Verbal genitive Bunmi ni lWC possessor \-erb possess 1111/ B. have book 'Bunrni has a book.'

In nominal genitives (20a), the ~H-relation is pronounced as D, which is a copy of the final vowel of the possessum. In nominal plus ti constructions (20b), the R- relation is pronounced as ti. Finally, in verbal genitives (20c), the ~H-relation is pronounced as the possessive verb IIi. Ishow the derivation process in (21). Assuming a small clause "~HP" as the base structure for all kinds of Yoruba genitive constructions, I claim that a Yoruba nominal construction has the surface structure of a DP where the D takes the small clause as its complement. The posscssurn, which is a complement of the small "9t" moves to the Speci fier position of DP to derive the surface linear order of 'Possessum-Posscssor '. I illustrate this in (2Ia). As for the nominal plus Ii construction, I also propose a 01' structure, but this time the D takes a CP as its complement and the C of the CP in turn takes the small clause as its complement. Starting from the same complement position, the possessum moves to the Specifier position of the CPo I illustrate this in (21 b). Finally, for the verbal genitive, I claim that they are base generated in the small clause, thus retaining the Possessor-Possessum linear order, (21 c).

(21 )a.- [DP POSS'Mi iwe [D e [9lP poss·\{ Bunmi [9t 0] ti]

b. [DP [D 0 [CP POSS'M eran [C ti] [91P POSS'R Bunrni [91 0] til

c. [91P POSS'R Bunrni [91 ni] POSS'M iwe]

The moti vation for the 91P is to cover the generalizations that hold of the data set involving both nominal and verbal genitives. While the genitive morpheme is pronounced as ni in 9l in verbal domain; it is either pronounced as a mid tend mora in D or a mid toned ti or both in nominal domain. r

5 Conclusion This paper has briefly examined the semantics and morpho-syntax of the ~ll- relations found in Yoruba genitive constructions, claiming that such a relation can 612 Nigerian Languages, Literatures & Cultures be pragmatically determined (via discourse-linking), lexically determined via the inherent meaning of relational nouns or as inalienable body-part nouns. In particular, it establishes that in Yoruba, it is possible to have a genitive relation without possession; but, conversely, all cases" of nominal possession show some kind of genitive relation.

References

Benveniste, Emil. 1971. The nominal sentence. In Problems In Genera! Linguistics. 132 144 (translated from French by M.E. Meed). Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press [originally in Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 46 (1950): 19-36. Borer, Hagit. 2004. In name only: an Exo-skeletal triology Book 1. Ms. University of Southern California Dcchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates a cross categories: Towards a c atcgory- neutral syntax. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Delsing, lars-Olof, 1998. Possession in German. In A\cxiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder, eds. Possessors, predicates and movement ill the Determiner Phrase. Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder, eds. Amsterdam: John Bcnjarnins Publishing Company, 93-108. Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68:553-596. Harley, Heidi Britton. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. Doctoral dissertation. MIT Press. Lindauer, Thomas. 1998. Attributive genitive constructions in German. In Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder, eds. Possessors, predicates and movement ill the Determiner Phrase. Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ ishing Company, 109-140. Muhlbauer, Jeff. 2004. Indefinite relations and possession in Plains Cree. Ms. University of British Columbia. Partee, Barbara and Vladimir Borschev. 1999. Possessives, favorite and Coercion. In Anastasia Riehl and Rebecca Daly, eds. Proceedings of ESCOL99 173- 190. Ithaca, New York. Partee, Barbara and Vladimir Borschev. 2002. Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of Negation in Russian. Conference on Existence: semantics and syntax. Nancy, Sept. 26. Siorto, Gianluca. 2003. Possessives in context: issues in the semantics or possessive constructions. Doctoral dissertation. University or California, Los Angeles. Vergnaud, J.R., and M.L. Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. In Lin guistic Inquiry 23:595-652.