In linguistics, inalienable possession[1] (abbreviatedINAL) is a type of possession in which a noun is obligatorily possessed by its possessor. Nouns or nominal affixes in an inalienable possession relationship cannot exist independently or be "alienated" from their possessor.[2] Inalienable nouns include body parts (such as leg, which is necessarily "someone's leg" even if it is severed from the body), kinship terms (such as mother), and part-whole relations (such as top).[3] Many languages reflect the distinction but vary in how they mark inalienable possession.[4] Cross-linguistically, inalienability correlates with many morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties.
In general, the alienable–inalienable distinction is an example of a binary possessive class system in which a language distinguishes two kinds of possession (alienable and inalienable). The alienability distinction is the most common kind of binary possessive class system, but it is not the only one.[4] Some languages have more than two possessive classes. In Papua New Guinea, for example, Anêm has at least 20 classes, and Amele has 32.[5][4]
With inalienable possession, the two entities have a permanent association in which the possessed has little control over their possessor.[7] For instance, body parts (under normal circumstances) do not change and cannot be removed from their possessor. The following real-world relationships often fall under inalienable possession:[3]
Type of relationship
Examples
kinship
father, mother, aunt
social relationship
trading partner, neighbor
body part
eye, leg
part-whole relationship
tabletop, side
possessed noun originates from the possessor
sweat, voice
mental state or process
fear, mind
attribute of a known possessor
name, age
Alienable possession, on the other hand, has a less permanent association between the two entities.[7] For instance, most objects may or may not be possessed. When such types of objects are possessed, the possession is alienable. Alienable possession is used generally for tangible items that one might cease to own at some point (such as my money), but inalienable possession generally refers to a perpetual relationship that cannot be readily severed (such as my mother or my arm).[3]
The table above outlines some common inalienable relationships, but it is important to note that they are just the most common types of inalienable nouns. Languages with an alienable/inalienable possession distinction differ in which classes fall under each type of possession. However, if a language has such a distinction, kinship roles or body parts (or both) make up some of the entities that are inalienably possessed.[8] Also, languages may make different distinctions within the categories on how many and which entities are treated as inalienable.[8]
Moreover, some languages allow the same noun to be either alienable or inalienable.[7] Thus, trying to determine if a noun is alienable or inalienable based on its meaning or its affiliation to a specific noun category (for instance, body parts) can be difficult.[9]
Variation by languages
Although the relationships listed above are likely to be instances of inalienable possession, those that are ultimately classified as inalienable depend on conventions that are specific by language and culture.[10] It is impossible to say that a particular relationship is an example of inalienable possession without specifying the languages for which that holds true. For example, neighbor may be an inalienable noun in one language but alienable in another.[10] Additionally, in some languages, one entity can be both alienably possessed and inalienably possessed, and its type of possession is influenced by other properties of the sentence.[7] Thus, whether a certain type of relationship is described as alienable or inalienable can be arbitrary. In that respect, alienability is similar to other types of noun classes such as grammatical gender.[11]
The examples below illustrate that the same phrase, the table's legs, is regarded as inalienable possession in Italian but alienable possession in French:[12] (1b) is ungrammatical (as indicated by the asterisk). French cannot use the inalienable possession construction for a relationship that is alienable.
(1) a.
Italian - inalienable possession relationship
Al
to.the
tavolo,
table
qualcuno
someone
gli
it.DAT
ha
has
segato
sawn
tutte
all
le
the
gambe
legs
Al tavolo, qualcuno gli ha segato tutte le gambe
to.the table someone it.DAT has sawn all the legs
'The table, someone has sawn off all its legs'
(1) b.
French - alienable possession relationship
*
La
the
table,
table,
quelqu'un
someone
lui
it.DAT
a
has
scié
sawn
toutes
all
les
the
pattes
legs
* La table, quelqu'un lui a scié toutes les pattes
{} the table, someone it.DAT has sawn all the legs
Bernd Heine argues that language change is responsible for the observed cross-linguistic variation in the categorization of (in)alienable nouns. He states that "rather than being a semantically defined category, inalienability is more likely to constitute a morphosyntactic or morphophonological entity, one that owes its existence to the fact that certain nouns happened to be left out when a new pattern for marking attributive possession arose."[13] He considers that nouns that are "ignored" by a new marking pattern come to form a separate noun class.
Morphosyntactic strategies for marking distinction
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is often marked by various morphosyntactic properties such as morphological markers and word order. The morphosyntactic differences are often referred to as possession split or split possession, which refer to instances of a language making a grammatical distinction between different types of possession.[14] In a language with possession split, grammatical constructions with alienable nouns will differ from constructions with inalienable nouns.
There is a strong typological pattern for inalienable possession to require fewer morphological markers than alienable possession constructions.[15]
Inalienable possession constructions involve two nouns or nominals: the possessor and the possessee. Together, they form a unit, the determiner phrase (DP), in which the possessor nominal may occur either before the possessee (prenominal) or after its possessee (postnominal), depending on the language.[16] French, for example, can use a postnominal possessor (the possessor (of) Jean occurs after the possessee the arm):
de Jean is a postnominal possessor, as it occurs after the noun. This sentence adapted from Guéron 2007: 590 (1a)John is a prenominal possessor and occurs before the possessed noun brother.
French: inalienable kin noun = postnominal possessor
le
the
frère
brother
de
of
Jean
Jean
le frère deJean
the brother ofJean
'John's brother'
(2) c.
French: alienable noun = postnominal possessor
le
the
livre
book
de
of
Jean
Jean
le livre deJean
the book ofJean
'John's book'
In contrast, English generally uses a prenominal possessor (John's brother). However, in some situations, it may also use a postnominal possessor, as in the brother of John.[4]
Morphological markers
No overt possessive markers
The South American languageDâw uses a special possessive morpheme (bold in the examples below) to indicate alienable possession.[17] The possessive morpheme ɛ̃̀ɟ in examples (3a) and (3b) indicates an alienable relationship between the possessor and the possessee.
(3) a.
