1

Expressing 'possession': motivations, meanings, and forms

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald

Language and Culture Research Centre, James Cook University Australia

Every language has a way of expressing possession within a noun phrase and within a

clause. A range of relationships — linked to possession — may be subsumed under the

umbrella of a more general 'associative' construction. Or there can be one, or more,

dedicated possessive constructions, differentiated in terms of nature of possessor,

possessee, or the relationship between them. Competing motivations are often at work in

the choice of form and meaning of possessive and associative noun phrases.

The meanings of relationships between entities can correlate with their formal

expression: the proximity of components may reflect a stronger conceptual link between

them. This is the essence of the principle of iconic motivation. In Haiman's (1980: 814)

words, “the linguistic distance between expressions corresponds to the conceptual distance

between them”. Familiar, frequent, and well-established links may be expressed by shorter

and more compact forms, requiring less grammatical marking than those collocations

which are less common. This reflects the principle of 'economic motivation'. In §2, we

briefly address the ways in which iconic and economic motivation interact within the realm

of adnominal possession.

Socio-cultural factors offer further motivations for expressing possessive meanings.

These include the status of possessor and possessee, and their interactions with one another

in the societal structure. Meanings encoded within possessive structures often reflect

relationships within a society, and change if the society changes. In addition, language

contact may affect the meanings and the forms of possessive constructions. We turn to

these issues in §3. A brief summary is in §4.

 2

1 Possession, ownership, and association

Similar to many linguistic terms, the label 'possession' is something of an approximation.

In everyday usage the term 'possession' tends to be used in a restricted meaning of

'ownership', as pointed out by Lyons (1977: 722). 'Possessive' noun phrases may subsume

a range of meanings within a broad concept of 'association' between entities (see the

discussion in Aikhenvald 2013: 2-6; Dixon 2010: 262-5). As Lyons (1977: 473-4) put it, a

phrase like X's Y may mean 'no more than the Y that is associated with X'. And indeed, in

the West African grammatical tradition the term 'associative phrase' is used as a cover term

for any noun phrase expressing a relationship between two entities, which partly subsume

possession and ownership (Ameka 2013: 224). The recurrent core meanings of general

associative noun phrases involve at least the following:

(A) ownership (of property);

(B) whole part relations which typically include body parts of humans and animals, and

parts of plants and inanimate entities;

(C) kinship relations, which cover blood or consanguineal relations (by birth) and affinal

relations (through marriage).

An NP internal possessive construction can be extended to mark further kinds of

relationships, including

(D) association in general, e.g. Michael's dentist;

(E) location and orientation oftentimes based on extension of whole-part relation of

inanimates, e.g. bottom of the lake, side of the car (note that the part may be associated

with a body part term, at least etymologically: see Heine 2014);

 3

(F) attribute of a person or another entity, e.g. a man's temperament, Michael's joy;

(G) time, quantification, material, and property, e.g. (every) minute of the day, a kilo of

sugar, half of the beans, a house of stone, a stone of value; and also

(H) characteristics and classification of a person or an object, e.g. a bear of a man, a slip of

a girl.

Like any semantically diffuse device, NP-internal constructions allow for a breadth

of interpretation. When I say 'my language' in English, I do not have to be making a

statement about actual ownership. 'My language' can be the language I identify with, or the

language I work on, or the language I write in.

In most languages, no matter how polysemous an associative noun phrase, one can

devise some grammatical means for disentangling its different meanings. English is rather

extreme in how many meanings an associative noun phrase can express (no matter whether

marked with the preposition of, or with the possessive 's). And an NP-internal possessive

construction in D-F could be referred to expressing as varieties of possession. For instance,

all of these can be rephrased with a predicative have construction, e.g. Michael has a

placid temperament for (F). It would sound odd just to say Mary has teeth, but one might

say Mary has no teeth or Mary still has her teeth (when everyone else in her age group has

lost theirs). In contrast, (G) and (H) cannot be rephrased with a possessive verb. Only (A)

can be rephrased with own, e.g. Michael's car versus Michael owns a car. And only (A)

and marginally (B) and (C) can be rephrased with belong (see Heine 1997, on have and

belong-possession, and chapters in this volume): one can say The car belongs to Michael;

but saying Blue eyes belong to Michael or The mother belongs to Michael verges on

unacceptability.

A possessive pronoun could be used in constructions A-F, but not in (G)-(H): it will

be nonsensical to rephrase a kilo of sugar as ?its kilo, or a bear of a man' as ?his bear or
 4

his man. The same applies to using the content interrogative 'whose': this can be done for

constructions (A)-(F) in English, but not for (G)-(H): a kilo of sugar cannot be rephrased

as whose kilo? where whose relates to 'sugar'. Nor can a bear of a man be rephrased as

whose bear? with whose referring to 'a man'. Nominalisations in English employ a

construction which is superficially very similar to that for possession, e.g. [John's

discovery] won him the prize or [The refugees’ settlement] is on high ground. These are

not a type of possession, as can be seen from the fact that they cannot be rephrased with a

have construction. Instead, the underlying verb surfaces: John discovered an inland sea,

and The refugees settled in a place which is on high ground (see Dixon 2010: 265-7;

Aikhenvald 2013: 4-5, for a discussion of how to disentangle the meanings of a 'one fits

all' attributive-possessive noun phrase).

