Split Possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe (Studies in Language Companion Series)

546 Pages·2008·1.42 MB·English

by  Thomas Stolz

Split Possession
Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS)
This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical
Studies in Language.
Editors
Werner Abraham Michael Noonan
University of Vienna University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Editorial Board
Joan Bybee Christian Lehmann
University of New Mexico University of Erfurt
Ulrike Claudi Robert E. Longacre
University of Cologne University of Texas, Arlington
Bernard Comrie Brian MacWhinney
Max Planck Institute, Leipzig Carnegie-Mellon University
University of California, Santa Barbara
Marianne Mithun
William Croft University of California, Santa Barbara
University of New Mexico
Edith Moravcsik
Östen Dahl University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
University of Stockholm
Masayoshi Shibatani
Gerrit J. Dimmendaal Rice University and Kobe University
University of Cologne
Russell S. Tomlin
Ekkehard König University of Oregon
Free University of Berlin
Volume 101
Split Possession. An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation
and related phenomena in the languages of Europe.
by Thomas Stolz, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze
Split Possession
An areal-linguistic study of the alienability
correlation and related phenomena in the
languages of Europe
Thomas Stolz
Sonja Kettler
Cornelia Stroh
Aina Urdze
University of Bremen
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Split possession : an areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related
phenomena in the languages of Europe / Thomas Stolz ... [et al.].
p. cm. (Studies in Language Companion Series, issn 0165-7763 ; v. 101)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Europe--Languages--Possessives. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Possessives.
I. Stolz, Thomas.
P380.S647 2008
415--dc22 2008005501
isbn 978 90 272 0568 1 (Hb; alk. paper)
© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents
Preface
List of abbreviations
Part A. What needs to be known beforehand
chapter 1
Introduction 3
chapter 2
Prerequisites 11
2.1 Some basic structures 11
2.2 What is possession? 17
2.3 Different viewpoints 20
2.4 Beyond the prototype 24
chapter 3
Split possession 29
3.1 Out of area 31
3.2 Obligatoriness 36
Part B. Tour d’Europe
chapter 4
Grammatical possession splits 43
4.1 Maltese 44
4.1.1 Attributive possession 44
4.1.1.1 Pronominal possession 44
4.1.1.2 Genitive constructions 77
4.1.2 Predicative possession 95
4.1.3 Attributive vs. predicative possession in Maltese 109
4.2 North Germanic 111
4.2.1 Attributive possession 111
4.2.1.1 Pronominal possession 112
4.2.1.2 Genitive constructions 142
4.2.2 Predicative possession 153
4.2.2.1 Three verbs of having 153
4.2.2.2 More about vera með 175
4.2.3 Attributive vs. predicative possession in Icelandic 215
4.2.4 Sundry North-Germanic languages 217
vi Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe
4.3 Celtic phylum 239
4.3.1 Attributive possession 239
4.3.1.1 Pronominal possession 239
4.3.1.2 Genitive constructions 255
4.3.2 Predicative possession in the Celtic phylum 269
4.3.2.1 Predicative possession in Goidelic 269
4.3.2.2 Predicative possession in Brythonic 280
4.3.3 Attributive vs. predicative possession in the Celtic phylum 310
4.4 The common core of split possession 312
chapter 5
Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 317
5.1 Attributive possession 317
5.1.1 Pronominal possession and avoidance strategies 317
5.1.1.1 Proper pronominal possession 318
5.1.1.2 Further issues connected to pronominal possession 352
5.1.1.2.1 Possessor-subject identity 353
5.1.1.2.2 Possessive adjective vs. proper possessive pronoun 359
5.1.1.2.3 Possessor ascension 362
5.1.1.2.4 Definiteness marking 364
5.1.1.2.5 Possessive adjectives vs. pronominal genitives 371
5.1.2 Genitive constructions and sundry NP-internal phenomena 374
5.1.2.1 Genitive constructions 374
5.1.2.2 Confectives and ornatives 406
5.2. Predicative possession 423
Part C. On European misfits and their commonalities
chapter 6
Results 469
6.1 European possession splits – revisited 469
6.2 Lessons to learn 498
6.2.1 Semantics against marked head 498
6.2.2 Out of control 508
6.2.3 Empathy for the speaker 511
6.2.4 A trinity of parameters 513
6.2.5 Retrospection and outlook 515
Notes 517
Sources 521
References 525
Additional background literature 535
Index of languages 539
Index of authors 541
Index of subjects 545
Preface
This book contains the results of our research project on Alienablity/Inalienability
in Europe (“Alienabilität/Inalienabilität in Europa”) financed by the German Science
Foundation (“Deut sche Forschungsgemeinschaft” DFG) from April 2002 to March
2004 and the subsequent period of three years of additional “gratuitous” investigations
into the nature of possessive relations in the languages of Europe. Originally, we set out
to test the somewhat hidden hypothesis of some influential typologically minded stud-
ies according to which alienability is of no grammatical import in Europe. Since we
were already familiar with a variety of European languages which display grammati-
cally relevant distinctions in the realm of possession, we thought it worthwhile having
a closer look at the actual facts and their distribution on the old continent. Possession
was not touched upon within the framework of EUROTYP and thus our own study
was a first for the linguistics of Europe. We discovered very soon that it makes more
sense to speak of possession splits in lieu of the traditional dichotomy of alienability vs.
inalienability as many European languages are characterised by phenomena which re-