Alienable
tɔp
house
Tũk-ɛ̃̀ɟ
Tũk-POSS
tɔp Tũk-ɛ̃̀ɟ
house Tũk-POSS
'Tũk's house'
(3) b.
tih-ɛ̃̀ɟ
3SG-POSS
cɤ̀g
arrow
tih-ɛ̃̀ɟ cɤ̀g
3SG-POSS arrow
'his arrow'
(Martins 2004: 546)
The possessive marker does not occur in inalienable possession constructions. Thus, the absence of ɛ̃̀ɟ, as in example (4), indicates that the relationship between the possessor and the possessee is inalienable possession.
(4)
Inalienable
tih
3SG
nũh
head
tih nũh
3SG head
‘his head'
(Martins 2004: 547)
Identical possessor deletion
In Igbo, a West African language, the possessor is deleted in a sentence if both its subject and the possessor of an inalienable noun refer to the same entity.[18]:87 In (5a), both referents are the same, but it is ungrammatical to keep both of them in a sentence. Igbo uses the processes of identical possessor deletion, and the yá (his), is dropped, as in the grammatical (5b).
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession constructions may be marked by a difference in word order. Igbo uses another syntactic process when the subject and the possessor refer to different entities.[18]:89 In possessor switch, the possessor of the inalienable noun is placed as close as possible to the verb.[18] In the following examples, the possessor yá is not deleted because both referents are different:
(7) a.
*
Ó
He
hùru
saw
áka
hand
* Ó hùru áka
{} He saw hand
'Hei saw hisj hand'
(7) b.
Ó
He
hùru
saw
áka
hand
yá
his
Ó hùru áka yá
He saw hand his
'Hei saw hisj hand'
(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (27, 28))
In the ungrammatical (8a), the verb wàra (to split) follows the possessor m. Possessor switch requires the verb to be placed nearer to the possessor. The grammatical (8b) does so switching wàra with the possessor:
In (9), the genitive Sely precedes the possessee me, marking inalienable possession.
(9)
Inalienable: Gen-N
Sely
Sely
m-me
3SG.F.POSS-mother
Sely m-me
Sely 3SG.F.POSS-mother
'Sely's mother'
(Dol 1999: 93)
However, the genitive follows the possessee in alienable possession constructions, such as (10) whose genitive Petrus follows the possessee amah.
(10)
Alienable: N-Gen
amah
house
ro-Petrus
GEN-Petrus
amah ro-Petrus
house GEN-Petrus
‘Petrus' house'
(Dol 1999: 97)
Possessor marking
Explicit possessors
Another way for languages to distinguish between alienable and inalienable possession is to have one noun class that cannot appear without an explicit possessor.[21] For example, Ojibwe, an Algonquian language, has a class of nouns that must have explicit possessors.[22][23][lower-alpha 2]
If explicit possessors are absent (as in (11b) and (12b)), the phrase is ungrammatical. In (11), the possessor ni is necessary for the inalienable noun nik (arm). In (12), the same phenomenon is found with the inalienable noun ookmis (grandmother), which requires the possessor morpheme n to be grammatical.
(11) a.
inalienable body part noun
ni
POSS
nik
arm
ni nik
POSS arm
'my arm'
(11) b.
*
nik
arm
* nik
{} arm
'(an) arm'
(Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 138)
(12) a.
inalienable kin noun
nookmis
POSS-grandmother
nookmis
POSS-grandmother
'my grandmother'
(12) b.
*
ookmis
grandmother
* ookmis
{} grandmother
'(a) grandmother'
(Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 189)
Prepositions
Hawaiian uses different prepositions to mark possession, depending on the noun's alienability: a (alienable of) is used to indicate alienable possession as in (13a), and o (inalienable of) indicates inalienable possession as in (13b).[24]
(13) a.
alienable possession
nā
the
iwi
bones
a
of
Pua
Pua
nā iwi a Pua
the bones of Pua
'Pua's bones' [as in the chicken bones she is eating]
(13) b.
inalienable possession
nā
the
iwi
bones
o
of
Pua
Pua
nā iwi o Pua
the bones of Pua
'Pua's [own] bones'
(Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)
However, the distinction between a (alienable of) and o (inalienable of) is used for other semantic distinctions that are less clearly attributable to common alienability relationships except metaphorically. Although lei is a tangible object, but in Hawaiian, it can be either alienable (15a) or inalienable (15b), depending on the context.
Alienable
Inalienable
(14)
ke
the
kanaka
man
a
of
ke
the
aliʻi
king
ke kanaka a ke aliʻi
the man of the king
'the subject [controlled or appointed by] the chief'
ke
the
kanaka
man
o
of
ke
the
aliʻi
king
ke kanaka o ke aliʻi
the man of the king
'the [hereditary] subject of the chief' (Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)
(15)
ka
the
lei
lei
a
of
Pua
Pua
ka lei a Pua
the lei of Pua
'Pua's lei [to sell]'
ka
the
lei
lei
o
of
Pua
Pua
ka lei o Pua
the lei of Pua
'Pua's lei [to wear]' (Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)
Definite articles
Subtler cases of syntactic patterns sensitive to alienability are found in many languages. For example, French can use a definite article, rather than the possessive, for body parts.[25]
(16)
Il
he
lève
raises
les
the
mains.
hands
Il lève les mains.
he raises the hands
'He raises his hands.'
(Nakamoto 2010: 75 (2a))
Using the definite article with body parts, as in the example above, creates ambiguity. Thus, the sentence has both an alienable and an inalienable interpretation:
a) he raises his own hands [inalienable] b) he raises another pair of hands [alienable]
Such an ambiguity also occurs in English with body-part constructions.[26]
Spanish also uses a definite article (el, los, la, or las) to indicate inalienable possession for body parts.[27]
(17)
Él
he
se
himself
lava
washes
las
the
manos.
hands
Él se lava las manos.
he himself washes the hands
'He washes his hands.'
(Kockelman 2009: 30)
German uses a definite article (die) for inalienable body parts but a possessive (meine) for alienable possession.[27]
(18)
Inalienable
Er
he
wäscht
washes
sich
REFL
die
the
Hände.
hands
Er wäscht sich die Hände.
he washes REFL the hands
'He is washing his hands.'
