publication . Article . Other literature type . 2017

Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity

Martin Haspelmath;
Open Access
  • Published: 25 May 2017
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This paper argues that alienability contrasts in adnominal possessive constructions should not be explained by iconicity of distance, but by predictability due to the higher relative frequency of possessed occurrences of inalienable nouns. While it is true that when there is an alienability split, the alienable construction typically has an additional marker which often separates the possessor from the possessed noun, the broader generalization is that additional marking is found when the possessive relationship is less predictable. This generalization also extends to cases of antipossessive marking and impossessibility. ...
Subjects
free text keywords: possessive construction, inalienable possession, iconicity, possessive construction, inalienable possession, iconicity, Linguistics and Language, Language and Linguistics, Predictability, Linguistics, History, Contrast (statistics), Iconicity
Related Organizations
Funded by
EC| FormGram
Project
FormGram
Form-frequency correspondences in grammar
  • Funder: European Commission (EC)
  • Project Code: 670985
  • Funding stream: H2020 | ERC | ERC-ADG
Validated by funder
Communities
Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
Zenodo
Article . 2017
Provider: Datacite
Zenodo
Other literature type . 2017
Provider: Datacite
Zenodo
Article . 2017
Provider: Datacite
Zenodo
Other literature type . 2017
Provider: Datacite
96 references, page 1 of 7

Aikhenvald, Aleksandra Y. 2013. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Possession and ownership: A crosslinguistic typology, 1-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berry, Keith & Berry, Christine. 1999. A description of Abun: A West Papuan language of Irian Jaya. (Pacific Linguistics, B-115) Canberra: Australian National University.

Buechel, Eugene. 1939. A grammar of Lakota: The language of the Teton Sioux Indians. St. Francis, SD: St. Francis Mission/Rosebud Educational Society.

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 350-379. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bybee, Joan. 2007. Introduction. In Joan Bybee, Frequency of use and the organization of language, 5-22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William. 1989. Alienability, inalienability and nominal classification. In Kira Hall, Micheal Meacham & Richard Shapiro (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on Theoretical Issues in Language Reconstruction, 24-36. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William. 1996. Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability, 3-30. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. [OpenAIRE]

Corbett, Greville G., Andrew Hippisley, Dunstan Brown & Paul Marriott. 2001. Frequency, regularity and the paradigm: A perspective from Russian on a complex relation. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 201-226. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale: Une introduction typologique. Paris: LavoisierHermès Science.

Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago;IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Croft, William. 2008. On iconicity of distance. (Commentary on Haspelmath 2008b.) Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 49-58.

Crowley, Terry. 1996. Inalienable possession in Paamese grammar. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregory (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 383-432. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

96 references, page 1 of 7
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue