Editing Inalienable possession

{{Short description|Grammatical category}}
{{about|a linguistic category|the property category|Inalienable possessions}}
{{Linguistics}}
In [[linguistics]], '''inalienable possession'''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/Haspelmath_Possessives.pdf |title=Haspelmath Possessives |website=www.eva.mpg.de}}</ref> ([[list of glossing abbreviations|abbreviated]] '''{{sc|inal}}''') is a type of [[possession (linguistics)|possession]]  in which a [[noun]] is [[Obligatory possession|obligatorily possessed]] by its possessor. Nouns or [[nominal (linguistics)|nominal affixes]] in an inalienable possession relationship cannot exist independently or be "alienated" from their possessor.<ref name="ling dictionary">{{cite book|last1=Matthews|first1=P. H.|title=Inalienable possession|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001|year=2007|isbn=9780199202720}}</ref>  Inalienable nouns include body parts (such as ''leg'', which is necessarily "someone's leg" even if it is severed from the body), [[Kinship terminology|kinship terms]] (such as ''mother''), and part-whole relations (such as ''top'').<ref name="auto">{{cite journal|last1=Lichtenberk|first1=Frantisek|last2=Vaid|first2=Jyotsna|last3=Chen|first3=Hsin-Chin|title=On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation|journal=Cognitive Linguistics|date=2011|volume=22|issue=4|pages=659–689|doi=10.1515/cogl.2011.025|s2cid=143993134|url=https://philarchive.org/rec/LICOTI |id={{ProQuest|919350399}}}}</ref> Many languages reflect the distinction but vary in how they mark inalienable possession.<ref name=Nichols/> Cross-linguistically, inalienability correlates with many [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]], [[syntactic]], and [[semantic]] properties.

In general, the alienable–inalienable distinction is an example of a binary possessive [[noun class|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.<ref name = Nichols>{{cite web
| url = http://wals.info/feature/description/59
| title = Possessive Classification
| work = [[World Atlas of Language Structures]]
|author1=Nichols, Johanna |author2=Bickel, Balthasar | access-date = 2011-02-26
}}</ref> Some languages have more than two possessive classes. In [[Papua New Guinea]], for example, [[Anêm language|Anêm]] has at least 20 classes, and [[Amele language|Amele]] has 32.<ref>{{Cite journal | url=http://wals.info/chapter/59 | title=Possessive Classification| journal=The World Atlas of Language Structures Online| year=2013| last1=Nichols| first1=Johanna| last2=Bickel| first2=Balthasar| editor1=Dryer, Matthew S| editor2=Haspelmath, Martin}}</ref><ref name = Nichols/>

Statistically, 15–20% of the world's languages have [[obligatory possession]].<ref name= Nichols3>{{cite web
| url = http://wals.info/feature/58
| title = Feature/Obligatory Possessive Inflection
| work = [[World Atlas of Language Structures]]
|author1=Nichols, Johanna |author2=Bickel, Balthasar | access-date = 2011-03-06
}}</ref>

== Comparison to alienable possession ==
With inalienable possession, the two entities have a permanent association in which the possessed has little control over their possessor.<ref name="Chappell, McGregor">{{cite book |last1=Chappell |first1=Hilary |last2=McGregor |first2=William |title=Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body-part terms and the part-whole relation |date=1996 |publisher=Mouton de Gruyter |location=Berlin; New York |isbn=3-11-012804-7 |pages=3–30}}</ref> 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:<ref name="auto"/>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! 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.<ref name="Chappell, McGregor"/> 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'').<ref name="auto"/>

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.<ref name="Stolz et al. 2008">{{cite book |last1=Stolz |first1=Thomas |last2=Kettler |first2=Sonja |last3=Stroh |first3=Cornelia |last4=Urdze |first4=Aina |title=Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe |date=2008 |publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company |isbn=978-90-272-0568-1}}</ref> Also, languages may make different distinctions within the categories on how many and which entities are treated as inalienable.<ref name="Stolz et al. 2008" />

