A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Part of a series on |
Linguistics |
---|
Portal |
In linguistics, inalienable possession[1] (abbreviated INAL) is a type of possession in which a noun is obligatorily possessed by its possessor. Nouns or nominal affixes in an inalienable possession relationship cannot exist independently or be "alienated" from their possessor.[2] Inalienable nouns include body parts (such as leg, which is necessarily "someone's leg" even if it is severed from the body), kinship terms (such as mother), and part-whole relations (such as top).[3] Many languages reflect the distinction but vary in how they mark inalienable possession.[4] Cross-linguistically, inalienability correlates with many morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties.
In general, the alienable–inalienable distinction is an example of a binary possessive 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.[4] Some languages have more than two possessive classes. In Papua New Guinea, for example, Anêm has at least 20 classes, and Amele has 32.[5][4]
Statistically, 15–20% of the world's languages have obligatory possession.[6]
Comparison to alienable possession
With inalienable possession, the two entities have a permanent association in which the possessed has little control over their possessor.[7] 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:[3]
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.[7] 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).[3]
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.[8] Also, languages may make different distinctions within the categories on how many and which entities are treated as inalienable.[8]
Moreover, some languages allow the same noun to be either alienable or inalienable.[7] 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.[9]
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.[10] 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.[10] 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.[7] 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.[11]
The examples below illustrate that the same phrase, the table's legs, is regarded as inalienable possession in Italian but alienable possession in French:[12] (1b) is ungrammatical (as indicated by the asterisk). French cannot use the inalienable possession construction for a relationship that is alienable.
(1) a. Italian - inalienable possession relationship Al
to.the
tavolo,
table
qualcuno
someone
gli
it.DAT
ha
has
segato
sawn
tutte
all
le
the
gambe
legs
'The table, someone has sawn off all its legs'
b. French - alienable possession relationship *La
the
table,
table,
quelqu'un
someone
lui
it.DAT
a
has
scié
sawn
toutes
all
les
the
pattes
legs
'The table, someone has sawn off all its legs'
(Cinque & Krapova 2008: 68 (ia, ib)[a]))
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."[13] 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 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.[14] In a language with possession split, grammatical constructions with alienable nouns will differ from constructions with inalienable nouns.
There is a strong typological pattern for inalienable possession to require fewer morphological markers than alienable possession constructions.[15]
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.[16] French, for example, can use a postnominal possessor (the possessor (of) Jean occurs after the possessee the arm):
(2) a. French: inalienable body-part noun = postnominal possessor (Guéron 2007: 590 (la))le
the
bras
arm
de
of
Jean
Jean
'John's arm'
b. French: inalienable kin noun = postnominal possessor le
the
frère
brother
de
of
Jean
Jean
'John's brother'
c. French: alienable noun = postnominal possessor le
the
livre
book
de
of
Jean
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.[4]
Morphological markers
No overt possessive markers
The South American language Dâw uses a special possessive morpheme (bold in the examples below) to indicate alienable possession.[17] The possessive morpheme ɛ̃̀ɟ in examples (3a) and (3b) indicates an alienable relationship between the possessor and the possessee.
(3) a. Alienable tɔp
house
Tũk-ɛ̃̀ɟ
Tũk-POSS
'Tũk's house'
b. (Martins 2004: 546)tih-ɛ̃̀ɟ
3SG-POSS
cɤ̀g
arrow
'his arrow'
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.
tih
3SG
nũh
head
‘his head' (Martins 2004: 547)
Identical possessor deletion
Igbo, a West African language, the possessor is deleted in a sentence if both its subject and the possessor of an inalienable noun refer to the same entity.[18]: 87 In (5a), both referents 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).
*Ó
Hei
sàra
washed
áka
hands
yá
hisi (own)
'Hei washed hisi hands'
Ó
He
sàra
washed
áka
hands
'Hei washed hisi hands' (Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (11, 12))
A similar process occurs in some Slavic languages, notably Serbian:
*Oprao
Washed
je
hei.is
svoje
hisi (own)
ruke
hands
'Hei washed hisi hands'
Oprao
Washed
je
he.is
ruke
hands
'Hei washed hisi 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 syntactic process when the subject and the possessor refer to different entities.[18]: 89 In possessor switch, the possessor of the inalienable noun is placed as close as possible to the verb.[18] In the following examples, the possessor yá is not deleted because both referents are different:
(7) a. *Ó hùru áka He saw hand 'Hei saw hisj hand' b. Ó hùru áka yá He saw hand his 'Hei saw hisj hand' (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:
(8) a. *ísi m wàra Head my split 'I have a headache' b. ísi wàra m Head split to me 'I have a headache' (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:[19][20]
In (9), the genitive Sely precedes the possessee me, marking inalienable possession.
