6 Alexander Grosu
Lyutikova and Pereltsvaig discuss two possessive constructions in Tatar. Possessive
constructions in various languages have been a frequently addressed topic in the ear-
lier generative literature, an incomplete list being Szabolcsi (1983, 1987 , 1994 ) for
Hungarian, Abney (1987) for English, Haider (1987), Sternefeld (2005) for German,
Grosu (1988, 1994 ), Giusti (1995, 2002 , 2008 ) for Italian and other Romance lan-
guages, Delsing (1993) for Scandinavian languages, Cornilescu (1995), Dobrovie-
Sorin (2000), Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea (2013) for Romanian, Ritter (1988, 1991 ),
Shlonsky (1988) and Siloni (2001, 2010 ) for Modern Hebrew, Babyonishev (1997) and
Trugman (2005, 2007 ) for Russian, and a plethora of additional relevant studies, many
of which are cited in the above works.
The chapter at issue takes as a point of departure the two studies by Trugman
just cited, which proposed that Russian has two superficially indistinguishable, but
hierarchically distinct possessive constructions, such that the ‘lower’ possessive allows
an idiomatic construal and does not introduce a referent, while the ‘higher’ posses-
sive does introduce a referent and disallows an idiomatic construal. Lyutikova and
Pereltsvaig show that Tatar has two comparable constructions with arguably the same
hierarchical properties, but different in superficial appearance from each other, and
including nouns which cannot Case-mark other nouns, in contrast to their Russian
counterparts. An important result of this chapter is that it reinforces Trugman’s argu-
mentation that languages without articles may nevertheless exhibit fully projected DPs.
Bożena Cetnarowska discusses the distribution of adnominal classifying and quali-
fying adjectives in Polish, against the background of proposals made by Rutkowski
and Progovac (2005) and Rutkowski (2007, 2009 , 2012 ). The chapter takes issue with
empirical claims made in these studies, in particular, with the claim that one or more
qualifying adjectives may occur in a DP, but only pre-nominally, and that a single
classifying adjective may occur in a DP, and only post-nominally. The author shows
that multiple classifying adjectives may occur in the same DP, and not necessarily in
post-nominal position.
The studies by Rutkowski (and Progovac) just referred to propose to capture the
distributional constraints they viewed as correct by assuming that classifying APs occur
in [Spec, NP], and qualifying APs occur in the Spec of higher functional projections.
Coupled with the further assumption that the head N needs to raise to the head of
the immediately higher functional projection, and no further, the system predicts the
facts as described by Rutkowski (and Progovac). To accommodate the additional facts
brought up by Cetnarowska, the framework of description adopted by Rutkowski (and
Progovac) would need to be loosened, e.g. by allowing multiple projections immedi-
ately above NP that can accommodate classifying APs in their Specs, and by making
N-raising optional. Cetnarowska, however, proposes a solution couched within a dif-
ferent framework of linguistic description, outlined in Bouchard (2002, 2009 ), and