|
|
|
|
Possession (linguistics)
|
| |
|
| |
Possession, in the context of linguistics, is an asymmetric relationship between two constituents, the referent of one of which (the possessor) possesses (owns, rules over, has as a part, etc.) the referent of the other.
Possession may be marked in many ways, such as simple juxtaposition of nouns, a possessive case, a construct state (for example, see Arabic grammar: state), or adpositions (possessive suffixes, possessive adjectives). For example, English uses a possessive clitic ('s) and a preposition, of.
e are many types of possession, but a common distinction is alienable versus inalienable possession.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Possession (linguistics)' Start a new discussion about 'Possession (linguistics)' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Possession, in the context of linguistics, is an asymmetric relationship between two constituents, the referent of one of which (the possessor) possesses (owns, rules over, has as a part, etc.) the referent of the other.
Possession may be marked in many ways, such as simple juxtaposition of nouns, a possessive case, a construct state (for example, see Arabic grammar: state), or adpositions (possessive suffixes, possessive adjectives). For example, English uses a possessive clitic ('s) and a preposition, of.
Alienable and inalienable
There are many types of possession, but a common distinction is alienable versus inalienable possession. Alienability refers to the ability to dissociate something from its parent — in this case, a quality from its owner.
When something is inalienably possessed, it is usually an attribute: for example, John's big nose is inalienably possessed, because it cannot (without surgery) be removed from John — it's simply a quality he has. In contrast, 'my briefcase' is alienably possessed — it can be separated from me.
Many languages make this distinction as part of their grammar - typically, using different affixes for alienable and inalienable possession. For example, in Mikasuki (a Muskogean language of Florida), ac-akni (inalienable) means 'my body', whereas am-akni (alienable) means 'my meat' . English does not have any way of making such distinctions (the example from Mikasuki is clear to English speakers only because there happen to be two different words in English which translate -akni in the two senses: both Mikasuki words could be translated as 'my flesh', and then the distinction would disappear in English).
Possessive pronouns in Polynesian languages such as Hawaiian and Maori are associated with nouns distinguishing between o-class, a-class and neutral pronouns according to the relationship of possessor and possessed. O-class possessive pronouns are used if the possessive relationship cannot be begun or ended by the possessor.
Inherent and non-inherent
Another distinction, which is similar to alienable vs. inalienable possession, is inherent vs. non-inherent possession. In languages that mark this distinction, inherently possessed nouns, such as parts of wholes, cannot be mentioned without indicating their dependent status. The Yabem language of Papua New Guinea, for instance, distinguishes alienable from inalienable possession when the possessor is human, but distinguishes inherent from non-inherent possession when the 'possessor' is not human. Inherently possessed nouns are marked with the prefix a-, as in (ka) ?alaka '(tree) branch', (lôm) ?atau '(men's house) owner', and (talec) ?alatu '(hen's) chick'. Adjectives derived from nouns (as inherent attributes of other entities) are also so marked, as in ?adani 'thick, dense' (< dani 'thicket') or ?alemo? 'muddy, soft' (< lemo? 'mud').
Possessable and unpossessable
Many languages, such as the Maasai language, distinguish between the possessable and the unpossessable. Possessable things include farm animals, tools, houses, family members and money, while for instance wild animals, landscape features and weather phenomena cannot be possessed. Basically this means that, in such languages, saying 'my brother' is okay, but 'my land' would be grammatically incorrect. Instead, one would have to use a circumlocution such as 'the land that I own' .
Animate and inanimate
In some languages, different possession verbs ("have" in English) are used depending on whether the object is animate or inanimate. Compare the two examples in Georgian:
- Kompiuteri makvs ("I have a computer")
- Dzaghli mqavs ("I have a dog")
Since a dog is animate, and a computer is not, different verbs are used. However some nouns in Georgian (such as car) are considered animate, and, therefore, employ the same verb as any other animate object.
Further reading
Heine, Bernd (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521024136
See also
|
| |
|
|