(Kockelman 2009: 29)
(19)
Alienable
Ich
I
zerriss
tore
meine
my
Hose.
pants
Ich zerriss meine Hose.
I tore my pants
'I tore my pants.'
(Kockelman 2009: 30)
No distinction in grammar
Although English has alienable and inalienable nouns (Mary's brother [inalienable] vs. Mary's squirrel [alienable]), it has few such formal distinctions in its grammar.[28] One subtle grammatical distinction is the postnominal genitive construction, which is normally reserved for inalienable relational nouns. For example, the brother of Mary [inalienable] is normal, but *the squirrel of Mary [alienable] would be awkward.[28]
Since the alienability distinction is rooted in semantics, languages like English with few morphological or syntactic distinctions sensitive to alienability can have ambiguities occur. For example, the phrase she has her father's eyes has two different meanings:
a) her eyes resemble her father's [inalienable possession] b) she is in actual physical possession of the eyes [alienable possession]
Another example in semantic dependency is the difference between possible interpretations in a language that marks inalienable possession (such as French) with a language that does not mark it (such as English). Inalienable possession is semantically dependent and is defined in reference to another object to which it belongs.[26] Sentence (20) is ambiguous and has two possible meanings. In the inalienable possessive interpretation, la main belongs to the subject, les enfants. The second interpretation is that la main is an alienable object and does not belong to the subject. The English equivalent of the sentence (The children raised the hand) has only the alienable possessive reading in which the hand does not belong to the children.
(20)
Les
The
enfants
children
ont
have
levé
raised
la
the
main
hand
Les enfants ont levé la main
The children have raised the hand
'The children raised the hand' (Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (1))
Syntactically, Noam Chomsky proposed that some genitive or possessive cases originate as part of the determiner in the underlying structure.[29]:680 The inalienable possessives are derived from a different deep structure than that of alienable possession. An example is interpretations of the phraseJohn's arm:
a) an arm that is part of John's body [inalienable] b) the arm that John happens to have physical possession of [alienable]
In the inalienable reading, arm is a complement of the determiner phrase. That contrasts to the alienable reading in which John has an arm is part of the determiner.[29]:690Charles J. Fillmore and Chomsky make a syntactic distinction between alienable and inalienable possession and suggest that the distinction is relevant to English.[29]
In contrast, others have argued that semantics plays a role in inalienable possession, but it is not central to the syntactic class of case-derived possessives. An example is the difference between the book's contents and the book's jacket. A book cannot be divorced from its contents, but it can be removed from its jacket.[29]:690 Still, both phrases have the same syntactic structure. Another example is Mary's mother and Mary's friend. The mother will always be Mary's mother, but an individual might not always be Mary's friend. Again, both have the same syntactic structure.
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possessions can be influenced by cognitive factors.[3] Languages such as English that do not encode the alienability distinction in their grammar rely on the real-world relationship between the possessed noun and possessor noun. Nouns that are "inherently relational" and whose possession is associated with a single dominant interpretation (mother) are of the inalienable type, and nouns whose possession is open to interpretation (car) are of the alienable type.[3]
Interaction with coreference
There are few grammatical distinctions between alienable and inalienable possession in English, but there are differences in the way coreference occurs for such possessive constructions. For instance, examples (21a) and (21b) have interpretations that differ by the type of (in)alienable possession:
(21) a. Lucy1 raised her1/2 horse [alienable] b. Lucy1 raised her1/*2 hand [inalienable]
In example (1a), the pronominal possessor (her) can refer to Lucy or to another possessor not mentioned in the sentence. As such, two interpretations of the sentence are possible:
i) The horse belongs to Lucy, and Lucy raised this horse ii) The horse belongs to someone else, but Lucy raised the horse
However, in example (21b), the pronominal possessor (her) can only grammatically refer to Lucy. As such, the hand being discussed must belong to Lucy.
The pronominal possessor (her) of the inalienable noun (hand) is c-commanded and co-indexed by an antecedent DP (Lucy) that is in its domain
Therefore, the pronominal possessor patterns with pronominal binding in the alienable construction, but the pronominal possessor patterns with anaphoric binding in the inalienable construction.[30] In anaphoric binding, an anaphor requires a coreferent antecedent that c-commands the anaphor and that is in the domain of the anaphor.[31] For example (1b) to obey those conditions, the pronominal possessor must refer to Lucy, not to another possessor that is not mentioned in the sentence. Thus, by having only one grammatical interpretation, (1b) is consistent with anaphoric binding. On the other hand, the interpretation of alienable constructions such as 1a can be ambiguous since it is not restricted by the same properties of anaphoric binding.
Cross-linguistic properties
Although there are different methods of marking inalienability, inalienable possession constructions usually involve the following features:[10]
The distinction is confined to attributive possession.
Alienable possession requires more phonological or morphological features than inalienable possession.
Inalienable possession involves a tighter structural bond between the possessor and the possessee.
Attribution possession: the possessor (Ron) and the possessee (dog) form a phrase.Predicative possession: the possessor (Ron) and the possessee (dog) form not a phrase but instead a clause.
Alienability can be expressed only in attributive possession constructions, not in predicative possession.[10]
Attributive possession is a type of possession in which the possessor and possessee form a phrase. That contrasts to predicative possession constructions in which the possessor and possessee are part of a clause, and the verb affirms the possessive relationship.[33] The examples in (22) express the same alienable relationship between possessor and possessee but illustrate the difference between attributive and predicative possession:
Attributive possession (22) a. Ron's dog Predicative possession b. Ron has a dog c. The dog is Ron's (Heine 1997: 87 (2))
Requires fewer morphological features
If a language has separate alienable and inalienable possession constructions, and one of the constructions is overtly marked and the other is "zero-marked", the marked form tends to be alienable possession. Inalienable possession is indicated by the absence of the overt marker.[34] An example is the data from Dâw.