Moreover, some languages allow the same noun to be either alienable or inalienable.<ref name="Chappell, McGregor" /> 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.<ref name="Thunes 2013">{{cite journal |last1=Thunes |first1=Martha |title=The inalienability pattern of English and Norwegian |journal=Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies |date=2013 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=167–178 |doi=10.15845/bells.v3i1.369|doi-access=free}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=Heine2>{{cite book|last1=Heine|first1=Bernd|title=Cognitive Foundations of Grammar|date=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=USA|isbn=9780195356205|pages=85–86|url=http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=52858|access-date=6 November 2014}}</ref> 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.<ref name=Heine2/> 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.<ref name="Chappell, McGregor" /> 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]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Matthews|first1=P. H.|title=Noun class|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001|year=2007|isbn=9780199202720}}</ref>

The examples below illustrate that the same phrase, ''the table's legs'', is regarded as inalienable possession in [[Italian language|Italian]] but alienable possession in [[French language|French]]:<ref name="Cinque and Krapova">{{cite journal|last1=Cinque|first1=Guglielmo|last2=Krapova|first2=Iliana|title=The two "possessor raising" constructions of Bulgarian|journal=Working Papers in Linguistics|date=2008|volume=18|page=68|url=http://arca.unive.it/bitstream/10278/1085/1/Working%20Papers%2018-2008%20PDF.pdf#page=60|access-date=7 November 2014|author1-link=Guglielmo Cinque}}</ref> (1b) is [[grammaticality|ungrammatical]] (as indicated by the asterisk). French cannot use the inalienable possession construction for a relationship that is alienable.

{{interlinear|number=(1) a.
 |top= '''Italian - inalienable possession relationship'''
 |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'
}}
{{interlinear|number={{hidden text|(1)}} b.
 |top= '''French - alienable possession relationship'''
 |*  La  table, quelqu'un '''lui'''    a   scié toutes les pattes
 |{} the table, someone   '''it.DAT''' has sawn all    the legs
 |'The table, someone has sawn off all '''its''' legs'
 |bottom= (Cinque & Krapova 2008: 68 (ia, ib){{efn|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."}}))
}}

[[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."<ref name=Heine>{{cite book|last1=Heine|first1=Bernd|title=Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization|date=1997|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|page=182}}</ref> 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 [[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.

==Cross-linguistic properties==
Although there are different methods of marking inalienability, inalienable possession constructions usually involve the following features:<ref name=Heine2/>

* The distinction is confined to attributive possession.
* Alienable possession requires more [[phonological]] or [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] features than inalienable possession.
*Inalienable possession involves a tighter structural bond between the possessor and the possessee.
* Possessive markers on inalienable nouns are [[etymologically]] older{{efn|For example, in the [[Native American language]] [[Kumeyaay people#Language|Diegueño]], the alienable possessive marker ('''''?-ə'''n<sup>y</sup>'') appears to have originated from the inalienable possessive marker ('''''?-ə'''''), which suggests the latter to be older.<ref name="space and time">{{cite book|last1=Nichols|first1=Johanna|title=Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time|date=1992|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|pages=116–123|edition=ACLS Humanities E-Book}}</ref>}}
* Inalienable nouns include kinship terms and/or body parts.
* Inalienable nouns form a [[closed class]], but alienable nouns form an [[open class (linguistics)|open class]]. 
(Heine 1997: 85-86 (1-6))

===Restricted to attributive possession===
[[File:Attributive possession DP.jpg|thumb|170px|Attribution possession: the possessor (Ron) and the possessee (dog) form a [[phrase]].]]
 [[File:Predicative possession 1.jpg|thumb|right|170px|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.<ref name=Heine2/>

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.<ref name="Herslund and Baron">{{cite book|last1=Herslund|first1=Michael|last2=Baron|first2=Irène|title=Dimensions of Possession|date=2001|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing|location=Amsterdam|isbn=978-9027229519|pages=1–15|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lcCKtWG3wsAC&q=Dimensions+of+Possession&pg=PA1|access-date=11 December 2014}}</ref> 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.<ref name=Haspelmath>{{cite web|last1=Haspelmath|first1=Martin|title=Alienable vs. inalienable possessive constructions|url=http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/Haspelmath_Possessives.pdf|website=Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology|publisher=Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity|access-date=9 November 2014}}</ref> An example is the [[Inalienable possession#No overt possessive markers|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 [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] markers than was its alienable counterpart. By contrast, only one of the surveyed languages required more [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] features to mark inalienable possession than alienable possession.<ref name="auto1"/> 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-marking language|head-marked]] but alienable possession to be [[dependent-marking language|dependent-marked]].<ref name="space and time"/> In head-marking, the [[head (linguistics)|head]] of an inalienable possession construction (the possessed noun) is marked, but in dependent-marking, the dependent (the possessor noun) is marked.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Matthews|first1=P. H.|title=Head marking|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001|year=2007|isbn=9780199202720}}</ref>

