Editing Inalienable possession (section)

==Morphosyntactic strategies for marking distinction==
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is often marked by various morphosyntactic properties such as [[morphology (linguistics)|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.<ref name="Lødrup 2014">{{cite journal |last1=Lødrup |first1=Helge |title=Split possession and the syntax of kinship nouns in Norwegian |journal=The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics |date=2014 |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=35–57 |doi=10.1007/s10828-014-9065-7|s2cid=119555932 }}</ref> In a language with possession split, grammatical constructions with alienable nouns will differ from constructions with inalienable nouns.

There is a strong [[linguistic typology|typological]] pattern for inalienable possession to require fewer morphological markers than alienable possession constructions.<ref name="auto1">{{cite journal|last1=Krasnoukhova|first1=Olga|title=Attributive possession in the languages of South America|journal=Linguistics in the Netherlands|date=2011|volume=28|issue=1|pages=86–98|doi=10.1075/avt.28.08kra|doi-access=free|hdl=1887/3160735|hdl-access=free}}<!--|access-date=28 September 2014--></ref>

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.<ref name = "Blackwell Companion">{{cite book|last1=Guéron|first1=Jacqueline|editor1-last=Everaert|editor1-first=Martin|editor2-link=Henk van Riemsdijk|editor2-last=van Riemsdijk|editor2-first=Henk|title=The Blackwell Companion to Syntax|date=2007|publisher=Blackwell Publishing Ltd|location=Malden, MA|isbn=9780470996591|pages=589–638|doi=10.1002/9780470996591|chapter=Inalienable Possession}}<!--|access-date=26 October 2014--></ref> French, for example, can use a postnominal possessor (the possessor ''(of) Jean'' occurs after the possessee ''the arm''):
[[File:Postnominal DP structure - French.png|thumb|150px|''de Jean'' is a '''postnominal possessor''', as it occurs after the noun. This sentence adapted from Guéron 2007: 590 (1a)]][[File:Prenominal possessor.png|thumb|''John'' is a '''prenominal possessor''' and occurs before the possessed noun ''brother''.]]

{{interlinear|number=(2) a.
 |top= '''French: inalienable body-part noun = postnominal possessor'''
 |le  bras '''de''' '''Jean'''
 |the arm  '''of''' '''Jean'''
 |'John's arm'
 |bottom= (Guéron 2007: 590 (la))
}}
{{interlinear|number={{hidden text|(2)}} b.
 |top= '''French: inalienable kin noun = postnominal possessor'''
 |le  frère '''de''' '''Jean'''
 |the brother '''of''' '''Jean'''
 |'John's brother'
}}
{{interlinear|number={{hidden text|(2)}} c.
 |top='''French: alienable noun = postnominal possessor'''
 |le  livre '''de''' '''Jean'''
 |the book '''of''' '''Jean'''
 |'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'''''.<ref name=Nichols/>

===Morphological markers===
====No overt possessive markers====
The [[South American language]] [[Dâw language|Dâw]] uses a special possessive [[morpheme]] (bold in the examples below) to indicate alienable possession.<ref name = Martins>{{cite book|last1=Martins|first1=Silvana Andrade|title=Fonologia e gramática Dâw|date=2004|publisher=LOT|location=Utrecht, Netherlands|pages=546–547}}</ref> The possessive morpheme '''''ɛ̃̀ɟ''''' in examples (3a) and (3b) indicates an alienable relationship between the possessor and the possessee.

{{interlinear|number=(3) a.
 |top= '''Alienable'''
 |tɔp   Tũk-'''ɛ̃̀ɟ'''
 |house Tũk-'''POSS'''
 |'Tũk's house'
}}
{{interlinear|number={{hidden text|(3)}} b.
 |tih-'''ɛ̃̀ɟ'''   cɤ̀g
 |3SG-'''POSS''' arrow
 |'his arrow'
 |bottom= (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.

{{interlinear|number=(4)
 |top='''Inalienable'''
 |tih nũh
 |3SG head
 |‘his head'
 |bottom= (Martins 2004: 547)
}}

====Identical possessor deletion====
In [[Igbo language|Igbo]], a [[West African language]], the possessor is [[elision|deleted]] in a sentence if both its [[subject (grammar)|subject]] and the possessor of an inalienable noun [[reference|refer]] to the same entity.<ref name=Hyman>{{cite journal|last1=Hyman|first1=Larry M.|last2=Alford|first2=Danny|last3=Elizabeth|first3=Akpati|title=Inalienable Possession in Igbo|journal=Journal of West African Languages|date=1970|volume=VII|issue=2}}</ref>{{rp|87}} In (5a), both [[referent]]s 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).