One typological study showed that in 78% of South American languages that distinguish between inalienable and alienable possession, inalienable possession was associated with fewer morphological markers than was its alienable counterpart. By contrast, only one of the surveyed languages required more morphological features to mark inalienable possession than alienable possession.[15] If a language makes a grammatical distinction between alienable and inalienable nouns, having an overt possessive marker to mark inalienability is redundant. After all, by being inalienable, a noun must be possessed.
Tighter structural bond between possessor and possessee
In inalienable possession constructions, the relationship between the possessor and possessee is stronger than in alienable possession constructions. Johanna Nichols characterizes that by the tendency of inalienable possession to be head-marked but alienable possession to be dependent-marked.[32] In head-marking, the head of an inalienable possession construction (the possessed noun) is marked, but in dependent-marking, the dependent (the possessor noun) is marked.[35]
Theories of representation in syntax
Since the possessor is crucially linked to an inalienable noun's meaning, inalienable nouns are assumed to take their possessors as a semantic argument.[30] Possessors to alienable and inalienable nouns can be expressed with different constructions. Possessors in the genitive case like the friend of Mary appear as complements to the possessed noun, as part of the phrase headed by the inalienable noun.[26] That is an example of internal possession since the possessor of the noun is inside the determiner phrase.
External possession
External possession in French. The possessor is outside the phrase with the possessee (circled in red). Sentence adapted from Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (4b)Internal possession in French. The possessor and the possessee are in the same phrase (circled in red). Sentence adapted from Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (6b)
Inalienable possession can also be marked with external possession. Such constructions have the possessor appearing outside the determiner phrase. For example, the possessor may appear as a dative complement of the verb.
French exhibits both external possessor construction and internal possessor construction, as in (23):[26]
(23) a.
External possession:
Le
the
médecin
doctor
leur
to them
a examiné
examined
la
SG.DEF.DET
gorge.
throat
Le médecin leur {a examiné} la gorge.
the doctor {to them} examined SG.DEF.DET throat
'The doctor examined their throats.'
(23) b.
Internal possession:
Le
the
médecin
doctor
a examiné
examined
leurs
POSS(3PL)
gorges.
throat
Le médecin {a examiné} leurs gorges.
the doctor examined POSS(3PL) throat
'The doctor examined their throats.'
(Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (4b, 6b))
However, those types of possessors are problematic. There is a discrepancy between the possessor appearing syntactically in an inalienable possession construction and what its semantic relationship to the inalienable noun seems to be. Semantically, the possessor of an inalienable noun is intrinsic to its meaning and acts like a semantic argument. On the surface syntactic structure, however, the possessor appears in a position that marks it as an argument of the verb.[16] Thus, there are different views on how those types of inalienable possession constructions should be represented in the syntactic structure. The binding hypothesis argues that the possessor is an argument of the verb. Conversely, the possessor-raising hypothesis argues that the possessor originates as an argument of the possessed noun and then moves to a position in which on the surface, it looks like an argument of the verb.[36]
Binding hypothesis (Guéron 1983)
The binding hypothesis reconciles the fact that the possessor appears both as a syntactic and semantic argument of the verb but as a semantic argument of the possessed noun. It assumes that inalienable possession constructions are subject to the following syntactic constraints:[16]
There must be an obligatory possessor.
The possessor must be in the same minimal domain of the possessee.
The possessor must c-command the possessee or its trace (The c-command must occur in the underlying or surface structures of the inalienable possession constructions.
Inalienable possession binding:: the possessor c-commands the possessee in its domain. The possessor and possessee constitute a lexical chain and receive the same theta-roles from the verb.
It is assumed that inalienable possession constructions are one form of anaphoric binding: obligatory control.[30] Thus, the possessor DP originates in the specifier of the verb; the fact that the possessor seems to be a semantic argument of the noun arises from the binding relationship between the possessor and the possessee DPs. The parallel between inalienable possession constructions and obligatory control can be seen in the examples below:[25]
(24) a.
Inalienable possession
Jeani
Jean
lève
raise
lai
the
main
hand
Jeani lève lai main
Jean raise the hand
'Jean raises his hand.'
(24) b.
Obligatory control
Jeani
Jean
veut
want
PROi
(Jean)
partir
to leave
Jeani veut PROi partir
Jean want (Jean) {to leave}
'Jean wants to leave'
(Nakamoto 2010: 80 (30a,b))
The hypothesis accounts for differences between French and English, and it may also eliminate the ambiguity created by definite determiners.[30] According to the hypothesis, anaphoric binding in inalienable possession constructions relates to the theta-features that a language assigns to its determiners.[16] The hypothesis predicts that inalienable possession constructions exist in languages that assign variable theta-features to its determiners and that inalienable possession constructions do not exist in languages that lack variable theta-feature assignment.[16] Therefore, inalienable possession is predicted to exist in Romance languages and also Russian but not in English or Hebrew.[16] In the French sentence Il lève les mains, the determiner les is assigned theta-features. Thus, it is understood as inalienable possession. However, in the English translation, the determiner the does not have theta-features since English is considered not to assign theta-features to its determiners. Therefore, the does not necessarily signify inalienable possession and so ambiguity surfaces.
That hypothesis, however, does not account for verbs allowing reflexive anaphora (Jean se lave 'Jean washes himself').[16] To account for the grammaticality of such verbs, Guéron proposes that in an inalienable construction the POSS DP (possessor DP) and BP DP (body part DP) constitute two links of a lexical chain, in addition to their anaphoric relation.[16] The two links of a lexical chain must obey the same constraints as anaphora, which accounts for the locality restrictions on inalienable construals. Every chain is then associated with one theta-role. Inalienable possession surfaces as ungrammatical when the possessed DP and the possessor DP are assigned two different theta-roles by the verb. That explains why sentence (25b) is ungrammatical. The POSS DP is assigned an agent theta-role, and the BP DP is assigned a theme theta-role.
(25) a.
Jean
Jean
lève
raise
la
the
main
hand
Jean lève la main
Jean raise the hand
'Jean raises his hand.'
(25) b.
