Non-canonical possessive constructions in Negidal and other Tungusic languages: a new analysis of the so-called “alienable possession” suffix (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Theory and Typology of Possession in Ob-Yenissei Languages.
The paper outlines the on-going study of possession in Ob-Yenissei languages. The languages of the project represent the endangered indigenous idioms belonging to diverse language families and united in the study by their areal affiliation with the posited linguistic area delimited by Ob and Yenissei river basins in Western Siberia. The analysis stems from extended original and legacy fieldwork data, and addresses the key morphosyntactic and semantic features of possession within a contemporary theoretical and methodological framework, functional-cognitive grammar. The study pursues to integrate data and analysis into modern debates regarding possession from areal Siberian, genetic Uralic and wider typological perspective.
Linguistics
Like many other Oceanic and Kanak languages of New Caledonia, Zuanga-Yuanga [ZY] has classifiers restricted to the possession of nouns denoting food, drink, animals and plants; it also has dichotomous direct and indirect adnominal possessive constructions, which are generally labeled inalienable or alienable in the Oceanic literature. These terms refer to a distinction between close versus distant structural marking, which do not strictly correlate with lexical-semantic categories. For instance, kinship nouns are split over the two types of constructions, distinguishing reference from address kinship terms, not in terms of semantic distinctions between close versus distant kinship types. The split for body-part nouns is between directly possessed dedicated terms and indirectly possessed metaphorical body terms, not in terms of permanent versus removable parts, or temporary body properties. In ZY possessive constructions correlate with fairly strict possessee noun classes belonging t...
NP-internal possessive constructions in Hoocąk and other Siouan languages
2016
Languages usually have more than one construction to express a possessive relationship. Possessive constructions in an individual language usually express semantically different relations, which are traditionally subsumed under the notion of possession such as part-whole relationships, kinship relationships, prototypical ownership, and others. Hoocąk and the other Siouan languages are no exception from this many-to-many relationship between possessive constructions and semantic kinds of possession. The present paper deals with NP-internal types of possession in Siouan languages leaving aside constructions that express possession on the clause level such as benefactive applicatives, reflexive possessives and the predicative possession. The NP-internal possessive constructions will be examined according to the semantic/syntactic nature of the possessor (regarding the Animacy Hierarchy), and the semantic nature of the possessed (alienable/inalienable distinction). I will begin with an ...
Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages
PhD Dissertation of Rice University, 2016
This dissertation investigates nominalization and possession in Formosan languages from a functional-typological perspective, where nominalization is a metonymic process of creating denoting expressions. Verbal-based and nominal-based nominalization are each the topic of the two primary parts of this study. Special attention is paid to nominalizations lacking a lexical status, covering constructions traditionally called relativization and possession.
Possession in Murui (Witotoan) [Possession - Global Workshop LCRC, June 22, 2016]
This talks focuses on the expression of possession in Murui, a Witotoan language spoken by about 2,000 people in Northwest Amazonia. Murui lacks the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession. The most frequent marking of possession involves a simple juxtaposition of words within the NP that requires the Possessor (R) - Possessed (D) order. The marking of the genitive on pronouns is conditioned by the ‘nominal hierarchy’ with the split between 1st and 2nd vs. 3rd person. The language lacks a verb ‘have’. Stating relationships of possession can be achieved through three types of predicative possessive constructions: i) those with attributive markers on predicates whose head is a noun, ii) the intransitive verb ite ‘exist’ where the R is marked with the locative case, and iii) a special kind of verbless clause marked with the anaphoric connective ie. Although the vast majority of Murui nouns are optionally possessed, there are some which cannot be conceptualized as ‘ownable’. These are, among others, certain natural phenomena. While some nouns (e.g. names of insects), tend not to occur in possessive constructions, others (such as kinship terms) are frequently possessed. A few nouns have different readings when they occur in possessive constructions.
This contribution deals with the linguistic expression of possession in Kukama-Kukamiria and examines potential correlations between possessive semantic relations (Heine 1997, Stassen 2009, Barker 2011) and construction types. Kukama-Kukamiria, a language spoken in the Amazon of Peru, does not have lexical verbs such as ‘have’, ‘belong,’ or a copula to predicate possession. Although the language does not have a dedicated possessive construction, possession can be inferred from several constructions, four of which are the focus of this paper.