sult in the differential morpho-syntactic treatment of some segment(s) of their posses-
sive systems without being necessarily based on prototypical alienability-inalienability
distinctions. In the course of our work on possession we learned a lot not only about
the structural properties of European languages but also about possession in general.
What we demonstrate in this study is twofold. First of all, we provide solid proof of the
fact that the number of European languages whose possessive systems are subject to
grammatically relevant splits is impressive and that these languages cluster in a kind
of circle around the core of the Standard Average European sub-area. Secondly, our
data are suggestive of a semantic or conceptual motivation of possession splits as they
do not support the idea that frequency of use in discourse brings about grammatical
distinctions. We also provide good grounds for disproving the hypothesis that gram-
matical relevance of possession splits is tightly connected to head-marking strategies.
Some readers might find it strange that this is a linguistic study especially devoted
to the languages of Europe without paying too much attention to English (or to our na-
tive German). In point of fact, this almost complete absence of the standard reference
language of linguistic studies (= English) as research object from our book is based on
a principled decision taken by us right at the beginning of the project. We admit to
considering English vastly overstudied, in a manner of speaking. The familiarity with
the givens of English is also responsible in part for the widely held belief that there is
not much to say about possession splits in European languages. Even this idea might
turn out to be a largely unfounded prejudice. However, with a view to demonstrating
viii Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe
that there are possession splits in Europe we have thought it more appropriate to con-
centrate on those cases which provide us with uncontroversial and tangible evidence.
As to the underrepresentation of German in our book, we have ideas similar to the
ones expressed in connection with the absence of English data. From the point of view
of possession research, German is absolutely boring because it seems to corroborate
the putative non-existence of possession splits in Europe. Only now that we have fin-
ished our work do we think that a new look at languages such as English and German
might reveal new facts as the description of other possession splits elsewhere helps the
linguist to approach old data from a new vantage point. The same applies to the many
other languages which have not made it into our sample. We hope that this study of
ours will compel other linguists of European languages to scrutinise the languages
they specialise in and find out more about their possessive systems. On the basis of our
own study, we confidently expect that languages with absolutely no sign of the tiniest
possession split will be exceptional, if they occur at all. In this way, European languages
are not different from the rest of the world where grammatically relevant possession
splits have been reported by the score.
The many tasks which had to be carried out during the project were distributed
according to expertise and time-budget among the core members of the project team
(head: Thomas Stolz, collaborators: Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh, and Aina Urdze)
and a variety of student assistants, knowledgeable colleagues and language experts to
whom we want to express our gratitude by way of mentioning them by name: Andreas
Ammann, Alan Aydelott, Wilfried Boeder, Norbert Boretzky, Ayşegül Dağaşan, Ada
Maria Dreghici, Ray Fabri, Albert Gatt, Maksym Gorshenin, Martin Haase, Martin
Haspelmath, Bernd Heine, Gerd Hentschel, Birgit Igla, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm,
Tamar Khizanishvili, Christian Lehmann, Nataliya Levkovych, Jessica Messerschmidt,
Rachel Montague, Máire NicMhaolain, Ignazio Putzu, Christoph Schroeder, Stavros
Skopeteas, Christel Stolz, and Elisabeth Verhoeven. Of course, we authors assume
the full responsibility for the contents of the monograph. We are also grateful to the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the grant STO 186/7-1 without which the project
would have been impossible. A word of thanks is also directed to the anonymous ref-
erees of our original project proposal whose valuable comments made us reconsider a
number of aspects. Last but not least we want to thank Werner Abraham and Michael
Noonan for accepting our manuscript for publication in SLCS.
Thomas Stolz, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh, Aina Urdze
Bremen, December 2007
List of abbreviations
Categories
abl ablative gen genitive
abs absolutive ger gerund
acc accusative hab habitual
ade adessive hon honorific
adj adjective ill illative
adjv adjectiviser imp imperative
adv adverb imperf imperfect(ive)
all allative impers impersonal
ani animate inani inanimate
aor aoriste indef indefinite
art article ine inessive
attr attributive inf infinitive
aux auxiliary ins instrumental
caus causative IO indirect object
class classifier loc locative
coll collective m masculine
comp comparative med medium
cond conditional N noun
conj conjunctive neg negator
cop copula nom nominative
com comitative NP noun phrase
dat dative nt neuter
dec declarative num numeral
def definite O object
dem demonstrative obl oblique
dep dependent opt optative
det determiner ord ordinal
dim diminutive part participle
du dual pass passive
ela elative past past tense
emph emphatic perf perfect(ive)
erg ergative pl plural
exi existential plq pluperfect
f feminine POR possessor
fut future PP prepositional phrase