{{interlinear|number=(5) a.
|* Ó sàra áka '''yá'''
|{} He<sub>i</sub> washed hands {'''his<sub>i</sub> (own)'''}
|'He<sub>i</sub> washed his<sub>i</sub> hands'
}}
{{interlinear|number={{hidden text|(5)}} b.
|Ó sàra áka
|He washed hands
|'He<sub>i</sub> washed his<sub>i</sub> hands'
|bottom= (Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (11, 12))
}}

A similar process occurs in some [[Slavic languages]], notably [[Serbian language|Serbian]]:

{{interlinear|number=(6) a.
|* Oprao je '''svoje''' ruke
|{} Washed he<sub>i</sub>.is {'''his<sub>i</sub> (own)'''} hands 
|'He<sub>i</sub> washed his<sub>i</sub> hands'
}}
{{interlinear|number={{hidden text|(6)}} b.
|Oprao je ruke
|Washed he.is hands
|'He<sub>i</sub> washed his<sub>i</sub> hands'
}}

===Word order===
====Possessor switch====
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession constructions may be marked by a difference in word order. Igbo uses another [[syntax|syntactic]] process when the subject and the possessor refer to different entities.<ref name=Hyman/>{{rp|89}} In possessor switch, the possessor of the inalienable noun is placed as close as possible to the [[verb]].<ref name=Hyman/> In the following examples, the possessor '''''yá''''' is not deleted because both referents are different:

{{interlinear |lang=ig |number=(7) a.
|*  Ó  hùru áka
|{} He saw  hand
|'He<sub>i</sub> saw his<sub>j</sub> hand'
}}
{{interlinear |lang=ig |number={{hidden text|(7)}} b.
|Ó  hùru áka  '''yá'''
|He saw  hand '''his'''
|'He<sub>i</sub> saw his<sub>j</sub> hand'
|bottom=(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:

{{interlinear |lang=ig |number=(8) a.
|* ísi  m  wàra
|{} Head my split
|'I have a headache'
}}
{{interlinear |lang=ig |number={{hidden text|(8)}} b.
|ísi  wàra  m
|Head split {to me}
|'I have a headache'
|bottom=(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (44, 45))
}}

====Genitive-noun ordering====
The [[Maybrat languages]] in [[New Guinea]] vary the order of the [[genitive case]] and the noun between alienable and inalienable constructions:<ref>{{cite book|last1=Dol|first1=Philomena|title=A Grammar of Maybrat: A Language of the Bird's Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia|date=1999|location=University of Leiden|pages=93–97}}</ref><ref name=Dryer>{{cite web|last1=Dryer|first1=Matthew S.|title=Order of Genitive and Noun|url=http://wals.info/chapter/86|website=The World Atlas of Language Structures Online|publisher=Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology|access-date=29 October 2014}}</ref>

In (9), the genitive '''''Sely''''' precedes the possessee '''''me''''', marking inalienable possession.

{{interlinear |number= (9)
|top= '''Inalienable: Gen-N'''
|Sely '''m-me'''
|Sely '''3SG.F.POSS-mother'''
|'Sely's mother'
|bottom= (Dol 1999: 93)
}}

However, the genitive follows the possessee in alienable possession constructions, such as (10) whose genitive '''''Petrus''''' follows the possessee '''''amah'''''.

{{interlinear |number= (10)
|top= '''Alienable: N-Gen'''
|amah  '''ro'''-Petrus
|house '''GEN'''-Petrus
|‘Petrus' house'
|bottom= (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.<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"/>

===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. Lucy<sub>1</sub> raised her<sub>1/2</sub> horse [alienable] 
      b. Lucy<sub>1</sub> raised her<sub>1/*2</sub> 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.
[[File:Anaphoric binding.png|thumb|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.<ref name="Blackwell Companion2" /> In anaphoric binding, an anaphor requires a coreferent antecedent that c-commands the anaphor and that is in the domain of the anaphor.<ref name="Sportich et al. 2014">{{cite book |last1=Sportiche |first1=Dominique |last2=Koopman |first2=Hilda |last3=Stabler |first3=Edward |title=An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory |date=2014 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons Inc. |isbn=978-1-4051-0017-5 |page=165 |edition=1}}</ref> 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.