Possession in Lelepa, a language of Central Vanuatu
2009
This thesis studies possession in Lelepa, a language from the Oceanic subgroup of Austronesian, spoken in Central Vanuatu. Investigating this particular feature of the language was achieved by collecting original data from Lelepa speakers. Language data is presented in the form of interlinearised examples taken from a corpus of texts and elicitation notes. Data was collected between 2006 and 2008 during fieldtrips to Lelepa and Mangaliliu. The core of the study is devoted to the possessive system of Lelepa. Like many other Oceanic languages, Lelepa has direct and indirect possessive constructions. This thesis shows that the direct possessive construction formally consists of a possessed noun to which a possessor suffix attaches. It encodes possession of semantic domains such as body parts, body products, reference kinship terms, items closely associated to the possessor and parts of wholes. Indirect possession is expressed by two distinct subtypes: the free and construct indirect constructions. The free indirect construction has pronominal possessors only, encoded by two distinct pronoun paradigms: general and part-whole possession pronouns. The former pronouns are used for possession of items that normally do not occur in the direct construction, and the latter are used for possession of parts of wholes. The construct indirect construction is characterised by the occurrence of either of two construct suffixes, -n or -g. The -n construct indirect construction has pronominal and nominal possessors, and the same semantic scope as the direct construction. The -g construct indirect construction has nominal possessors only, and the same semantic scope as the free indirect construction with general possession pronouns. This study also demonstrates that free variation between two possessive constructions, the direct construction and the -n construct indirect construction with pronominal possessors, occur in the language, although more work is needed to determine the scope of this feature.
Some Notes on Possessive Constructions in Palikur (Arawak, Brazil) 1
This study presents a preliminary survey and an analysis of possessive constructions in the Palikur language. "Possession" is taken as a universal concept due to the fact that languages usually show conventionalized ways to express it (Heine 1997). The category of possession can be manifested in languages in different ways, reflecting a wide variety of construction types. It also shows a range of senses that are not restricted solely to possession or ownership. This study presents a semantic and morphosyntactic analysis of some possessive constructions observed in Palikur (Arawák), focusing in particular on: (i) the semantic distinction between alienable and inalienable possession, expressed morphologically with the presence or absence of suffixes relating to alienability; (ii) possessive constructions with certain type of verbs, with the attached prefixes ka-and ma-, respectively, 'positive' and 'negative' attributive; and (iii) constructions with the postpositions-dahan 'to' and-kak 'with', showing types of relationships such as 'benefactive', 'means', and 'comitative'. The data for this presentation is drawn mainly from my fieldwork 2 undertaken among the Palikur communities living in the Urucawá river, in the Oiapoque Basin, in the Uaçá Indigenous Land, Oiapoque, Amapá State, Brazil. Other sources consulted were Launey (2003), Aikhenvald and Green (1998), Green and Green (1972). The language is spoken by approximately 1,000 people in Brazil. This language is also spoken in French Guyana.
Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific (Open Access)
Linguistic Typology, 2021
Some languages around the Pacific have multiple possessive classes of alienable constructions using appositive nouns or classifiers. This pattern differs from the most common kind of alienable/inalienable distinction, which involves marking, usually affixal, on the possessum and has only one class of alienables. The language isolate Ainu has possessive marking that is reminiscent of the Circum-Pacific pattern. It is distinctive, however, in that the possessor is coded not as a dependent in an NP but as an argument in a finite clause, and the appositive word is a verb. This paper gives a first comprehensive, typologically grounded description of Ainu possession and reconstructs the pattern that must have been standard when Ainu was still the daily language of a large speech community; Ainu then had multiple alienable class constructions. We report a cross-linguistic survey expanding previous coverage of the appositive type and show how Ainu fits in. We split alienable/inalienable into two different phenomena: argument structure (with types based on possessibility: optionally possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible) and valence (alienable, inalienable classes). Valence-changing operations are derived alienability and derived inalienability. Our survey classifies the possessive systems of languages in these terms.