Number Features and Distributivity in Possessive DPs: ��Rethinking Romance-English Contrasts

Caitlin E. Samples | kesamples@icloud.com

Stanford University | The University of Georgia

Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages| September 10, 2025

Outline

1. Statement of the Problem
2. Romance vs. English Possessive Structures
3. Previous Analyses
4. Problems with Existing Analyses
5. Proposal
6. Conclusions

2

Statement of the Problem

• Romance languages permit distributive readings of [- plural] possessa paired with [+ plural] possessors, which has traditionally contrasted with languages like English (Rappaport, 2017) (ex. 1).

(1) a. The girls apply makeup to their *face/faces. (Eng) (1) d. As meninas passam maquiagem na cara. (Por)

(1) b. Les filles se maquillent le visage. (Fr) (1) e. Fetele se machiază pe față. (Ro)

(1) c. Le ragazze si truccano la faccia. (It) (1) f. Las muchachas se maquillan la cara. (Sp)

For every x, x is a girl, and x applies makeup to x’s face.

​

• The division of DP number features and distributivity in these Romance languages has been motivated in various ways, including [plural] underspecification, type/token contrasts, and expletive determiners.

​

• In this preliminary analysis, I suggest analyzing the possessum number features as [± plural] and attributing these examples’ distributive meanings to a [± distributive] feature occurring on the possessum and checked by a distributive operator (Beghelli, 1995; Beghelli & Stowell, 1997; Samples, in prep.) in AdvP to account for possessive structures cross-linguistically.

3

Romance Possessive Structures

• Internal possession
• Utilizes possessive determiners within the possessum DP or a possessor PP
• Possessive determiners co-refer with the possessor and agree with it in number and person. They agree with the possessum in number, and in gender in the case of 1-PL and 2-PL_{vosotr_s} possessors.
• Possessa may be [± alienable] (Montrul & Ionin, 2012)
• (2) [María y Marta]_i lavan su(s)_i cara(s)/sus_i dientes/su(s)_i carro(s).
• (3) [Juan y Ramón]_i vuelven su(s)_i cabeza(s).
• (4) Le coiffeur coupe les pro_i cheveux de [Jeanne et Martine]_i.
• (5) Le médecin_i a radiographié leur(s)_j estomac(s).

[V & Z, 1992:598 (6a), 602 (16a)]

4

Both [± plural] possessa may be available (Samples, in prep.; V & Z, 1992). Vergnaud & Zubizarreta note that [+ plural, - alienable] possessa are not distributive in this context.

Romance Possessive Structures

• External possession with “gestural motion” verbs (Pérez-Leroux, et al., 2002)
• Utilizes definite determiners to head the possessum NP
• Pérez-Leroux, et al. (2002:181) note that many have claimed that a variable (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992) or a pro (Authier, 1988:246-248; Guéron, 1985) in the possessum DP co-refers with the possessor
• Does not require a reflexive clitic
• Possessa may be [± alienable] in languages like French (Guéron, 1985) and Spanish (Gorissen, 2019)
• [+ plural, - alienable] possessa are available when the body part occurs in pairs (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992; Pérez-Leroux, et al. 2002)
• (6) [Juan y Ramón]_i vuelven la pro_i cabeza/*las pro_i cabezas.
• (7) [Juan y Ramón]_i estiran el pro_i brazo/los pro_i brazos.
• (8) [Helena e Isabel]_i pierden siempre el pro_i celular.

​

• External possession with reflexive clitics
• Utilizes definite determiners AND reflexive clitics
• Reflexive clitics occur outside the possessum DP and co-refer with the possessor (Winters, 2003)
• (9) a. [Juan y Ramón]_i se_i rascan la pro_i nariz.
• (9) b. [Juan y Ramón]_i rascan la pro_*i/j nariz.
• (10) a. Ursule_i lui_*i/j a massé les pro_*i/j chevilles. [Authier, 1988:229 (1a)]
• (10) b. Arstide_i s’est_i massé les pro_i chevilles. [Authier, 1988:229 (1b)]

5

Ex. 8 would be considered an “extended inalienable” by V & Z (1992) or a “personal sphere” possessum by P-L, et al. (2002).

If the clitic is absent in ex. 9, the possessum is [+ alienable] and cannot co-refer with Juan y Ramón (Gorissen, 2019). The same occurs in French (V & Z, 2002:621). Ex. 10 shows that French uses auxiliaries in addition to clitics to mark this difference.

Romance Possessive Structures, cont.