Jean lave/gratte/chatouille
Jean wash/scratch/tickle
AGENT
la main.
the hand
THEME
{Jean lave/gratte/chatouille} {la main.}
{Jean wash/scratch/tickle} {the hand}
AGENT THEME
'Jean washes/scratches/tickles the hand.'
(Guéron 2007: 598 (40, 42))
Possessor-raising hypothesis (Landau 1999)
Possessor-raising from SpecDP to SpecVP
Possessor-raising is a syntactic hypothesis that attempts to explain the structures of inalienable DPs. Landau argues that the possessor is initially introduced in the specifier position of DP (Spec-DP), but it later raises to the specifier of the VP. The possessor DP gets its theta-role from the head D, which gives rise to the meaning that the possessor is related to the possessee.[37]
Landau's analysis is made on the basis of several properties possessives in the data case in Romance languages.[25]
The possessor dative must be interpreted as a possessor, not an object/theme.
Possession interpretation is obligatory.
The possessed DP cannot be an external argument.
The possessor dative must c-command the possessed DP (or its trace).
Possessive interpretation is constrained by locality. (Nakamoto 2010: 76)
Illustration of possessor-raising in French. Sentence adapted from (Guéron 2007: 611 (100b)
The French data below illustrate how the analysis is thought to work. The possessor lui originates in the specifier of DP as an argument of the noun figure. That is equivalent to an underlying structure Gilles a lavé lui la figure. The possessor raises to the specifier of VP, which is seen in the surface structure Gilles lui a lavé la figure.
(26)
Gilles
Gilles
[TP Gilles
lui
him.DAT
[VPluii
a lavé
washed
a lavé
la figure
the face
[DPti la figure]]]
Gilles lui {a lavé} {la figure}
Gilles him.DAT washed {the face}
[{TP Gilles} {[VP luii} {a lavé} {[DP ti la figure]]]}
'Gilles washed his face'
(Guéron 2007: 611 (100b))
According to Guéron, a benefit of the hypothesis is that it is consistent with principles of syntactic movement such as locality of selection and c-command. If the position to which it must move is already filled, as with a transitive verb like see, the possessor cannot raise, and the sentence is correctly predicted to be ungrammatical.[16]
However, some languages like Russian do not have to raise the DP possessor and can leave it in situ and so it is unclear why the possessor would ever have to raise.[16] Possessor-raising also violates a constraint on syntactic movement, the specificity constraint: an element cannot be moved out of a DP if that DP is specific.[16] In (23), the DP lui is specific, but possessor-raising predicts it can be moved out of the larger DP lui la figure. Such movement is excluded by the specificity constraint.
Possessor suppression with kin and body-part nouns (Lødrup 2014)
Norwegian is a North Germaniclanguage that is spoken mainly in Norway and is its official language. Norwegian expresses inalienability by possessor suppression,[38] which takes place when noun phrases referring to inalienable possessions use the definite form and contain no possessive determiner.
In sentence (28), "haken", the syntactic object, contains a suppressed possessor in its definite form. It does not contain an explicit possessive marker. In contrast, the English translation contains an explicit possessive determiner, "her", which denote possession. Possessive determiners are obligatory in English for subject-controlled body-part terms.
Illustration of (28a) and (28b): possessor suppression in Norwegian compared to an explicit possessive marker in English (Thunes, 2013: 168)
(28)
Hun
She
løftet
raised
haken
chin.DEF
Hun løftet haken
She raised chin.DEF
'She raised her chin'; lit. 'She raised the chin'
(Thunes 2013: 168)
Norwegian treats kinship nouns and body-part nouns similarly in relation to bound variable interpretations.[39] When a definite noun is present, it usually has a referential reading. In (29a), the referential reading is present. However, the presence of definite kinship or body part nouns may also bring about the bound variable reading in which a kinship or body part noun contains a variable bound by the quantifier in the subject, and (29b) may produce both the referential and bound variable readings. With the referential reading, the professors washed a face or father, mentioned earlier. With the bound variable reading, the professors washed their own face or father. Additionally, both kinship and body part nouns behave similarly in sentences with VP pronominalization. VP pronominalization involving both nouns allow for both a referential reading and a "sloppy reading", which involves variable binding. In (29c) in the referential reading, John and Mari wash a face or a mother been mentioned earlier. In the "sloppy reading", John washes his face or mother, and Mari washes hers.
Illustration of (29b) in which pro is a silent pronoun
(29) a.
Hver
every
eneste
single
professor
professor
beskøte
visited
museet
museum.DEF
Hver eneste professor beskøte museet
every single professor visited museum.DEF
'Every single professor visited the museum'
(Lødrup 2014:45)
(29) b.
Hver
every
eneste
single
professor
professor
vasket
washed
ansiktet/faren
face.DEF/father.DEF
Hver eneste professor vasket ansiktet/faren
every single professor washed face.DEF/father.DEF
'Every single professor washed his/her face/father' Referential reading: Every single professor washed a face or father that was mentioned earlier. Bound variable reading: Every single professor washed their own face or father.
(Lødrup 2014:45)
(29) c.
John
John
skal
shall
vaske
wash
ansiket
face.DEF
/moren,
/mother.DEF
og
and
det
that
skal
shall
Mari
Mari
også
too
John skal vaske ansiket /moren, og det skal Mari også
John shall wash face.DEF /mother.DEF and that shall Mari too
'John will wash his face/mother, and Mari will, too' Referential reading: John and Mari will wash a face or a mother that was mentioned earlier. Sloppy reading: John will wash his own face or mother and Mari will wash her own face or mother.
(Lødrup 2014:46)
Finally, both kinship and body part nouns bear similarities in locality. Both behave in such a way that the definite form of the noun is bound by the closest subject. In (30a), the possessor must be the subordinate clause subject, not the main clause subject. Likewise, in (30b), the father mentioned is preferably the father of the subordinate clause subject referent, not of the main clause subject referent.
Illustration of (30a): locality with a body part noun in Norwegian in which the noun is bound by the closest subject. 'Håret' is the subordinate clause subject referent and 'John' is the subordinate clause subject. (Lødrup 2014: 47)
(30) a.