Polysemous constructions — called 'possessive' only as a convenient shortcut —

have been described for Likpe (a Kwa language from Ghana), Wandala (a Chadic language

from Cameroon), many European languages, including Old Icelandic (examples 4a-c,

Schuster, this volume) and Czech (Křivan, this volume), and languages of Northern,

Central and South-east Asia — including Siberian Turkic languages (Nevskaya 2005,

2008: 281-2), Turkish (Csató this volume; Ersen-Rasch 2012: 45-8), Modern Uygur

(Memtimin, this volume), Yukaghir (Maslova 2003), and Mandarin Chinese (Luo 2013).

Valentini (this volume) offers a fascinating study of the development of the preposition de

'of, from' in Late Latin documents (the Lombard charters) into a polysemous marker of

associative relationship between noun phrases — a precursor of the polysemous possession

marker in Modern Italian.

2 Forms and meanings in possessive constructions: iconic and economic motivation

 5

The principle of iconic motivation is reflected in the division of nouns into possession

classes. In many languages, nouns are divided into two sets, roughly termed 'inalienably'

(or obligatorily) possessed and 'alienably' (or optionally) possessed. Whole-part and

kinship relations (B and C in §1) involve a closer link between entities than ownership, as

in A in §1, or loose association. A part can hardly be conceived without the whole: a body

part can only exist with respect to the entire body. A kinship relationship involves two

entities, with one defined in terms of its affiliation to the other. These relationships tend to

be expressed by different kinds of constructions with 'inalienable' possession where the

possessor has to be expressed (see also Schuster, this volume, on the frequency of

possessor use with inalienably possessed nouns in Icelandic). And in an overwhelming

number of instances, their expression follows the principle of 'iconic motivation' (Haiman

1980: 793-4, 1985: 130-6): the closer the relationship, the less formal marking there is.

Consequently, 'close' or inalienable possession involves a simpler, or a tighter grammatical

marker. We start with a few illustrative examples (see a comprehensive discussion and

further examples in Dixon 2010: 277-90; and also Aikhenvald 2013: 12-17).

2.1 Iconic motivation in expressing possession: some examples

Following the principle of iconic motivation, juxtaposition is often used to express part-

whole or close kinship relationships (B-c in §1). In Yidiñ, an Australian language, a whole-

part relationship is expressed by juxtaposition; a less close relationship of ownership will

require an extra marker, e.g. wagu:ja jina (man foot) 'man's foot' versus waguja-ni guda:ga

(man-GENITIVE dog) 'man's dog' (Dixon 2010: 284). In Moscona, a Papuan language from

East Bird's Head peninsula in West Papua, whole part relation is marked through
 6

juxtaposition, e.g. memega Ø-okun (mountain 3singular-side) 'mountain's side'.

Relationship of ownership requires a pronominal possessive marker, e.g. ejena ofon

mamga (woman his/her pestle) 'the woman's pestle' (lit. woman her pestle) (Gravelle 2013:

92).

In Likpe, a Kwa language from Ghana, any two noun phrases which are

conceptually associated with each other are linked with the marker (e)to. The range of

conceptual relations between items linked by (e)to is rather broad. This may include simple

association, as in dí-yo eto be-tídi (CLASS-house LK CLASS.PL-person) 'people of the

house', or a kinship relationship, as in u-tsyúə eto u-tídi (CLASS-someone LK CLASS-

person) 'a relative of someone' (Ameka 2013: 229-30). Just two kin terms, (a)mbe 'mother'

and (a)ntro 'father' can be linked to their 'possessors' by juxtaposition, without the linker

(e)to, e.g. be-kpefi anto (CLASS.PL-child father) 'the father of the children', or be-kpefi ambe

(CLASS.PL-child mother) 'the mother of the children'. The close relationship between

'father' and 'mother' and their 'possessors' is reflected in direct linking through simple

juxtaposition (Ameka 2013: 235). Following the same principle of iconic motivation, the

noun phrases used for inalienable possession in Icelandic are more concise than

constructions with alienable possession (Schuster, this volume).

Linguistic terminology employed for the analysis of two possessive constructions

in languages of the Oceanic subgroup of Austronesian reflects the principle of iconic

motivation. The possessive construction called 'direct' is characterised by the possessee

taking the suffix expressing the possessor without any additional link. The direct

construction typically covers part-whole and kinship relationships, as in Jabém lusu-m

(nose-2sg.POSS) 'your nose'. In constructions with indirect possession, possessive markers

are attached to an additional word characterising the possessive relationship, or 'possessive

classifier'; these constructions cover items which can be considered alienably possessed.
 7

For instance, in Tolai (Mosel 1984: 33), nian 'food' occurs in constructions with indirect

possession. A possessive classifier will reflect the ways in which the item will be handled

by the possessor. The general classifier ka- refers to ownership in general, as in ka-na nian

(POSS.CLF:GENERAL-3sg.POSS food) 'her/his food, the food s/he owns'. The classifier a-

'edible items' reflects the fact that the possessee will be consumed by the possessor, as in a-

na nian (POSS.CLF:EDIBLE-3sg.POSS food) 'her/his food, the food s/he intends to eat' (see

Guérin 2017: 920-4 for a general discussion, and further language-specific features of

Oceanic).

The expression of specificity of the possessee in possessive constructions

constitutes a further aspect of the iconicity principle, rarely taken into account in

typological studies. This is what we turn to now.

2.2 Iconic motivation and the specificity of a noun referent

The linguistic distance between expressions in possessive constructions generally

corresponds to the conceptual distance between them. In Haiman (1980: 783) words, “the

linguistic separateness of an expression corresponds to the conceptual independence of an

object or an event which it represents”.