• External possession with accusative/dative clitics
• The possessum DP is selected by a P and headed by a definite determiner
• The possessor is represented by an external accusative (ex. 11) or dative (ex. 12) clitic
• (11) a. Lo_ACC toqué en el hombro. (Sp) [P-L, et al., 2002:190 (17)]
• (11) b. L_ACC-am lovit pe Ion la picior. (Ro) [Winters, 2003:66 (49b)]
• (12) El padre le_DAT puso la mano a José en el hombro. (Sp) [P-L, et al., 2002:192 (22)]

​

• External possession with dative clitics
• The possessum DP is headed by a definite determiner
• The possessor co-refers with a dative clitic and may be represented by a PP (ex. 13-15)
• (13) a. Le medecin leur_DAT a radiografié l’estomac/*les estomacs. (Fr) [V & Z, 1992:597 (4a), 602 (15a)]
• (13) b. On leur_DAT a lavé les mains. (Fr) [V & Z, 1992:599 (9)]
• (14) La madre le_DAT toca la frente/*las frentes al niño. (Sp) [P-L, et al., 2002:192 (20a)]
• (15) Il medico ha esaminato loro_DAT la gola. (It) [Delfitto & D’Hulst, 1995, qtd. Lamiroy & Delbecque 1998:9 (23a)]

6

Romance Possessive Structures: Syntactic Stipulations

• The possessor c-commands the possessum (Guéron, 2006) (ex 16).
• (16) a. Jean tourne la tête.
• (16) b. *Les cheveux entournent Marie.

[P-L, et al., 2002:182 (8)]

• The same is true in English (ex. 17):
• (17) a. √ John turns his head.
• (17) b. *Her hair wraps around Mary. cf. Mary’s hair wraps around her.

​

• “Inalienable possession nouns require local antecedents in a relation that obeys minimality” (Pérez-Leroux, et al., 2002:182) (ex. 18).
• (18) a. Juan_i bajó el pro_i pie de la mesa.
• (18) b. Juan_i le_j bajó el pro_*i/j pie a Mirta de la mesa.

[P-L, et al., 2002:182 (9)]

​

7

English Possessive Structures

• Internal possession (ex. 19-20)
• The only option for [- alienable] interpretations (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992)
• Possessum DPs contain a possessive determiner that co-refers with the possessor. Possessive determiners agree with the possessor in terms of number. No agreement takes place between the determiner and the possessum.
• Possessor and possessum number match in [- alienable, + distributive] contexts (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992)
• Possessa may be [± alienable] (Guéron, 2006)
• (19) a. Oscar_i scratched his_i/j nose/*noses.
• (19) b. [Bert and Ernie]_i scratched their_i/j *nose/noses.
• (20) [Cookie Monster and the Grouch]_i sold their_i car/cars.

​

• External possession (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992) (ex. 21)
• Limited to certain verbs and occurs in a PP
• “verbs that license metonymy” (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992:639)
• Combines a direct object DP or accusative pronoun that co-refers with the possessor
• The possessum DP is headed by a definite determiner
• (21) Miss Piggy_i tapped/*turned Kermit_ACC-j/him_ACC-j on the pro_*i/j shoulder.
• Vergnaud & Zubizarreta note that these same phenomena occur in French

​

• Otherwise, definite determiners may not head inalienable possessum DPs (ex. 22).
• (22) [John and Jane]_i washed *the_*i/j /their_i/j faces.

​

​

​

8

The [- alienable] possessa in (19) are [+ distributive]. The [+ alienable] possessa in (20) may be either

[± distributive].

The prompts an [+ alienable] reading in ex. 22 (Montrul & Ionin, 2012). Their may be either [± alienable], depending on its antecedent (Guéron, 2006).

(21) --| Miss Piggy tapped Kermit/him (V & Z, 1992:639-640).

Previous Analyses

9

Previous Analyses: [plural] Feature Underspecification

• Pérez-Leroux, et al. (P-L, et al.) (2002), following Schmitt & Munn (2000), argue that, in Spanish, inalienable possessa have three possible renditions of number features: [singular], underspecified [plural], and [plural] (ex. 23).
• (23) a. Juan se lavó la cara. [singular]
• (23) b. Juan y Pablo se lavaron la cara. underspecified [plural]
• (23) c. Juan y Pablo se lavaron los dientes. [plural]

​

• The underspecified [plural] feature corresponds to morphologically singular possessa paired with plural possessors and read distributively (ex. 24).
• (24) a. Las muchachas se maquillan la cara. √ underspecified [plural]
• (24) b. *The girls apply makeup to their face. X underspecified [plural]
• (24) c. The girls apply makeup to their faces. √ [plural]

10

Previous Analyses: [plural] Feature Underspecification

• Schmitt & Munn (2000) explain bare singular nouns in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) via feature underspecification (ex. 25-28, from Schmitt & Munn, 2000:37-40). For these authors, bare singular nouns:

​

• Act as antecedents for both [± plural] nouns when generic or existential
• (25) a. Coehlo vê o mundo de outra maneira porque é muito pequeno/eles são muito pequenos. [50]
• (25) b. Coehlos vêem o mundo de outra maneira porque *é muito pequeno/eles são muito pequenos. [52]
• (25) c. Eu vi criança na sala. E ela estava/elas estavam ouvindo. [49b]
• (25) d. Eu vi crianças na sala. E *ela estava/elas estavam ouvindo. [51b]

​

• Cannot be modified with diferente
• (26) Eles escreveram um livro diferente/*livro diferente/livros diferentes. [53]

​

• Are grammatical in durative contexts but not in terminative ones
• (27) a. Eu escrevi carta/cartas por duas horas. [54a-b]
• (27) b. Eu escrevi uma carta/#carta/#cartas em duas horas. [54c-d]

​

• Cannot be modified with each
• (28) Os países da UE mandaram um delegado/*delegado/*delegados cada. [55]

11

Previous Analyses: [plural] Feature Underspecification

• Bare singulars can be arguments in BP but cannot in English or other Romance languages (ex. 29).
• (29) a. Beija-flor é ave. [Schmitt & Munn, 2000:10 (10)]
• (29) b. *(Le) colibri c’est *(un) oiseau.
• (29) c. *(El) colibrí es *(un) pájaro.
• (29) d. *(The) hummingbird is *(a) bird. [Schmitt & Munn, 2000:10 (10)]

​

• Schmitt & Munn argue that BP bare singulars lack NumP; instead, they contain only AgrP and are underspecified for number.
• Therefore, they are kinds/types.
• According to Chierchia (1998, qtd. Schmitt & Munn, 2000), “kinds [are] undifferentiated for singular and plural” (41).
• Pérez-Leroux, et al. attribute the same lack of NumP to [- plural, + distributive] possessa paired with [+ plural] possessors.
• English does not separate NumP and AgrP, unlike BP and other Romance languages.

​

(30) Eu encontrei amigo e parente no aeroporto. (Schmitt & Munn, 2000:42 [57])

​

12

(Schmitt & Munn, 2000:42 [58])

(31)

Previous Analyses: Type/Token Contrasts

• Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (V&Z) (1992) present inalienable possession structures in French (ex. 32) and contrast them with English.
• (32) a. Les enfants ont levé la main. [V & Z, 1992:596 (1)]
• (32) b. The children raised their ?hand/hands. [see Rappaport, 2017]
• (32) c. *The children raised the hand. [V & Z, 1992:596 (1)]

​

• These French structures arise because the inalienable possessum is a type, rather than a token.
• Type: main(x) 🡪 with a possessor argument (inalienable)
• Token: main 🡪 without a possessor argument (alienable OR inalienable)

​

• Only type possessa may be interpreted distributively.

14

Previous Analyses: Type/Token Contrasts

• Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992) divide possessive structures into internal and external structures (604).

​

​

​

​

​

• Both structure types are available in French. External structures may occur in English PPs only if they are selected by certain verbs.

​

15

Previous Analyses: Type/Token Contrasts

• Distributivity
• (33) a. Le médecin leur a radiographié l’estomac_i à toutes et il a constaté qu’ils_i avait des images normales.

For every x, the doctor examined x’s stomach.

• (33) b. Le médecin leur a radiographié la gorge_i à tous et il a constaté qu’elles_i étaient très rouges.

For every x, the doctor examined x’s throat.

• (33) c. On a lavé leurs mains.

For every x, we washed one or two of x’s hands.

[V & Z, 1992:599 (7), 602 (18)]

​

• Modification
• (34) a. Le coiffeur a peigné ses cheveux soyeux.
• (34) b. Pierre a lavé ses mains sales.
• (34) c. *Le coiffeur lui a peigné les cheveux soyeux.
• (34) d. *Pierre lui a lavé les mains sales.
• (34) e. Il lui a bandé les doigts gelés.
• (34) f. Elle lui a nettoyé la joue sale avec un mouchoir.

[V & Z, 1992:603 (19-21)]

​

• Number
• (35) a. Le médecin leur a radiographié l’estomac/*les estomacs. [V & Z, 1992:597 (4a)]
• (35) b. Le médecin a radiographié l’estomac/*les estomacs aux enfants. [V & Z, 1992:597 (5a)]
• (35) c. Le médecin a radiographié leur(s) estomac(s). [V & Z, 1992:598 (6a, 16a)]

​

16

Appositive (non-restrictive) adjectives are grammatical in internal possession structures (34a-b), but not in external ones (34c-d). External structures accept restrictive adjectives (34e-f) because these adjectives mean some, but not all (Authier, 1988; Kayne, 1975; V & Z, 1992). The same distinction holds in Spanish (P-L, et al. 2002; Winters, 2003).

In (33c), it is not necessary that the same number of hands be washed per x (V & Z, 1992:602).

The restriction in (35a) is also present in Romanian (Diana Catuneanu Pallini, p.c.).

External Possession Type Structures

17

Predication

binding

“This binding relation creates or gives rise to a new token denotatum, which is a plurality of instantiations of the inalienable type” (V & Z, 1992:619), i.e., various throats (tokens), resulting from throat(x) (type).

(Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992:618 [55])

…examiner la gorge aux enfants

(36)

Internal Possession Type Structures

18

binding Predication

The same process of token creation occurs here because the determiner is expletive, i.e., “has no denotational content.” We assume this because the possessum is distributive (V & Z, 1992:625).

(Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992:625 [67])

…leur estomac

(37)

Internal Possession Token Structures

19

The prepositional pronoun and definite determiner are suppleted to form the possessive determiner (V & Z, 1992:623).

[+ plural] token b/c of grammar; [- plural] b/c of semantics.

NO Predication

b/c of D’s “denotational index” (V & Z, 1992:627)

(Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992:627 [71])

…leurs estomacs

(38)

[- distributive]

Previous Analyses: Expletive Determiners

• Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992) and Baauw (2000) attribute Romance’s ability to form structures like those above to the presence of expletive determiners in these languages (ex. 39-40).
• (39) Les baleines sont en train de disparâitre. [V & Z, 1992:635 (83b&84b)]
• (40) Los leones son carnívoros. [Baaw, 2000:13]

​

• These expletive determiners are akin to those found in Romance external possession structures. They allow [+ distributive] readings of external possession structures with [+ plural] possessors and [- plural] possessa (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992).

​

• In languages like French, predication, i.e., binding, occurs between the possessor and the possessum because the definite determiner heading the possessum phrase is expletive.
• According to Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992), “[t]he NP complement of the definite determiner (or more precisely, its argument variable) will then become accessible to binding—via Predication—by an argument external to the direct object (namely, the dative complement of the verb” (617).
• The possessor DP and the possessum NP m-command each other.

​

20

Summarizing Romance vs. English

• English traditionally contrasts with Romance because it lacks [plural] underspecification of inalienable possessa (ex. 41a), type/token contrasts (41b), and expletive determiners (41c). Romance possesses these characteristics.

​

• (41) a. The girls apply makeup to their ?face/faces.

​

• (41) b. The children_i raised the_*i/j/their_i/j hand. [V & Z, 1992:596 (1)]

​

• (41) c. (*The) grey whales are becoming extinct in California.

[V & Z, 1992:635 (85b)]

​

21

Problems with Existing Analyses

22

Problems with Existing Analyses: [± alienable, �- plural, + distributive] Possessa in English

• Some English speakers use sentences like the following distributively. These sentences have [+ plural] possessors and [- plural] possessa. The possessa can be [± alienable] (42-44).
• (42) The students should not use their phone in class.
• (43) Some people don’t cover their mouth when coughing.
• (44) John and Jane turned their head to look at the accident.

​

• If the previous analyses (Pérez-Leroux, et al., 2002; Schmitt & Munn, 2000; Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992) are on track, these sentences should not be possible.
• English does not have expletive determiners and makes limited use of external possession structures (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992).

​

• The type/token contrast does not occur in English possessive structures (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992).

​

• English does not split AgrP & NumP; they are conjoined in an AgrP/NumP projection (Schmitt & Munn, 2000).

​

• If split Agr makes eschewing unnecessary number/gender features possible (Schmitt & Munn, 2000), and underspecifing [plural] motivates distributive readings of singular possessa + plural possessors in Spanish (Pérez-Leroux, et. al 2002), then similar structures should be impossible in English.

