Editing Inalienable possession (section)

===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.<ref name= Nichols4>{{cite web
| url = http://wals.info/feature/description/58
| title = Obligatory Possessive Inflection
| work = [[World Atlas of Language Structures]]
|author1=Nichols, Johanna |author2=Bickel, Balthasar | access-date = 2011-03-06
}}</ref> For example, [[Ojibwe language|Ojibwe]], an [[Algonquian languages|Algonquian language]], has a class of nouns that must have explicit possessors.<ref name =Valentine>Valentine, J. Randolph ''Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar.'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2001. §3.3.1. pg. 106 ff.</ref><ref name = "concise dictionary of Ojibwe">Nichols, J. D.; Nyholm, E. ''A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.'' 1995.</ref>{{efn|Technically, the obligatory occurrence of a possessor is a property of certain morphemes called [[obligatory possession]], but linguists often use ''inalienable possession'' instead.}}

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.

{{interlinear|indent=5|number=(11) a.
|top= '''inalienable body part noun'''
|'''ni''' nik
|'''POSS''' arm
|''''my''' arm'
}}
{{interlinear|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(11)}} b.
|* nik
|{} arm
|'(an) arm'
|bottom= (Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 138)
}}
{{interlinear|indent=5|number=(12) a.
|top='''inalienable kin noun'''
|'''n'''ookmis
|'''POSS'''-grandmother
|''''my''' grandmother'
}}
{{interlinear|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(12)}} b.
|* ookmis
|{} grandmother
|'(a) grandmother'
|bottom= (Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 189)
}}

====Prepositions====
[[Hawaiian language|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).<ref name = Elbert>{{cite book|last1=Elbert|first1=Samuel H.|last2=Pukui|first2=Mary Kawena|title=Hawaiian Grammar|date=1979|publisher=University Press of Hawaii|location=Honolulu|page=139}}</ref>

{{interlinear|indent=5|number=(13) a.
|top= '''alienable possession'''
|nā  iwi   '''a'''   Pua
|the bones '''of'''  Pua
|'Pua's bones' [as in the chicken bones she is eating]
}}
{{interlinear|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(13)}} b.
|top= '''inalienable possession'''
|nā  iwi   '''o'''   Pua
|the bones '''of'''  Pua
|'Pua's [own] bones'
|bottom= (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 [[metaphor]]ically. Although ''lei'' is a tangible object, but in Hawaiian, it can be either alienable (15a) or inalienable (15b), depending on the context.

{| width="100%"
!
! Alienable
! Inalienable
|-
|valign="top"| (14)
| {{interlinear|ke kanaka '''a''' ke aliʻi|the man '''of''' the king|'the subject [controlled or appointed by] the chief'}}
| {{interlinear|ke kanaka '''o''' ke aliʻi|the man '''of''' the king|'the [hereditary] subject of the chief' (Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)}}
|-
|valign="top"| (15)
| {{interlinear|ka lei '''a''' Pua|the lei '''of''' Pua|'Pua's lei [to sell]'}}
| {{interlinear|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 (linguistics)|possessive]], for body parts.<ref name=Nakamoto>{{cite journal|last1=Nakamoto|first1=Takeshi|title=Inalienable Possession Constructions in French|journal=Lingua|date=2010|volume=120|issue=1|pages=74–102|doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.003}}<!--|access-date=31 October 2014--></ref>

{{interlinear |lang=fr |number=(16)
|Il lève   '''les''' mains.
|he raises '''the''' hands
|'He raises '''his''' hands.'
|bottom= (Nakamoto 2010: 75 (2a))
}}

Using the definite article with body parts, as in the example above, creates [[ambiguity#Linguistic forms|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.<ref name=VZ>{{cite journal|last1=Vergnaud|first1=Jean-Roger|last2=Zubizarreta|first2=Maria Luisa|title=The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Construction in French and in English|journal=Linguistic Inquiry|volume=23|date=1992|issue=4|pages=595–652}}</ref>

[[Spanish language|Spanish]] also uses a definite article ('''''el''''', '''''los''''', '''''la''''', or '''''las''''') to indicate inalienable possession for body parts.<ref name=Kockelman>{{cite journal|last1=Kockelman|first1=Paul|title=Inalienable Possession as Grammatical Category and Discourse Pattern|journal=Studies in Language|date=2009|volume=33|issue=1|pages=29–30|doi=10.1075/sl.33.1.03koc|s2cid=59504908}}<!--|access-date=31 October 2014--></ref>

{{interlinear |lang=es |number=(17)
|Él se      lava   '''las''' manos.
|he himself washes '''the''' hands
|'He washes '''his''' hands.'
|bottom= (Kockelman 2009: 30)
}}

[[German language|German]] uses a definite article ('''''die''''') for inalienable body parts but a possessive ('''''meine''''') for alienable possession.<ref name=Kockelman/>

{{interlinear |lang=de |number=(18)
|top= '''Inalienable'''
|Er wäscht sich   '''die''' Hände.
|he washes REFL '''the''' hands
|'He is washing '''his''' hands.'
|bottom= (Kockelman 2009: 29)
}}
{{interlinear|number=(19)
|top= '''Alienable'''
|Ich zerriss '''meine''' Hose.
|I   tore   '''my'''    pants
|'I tore '''my''' pants.'
|bottom= (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.<ref name="auto2">{{cite book|last1=Barker|first1=Chris|editor1-last=Maienborn|editor1-first=Claudia|editor2-last=von Heusinger|editor2-first=Klaus|editor3-last=Portner|editor3-first=Paul|title=Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning|date=2011|publisher=De Gruyter Mouton|location=Berlin|chapter-url=http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WYxOTc5M/barker-possessives.pdf|chapter=Possessives and relational nouns}}</ref> 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.<ref name="auto2"/>

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] <br>b) she is in actual physical possession of the eyes [alienable possession]
|}

Another example in [[dependency grammar#Semantic dependencies|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.<ref name=VZ/> 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.

{{interlinear|number=(20)
|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.<ref name = Stockwell>{{cite book|last1=Stockwell|first1=Robert P.|last2=Schachter|first2=Paul|last3=Partee|first3=Barbara Hall|title=The Major Syntactic Structures of English|date=1973|publisher=Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.|location=New York|isbn=978-0-03-088042-1|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/majorsyntacticst0000stoc}}</ref>{{rp|680}} The inalienable possessives are derived from a different [[deep structure]] than that of alienable possession. An example is interpretations of the [[phrase]] ''John'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 (linguistics)|complement]] of the determiner phrase. That contrasts to the alienable reading in which ''John has an arm'' is part of the determiner.<ref name=Stockwell/>{{rp|690}} [[Charles J. Fillmore]] and Chomsky make a syntactic distinction between alienable and inalienable possession and suggest that the distinction is relevant to English.<ref name=Stockwell/>

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.<ref name=Stockwell/>{{rp|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.<ref name="auto"/> 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.<ref name="auto"/>