Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:57:49.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

That Crazy Idea of Hers: The English Double Genitive as Focus Construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Jennifer Abel
Jennifer Abel*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary/Mount Royal College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previously, no single analysis has accounted for all three subtypes of the English double genitive construction: the indefinite (a book of John’s), the definite (the book of John’s that you read), and the demonstrative (that book of John’s). Phonetic and pragmatic evidence discussed in the literature—for example, stress and familiarity/importance to the discourse participants—indicates that the demonstrative construction is a focus construction, bringing the possessed item into a prominent position in the discourse. The application of the Focus Hypothesis to all double genitives is empirically supported and is consistent with theoretical considerations having to do with the function of relative clauses and distributional differences between double genitives and standard partitives.

Résumé

Résumé

Jusqu’à présent, aucune analyse n’a pris en compte l’ensemble des trois souscatégories qui permettent la formation du double génitif en anglais : la construction indéfinie (a book of John’s), la construction définie (the book of John’s that you read) et la construction démonstrative (that book of John’s). Les données phonétiques et pragmatiques discutées dans la littérature—par exemple, l’intonation et la familiarité/importance par rapport aux participants du discours—indiquent que la construction démonstrative est une forme emphatique, puisqu’elle donne à l’objet possédé une position proéminente dans le discours. L’application de l’hypothèse d’emphase à tous les cas de doubles génitifs est empiriquement motivée et compatible avec des notions théoriques ayant trait à la fonction des propositions relatives et des différences distributionnelles entre le double génitif et le partitif.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, Jennifer. 2002. That crazy idea of Jen’s: The English double genitive as focus construction. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Wilder, Chris, eds. 1998. Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:679–717.Google Scholar
Burton, Strang C. 1995. Six issues in choosing a husband: Possessive relations in the lexical semantic structures of verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74:245–273.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 1999. Subject, nominative case, agreement and focus. In Boundaries of morphology and syntax, ed. Mereu, Lunella, 195–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69:274–307.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Studies in anaphora, ed. Fox, Barbara, 205–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1968. Possessives in English. In Studies in transformational grammar and related topics, ed. Anderson, Stephen R., Jackendoff, Ray S., and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 25–51. AFCRL-68-0032.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Narita, Hajime. 1986. The nature of double genitive. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 19:193–206.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical pragmatics, ed. Cole, Peter, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, and Greenbaum, Sidney. 1973. A university grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reed, Ann M. 1991. On interpreting partitives. In Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman, ed. Napoli, Donna Jo and Kegl, Judy Anne, 207–224. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philo-sophica 27:53–94.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49:19–46.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota A. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Language 40:37–52.Google Scholar
Storto, Gianluca. 2000a. On the structure of indefinite possessives. In Proceedings of SALT X, ed. Jackson, Brendan and Matthews, Tanya, 203–220. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Storto, Gianluca. 2000b. Double genitives aren’t (quite) partitives. In Papers from the Thirty-Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1: The Main Session, ed. Okrent, Arika and Boyle, John P., 501–516. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Välimaa-Blum, Ruta. 2001. The English bare plural and the Finnish partitive: Non-bounded quantity in a mental space. Languages in Contrast 3:181–201.Google Scholar