==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/>

==Glossary of abbreviations==

===Morpheme glosses===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| * || [[Asterisked form|ungrammatical]]
|-
| 3 || [[Grammatical person|third person]]
|-
| ACC || [[accusative case]]
|-
| DAT || [[dative case]]
|-
| DEF DET || [[Definite article|definite]] [[determiner]]
|-
| F || [[Grammatical gender|feminine]]
|-
| GEN || [[genitive case]]
|-
| NOM || [[nominative case]]
|-
| PL || [[plural]]
|-
| POSS || [[possessive]]
|-
| REFLEX || [[Reflexive pronoun|reflexive]]
|-
| SG || [[Grammatical number|singular]]
|-
| ''t<sub>x</sub>''  || [[Trace (linguistics)|trace]]
|-
| ''<sub>i</sub>''  || [[Coreference|co-referenced]]
|}

===Syntactic trees===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| D|| [[determiner]]
|-
| DP || [[determiner phrase]]
|-
| N|| [[noun]] 
|-
| NP || [[noun phrase]]
|-
| PP || [[Prepositional phrases|prepositional phrase]]
|-
| T || [[Grammatical tense|tense]]
|-
|TP || tense phrase
|-
| V || [[verb]]
|-
| VP || [[verb phrase]]
|-
| ''e'' || [[empty category]]
|}
<section begin="list-of-glossing-abbreviations"/><div style="display:none;">
D:determiner
DP:determiner phrase
N:noun
NP:noun phrase
PP:prepositional phrase
T:tense
TP:tense phrase
V:verb
VP:verb phrase
</div><section end="list-of-glossing-abbreviations"/>

== Other languages ==
=== Austronesian languages ===
==== Rapa ====
Old [[Rapa language|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.<ref name=":0">WILSON, WILLIAM H. 1982. Proto-Polynesian possessive marking. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.</ref>

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)

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|+''o-''marked and ''a-''marked<ref name=":0" />
!''o''-marked
!''a-''marked
|-
|house
|terrain
|-
|canoe
|taro-bed
|-
|boat
|children
|-
|parents
|spouse
|-
|brother
|food
|-
|sister
|animals
|-
|country/island
|oven
|-
|god
|grandchildren
|-
|car
|unborn child
|-
|teacher
|a group (sport's team, association)
|-
|preacher
|trip, coming/goings
|-
|friend
|project/plans
|-
|sickness
|
|-
|happiness/smile
|
|-
|town
|
|-
|body and body parts
|
|-
|grandparents
|
|-
|language
|
|-
|chief
|
|-
|life
|
|-
|idea
|
|}

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.<ref>Vökel, Svenja. 2010. ''Structure, space, and possession in Tongan culture and language: An ethnolinguistic study''. John Benjamins Publishing.</ref>

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:
{| class="wikitable"
|+Possessive Pronouns of Old Rapa<ref>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.</ref>
!
!
! colspan="2" |Singular
! colspan="2" |Dual
! colspan="2" |Plural
|-
! rowspan="2" |1st Person
!Inclusive
| rowspan="2" |tōku
| rowspan="2" |tāku
|tō māua
|tā māua
|tō mātou
|tā mātou
|-
!Exclusive
|tō tāua
|tā tāua
|tō tātou
|tā tātou
|-
! colspan="2" |2nd Person
|tōkoe
|tākoe
|tō kōrua
|tā kōrua
|tō koutou
|tā koutou
|-
! colspan="2" |3rd Person
|tōna
|tāna
|tō rāua
|tā rāua
|tō rātou
|tā rātou
|}