Hun
she
sa
said
at
that
John
John
vasket
washed
håret
hair.DEF
Hun sa at John vasket håret
she said that John washed hair.DEF
'She said that John washed his hair'
(30) b.
Hun
she
visste
knew
ikke
not
at
that
John
John
hadde
had
snakket
talked
med
to
faren
father.DEF
Hun visste ikke at John hadde snakket med faren
she knew not that John had talked to father.DEF
'She did not know that John had talked to his father'
(Lødrup 2014:47)
On the other hand, definite kinship and body-part nouns in Norwegian have a syntactic difference. Definite body part nouns allow a first- or second-person possessor, but some definite kinship nouns do not. For instance, the sentence in (31a) is not allowed as it contains a first-person possessor and kinship term. The kinship term can be used only with a third-person possessor, such as in (31b).
Illustration of (31a) and (31b): syntactic restrictions on first- and second-person possessors of definite body part nouns in Norwegian (Lødrup 2014: 49-50) in which '*' denotes an ungrammatical sentence
(31) a.
*
Jeg
I
snakket
talked
med
to
faren
father.DEF
* Jeg snakket med faren
{} I talked to father.DEF
'I talked to my father'
(31) b.
Han
He
snakket
talked
med
to
far/faren
father/father.DEF
Han snakket med far/faren
He talked to father/father.DEF
'He talked to his father'
(Lødrup 2014:49-50)
However, body part nouns do not have the restriction on first- or second-person possessors like in (32).
(32)
Jeg
I
klør
itch
på
on
ryggen
back.DEF
Jeg klør på ryggen
I itch on back.DEF
'My back is itching'
(Lødrup 2014:49)
Form function motivations
Inalienable possession constructions often lack overt possessors.[34] There is a debate as to how to account for the linguistically-universal difference in form. Iconicity explains the in terms of the relationship between the conceptual distance between the possessor and the possessee,[40] and economy explains it by the frequency of possession.[41]
Iconic motivation (Haiman 1983)
Haiman describes iconic expression and conceptual distance and how both concepts are conceptually close if they share semantic properties, affect each other and cannot be separated from each other.[40]Joseph Greenberg hypothesizes that the distance between the possessor and possessee in a sentence with alienable possession is greater than in a sentence with inalienable constructions.[42] Because the possessor and the possessee have a close conceptual relationship, their relative positions with a sentence reflect that, and there is little distance between them. Increasing the distance between both would in turn increase their conceptual independence.
That is demonstrated in Yagaria, a Papuan language that marks alienable possession by a free form pronoun as in (33a). In contrast, inalienable possession constructions use an inalienable possessor that is prefixed on the possessee, as in (33b), a construction that has less linguistic distance between the possessor and possessee than the alienable construction has:
(33) a.
Alienable
dgai'
my
fu
pig
dgai' fu
my pig
'my pig'
(33) b.
'Inalienable
d-za'
my-arm
d-za'
my-arm
'my arm'
(Haiman 1983: 793 (30a,b))
However, there are cases of linguistic distance not necessarily reflecting conceptual distance. Mandarin Chinese has two ways to express the same type of possession: POSSESSOR + POSSESSEE and POSSESSOR + de + POSSESSEE. The latter has more linguistic distance between the possessor and the possessee, but it reflects the same conceptual distance.[43] Both possessive expressions, with and without the marker de, are found in the Mandarin phrase "my friend", which is seen in (34a) unlike (34b):[44]
(34) a.
POSSESSOR + de + POSSESSEE
wǒ
I
DE
de
péngyǒu
friend
wǒ DE péngyǒu
I de friend
'My friend'
(34) b.
POSSESSOR + POSSESSEE
wǒ
I
péngyǒu
friend
wǒ péngyǒu
I friend
'My friend'
(Hsu 2009: 101 (22a,b))
In contrast to the previous example, the omission of the marker de is ungrammatical, as in example (35b). The linguistic distance between the possessor and the possessee is much smaller in (35b) than in (35a). It has been argued that the omission of de occurs only in kinship relationships, but phrasal constructions with a mandatory de encompasse other cases of inalienable possession, such as body parts.[40]:783 That contradicts the notion that inalienable possession is marked by less linguistic distance between the possessor and the possessee.
(35) a.
wǒ
I
xǐhuān
like
nǐ
you
DE
de
tóufà
hair
wǒ xǐhuān nǐ DE tóufà
I like you de hair
'I like your hair'
(35) b.
*
wǒ
I
xǐhuān
like
nǐ
you
tóufà
hair
* wǒ xǐhuān nǐ tóufà
{} I like you hair
'I like your hair'
(Li & Thompson 1981: 169)
Economic motivation (Nichols 1988)
Nichols notes that frequently-possessed nouns, such as body parts and kinship terms, almost always occur with possessors, and alienable nouns occur less often with possessors.[41][45]
The following shows the frequency of possession between alienable and unalienable nouns in German.[45] The table below shows the number of times that each noun occurred with or without a possessor in texts from the German Goethe-Corpus of the works of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Schwester 'sister' Tante 'aunt' Tochter 'daughter'
32 47 46
58 22 53
The alienable nouns above are rarely possessed, but the inalienable kinship terms are frequently possessed.[45] Consequently, inalienable nouns are expected to be possessed even if they lack a distinct possessive marker. Therefore, overt markings on inalienable nouns are redundant, and for economical syntactic construction, languages often have zero-marking for their inalienable nouns.[41]
That could be explained by Zipf's Law in which the familiarity or the frequency of an occurrence motivates the linguistic simplification of the concept.[40] A listener who hears an inalienable noun can predict that it will be possessed, which eliminates the need for an overt possessor.[34]
Old Rapa is the indigenous language of Rapa Iti, an island of French Polynesia in the Bass Islands archipelago. The language structure of Rapa has two primary possessive particles: a and o. The usage of both particles is dependent on the relation between the possessor and the object. When words are categorized by possessive particles, there is a very close resemblance to the usage of the possessive particle and the object's alienability. However, the relation is better defined by William Wilson in his article Proto-Polynesian Possessive Marking.