Inalienable: Gen-N (9) Sely m-me Sely 3SG.F.POSS-mother 'Sely's mother' (Dol 1999: 93) |
However, the genitive follows the possessee in alienable possession constructions, such as (10) whose genitive Petrus follows the possessee amah.
Alienable: N-Gen (10) amah ro-Petrus house GEN-Petrus ‘Petrus' house' (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.[21] For example, Ojibwe, an Algonquian language, has a class of nouns that must have explicit possessors.[22][23][b]
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.
ni
POSS
nik
arm
'my arm'
*
nik
arm
'(an) arm' (Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 138)
nookmis
POSS-grandmother
'my grandmother'
*
ookmis
grandmother
'(a) grandmother' (Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 189)
Prepositions
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).[24]
nā
the
iwi
bones
a
of
Pua
Pua
'Pua's bones'
nā
the
iwi
bones
o
of
Pua
Pua
'Pua's bones' (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 metaphorically. Although lei is a tangible object, but in Hawaiian, it can be either alienable (15a) or inalienable (15b), depending on the context.
Alienable | Inalienable | |
---|---|---|
(14) | ke the kanaka man a of ke the aliʻi king 'the subject the chief' |
ke the kanaka man o of ke the aliʻi king 'the subject of the chief' (Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139) |
(15) | ka the lei lei a of Pua Pua 'Pua's lei ' |
ka the lei lei o of Pua Pua 'Pua's lei ' (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, for body parts.[25]
Il
he
lève
raises
les
the
mains.
hands
'He raises his hands.' (Nakamoto 2010: 75 (2a))
Using the definite article with body parts, as in the example above, creates ambiguity. Thus, the sentence has both an alienable and an inalienable interpretation:
a) he raises his own hands b) he raises another pair of hands |
Such an ambiguity also occurs in English with body-part constructions.[26]
Spanish also uses a definite article (el, los, la, or las) to indicate inalienable possession for body parts.[27]
Él
he
se
himself
lava
washes
las
the
manos.
hands
'He washes his hands.' (Kockelman 2009: 30)
German uses a definite article (die) for inalienable body parts but a possessive (meine) for alienable possession.[27]
Er
he
wäscht
washes
sich
REFL
die
the
Hände.
hands
'He is washing his hands.' (Kockelman 2009: 29)
Ich
I
zerriss
tore
meine
my
Hose.
pants
'I tore my pants.' (Kockelman 2009: 30)
No distinction in grammar
Although English has alienable and inalienable nouns (Mary's brother vs. Mary's squirrel alienable), it has few such formal distinctions in its grammar.[28] 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.[28]
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 |
Another example in 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.[26] 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.
Les
The
enfants
children
ont
have
levé
raised
la
the
main
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.[29]: 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 of the determiner phrase. That contrasts to the alienable reading in which John has an arm is part of the determiner.[29]: 690 Charles J. Fillmore and Chomsky make a syntactic distinction between alienable and inalienable possession and suggest that the distinction is relevant to English.[29]
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.[29]: 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.[3] 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.[3]
Interaction with coreferenceedit
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. Lucy1 raised her1/2 horse alienable b. Lucy1 raised her1/*2 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.
Therefore, the pronominal possessor patterns with pronominal binding in the alienable construction, but the pronominal possessor patterns with anaphoric binding in the inalienable construction.[30] In anaphoric binding, an anaphor requires a coreferent antecedent that c-commands the anaphor and that is in the domain of the anaphor.[31] 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 propertiesedit
Although there are different methods of marking inalienability, inalienable possession constructions usually involve the following features:[10]
- The distinction is confined to attributive possession.
- Alienable possession requires more phonological or 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[c]
- Inalienable nouns include kinship terms and/or body parts.
- Inalienable nouns form a closed class, but alienable nouns form an open class.
(Heine 1997: 85-86 (1-6))
Restricted to attributive possessionedit
Alienability can be expressed only in attributive possession constructions, not in predicative possession.[10]
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.[33] 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 featuresedit
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.[34] An example is the data from Dâw.
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Inalienable_possession
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších
podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky
použitia.
www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk