the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

175
respect the analysis is similar to that of Freeze. However, Kayne differs from Freeze
in that for Kayne voiture ‘car’ is originally predicated of ‘Jean’ while for Freeze,
‘car’ would be in Spec of a PP of which ‘Jean’ is the complement.
One question that arises at this point is how the semantic interpretation of
the resulting sentence is achieved. Kayne states simply that “the relation between
voiture and Jean would presumably be established within IP.” (p.102)
5.4.2.3 Szabolcsi 1994
Szabolcsi [1994] presents a theory of the Hungarian noun phrase which highlights
the parallels between CP and DP structure. Her view differs from Abney [1987] in
that, among other things, the D head is equated with the C head, as opposed to
Abney’s suggestion that D is parallel to I.
Hungarian DPs, like CQ DPs, show overt possessor agreement morphology on
the noun head. The actual position of the possessor varies: it can follow the definite
article in which case it is null (nominative) Case-marked, or it may precede the definite
article in which case it is dative marked. These two possibilities are illustrated
in (5.60) and (5.61).
(5.60) (a)
(the)
Mari
Mari(-nom)
‘Mari’s hats’ (Szabolcsi 2)
kalap-ja-i
hat-poss-pl(-3sg)
(5.61) Mari-nak
Mari-dat
a-
the
‘Mari’s hats’ (Szabolcsi 3)
kalap-ja-i
hat-poss-pl(-3sg)
Szabolcsi proposes that the Hungarian ‘have’ construction, illustrated in (5.62),
is derived from an existential construction (as in (5.63)), together with a possessor
construction. Thus, the dative subject is an instance of possessor extraction.