A separate word will denote a separate and specific entity, while a bound

morpheme will not. We saw in the previous section that proximity in surface realisation

correlates with the strength of conceptual link and close connection between the

components. But if a component has to be individuated and made specific rather than

generic, we may expect a more analytic structure, with less proximity between the

components.
 8

Toqabaqita, an Oceanic language from the Solomons, distinguishes synthetic, or

direct, and analytic, or indirect possession, similarly to other Oceanic languages mentioned

in §2.1 (see Guérin 2017). Inalienably possessed nouns (including body parts, items such

as 'name', and kinship terms) occur in synthetic constructions with direct possession.

Nouns of other semantic groups do not take possessive suffixes directly, and can only be

used in constructions with 'indirect', or alienable possession. An inalienably possessed

noun can be used both in a 'direct' and in an 'indirect' possessive construction, with a subtle

difference in meaning.

A body part term accompanied by a possessive suffix does not have to be

individuated: maa-ku (eye-1sg) 'my eye(s)' “is viewed more just as an aspect of the

possessor, rather than an entity in its own right”, “something like 'the eye aspect of me, my

‘eyeness’” (Lichtenberk 2008: 400). If an 'eye' is to be individuated, an analytic

construction is employed, as in maa nau maqi (eye 1SG this) 'this eye of mine' (Lichtenberk

2008: 398-401). The relation between the possessor and the possessee is still the same; but

the possessee “is given an identity of its own vis-à-vis the possessor”. The possessed noun

can now be modified, quantified or counted.

Two types of constructions in Kolyma Yukaghir can express possessive and

associative meanings. The possessor and the possessee can be juxtaposed. Then the noun

in the possessor slot does not have to have a specific referent. In (1), with juxtaposition of

'house' and 'people', numØ 'house' refers not to a specific house, but to 'house' or

'household' as a unit of measurement (see Maslova 2003: 295, 298):

(1) [gamun-de numØ] omnī Kolyma Yukaghir

how.much-INDEFINITE house people

'several houses (=families, households) of people'

 9

In the other construction, a possessive marker appears on the possessee, and then

the possessor refers to a specific individuated entity. In (2) the possessed noun 'child' takes

the possessive marker, and indicates that the possessor, 'house' in the noun phrase 'two

houses' refers to two specific and previously mentioned households:

(2) [ataq-un numØ] uØrpe-p-ki Kolyma Yukaghir

two-ATTRIBUTIVE house child-PL-POSS

'children of the two families (or houses, previously mentioned)'

The presence of additional marking correlates with specificity and individuation of the

referent of the possessed noun. A further instance of the same principle is reflected in

possessive constructions in Yalaku, a Ndu language from Papuan New Guinea

(Aikhenvald 2015, and data from author's own fieldwork). If two nouns are simply

juxtaposed, the possessor is generic. A noun phrase ñaka ñene consisting of juxtaposed

ñaka 'hen' and ñene 'child/young' means 'chicken' — that is, a type of 'young' or progeny,

with no specific or individuated hen-mother in mind. If the possessor is marked with the

genitive case -na, ñaka-na ñene (hen-GENITIVE child/young) will mean 'a (specific) young

of a (nonspecific) hen'. A further construction with pronominal possessor is available in the

language to express definiteness of the possessor. If the possessor, 'hen', is definite, a

pronominal marker links the possessor and the possessee, as in ñaka le-ke-na ñene (hen

she-LINKER-GENITIVE child/young) 'a (specific) young of a specific hen)'.

This is summarised in Table 1. The less specific the possessor and the possessee,

the less surface marking there is.

 10

Table 1 Possessive constructions in Yalaku: specificity and marking

TYPE EXAMPLE TRANSLATION
Juxtaposition: possessor non-specific chicken in general (lit. child
ñaka ñene
of hen)
Genitive: possessor specific and a (specific) young of a
ñaka-na ñene
indefinite (nonspecific) hen
Pronominal possessor construction: 'a (specific) young of a
ñaka le-ke-na
possessor definite (specific) hen (lit. hen her
ñene
child)

A similar example comes from Modern Uyghur (Memtimin, this volume). In example (35)

there, toxu göš-i (chicken meat-POSS.3) 'chicken meat', the possessor and the possessee are

juxtaposed to each other without any intervening marker: the construction refers to type of

meat, rather than the meat of a particular chicken. In contrast, example (34), toxu-niŋ göš-i

(chicken-GEN meat-POSS.3) 'the meat of the chicken' — with the genitive marker on the

noun 'chicken' — refers to the meat of a specific bird.

Possessive noun phrases can be used to express the origin of the possessee, e.g.

korli-niŋ näšpüt-i (Korla (place name)-GEN pear-POSS.3) 'pear from Korla'. The marker on

the possessee can be omitted: korla näšpüt-i (Korla (place name) pear-POSS.3) 'Korla pear'

refers to a brand name, a fixed expression. It would not be possible to omit the possessive

marker in the case of another place name: *Qumul näšpüt-i (Qumul (place name) pear-

POSS.3) is ungrammatical, because the combination is not idiomatic: Memtimim (this

volume) remarks that 'there is no such brand for pears'.

Expression of possession correlates with specificity of the possessed. In a number

of instances, possessive markers develop additional, non-possessive meanings, of

specificity markers — we return to this in §2.4.

 11

2.3 Economic motivation in possessive constructions

Compactness and simplicity of expression may correlate with the frequency of its

occurrence, and the familiarity of the concept (see Haiman 1985: 802). An example of how

speaker's and addressee's familiarity with the possessee correlates with the choice of

possessive noun phrase comes from Turkish (Csató, this volume).