23

Problems with Existing Analyses: Examples from Mexican Spanish

• Number variation in “extended inalienables”/”personal sphere possessa” paired with [+ plural] possessors
• Sentences like Les revisaron a todos las maletas can imply the existence of one or more than one possessum per possessor (RAE, 2009:1066, 14.7r qtd. in Samples, 2019:5 (8)).
• Although Pérez-Leroux, et al. state that sentences like los hombres empujaron sus sombreros may be collective or distributive (2002fn. 1 (iii)). in an interpretive task, most participants chose this type of sentence ([+ plural] possessor, [+ plural] possessum) to describe internal possession contexts that illustrated a 1 possessum/possessor situation (ex. 45) (Samples, in prep.).
• (45) Recogen sus camisas vs. Recogen su camisa [Samples, in prep.]

​

• Other lexical items, such as cama, ‘bed,’ and pijama, ‘pajamas,’ can be used as singular or plural (ex. 46).
• (46) a. (Sus hijos/hijas)…Dieron un gran bostezo en su cama. [Samples in prep., participant EIZ8]
• (46) b. (Sus hijos)…se han recostado en sus camas. [Samples in prep., participant EIZ1]
• (46) c. …los cobije en sus camas [Samples, in prep., participant EIP6)]
• (46) d. Después, se pusieron sus pijamas. [Samples, in prep., participant EIZ14)]
• (46) e. …se pusieron su pijama [Samples, in prep., participant EIP10)]

​

• Munn & Schmitt (qtd. Pérez-Leroux, et al. 2002) observed that los hombres se quitaron los sombreros has a multiple possessum/possessor meaning, but los hombres empujaron sus sombreros does not (205, fn. 1 (ii, iii). This does not seem to be the case in reduplicated structures with pijama(s) (see 46d-e).

​

• In a written production task, the lexical item carita, ‘little face,’ is used in the plural when modified by a possessive determiner. Cara, ‘face,’ is used in the singular with a definite determiner (ex. 47).
• (47) a. …rapidamente lavaron sus caritas y dientes… [Samples in prep., participant EIP4]
• (47) b. Ya cuando salen fresquitos leemos un cuento y me encantan sus caritas emocionadas.

[Samples in prep., participant EIZ2]

• (47) c. …la mando a lavarse la cara [Samples in prep., participant EIP5]
• (47) d. …les pido que se laven la cara [Samples in prep., participant EIZ5]

​

• Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992) argue that sentences of the first type (47a-b) do not yield distributive interpretations of possessa as there is no binding/predication between DP and the possessum NP. However, pragmatic knowledge would suggest otherwise: people have only one face.

24

Proposal

25

The present proposal:��(1) possessum number features can be analyzed as [± plural]��(2) if a possessum is distributive, a covert Distributive operator occurs in AdvP and corresponds to a floating quantifier, each (one)��(3) possessa contain a [± distributive] feature��(4) the Dist operator is [+ distributive] and checks the possessum’s distributive feature

[± plural] Possessum Features

• DeArmond (2007a, 2007b/2016) discusses the concept of linking to motivate agreement. Linking occurs when there is a syntactic relationship between a head and its argument(s). Heads and arguments agree with respect to features (ex. 48).
• (48) (DeArmond, 2007b/2016:24)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

• Features start out with no markings. They are then set for a + or – value. A structure is possible if its features match (ex. 49). It is impossible if its features clash (ex. 50) (DeArmond, 2007b).
• (49) [_Feature] 🡪 [+ Feature] or [- Feature]
• (50) [_DP la [_NP niña]] vs. * [_DP las [_NP niña]]

​

​

27

[± plural] Possessum Features

• For DeArmond, even if an argument has a non-inherent feature, such as [_plural] with respect to nouns, it must receive a marking for that feature (Unspecified Feature Constraint) (ex. 51) and match its features to its head, in this case the determiner (see DeArmond’s Matching Feature Constraint, 2007b/2016:8 [30]) (ex. 52). For nouns, that would look like [- plural] or [+ plural], depending on the context (2007a, 2007b/2016).
• (51) *[_Feature] at Surface Structure
• (52) *A string that contains a link linking the same feature but having opposite feature-values.

​

• DeArmond gives a Russian example containing gender morphology-pragmatics mismatches (ex. 53). In (53), the predicate professor is morphologically masculine but its index is feminine because it refers to she. DeArmond proposes the indexical feature [+ FGen] to link the predicate and the subject. Similar examples exist in Spanish and French (ex. 54-55).
• (53) Ona xoroshij professor. [DeArmond, 2007b/2016:30 (77)]

she good-M.SG.NOM professor-M.3SG

She is a good professor

• (54) Mme. Leclerc est un bon professeur.
• (55) Luisa es un médico ontológico en el hospital central.

