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 (the possessed).
Possession may be marked in many ways, such as simple juxtaposition of nouns, possessive case, possessed case, construct state (for example, see Arabic grammar: state), or adpositions (possessive suffixes, possessive adjectives). For example, English uses a possessive clitic ('s), a preposition, of, and adjectives (my, your etc.).
Contents |
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, 'John's briefcase' is alienably possessed — it can be separated from John.
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' [1]. 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[2].
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 ŋa-, as in (ka) ŋalaka '(tree) branch', (lôm) ŋatau '(men's house) owner', and (talec) ŋalatu '(hen's) chick'. Adjectives derived from nouns (as inherent attributes of other entities) are also so marked, as in ŋadani 'thick, dense' (< dani 'thicket') or ŋalemoŋ 'muddy, soft' (< lemoŋ 'mud').
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' .
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:
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.
Some languages use existential clauses to indicate possession. Consider the following Hebrew sentence:
According to linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann, the Hebrew existential construction employed to mark possession was reinterpreted in "Israeli" (his term for "Modern Hebrew") to fit in with the "habere" ("to have") construction, requiring the direct object, which is predominant in Yiddish and other European languages such as English (in "I have this book", "this book" is the direct object of "have"). Consider the following Israeli sentence:
Zuckermann argues that Israeli is a "habere language" (cf. Latin habere "to have", taking the direct object), in stark contrast to Hebrew. As demonstrated by the accusative marker et, the noun phrase ha-séfer ha-zè is the direct object in this sentence.
Yiddish has two options to indicate possession. The most common form is ikh hob, literally "I have", which requires a direct object (accusative). However, there is also a form which is more similar to Yiddish: bei mir is do, literally "By me is there", followed by the subject (nominative). According to Zuckermann, the latter form, available in the feature pool together with the erstwhile non-habere Hebrew structure yésh l-i + Subject (there is for me, followed by the nominative), did not prevail because ikh hob is more productive in Yiddish and other European habere languages that contributed to the emergence of "Israeli".[3]
A similar process occurred in Maltese: "in the possessive construction, subject properties have been transferred diachronically from the possessed noun phrase to the possessor, while the possessor has all the subject properties except the form of the verb agreement that it triggers."[4]
Heine, Bernd (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521024136