Briefly, through his two theories, the Simple Control Theory and Initial Control Theory, Wilson contrasts and thus better defines the usage of the possessive particles. The Simple Control Theory speculates that the determining factor directly correlated to the possessor's control over the object and emphasises a dominant vs. less-dominant relationship. Old Rapa adheres closer to the Initial Control Theory, which speculates that "the possessor's control over the initiation of the possessive relationship is the determining factor." Here, the Initial Control Theory can also be generally expanded to the whole Polynesian language family in terms of better describing the "alienability" of possession.[46]
In the case of Old Rapa, the possession particle o is used to define a possession relationship that was not initiated on the basis of choice. The possession particle a defines possession relationships that are initiated with the possessor's control. The following list and classifications are literal examples provided by Mary Walworth in her dissertation of Rapa. Words that are marked with the o possessive markers are nouns that are:
Inalienable (leg, hand, foot)
A whole of which the possessor is a permanent part (household)
Kinship (father, mother, brother)
Higher social or religious status (teacher, pastor, president)
Vehicles (canoe, car)
Necessary actions (work)
Involuntary body functions (heartbeat, stomach, pupils, breathing)
Words that relate to indigenous identity (language, country)
However, Wilson's theory falls short of properly categorizing a few miscellaneous items such as articles of clothing and furniture that his theory would incorrectly predict to be marked with the possessive particle a. The reverse occurs for objects such as food and animals. The synthesis of Wilson's theory and others approach a better understanding of the Rapa language. Svenja Völkel proposed the idea of looking further into the ritualistic beliefs of the community: its mana. That idea has been related to other languages in the Eastern Polynesian language family. It states that objects with less mana than the possessor use the a-possessive particle, and the usage of the o-possessive marker is reserved for the possessor's mana that is not superior.[47]
The same usage of the possessive particles in possessive pronouns can be seen in the contracted portmanteau, the combination of the articles and possessive markers. The results are the prefixes tō and tā in the following possessive pronouns, as can be seen in the table below:
Wuvulu language is a small language spoken in Wuvulu Island.[49] Direct possession has a close relationship with inalienability in Oceanic linguistics. Similarly, the inherent possession of the possessor is called the possessum.[50]
The inalienable noun also has a possessor suffix and includes body parts, kinship terms, locative part nouns and derived nouns. According to Hafford's research, "-u" (my), "-mu" (your) and "na-"（his/her/its) are three direct possession suffix in Wuvulu.[51]
Body parts
Direct- possession suffix "-u"(my), "-mu" (your) and "na-"（his/her/its) can be taken to attach the noun phrase of body part.[52]
Taba-u
taba-mu
taba-na
my head
your head
his/her/its head
Kinship terms
Kinship terms in Wuvulu language take singular possessive suffixes.[52]
ʔama-u
ʔama-mu
ʔama-na
my father
your father
his/her/its father
Derived nouns (Nouns that derived from other words)
Example:
ʔei wareamu (Your word) is derived from the verb ware (talk)
Such a word can take the direct possessor suffix. "-mu" (your {singular])
faʔua,
true
ʔei
the
ware-a-mu
talk-DER-2SG
faʔua, ʔei ware-a-mu
true the talk-DER-2SG
Your words are true.[52] Unknown glossing abbreviation(s) (help);
Tokelauan
Here is a table displaying the predicative possessive pronouns in Tokelauan:
↑ Cinque and Krapova are citing Lamiroy (2003). "Grammaticalization and external possessor structures in Romance and Germanic languages", p.259, who is in turn citing Leclère (1976). "Datifs syntaxiques et datif éthique."
↑ Technically, the obligatory occurrence of a possessor is a property of certain morphemes called obligatory possession, but linguists often use inalienable possession instead.
↑ For example, in the Native American languageDiegueño, the alienable possessive marker (?-əny) appears to have originated from the inalienable possessive marker (?-ə), which suggests the latter to be older.[32]
Related Research Articles
In linguistics, a determiner phrase (DP) is a type of phrase headed by a determiner such as many. Controversially, many approaches take a phrase like not very many apples to be a DP, headed, in this case, by the determiner many. This is called the DP analysis or the DP hypothesis. Others reject this analysis in favor of the more traditional NP analysis where apples would be the head of the phrase in which the DP not very many is merely a dependent. Thus, there are competing analyses concerning heads and dependents in nominal groups. The DP analysis developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and it is the majority view in generative grammar today.
Fijian is an Austronesian language of the Malayo-Polynesian family spoken by some 350,000–450,000 ethnic Fijians as a native language. The 2013 Constitution established Fijian as an official language of Fiji, along with English and Fiji Hindi and there is discussion about establishing it as the "national language". Fijian is a VOS language.
A possessive or ktetic form is a word or grammatical construction indicating a relationship of possession in a broad sense. This can include strict ownership, or a number of other types of relation to a greater or lesser degree analogous to it.
Marquesan is a collection of East-Central Polynesian dialects, of the Marquesic group, spoken in the Marquesas Islands of French Polynesia. They are usually classified into two groups, North Marquesan and South Marquesan, roughly along geographic lines.
In linguistics, possession is an asymmetric relationship between two constituents, the referent of one of which in some sense possesses the referent of the other.
Possessive determiners are determiners which express possession. Some traditional grammars of English refer to them as possessive adjectives, though they do not have the same syntactic distribution as bona fide adjectives.
East Ambae is an Oceanic language spoken on Ambae, Vanuatu. The data in this article will concern itself with the Lolovoli dialect of the North-East Ambae language.
The Japanese language has different ways of expressing the possessive relation. There are several "verbal possessive" forms based on verbs with the sense of "to possess" or "to have" or "to own". An alternative is the use of the particle no (の) between two nouns or noun phrases.
Ughele is an Oceanic language spoken by about 1200 people on Rendova Island, located in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands.
Paamese, or Paama, is the language of the island of Paama in Northern Vanuatu. There is no indigenous term for the language; however linguists have adopted the term Paamese to refer to it. Both a grammar and a dictionary of Paamese have been produced by Terry Crowley.
Sorani is a Central Kurdish dialect. Sorani Kurdish is often written with the Arabic alphabet, and has eight vowels: î[i], û[u], i[I], u[ʊ], ê[e], o[o], e[æ], a[ɑ].shush
Papuan Malay or Irian Malay is a Malay-based creole language spoken in the Indonesian part of New Guinea. It emerged as a contact language among tribes in Indonesian New Guinea for trading and daily communication. Nowadays, it has a growing number of native speakers. More recently, the vernacular of Indonesian Papuans has been influenced by Standard Indonesian, the national standard dialect. It is spoken in Indonesian New Guinea alongside 274 other languages and functions as a lingua franca.
Mav̋ea is an Oceanic language spoken on Mavea Island in Vanuatu, off the eastern coast of Espiritu Santo. It belongs to the North–Central Vanuatu linkage of Southern Oceanic. The total population of the island is approximately 172, with only 34 fluent speakers of the Mav̋ea language reported in 2008.
Tiri, or Mea, is an Oceanic language of New Caledonia.
Veraʼa, also known as Vatrata, is an Oceanic language spoken on the western coast of Vanua Lava Island, in the Banks Islands of northern Vanuatu.
Merei or Malmariv is an Oceanic language spoken in north central Espiritu Santo Island in Vanuatu.
Neveʻei, also known as Vinmavis, is an Oceanic language of central Malekula, Vanuatu. There are around 500 primary speakers of Neveʻei and about 750 speakers in total.
North Ambrym is a language of Ambrym Island, Vanuatu.
Longgu (Logu) is a Southeast Solomonic language of Guadalcanal, but originally from Malaita.
Saliba is an Oceanic language spoken on the islets off the southeastern tip of Papua New Guinea. There are approximately 2,500 speakers of Saliba. Significant documentation of the language was undertaken by the Saliba-Logea documentation project, and hundreds of audio-video resources can be found in the project archive.
↑ Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar (2013). Dryer, Matthew S; Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). "Possessive Classification". The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
1 2 3 4 Chappell, Hilary; McGregor, William (1996). Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body-part terms and the part-whole relation. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp.3–30. ISBN3-11-012804-7.
1 2 Stolz, Thomas; Kettler, Sonja; Stroh, Cornelia; Urdze, Aina (2008). Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN978-90-272-0568-1.
↑ Heine, Bernd (1997). Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.182.
↑ Lødrup, Helge (2014). "Split possession and the syntax of kinship nouns in Norwegian". The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. 17 (1): 35–57. doi:10.1007/s10828-014-9065-7. S2CID119555932.
1 2 3 Hyman, Larry M.; Alford, Danny; Elizabeth, Akpati (1970). "Inalienable Possession in Igbo". Journal of West African Languages. VII (2).
↑ Dol, Philomena (1999). A Grammar of Maybrat: A Language of the Bird's Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. University of Leiden. pp.93–97.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
↑ Dryer, Matthew S. "Order of Genitive and Noun". The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved 29 October 2014.
↑ Valentine, J. Randolph Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2001. §3.3.1. pg. 106 ff.
↑ Nichols, J. D.; Nyholm, E. A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1995.
↑ Elbert, Samuel H.; Pukui, Mary Kawena (1979). Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. p.139.
1 2 3 4 Vergnaud, Jean-Roger; Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1992). "The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Construction in French and in English". Linguistic Inquiry. 23 (4): 595–652.
1 2 Kockelman, Paul (2009). "Inalienable Possession as Grammatical Category and Discourse Pattern". Studies in Language. 33 (1): 29–30. doi:10.1075/sl.33.1.03koc. S2CID59504908.
1 2 Barker, Chris (2011). "Possessives and relational nouns"(PDF). In Maienborn, Claudia; von Heusinger, Klaus; Portner, Paul (eds.). Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
1 2 3 4 Guéron, Jacqueline. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume I (Chapter 35). Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. pp.595–596.
↑ Sportiche, Dominique; Koopman, Hilda; Stabler, Edward (2014). An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory (1ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc. p.165. ISBN978-1-4051-0017-5.
1 2 Nichols, Johanna (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (ACLS Humanities E-Booked.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp.116–123.
↑ Kempchinsky, Paula (1992). "The Spanish possessive dative construction: θ-role assignment and proper government". In Hirschbühler, Paul; Koerner, E.F.K. (eds.). Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (20ed.). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp.135–148. ISBN90-272-3591-0.
↑ Thunes, Martha. “The Inalieability Pattern of English and Norwegian.” 1 Feb. 2013, pp. 168–169.
↑ Lødrup, Helge. "Split Possession and the Syntax of Kinship Nouns in Norwegian." The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014, pp. 35-57.
1 2 3 Nichols, Johanna (1988). "On Alienable and Inalienable Possession". In Honor of Mary Haas. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. p.579.
↑ Greenberg, Joseph (1966). Universals of Human Language (2nded.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
↑ Hsu, Yu-Yin (2009). "Possessor extraction in Mandarin Chinese". University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 15 (1).
↑ Li, Charles; Thompson, Sandra (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. p.169.
1 2 3 Good, Jeff, ed. (2008). Linguistic Universals and Language Change. New York: Oxford University Press. p.197.
1 2 WILSON, WILLIAM H. 1982. Proto-Polynesian possessive marking. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
↑ Vökel, Svenja. 2010. Structure, space, and possession in Tongan culture and language: An ethnolinguistic study. John Benjamins Publishing.
↑ Walworth, Mary E. The Language of Rapa Iti: Description of a Language In Change. Diss. U of Hawaii at Manoa, 2015. Honolulu: U of Hawaii at Manoa, 2015. Print.
↑ Hafford, James (2015). "Introduction". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary: 1.
↑ Hafford, James (2015). "Possession". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary: 59–60.
↑ Hafford, James (2015). "Possessor Suffixes". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary: 61.
1 2 3 Hafford, James (2015). "Direct possession". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary– via 61-63.
1 2 Hooper, Robin (1994). Studies in Tokelauan syntax. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International. p.51.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Portal 