​

• If Pérez-Leroux, et al. (2002) are on track in their analysis of singular possessa as having underspecified number features, how would the possessum noun agree with its determiner head if heads and arguments must feature match? Perhaps the noun’s features are [± plural], depending on the determiner’s features, and the possessum matches its [± distributive] features with another element in the sentence.

​

• Additionally, positing [± plural] possessum features would allow us not to split Agr when motivating sentences such as (44), repeated here:
• John and Jane turned their head to look at the accident.

28

Distributive Operators

• The choice of (non-)distributive interpretations can be motivated by factors like noun type (Sørensen, 1985), predicate type (Syrett & Musolino, 2013), and the presence/absence of a distributive operator (Chatain, 2019).
• (56) The women from Boxborough brought a salad.
• a. Collective: one salad was brought 🡪 NO Distributive (DIST) operator
• B. Distributive: each woman brought one salad --> √ DIST operator
• (57) The women from Boxborough [DIST brought a salad]. = The women from Boxborough each brought a salad.

[Chatain, 2019:1 (1, 2)]

​

• Each interpretations of distributive possessive structures are possible in languages like English, French (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta, 1992), Romanian (Winters, 2003:56), and Spanish (Pérez-Leroux, et al., 2002).
• (58) a. The dog licked Mary’s and Tracy’s faces. = The dog licked each girl’s face. (Eng)

​

• (58) b. Le médecin leur a radiographié l’estomac aux enfants. = The doctor X-rayed each child’s stomach. (Fr)

[V & Z, 1992:597 (5a)]

• (58) c. Docturul le-a examinat gîtul. = The doctor examined each person’s throat. (Ro)

[Winter, 2003:56 (36b)]

• (58) d. La peluquera les lava la cabeza a las clientes. = The hairdresser washes each client’s hair. (Sp)

​

​

​

29

Distributive Operators

• Researchers have posited that floating quantifiers exist in languages like Arabic, English, French, and Japanese (Al Kalaf, 2019; Doetjes, 1997; Dowty & Brodie, 1984). Some examples include all, both, and each (Al Kalaf, 2019).

​

• A possible analysis of these quantifiers is that they occur in AdvP (Beghelli, 1995; Doetjes, 1997).
• (59) [les linguistes]_i ont [_VP tous [_DP ec]]_i [_VP t_i dansé la salsa]]
• The floating quantifier tous binds the DP trace.

[Doetjes, 1997:289 (4)]

​

• That other adverbs can be found in the same position as floating quantifiers like each lends support to the AdvP analysis.
• (60) a. The girls (all/both/each/never/always/often/sometimes) apply makeup to their faces. (Eng)
• (60) b. Les filles se maquillent (toutes/chacune/souvent/toujours/parfois) le visage (chacune). (Fr)
• Las muchachas se maquillan (todas/cada una/siempre/a veces/todos los días) la cara (cada una/siempre/todos los días). (Sp)

​

• A “silent each” has been postulated by Beghelli (1995) under the term “pseudo-distributivity” (156).

​

30

Beghelli’s (1995) Pseud0-Distributivity

• Beghelli proposes several quantifier types and assigns each its own functional projection. Distributive quantifiers are moved to a distributive phrase (DistP) (1995:158 [50]).

​

​

​

​

​

• He observes that phrases with distributive interpretations may occur in other types of QPs and calls this phenomenon ”pseudo-distributivity.” This process involves a covert distributive operator.

31

Beghelli’s (1995) Pseud0-Distributivity

• Beghelli gives the following stipulations for pseudo-distributivity (1995:157 [47]).
• Distribution of PD [pseudo-distributivity]
• a. PD involves the use of a (silent) distributive adverbial, which is distinct from the distributive operator in Dist⁰;
• b. This adverbial is only available in AgrXP (X=S,O,IO) and ShareP;
• c. A GQP [group quantifier phrase] can antecede the adverbial if it has a trace/copy in the Spec position of one of these three projections.
• d. Additionally, for a GQP to fill the role of a PD distributor, the adverbial must c-command the position of the distributee QP at LF.

​

32

33

Beghelli (1995:59 [51])

​

All argumental positions accept silent each.

subject

indirect object

direct object

[± distributive] Features

• [distributive] features have been assumed in various languages.
• English (Beghelli, 1995; Beghelli & Stowell, 1997)
• The ∀ quantifier each is [+ distributive].
• Phrases headed by distributive quantifiers (distributive QPs) are displaced to Spec, DistP because they must check [+ distributive] features.
• A distributive operator ∀ is found in Dist and checks a distributive QP’s [+ distributive] features.

​

• Korean tul (Hwang & Lardiere, 2013)
• An interpretable [distributive] is attributed to the extrinsic plural marker tul.
• Tul “functions as a distributive operator on a predicate, a primary purpose of which is to disambiguate between potentially ambiguous collective versus distributive readings. Because it introduces universal quantification over the plurality of the subject, [the authors] assume it bears an uninterpretable feature ([u-pl])” (Hwang & Lardiere, 2013:62).
• (61) pro mul-ul/ mul-(ul)-tul mass-ess-ni? [Hwang & Lardiere, 2013:62 (11)]

pro water-ACC/water-(ACC)-EPL drink-PAST-INT

Did you_SG/you_PL drink water?

​

• Russian (Harves, 2003)
• [+ distributive] is assumed to occur on the preposition po when it is used distributively.
• (62) Ja dal každomu mal’čiku po jabloku. [Harves, 2003:1 (1a)]

I gave each boy po apple-DAT

I gave each boy a (different) apple.

​

​

34

Testing the Hypothesis

• If the covert distributive operator Op_each is inserted into the examples below, only the examples in which the operator is in AgrXP and c-commands the possessum distributee are grammatical.

​

• English internal possession structures
• (63) a. [John and Jane]_[3-pl] [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} turned their_[3-pl] head_{i, [+ dist, - pl]} to look at the accident.
• (63) b. [John and Jane]_[3-pl] [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} turned their_[3-pl] heads_{i, [+ dist, + pl]} to look at the accident.
• (63) c. * [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} [John and Jane]_[3-pl] turned their_[3-pl] head_{i, [- pl]} to look at the accident.
• (63) d. [John and Jane]_[3-pl] turned their_[3-pl] head_{i, [- pl]} *[Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} to look at the accident.
• (63) e. [John and Jane]_[3-pl] turned their_[3-pl] head_{i, [- pl]} to look at the accident *[Op_each]_{i, [+ dist] i} .

​

• Romance internal possession structures
• (64) a. Ana y Eva bajaron [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} la_{[- pl]} cabeza_{i, [+ dist, - pl]}.
• (64) b. * [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} Ana y Eva bajaron la_{[- pl]} cabeza_{i, [+ dist, -pl]}.
• (64) c. Patricia y Lydia volvieron [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} su cabeza_{i, [+ pl]} /sus cabezas_{i, [+ dist, + pl]}.
• (64) d. * [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} Armando y Jonathan recogen sus_{[+ pl]} camisas_{i, [+ dist, + pl]}.

​

35

Testing the Hypothesis

• Romance external possession structures
• (65) a. Richard et Jean se lavent [Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} le_{[- pl]} nez_{i, [-pl, + dist]}.
• (65) b. *[Op_each]_{i, [+ dist]} Richard et Jean se lavent [Op_each]_i le_{[- pl]} nez_{i, [+ dist, - pl]}.

​

• In each of the Romance examples, the possessum NP’s number features agree with those of its DP. The English DPs do not require a correspondence between their number features and those of their argument nouns. However, as in the Romance structures, the possessor c-commands the possessum (Guéron, 2006). The possessive determiner agrees in number and person features with its possessor (see DeArmond, 2007a, 2007b/2016).

​

• Sentences like these permit distributive interpretations. [+ distributive] Op_each checks the possessum’s distributive feature.

36

Constraints on Distributive Operators

• External possession PPs
• These sentence types do not seem to fit within the present analysis. Other universal quantifiers such as both or each (one of) N would need to be postulated here.
• (66) Le coiffeur leur a coupé les cheveux aux clients. 🡪 à tous ses clients
• (67) Miss Piggy tapped Kermit and Elmo on the arm. 🡪 both Kermit and Elmo

​

• Romance expressions with sentence-final each
• (68) Armando y Jonathan recogen sus camisas cada uno.
• (69) Richard et Jean leur lavent le nez a chacun de ses frères.
• These sentences would not be predicted by this analysis because Op_each cannot c-command the possessum.

​

• Lexical constraints: predicates
• Per Syrett & Musolino (2013), predicates may imply collectivity or distributivity. Future analyses would need to consider the role of predicate type.
• (70) John and Jane gathered in their office to eat lunch. *John ate lunch in his office, and Jane ate lunch in hers.