In Turkish, 'canonical' possessive noun phrases (widely discussed in the existing

literature) consist of the possessor marked with the genitive affix, and the possessee with a

possessive suffix, as in (3). Colloquial Turkish adds to this another, non-canonical,

construction, where the possessor preserves its genitive marker, and the possessee remains

unmarked. An example is in (4).

(3) Mehmet’-in karı-sı Turkish: 'canonical possessive' NP

Mehmet-GEN wife-POSS.3sg

'Mehmet's wife'

(4) Mehmet’-in karı Turkish: 'non-canonical possessive' NP

Mehmet-GEN wife

'Mehmet's wife'

Both 'canonical' and 'non-canonical' possessive constructions cover a wide range of part-

whole, kinship, ownership, and also location. The use of shorter non-canonical possessive

constructions reveals a strong correlation with speaker's familiarity with the possessee.

In (5), a canonical possessive construction expresses the relation of 'belonging', or

ownership, between the possessor and the possessee. In (6), a non-canonical possessive
 12

(without possessive suffixes) expresses possessor's familiarity with the possessee rather

than the relation of 'belonging'.

(5) Almanya-mız Turkish: 'canonical possessive' NP

Germany-POSS.1pl

'our Germany'

(6) biz-im Almanya Turkish: 'noncanonical possessive' NP

we-GEN Germany

'our Germany (as the land we know, where we live)'

Non-canonical possessive constructions are used if the possessee is uniquely identifiable,

e.g. biz-im kóy (we-GEN village) 'our village'. The principle of economic motivation for the

choice of a possessive NP appears to be at work: a more compact expression will refer to a

well-known, well-established and easily identifiable entity. The non-canonical possessive

noun phrase can be used if the possessee is a close relation of the speaker.

In (7), 'our girl' refers to 'our daughter'.

(7) biz-im kız Turkish: 'non-canonical possessive' NP

we-GEN girl

'our daughter'

It will also be employed if the possessee is known to the interlocutors, as in (8):

(8) biz-im kız Turkish: 'non-canonical possessive' NP

 13

we-GEN girl

'our girl (whom we know)'

Along similar lines, two terms, 'mother' and 'father', are the only ones to occur without any

additional marking in possessive constructions in modern Icelandic. This exceptional

behaviour may be due to the uniqueness of the referents of 'mother' and 'father' — what

Schuster (this volume, §3.2) refers to as a 'proper-name-like' usage. We can recall, from

§2.1, that the close relationship between 'father' and 'mother' and their 'possessors' in Likpe

is reflected in the direct linking of the components through simple juxtaposition (Ameka

2013: 235).

A non-canonical possessive noun phrase in Turkish may serve to introduce a new

topic, provided the referent (that is, the possessee) is known to both the speaker and to the

listener. Example (9) (example 28 in Csató, this volume) comes from the beginning of a

blog about a particular girl the interlocutors are familiar with.

(9) biz-im kız var ya Turkish: 'non-canonical possessive' NP

we-GEN girl existing PARTICLE

'There is this girl… [she also makes me feel the same]'.

Context: (Blog) Şu bizim kız var ya, Nurgül Yeşilçay; işte o da aynı duyguları bana

yaşatıyor. ‘Look, there is this girl, Nurgül Yeşilçay, she also makes me feel the

same.’

Possessive noun phrases with overtones of familiarity can have emotive connotations of

endearment, as in biz-im ufaklIk (we-GEN little.one) 'our/my little one', or pejorative

 14

connotations “implying contempt, deprecation, disrespect” (Csató, this volume), depending

on the context, as in (10).

(10) Biz-im adam-a bak! Turkish: 'non-canonical possessive' NP

we-GEN man-DAT see.IMP2sg

'Look at that person (whom we know)!' (lit. look at our man)

Similar examples come from Modern Uyghur (examples (42) - (43) in §4 of

Memtimin, this volume). Speaker's and addressee's familiarity with the possessee

correlates with the choice of possessive construction: a familiar possessee does not require

possessive suffixes, and the resulting constructions are shorter, following the principle of

economic motivation. In addition, a shorter non-canonical possessive construction is used

to express close relationships between the possessor and the possessee — following the

principle of iconic motivation. This is what we saw in (7) (see also examples (18) and (19)

in Csató, this volume, and the discussion there).

The principles of iconic and of economic motivations work together in

orchestrating the choice of possessive noun phrases with no possessive suffixes — in

contrast to other instances of iconicity and economy as competing motivations whereby

economy of expression may result in what Haiman (1985: 157) called “erosion of

iconicity”.

A curious instance of economic motivation is what Comrie (this volume) describes

as 'possessor camouflage'. The intermediate possessor in recursive possessive chains

Scottish Gaelic and Manx, from Celtic branch of Indo-European, acquire the formally

unmarked nominative case marking. This is distinct from possessor in a bipartite

possessive construction, and from the last possessor in a possessive chain marked with
 15

genitive (e.g. (61), from Manx, in Comrie, this volume). The function of the intermediate

possessor is clear from the context of the possessive chain, which may explain its lack of

formal marking. So far, special marking of intermediate possessor in possessive chains has

been identified only for the two Celtic and two Turkic languages (Sakha, or Yakut, and

Dolgan). The relevance of marking an intermediate possessor hinges on other factors

within a language — the presence of noun phrases with several modifiers, and of recursive

possessive constructions which are by no means universal (see, for instance, de Vries

2006, on Papuan languages).