=== Wuvulu ===
[[Wuvulu-Aua language|Wuvulu language]] is a small language spoken in [[Wuvulu Island]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hafford|first=James|year=2015|title=Introduction|journal=Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary|page=1}}</ref> Direct possession has a close relationship with inalienability in Oceanic linguistics. Similarly, the inherent possession of the possessor is called the possessum.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hafford|first=James|year=2015|title=Possession|journal=Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary|pages=59–60}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hafford|first=James|year=2015|title=Possessor Suffixes|journal=Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary|page=61}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Hafford|first=James|year=2015|title=Direct possession|journal=Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary|via=61-63}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
!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.<ref name=":1" />
{| class="wikitable"
!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])

{{interlinear|indent=3
|faʔua, ʔei ware-a-mu
|true the talk-DER-2SG
|Your words are true.<ref name=":1" />}}

=== Tokelauan ===
Here is a table displaying the predicative possessive pronouns in [[Tokelauan language|Tokelauan]]:

{| class="wikitable" 
|-
! colspan="2" | 
! Singular
! Dual
! Plural
|-
! rowspan="2" | 1st person
! incl.
| rowspan="2" | o oku, o kita<br />a aku, a kite
| o taua, o ta<br />a taua, a ta
| o tatou<br />a tatou
|-
! excl.
| o maua, o ma o<br />a maua, a ma a
| matou<br />matou
|-
! colspan="2" | 2nd person
| o ou/o koe<br />a au/a koe
| o koulua<br />a koulua
| o koutou<br />a koutou
|-
! colspan="2" | 3rd person
| o ona<br />a ona
| o laua, o la<br />a laua, a la
| o latou<br />a latou
|}

<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Studies in Tokelauan syntax|last=Hooper|first=Robin|publisher=University Microfilms International|year=1994|location=Ann Arbor, Michigan|page=51}}</ref>

Here is a table with the Tokelauan possessive pronouns:
{| class="wikitable" 
|-
! Possessor
! Singular reference
! Plural reference
|-
! 1 singular
| toku, taku, tota, tata
| oku, aku, ota, ata
|-
! 2 singular
| to, tau
| o, au
|-
! 3 singular
| tona, tana
| ona, ana
|-
! 1 dual incl.
| to ta, to taua<br />ta ta, ta taue
| o ta, o taue<br />a ta, a taua
|-
! 1 dual excl.
| to ma, to maua<br />ta ma, ta maua
| o ma, o maua<br />a ma, a maua
|-
! 2 dual
| toulua, taulua
| oulua, aulua
|-
! 3 dual
| to la, to laue<br />ta la, ta laue
| o la, o laua<br />a la a laua
|-
! 1 plural incl.
| to tatou, ta tatou
| o tatou, a tatou
|-
! 1 plural excl.
| to matou, ta matou
| o matou, a matou
|-
! 2 plural
| toutou, tautau
| outou, autou
|-
! 3 plural
| to latou, ta latau
| o latou, a latou
|-
! 
! colspan="2" | NON-SPECIFIC/INDEFINITE
|-
! 1 singular
| hoku, hota<br />haku, hata
| ni oku, ni ota<br />niaku, niata
|-
! 2 singular
| ho, hau
| ni o, ni au
|-
! 3 singular
| hona, hana
| ni ona, ni ana
|-
! 1 dual incl.
| ho ta, ho taua<br />ha ta, ha taua
| ni o ta, ni o taue<br />ni a ta, ni a taua
|-
! 1 dual excl.
| ho ma, ho maua<br />ha ma, ha maua
| ni o ma, ni o maua<br />ni a ma, ni a maua
|-
! 2 dual
| houlua, haulua
| ni oulua, ni aulua
|}
<ref name=":2" />

==See also==
{{Portal|Linguistics}}
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Possession (linguistics)]]
* [[Obligatory possession]]
* [[Noun class]]
* [[Determiner phrase]]
* [[Noun phrase]]
* [[Possessive]]
* [[Possessive affix]]
* [[English possessive]]
* [[Genitive case]]
{{Div col end}}

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://wals.info/feature/59A#2/25.5/153.5 A map of the world's languages colored by possessive classification complexity] from the [[World Atlas of Language Structures]].

{{Formal semantics}}

[[Category:Grammatical categories]]
[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Genitive construction]]
[[Category:Grammatical construction types]]
[[Category:Formal semantics (natural language)]]