Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Inalienable possession
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==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 (linguistics)|argument]].<ref name="Blackwell Companion2">{{cite book|last1=Guéron|first1=Jacqueline|title=The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume I (Chapter 35)|publisher=Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.|pages=595–596}}</ref> Possessors to alienable and inalienable nouns can be expressed with different constructions. Possessors in the [[genitive case]] like ''the friend '''of Mary''''' appear as [[complement (linguistics)|complements]] to the possessed noun, as part of the phrase headed by the inalienable noun.<ref name=VZ/> That is an example of '''internal possession''' since the possessor of the noun is inside the determiner phrase. ===External possession=== [[File:External possession structure.png|thumb|'''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)]] [[File:Internal possession structure - French.png|thumb|'''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):<ref name=VZ/> {{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number=(23) a. |top= '''External possession:''' |Le médecin '''leur''' {a examiné} la gorge. |the doctor {'''to them'''} examined SG.DEF.DET throat |'The doctor examined their throats.' }} {{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(23)}} b. |top='''Internal possession:''' |Le médecin {a examiné} '''leurs''' gorges. |the doctor examined '''POSS(3PL)''' throat |'The doctor examined their throats.' |bottom= (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 [[Argument (linguistics)#Syntactic vs. semantic arguments|semantic argument]]. On the surface syntactic structure, however, the possessor appears in a position that marks it as an argument of the verb.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> 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 [[syntactic movement|moves]] to a position in which on the surface, it looks like an argument of the verb.<ref name = "Kempchinsky 1992">{{cite book|last1=Kempchinsky|first1=Paula|editor1-last=Hirschbühler|editor1-first=Paul|editor2-last=Koerner|editor2-first=E.F.K.|title=Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages|date=1992|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|location=Philadelphia, PA|isbn=90-272-3591-0|pages=135–148|edition=20|chapter=The Spanish possessive dative construction: θ-role assignment and proper government}}</ref> ====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:<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> # There must be an obligatory possessor. # The possessor must be in the same minimal [[locality (linguistics)#Dldomain|domain]] of the possessee. # The possessor must [[c-command]] the possessee or its [[trace (linguistics)|trace]] (The c-command must occur in the underlying or [[Transformational grammar#Deep structure and surface structure|surface structures]] of the inalienable possession constructions. [[File:Binding between possessor and possessee.PNG|thumb|300px|'''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 [[anaphora (linguistics)|anaphoric binding]]: [[control (linguistics)|obligatory control]].<ref name="Blackwell Companion2"/> Thus, the possessor DP originates in the [[specifier (linguistics)|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:<ref name=Nakamoto/> {{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number=(24) a. |top= '''Inalienable possession''' |Jean<sub>i</sub> lève la<sub>i</sub> main |Jean raise the hand |'Jean raises his hand.' }} {{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(24)}} b. |top= '''Obligatory control''' |Jean<sub>i</sub> veut {{gcl|PRO}}<sub>i</sub> partir |Jean want (Jean) {to leave} |'Jean wants to leave' |bottom=(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.<ref name="Blackwell Companion2"/> According to the hypothesis, anaphoric binding in inalienable possession constructions relates to the [[theta-role|theta-features]] that a language assigns to its determiners.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> 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.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> Therefore, inalienable possession is predicted to exist in [[Romance languages]] and also [[Russian language|Russian]] but not in [[English language|English]] or [[Hebrew]].<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> 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 pronoun|reflexive]] anaphora (''Jean '''se''''' lave 'Jean washes himself').<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> 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.<ref name="Blackwell Companion"/> 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 (grammar)|agent]] theta-role, and the BP DP is assigned a [[thematic relation|theme]] theta-role. {{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number=(25) a. |Jean lève la main |Jean raise the hand |'Jean raises his hand.' }} {{interlinear|lang=fr|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(25)}} b. |glossing3=yes|glossing=no abbr |{Jean lave/gratte/chatouille} {la main.} |{Jean wash/scratch/tickle} {the hand} |AGENT THEME |'Jean washes/scratches/tickles the hand.' |bottom=(Guéron 2007: 598 (40, 42)) }} ====Possessor-raising hypothesis (Landau 1999)==== [[File:Tree diagram of possessor-raising, movement from SpecDP to SpecVP.jpeg|thumbnail|'''Possessor-raising''' from SpecDP to SpecVP]] Possessor-raising is a syntactic hypothesis that attempts to explain the structures of inalienable [[determiner phrase|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 [[verb phrase|VP]]. The possessor DP gets its [[theta-role]] from the [[head (linguistics)|head]] D, which gives rise to the meaning that the possessor is related to the possessee.<ref name='Landau 1999'>{{cite journal|last1=Landau|first1=Idan|title=Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP|journal=Lingua|date=1999|volume=107|issue=1|pages=1–37|doi=10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00025-4}}<!--|access-date=22 October 2014--></ref> Landau's analysis is made on the basis of several properties possessives in the data case in Romance languages.<ref name=Nakamoto/> # 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) [[File:French example of possessor-raising.jpg|thumb|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''. {{interlinear|lang=fr|number=(26)|glossing2=yes|glossing3=yes |Gilles lui {a lavé} {la figure} |Gilles him.DAT washed {the face} |[{TP Gilles} {[VP '''lui<sub>i</sub>'''} {a lavé} {[DP '''t<sub>i</sub>''' la figure]]]} |'Gilles washed his face' |bottom=(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.<ref name = "Blackwell Companion"/> {{interlinear|lang=he|number=(27)|glossing3=yes|glossing4=yes |top='''Hebrew''' |* Gil ra'a le-Rina et ha-panim |{} Gil saw {to Rina} the face |{} {[TP '''Gil<sub>j</sub>'''} {[VP '''t<sub>j</sub>''' ra'a} {[DP le-Rina} et {ha panim]]]} |{} NOM {} *{{gcl|DAT}} {} ACC |'Gil saw Rina's face' |bottom=(Guéron 2007: 613 (109)) }} 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.<ref name = "Blackwell Companion"/> Possessor-raising also violates a [[Syntactic movement#Islands and barriers to movement|constraint on syntactic movement]], the '''specificity constraint''': an element cannot be moved out of a DP if that DP is [[specificity (linguistics)|specific]].<ref name = "Blackwell Companion"/> 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 language|Norwegian]] is a [[North Germanic languages|North Germanic]] [[language]] that is spoken mainly in [[Norway]] and is its official language. Norwegian expresses inalienability by possessor suppression,<ref>Thunes, Martha. “The Inalieability Pattern of English and Norwegian.” 1 Feb. 2013, pp. 168–169.</ref> 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. [[File:27a and b.jpg|thumb|Illustration of (28a) and (28b): possessor suppression in Norwegian compared to an explicit possessive marker in English (Thunes, 2013: 168)]] {{interlinear|lang=no|number=(28) |Hun løftet '''haken''' |She raised chin.DEF |'She raised '''her''' chin'; {{lit}} 'She raised the chin' |bottom=(Thunes 2013: 168) }} Norwegian treats kinship nouns and body-part nouns similarly in relation to bound variable interpretations.<ref>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. </ref> 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. [[File:Syntax tree (40).png|thumb|Illustration of (29b) in which ''pro'' is a silent pronoun]] {{interlinear|lang=no|indent=5|number=(29) a. |Hver eneste professor beskøte '''museet''' |every single professor visited museum.DEF |'Every single professor visited the museum' |bottom=(Lødrup 2014:45) }} {{interlinear|lang=no|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(29)}} b. |Hver eneste professor vasket '''ansiktet'''/'''faren''' |every single professor washed face.DEF/father.DEF |'Every single professor washed his/her face/father'<br> Referential reading: Every single professor washed a face or father that was mentioned earlier.<br> Bound variable reading: Every single professor washed their own face or father. |bottom=(Lødrup 2014:45) }} {{interlinear|lang=no|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(29)}} c. |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'<br> Referential reading: John and Mari will wash a face or a mother that was mentioned earlier.<br> Sloppy reading: John will wash his own face or mother and Mari will wash her own face or mother. |bottom=(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. [[File:Tree 29a.jpg|thumb|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)]] {{interlinear|lang=no|indent=5|number=(30) a. |Hun sa at John vasket '''håret''' |she said that John washed hair.DEF |'She said that John washed his hair' }} {{interlinear|lang=no|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(30)}} b. |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' |bottom=(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). [[File:30a and b.jpg|thumb|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]] {{interlinear|lang=no|indent=5|number=(31) a. |* Jeg snakket med '''faren''' |{} I talked to father.DEF |'I talked to my father' }} {{interlinear|lang=no|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(31)}} b. |Han snakket med '''far'''/'''faren''' |He talked to father/father.DEF |'He talked to his father' |bottom=(Lødrup 2014:49-50) }} However, body part nouns do not have the restriction on first- or second-person possessors like in (32). {{interlinear|lang=no|number=(32) |Jeg klør på '''ryggen''' |I itch on back.DEF |'My back is itching' |bottom=(Lødrup 2014:49) }} ===Form function motivations=== Inalienable possession constructions often lack overt possessors.<ref name=Haspelmath/> There is a debate as to how to account for the [[linguistic universal|linguistically-universal]] difference in form. Iconicity explains the in terms of the relationship between the conceptual distance between the possessor and the possessee,<ref name=Haiman>{{cite journal|last1=Haiman|first1=John|title=Iconic and Economic Motivation|journal=Language|date=1983|volume=59|issue=4|pages=781–819|doi=10.2307/413373|jstor=413373}}</ref> and economy explains it by the frequency of possession.<ref name="Walter de Gruyter & Co">{{cite book|last1=Nichols|first1=Johanna|chapter=On Alienable and Inalienable Possession|title=In Honor of Mary Haas|date=1988|publisher=Walter de Gruyter & Co|location=Berlin|page=579}}</ref> ====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.<ref name=Haiman /> [[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.<ref name=Heine3>{{cite book|last1=Greenberg|first1=Joseph|title=Universals of Human Language|date=1966|publisher=MIT Press|location=Cambridge, MA|edition=2nd}}</ref> 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 language|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 [[prefix]]ed on the possessee, as in (33b), a construction that has less linguistic distance between the possessor and possessee than the alienable construction has: {{interlinear|lang=ygr|indent=5|number=(33) a. |top= '''Alienable''' |dgai' fu |my pig |'my pig' }} {{interlinear|lang=ygr|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(33)}} b. |top= '''Inalienable'' |d-za' |my-arm |'my arm' |bottom=(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.<ref name=hsu>{{cite journal|last1=Hsu|first1=Yu-Yin|title=Possessor extraction in Mandarin Chinese|journal=University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics|date=2009|volume=15|issue=1}}</ref> Both possessive expressions, with and without the marker '''''de''''', are found in the Mandarin phrase "my friend", which is seen in (34a) unlike (34b):<ref name="Li and Thompson">{{cite book|last1=Li|first1=Charles|last2=Thompson|first2=Sandra|title=Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar|date=1989|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley|page=169}}</ref> {{interlinear|lang=zh|indent=5|number=(34) a. |top= '''POSSESSOR + de + POSSESSEE''' |wǒ '''DE''' péngyǒu |I '''de''' friend |'My friend' }} {{interlinear|lang=zh|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(34)}} b. |top= '''POSSESSOR + POSSESSEE''' |wǒ péngyǒu |I friend |'My friend' |bottom=(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.<ref name=Haiman />{{rp|783}} That contradicts the notion that inalienable possession is marked by less linguistic distance between the possessor and the possessee. {{interlinear|lang=zh|indent=5|number=(35) a. |wǒ xǐhuān nǐ '''DE''' tóufà |I like you '''de''' hair |'I like your hair' }} {{interlinear|lang=zh|indent=5|number={{hidden text|(35)}} b. |* wǒ xǐhuān nǐ tóufà |{} I like you hair |'I like your hair' |bottom=(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.<ref name="Walter de Gruyter & Co"/><ref name=Good>{{cite book|editor-last1=Good|editor-first1=Jeff|title=Linguistic Universals and Language Change|date=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|page=197}}</ref> The following shows the frequency of possession between alienable and unalienable nouns in [[German language|German]].<ref name=Good/> 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]]. {| class="wikitable" |- ! Noun category !! Noun !! Unpossessed !! Possessed |- | Alienable || ''Gärtner'' 'gardener' <br> ''Jäger'' 'hunter' <br> ''Pfarrer'' 'priest' || 24 <br> 48 <br> 12 || 0 <br> 2 <br> 0 |- | Inalienable || ''Schwester'' 'sister' <br> ''Tante'' 'aunt' <br> ''Tochter'' 'daughter' || 32 <br> 47 <br> 46 || 58 <br> 22 <br> 53 |} The alienable nouns above are rarely possessed, but the inalienable kinship terms are frequently possessed.<ref name=Good/> 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.<ref name="Walter de Gruyter & Co"/> 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.<ref name=Haiman /> A listener who hears an inalienable noun can predict that it will be possessed, which eliminates the need for an overt possessor.<ref name=Haspelmath/>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)