2.4 The special status of speech act participants

Both iconic and economic motivation account for the existence of special — often

shortened, or suppletive — forms reserved for speech act participants — the speaker and

the addressee, or the hearer. As Csató (this volume) puts it, the non-canonical possessive

constructions in Turkish with the genitive-marked possessor delimit “the frame of

reference to the world known/familiar to the interlocutors through shared knowledge of the

world or shared discourse. As the speaker and hearer are typical participants in the deictic

system, non-canonical possessives are most frequently used with first and second person

possessors”.

In a number of languages, Speech Act Participants — 'you' (singular and

nonsingular), 'me' or 'us' — as possessors have a special status. A link to, or an association

with, the speaker or the addressee, can be envisaged as more intimate and more intrinsic

than that with a 'third' person who is outside the speech act context. Such conceptual

proximity correlates with proximity in surface realization. In Ewe (Ameka 1996: 792, 801-

2), if the pronominal possessor is first or second person, the possessive linker φé is omitted
 16

and the link between the possessor and the possessee is indicated by a high tone only.

Along similar lines, first and second person possessors in Modern Uyghur are normally

expressed just with a suffix on the possessed noun; a pronoun 'my/your/our' is only used to

express contrast between different possessors.

This principle of 'close association' with Speech Act Participant (SAP) possessor

may further correlate with the kind of relationship between the possessor and the

possessee. First-person possessive forms for kinship terms denoting closest relatives

(parents and siblings) in Nanti, a Campa Arawak language from Peru, are formally

unmarked, e.g. ina 'my mother'. This is in contrast to second and third persons, e.g. iri-

iniro 'his mother' (Michael 2013: 157; this is similar to a number of European languages,

includign Italian: Lidia Mazzitelli, p.c.. Yalaku, an Ndu language from New Guinea, has

two words for 'mother': aywa for speaker's or interlocutor's mother, and nuwa for the

mother of a non-speech act participant, and 'mother' in general. The term nuwa freely

occurs in constructions with an overt possessor, e.g. le-ke-na nuwa (she-LINKER-GENITIVE

mother(non.speech.act.participant)) 'her mother'. The other term aywa 'my/your mother'

does not. 'Dongo-ko, a Mba language from Uganda, has suppletive forms for a number of

close kin relations with first and second person singular possessor, e.g. ámà 'my mother',

nyá 'your mother', àbá 'my father', tá 'your father', àdá 'my grandparent', gyú 'your

grandparent' (Pasch 1986: 240).

First person possessor for special kinship relations may be marked in a special

manner. Marthuthunira, an Australian language, has a first person possessive pronoun jurti

'mine' to code close kinship relations — consanguineal, affinal, and also relations

established through male initiation (Dench 2013: 140). We return to the importance of

societal factors in the expression of possession in §3.

 17

First and second person possessive markers can develop overtones of empathy and

endearment. The first person possessive suffix with animal names in Modern Uyghur (§2

of Memtimin, this volume) are used in loving address forms, e.g. Qoza-m (lamb-POSS.1sg)

'my lamb'. In the Beserman dialect of Udmurt, first person possessive suffixes are used

with vocative forms (see also Nevskaya and Tazhibaeva 2017, on a similar phenomenon in

Kazakh and in Siberian Turkic languages). 1 First and second person possessive forms can

be used to mark topicality of a referent: in (11) (example (24) in §4.1 in Serdobolskaya,

Usacheva, and Arkhangelskiy, this volume), 'this man (we were talking about)' is referred

to as 'your man'.

(11) Kin' dor-e? Beserman dialect ofUdmurt

who near-ILL

So lud ad'ami-ed dor-e

that wild man-2POSS.sg near-ILL

'To whom? — To this wild man (we were talking about)'

Overtones of familiarity, endearment, and topicality are among non-possessive

meanings of possessive constructions — the topic of our next section.

2.5 Non-possessive meanings in possessive constructions

1
Possessive constructions are used to express familiarity and emotive overtones in other languages,
including colloquial English: Our Tony has got in trouble again will refer to a character called
Tony we all know, especially a family member (R. M. W. Dixon, p.c.; similar examples are in
Dixon 2005: 318).
 18

We saw in the previous section that possession marking can evolve into a means for

expressing familiarity and empathy. This is an instance of a non-possessive meaning of a

possessive construction. Definiteness is another case in point. In Jespersen's (1924: 110)

words,

An adjunct consisting of a genitive or a possessive pronoun always restricts, though not

always to the same extent as the definite article. My father and John's head are as definite

and individualized as possible, because a man can only have one father and one head.

However, in most instances, expressions like my brother and John's hat 'will be understood

as perfectly definite.

As suggested by Gerland (2014), in many languages, including Uralic, definiteness is an

inherent feature of possessive constructions. In Mandarin Chinese (Luo 2013: 193-5),

referents in possessive constructions tend to be definite. Serdobolskaya et al. (this volume)

show how in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt markers of second and third person

possessor have evolved into exponents of definiteness or specificity.

Similar developments have been attested in other parts of the world. The suffix

-nya in Indonesian has two functions — that of a third person possessive, and of a marker

of definiteness (Sneddon 1996: 150-3, 157). Along similar lines, the same form marks

third person possessor and definiteness in Amharic and several other South Ethiopian

languages, including Argobba, Gafat, Chaha, and Harari (Rubin 2010; see also Aikhenvald

2013: 44). And we can recall, from §2.1, how the expression of possession correlates with

marking of specificity of the possessor and the possessee in Yalaku. In this language,

definiteness is expressed with a third person pronoun used as a postposed article

(Aikhenvald 2015).
 19

The expression of definiteness and specificity through possessive constructions can

be intrinsically linked to the meanings of possession and association. Special meanings of

possessive constructions may be accounted for by a combination of factors.