​

• Lexical constraints: nouns
• Sørensen (1985) points out the existence of distributive nouns that are not pluralized.
• (71) This need for [typographical] economy put a heavy strain on their eyesight. [Sørensen, 1985:340]

​

• Other quantifier types
• (72) The students should not use their phone in class.
• (73) Some people don’t cover their mouth when coughing.
• The and some are existential quantifiers (Beghelli, 1997). These examples also include negation (see Beghelli, 1997 and Szabolsci, 2010 for discussions on the interactions between distributivity and negation).

​

37

To Summarize

• I suggested that possessa be analyzed as [± plural] and check [distributive] features with a [+ distributive] silent distributive operator, Op_each. The operator occurs in AgrXP positions and c-commands the possessum. However, sentence-final Op_each is not predicted by the analysis, a topic meriting future work.

38

Future Directions

• Extend the present analysis to sentences implying each one of N or each N. Here, each is used as a determiner, which is a separate case from floating each, as posited by Choe (1987).

​

• Analyze reduplicated possessive structures in Spanish.
• Anita y Silvia se ponen su pijama/sus pijamas.

​

• Collect data on the types of lexical items (nouns and predicates) speakers of various Romance languages categorize as [± distributive].

​

• Test the relationship between determiner type and possessum number and its effects on collective vs. distributive interpretations in Romance languages.

​

39

Selected References

Al Kalaf, E. 2019. Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis. / Authier, J.-M. P. 1988. The syntax of unselective binding. / Baauw, S. 2000. Grammatical Features and the Acquisition of Reference: A Comparative Study of Dutch and Spanish. / Beghelli, F. 1995. The Phrase Structure of Quantifier Scope. / Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. / Cambridge Online Dictionary. / Chapa Barrios, F., & Vázquez Rojas-Maldonado, V. 2023. Uno que otro: a distributive indefinite in Mexican Spanish. / Chatain, K. 2019. Wide-scope distributivity. / Choe, J.-W. 1987. Anti-quantifiers and a theory of distributivity. / Dante Learning.com / DeArmond, R. C. 2007a. The subject as an operator. / DeArmond, R. C. 2007b/2016. Linking theory. / Deepl.com. / Dowty, D., & Brodie, B. 1984. A semantic analysis of ”floating” quantifiers in a ”transformationless” grammar. / Garantiza Linguistica.it/ Google Translate. / Gorissen, L. 2019. Posesión inalienable y alienable en español: la interpretación por parte de los aprendices de español.. / Gil, D. 1997. Universal quantifiers and distributivity. / Guéron, J. 1985. Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion, and lexical chains. / Guéron, J. 2006. Inalienable possession. / Harves, S. 2003. Getting impersonal: Case, agreement, and distributive po-phrases in Russian. / Haspelmath, M. 1999. External possession in a European aerial perspective. / Hwang, S. H., & Lardiere, D. 2013. Plural marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. / Italian Online. / Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax. / Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax. / Kliffer, M. D. 1999. The Western Romance drift away from external dative possessors. / König, E., & Haspelmath, M. 1998. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. / Lamiroy, B, & Delbecque, N. 1998. The possessive dative in Romance and Germanic languages. / Li, H., & Law, J. H.-K. 2017. At least some distributive items aren’t distributive items. / Link, G. 1987. Generalized quantifiers. / Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. 2012. Dominant language transfer in heritage speakers and second language learners in the interpretation of definite articles. / Mostrov, V. 2010. Inalienable possession in French and in Bulgarian. / Pérez-Leroux, A., et al. 2002. Inalienable possession in Spanish: L2-acquisition at the lexicon-syntax interface. / Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. / RAE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. / Rappaport, J. 2017. Singular or plural? Sometimes, it depends. / Romania Insider.com / Samples, C.E. 2018. Número en contextos de posesión en español e inglés. / Samples, C.E. 2019. Collective and distributive interpretations of possessive sentences. / Samples, C. E. In prep. Collective, distributive, and referential interpretations of possessives in English and in Spanish: L1, L2, and heritage language perspectives. / Sørensen, K. 1985. The distributive plural and its limits. / Syrett, K, & Musolino, J. 2013. Collectivity, distributivity, and the interpretation of plural numerical expressions in child language. / Tomioki, S., & Tsai, Y. 2005. Domain restrictions for distributive quantification in Mandarin Chinese. / Winters, R. A. 2003. Inalienable possession and its effects on the syntax of Spanish and Romanian. / Szabolsci, A. 2010. Quantification. / Verbix. 2025. Romanian verb 'machia' conjugated. / YolaineBoudin.com. / Vergnaud, J.-R., & Zubizarreta, M. L. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English.

​

Thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments

and to Diana Catuneanu Pallini for assistance with Romanian.

40

Thank You��kesamples@icloud.com

41