{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05131578947368421, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02236842105263158, 'mean_word_length': 5.009881422924901, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the (non-)incorporation of PHave

Marijke De Belder University of Oldenburg 1. Main claim Theoretically, I argue that the presence of a little p° for PHave in Germanic predicative possessive constructions is construction-specific: it is always available, but it is optional and its presence results in semantic differences that go hand in hand with lexical distinctions and (non)-incorporation. Empirically, I discuss a.o. the Dutch zitten met ‘sit with’ construction, which was previously undiscussed and unidentified as a possessive. 2. Background 2.1 Have = be + P The field agrees that have can be decomposed into a copula and a P (Freeze 1992, Kayne 1993, Den Dikken 1995, Harley 2002, Levinson 2011). Detailed empirical discussions show that in Germanic languages this PHave is non-locative, with the possessor (in Spec,PP) c-commanding the possessee (the complement of P) (Kayne 1993, Harley 2002, Levinson 2011, pace Den Dikken 1995). 2.2 Levinson 2011 Levinson (2011) argues that the Icelandic vera með ‘be with’ possessive construction is the non-incorporated version of what is realised as have in other Germanic languages, such as English and German: 1) Jón er með gleraugu. John.NOM is with glasses.ACC ‘John has glasses’ More specifically, she proposes that in ‘a non-incorporating language’, such as Icelandic, the PP always merges with a little p° prior to merging with the copula. The P° introduces the semantic notion of accompaniment (expressed by með), the little p° introduces a feature control and assigns case to the possessee complement. The feature control introduces a possessive notion. (It contrasts with a feature symmetric, which expresses an associative reading (‘together with’) when merged with with.) For ‘incorporating languages’ (P + be —> have), such as English and German, she proposes that the little p°-layer is not available. The feature control, when present, merges on P itself. Given that the P domain lacks a case-assigning little p° head, P° incorporates into little v° (i.e. the copula), hence allowing little v° to assign case to the possessee. In sum, Levinson proposes that having a little p° in Germanic predicative possessives is language-specific, resulting in non-incorporating and incorporating languages. 3. Present proposal Relying on non-incorporating data in an otherwise incorporating language (Dutch), I propose that the availability of a little p°-layer in Germanic predicate possessives is not language-specific (as proposed by Levinson 2011), but construction-specific: both layers may merge independently from one another or on top of one another in any Germanic language, resulting in semantic and lexical contrasts (thus aligning PHave with V-layers and Spatial P-layers (see Den Dikken 2010, Svenonius 2010, ao)). More specifically, building on Levinson and extensive typological work done by Stassen (2009) on the features of possession, I propose that P° expresses a feature one could call accompaniment/contact/comitative and p° expresses (+/-permanent, +/-control).