'Familiarity' expressed with non-canonical possessive constructions in Turkish has

its parallels in the neighbouring Iranian languages, including Persian, and in Kashkay, a

Turkic language spoken in Iran and influenced by a local Iranian variety. The development

of special meanings of possessive constructions — not directly linked to possession as

such — may have been further motivated by language contact and copying of a salient

meaning — in the spirit of Johanson (2002).

The 'possessive superlative' in a number of Turkic languages, analysed by

Nevskaya and Tazhibayeva (this volume), is another case in point. A typical example is

Kirgiz batïr-lar-dïŋ batïr-ï (warrior-PL-GEN warrior-POSS.3) 'the best warrior of all

warriors', lit. 'the warrior of warriors' (§2.3 of Nevskaya and Tazhibayeva, this volume).

Superlative possessive noun phrases are a feature of many languages, including

Biblical Hebrew. Here, a noun or an adjective in possessed form is juxtaposed to the noun

denoting the set of objects denoting the standard of comparison (Waltke and O'Connor

1990: 154; 267), e.g. ɂebed ɂăba:di:m (slave:PERT slave+MASC.PL) 'a slave of slaves, an

abject slave' (Gen 9: 25), ši:r hašši:ri:m (song:PERT ART+song+MASC.PL) 'the Song of

Songs (e.g. the Choicest Song)' (Cant 1: 1). Similar constructions have been described for

Babylonian Aramaic (Schlesinger 1928: 69; Waltisberg 2011: 308). A number of such

constructions, including the phrase King of Kings, found their way into numerous

European and Semitic languages. In English, they are restricted to a closed set of archaic
 20

phrases, e.g. the King of Kings, the Song of Songs, and stylized expressions, e.g. wonder of

wonders, miracle of miracles (from a song in the musical 'Fiddler on the Roof'). 2

The emergence of the superlative possessive in Turkic languages can be explained

by language internal developments, based on one of the meanings of possessive

constructions — either part-whole (B) in §1, or quantification (G). It could also have been

reinforced by language contact, through translations of sacred books, especially the Bible.

Interestingly, superlative possessive noun phrases are restricted to Bible translations, in

Siberian Turkic languages.

The expression, and the meanings of possession are often affected by language

contact. Speakers of Khinalug who are strongly influenced by the unrelated neighbouring

Azerbaijani, a Turkic language, use the elative marker on the possessee, mirroring the

structure in Azerbaijani (example (21) in Rind-Pawlowski, this volume). Many speakers of

Modern Lakota (Ullrich 2008: 776) converse in English most of the time. Following the

English pattern, speakers are using analytic possessive constructions — traditionally used

for alienable possession — to also include inalienably possessed items, such as body part

and kinship terms. In addition, cultural changes affect the way people talk about their

relations, and what they own. We now turn to further motivations in the expression of

possession — the impact of societal practices and conventions.

3 How the expression of possession reflects societal practices

2
Similar constructions are found in Assyrian (šar šarrāni 'king of kings') and in Old Persian,
where it could have been calqued from Babylonian Aramaic, and also in Ge'ez and Amharic.
Interestingly, it is absent from Modern South Arabian languages (Aaron Rubin, p.c.).
 21

Some linguistic features are plainly more susceptible to reflecting societal structures and

practices than others. The expression of possession is one of these. Meanings encoded

within possessive structures often reflect the relationships within a society.

Special status and special treatment of kinship terms in possessive constructions

reflects what Ameka (2013: 235) referred to as “the foundations of bio-socio-cultural kin

relations which are being given special treatment in the grammar of possession” (Ameka

2013: 235). The possession class to which a kinship term belongs may reflect its special

status. We can recall from §2.4, that special marking of first person possessor in

Martuthunira covers biologically, and also culturally, close relationships — established

through male initiation.

Kinship terms in Paluai, an Oceanic language from the Manus province in Papua

New Guinea, are directly — or inalienably — possessed, in agreement with a general

Oceanic pattern outlined in §2.1 (Schokkin 2014: 81-82). The term for 'in law', polam, is

an exception: it is treated as alienably, or indirectly, possessed. So is the term for 'cross-

cousin', pwai (that is, the child of a parent's opposite sex sibling: mother's brother's child,

or father's sister's child). The status of cross-cousins and in-laws in Paluai culture provides

an explanation for this behaviour. One is in a taboo relationship with the polam 'in-law

relative', and needs to treat them with special respect. The social distance between the ego

and the in-law iconically correlates with linguistically longer and more elaborate

expression of alienable possession. Cross-cousins are the relatives with which one has a

joking relationship; in agreement with the rules of Paluai kinship they do not belong to the

ego's lineage, and thus are less close to the speaker than other relations. This is reflected in

the way possession is expressed.

One consanguineal kinship term, pên 'daughter', is also treated as alienably

possessed in Paluai. Once again, societal practices provide a reason. Marriage in Paluai
 22

operates on exogamous principle, and so daughters usually marry someone who does not

belong to their own clan; their children will belong to their husband's clan. Hence the

treatment of 'daughter' as alienably possessed.

The practice of referring to one's consanguineal relatives with a plural possessive

marker, as 'our mother, our father, our brother' etc., in Khinalug, a Nakh-Daghestanian

language, is rooted in the predominance of large families with many children in the region.

To refer to close relatives as 'my' or 'your (sg)' (mother, father, etc) is considered impolite

(Rind-Pawlowski, this volume).

Variation in marking possession can correlate with the possessor's authority.

Associative noun phrases in Mandarin Chinese are highly polysemous — covering all of

the meanings in A-H in §1. The marker of possession, or association, de is optional with

kinship terms. So, both tā de didi (he/she POSSESSIVE.MARKER younger.brother) and tā

didi (he/she younger.brother) are grammatical. The marker de is not used in a number of

constructions with whole-part relations, where the 'possessor' (or the first noun in the noun

phrase) denotes the source where the possessee is coming from, or the material of which

the possessee is made. One can only say jī ròu 'chicken meat', yā dàn 'duck egg' and mián

bù 'cotton cloth' (but not *jī de ròu, *yā de dàn or *mián de bù). The marker is obligatory

in all other circumstances, including possession proper, e.g. wŏ de shū (I

POSSESSIVE.MARKER book) 'my book', association, e.g. lăobăn de mìshu (boss

POSSESSIVE.MARKER secretary) 'the boss's secretary' and location or orientation, e.g.

qiánmiàn de dàolù (ahead/front POSSESSIVE.MARKER road) 'the road ahead' (lit. the front's

road) (Luo 2013: 188-191).

Omitting the possessive marker de in the context of the first person singular

possessor wŏ 'I' has overtones of authority. The possessor is then understood as referring to

a plural, inclusive 'we', as in wŏ dăng (I party) 'our party', wŏ guó (I country) 'our country'.
 23

These noun phrases, will, in Luo's (2013: 204) words, “carry an authoritative tone. Such

expressions are generally reserved for high-level officials, very much like an American

president would say my government or my administration”.

In many traditional societies, some items cannot be conceived of as being

'possessed' or 'owned'. In a number of Tupí-Guaraní languages of South America, 'sun',

'moon', 'land', and 'jungle' are considered unpossessible, “reflecting the indigenous world

view” (Jensen 1999: 152). Similar principles apply in Waujá, an Arawak language from

the Xingu area (see Aikhenvald 2012: 170-1, for these and other examples).

Traditionally, land was not considered 'ownable' among the Nanti, an Arawak-

speaking minority in Peru (Michael 2013: 165). As a result of encounters with Western

concepts of land ownership — through contact with the closely related Matsigenka, who

are much more exposed to the Western influence —, the Nanti started talking about land

ownership. The word for 'land' is now used in a possessive construction: one can now say

no-gipatsi-te (1sg-land-POSS) 'my (alienable) land'. I observed a similar change among the

Arawak-speaking Baniwa of Içana in north-west Brazil: as a result of recent changes and

on-going issues to do with ownership rights for traditional lands, the noun hipe 'land'

(cognate to Nanti –gipa- 'land') can now be used in possessive constructions (alienable

possession).

Another similar example comes from Dakota, a Siouan language (Boas and Deloria

1941: 128). Traditionally, “animals including the dog but excepting the horse” used to

belong to the class of 'unpossessible' nouns: they could not take possessive prefixes. But

“at present the cattle on large ranches are considered as property and not as food.

Therefore they are expressed as separable property by the prefix t'a”. A relatively new

practice of having cattle on a ranch as property has affected possessive marking in the

language. The prefix t'a, a marker of alienable possession, has been extended in its usage.
 24

It takes time for a language to adjust to cultural practices. The long-term contact-

induced change and copying within possessive structures (in the sense of Johanson 2002,

2013) come about as a result of intensive and prolonged linguistic and cultural interaction.

Exactly which areas of lexicon and of grammar do they affect? What kind of possessive

constructions are particularly amenable to reflecting socio-cultural changes and

innovations? And how can changes in attitudes to property and ownership, and in kinship

relations find their reflection in the linguistic marking? All these are issues require further

investigation.

4 Summary

Iconic and economic motivations account for the correlation between form and meaning in

possessive noun phrases. Proximity in surface realization reflects a stronger conceptual

link between the components which form one whole (Haiman 1985: 800). A more

synthetic noun phrase — with less marking — will be used if the possessed noun has

generic rather than specific reference. More analytic expressions, with more elaborate

marking, will correlate with specific and individuated possessees, as we saw in Toqabaqita,

Kolyma Yukaghir, Yalaku, and Modern Uyghur in §2.2. Compactness and surface

simplicity of expression may correlate with the familiarity of the concept: instances of such

economic motivation in Turkish, and also Modern Uyghur, were discussed in §2.3. In each

case, economic and iconic motivation interact: shorter constructions are used to express

both familiarity and close kinship relations between possessor and possessed.

In a number of the world's languages, Speech Act Participants — the speakers and

the addressees — acquire special marking as possessors within noun phrases. First-person

possessor forms for kinship nouns which denote close relationships may be formally
 25

unmarked, irregular, or suppletive — a further instance of the iconicity principle, as we

saw in §2.4.

Possessive markers may develop non-possessive meanings, inherently linked to

what possession, or broadly defined association, means. Among these are familiarity,

specificity, and definiteness. Each development may well be enhanced by contact with

neighbouring languages.

The essence of possession lies in types of relationships: possessive constructions

and their meanings will reflect the social environment of the language. As Enfield (2004:

3) puts it,

Grammar is thick with cultural meaning. Encoded in the semantics of grammar we find

cultural values and ideas, we find clues about social structures which speakers maintain,

we find evidence, both historically and otherwise, of the social organization of speech

communities.

Cultural conventions and practices may explain why some kinship terms are treated

differently from others, as we saw for Paluai in §3. Some items may not be thought of as

being possessible. And the composition of possession classes may change as new cultural

practices and concepts are introduced. This is what makes possession a fruitful field for

exploring “the reflexive relation between language, culture, and modes of thinking, and in

particular of the ways in which culture and cognition are encoded in grammar”, as put by

Ameka (2013: 225).

Acknowledgements. I am grateful to Irina Nevskaya and Lars Johanson for inviting me to

participate in the volume and her comments. Special thanks go to R. M. W. Dixon for
 26

extensive comments and discussion, to Irina Nevskaya, Lidia Mazzitelli and the

anonymous reviewer for their comments and corrections, to my teachers of Yalaku in the

Sepik region of Papua New Guinea, and to Brigitta Flick for helping me with proof-

reading.

Abbreviations: DAT - dative; GEN - genitive; ILL - illative; IMP - imperative; MASC -

masculine; PERT - pertensive; PL - plural; POSS - possessive; SG - singular

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. The languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. 'Possession and ownership in cross-linguistic perspective',

pp. 1-64 of Aikhenvald and Dixon. eds.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2015. 'Differential case in Yalaku'. Oceanic Linguistics 54: 241-

70.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R. M. W. Dixon. 2013 (eds.). Possession and ownership: a

cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ameka, Felix K. 1996. 'Body parts in Ewe grammar', pp. 783-840 of The grammar of

inalienability. A typological perspective on body part terms and the whole-part

relation, edited by Hilary Chappell and William A. McGregor. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Ameka, Felix K. 2013. 'Possessive constructions in Likpe (S”kp”lé), pp. 224-42 of

Aikhenvald and Dixon eds.

Boas, Franz. and Ella Deloria. 1941. Dakota grammar. Washington: US Govt. Print.

Office.
 27

Dench, Alan. 2013. 'Possession in Martuthunira', pp. 126-48 of Aikhenvald and Dixon eds.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume II. Grammatical topics. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Enfield, N. J. 2004. 'Ethnosyntax: introduction', pp. 3-30 of Ethnosyntax. Explorations in

Grammar and Culture, edited by N. J. Enfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 2012. Türkische Grammatik. Ausführlich und verständlich.

Lehrstufen A1 bis C2. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

Gerland, Doris. 2014. 'Definitely not possessed? Possessive suffixes with definiteness

marking function'. In Frames and conceopt types. Applications in language and

Philosophy. Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald and Wiebke

Petersen (ed.), 269-292. Cham & Heidelberg: Springer

Gravelle, Gloria J. 2013. 'Possession in Moskona, an East Bird's Head language', pp. 90-

106 of Aikhenvald and Dixon eds.

Guérin, Valérie. 2017. 'The Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian language family', pp.

911-41 of The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra

Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haiman, John. 1985. 'Iconic and Economic Motivation'. Language 59: 781-819.

Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax. Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 28

Heine, Bernd. 2014. 'The body in language: observations from grammaticalization', pp. 13-

32 of The body in language. Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment, edited

by Matthias Brenzinger and Iwona Kraska-Szlenk. Leiden: Brill.

Jensen, Cheryl. 1999. 'Tupí-Guaraní', pp. 125-64 of The Amazonian languages, edited by

R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. Richmond, UK:

Curzon.

Johanson, Lars. 2013. 'Isomorphic processes: Grammaticalization and copying of

grammatical elements', pp. 101-9 of Shared Grammaticalization, with special focus

on the Transeurasian languages, edited by Martine Robbeets and Hubert

Cuyckens. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2008. A grammar of Toqabaqita, Vol. 1, Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Luo, Yongxian. 2013. 'Possessive constructions in Mandarin Chinese', pp. 186-207 of

Aikhenvald and Dixon eds.

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Michael, Lev. 2013. 'Possession in Nanti, pp. 149-66 of Aikhenvald and Dixon eds.

Mosel, Ulrike. 1984. Tolai syntax and its historical development. Canberra: Pacific

Linguistics.

Nevskaya. Irina. 2005. Prostranstvennye otnoshenia v tjurkskikh jazykakh Juzhnoj Sibiri

(na materiale shorskogo jazyka). Novosibisrk: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk

(Sibirskoe otdelenie).
 29

Nevskaya. Irina. 2008. 'Depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic'. In:

Schroeder, Ch., Hentschel, G., Boeder, W. (Eds.) Secondary predicates in Eastern

European languages and beyond. Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 16. Oldenburg:

BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, 2008. 275-295.

Nevskaya. Irina and Saule Tazhibaeva. 2017. 'Kazakh hypocorisms in a comparative

perspective'. Turkic Languages 21: 234-348.

Pasch, Helma. 1986. Die Mba-Sprachen. Die Nominalklassensysteme und die genetische

Gliederung einer Gruppe von Ubangi Sprachen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

Rubin, Aaron D. 2010. 'The development of the Amharic definite article and an Indonesian

parallel'. Journal of Semitic Studies LVII: 103-114.

Schlesinger, Michel. 1928. Satzlehre der aramäischen Sprache des babylonischen

Talmuds. Leipzig: Asia Major.

Schokkin, Dineke. 2014. 'A grammar of Paluai, the language of Baluan Island, Papua New

Guinea'. PhD thesis, James Cook University.

Sneddon, James N. 1996. Indonesian reference grammar. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Ullrich, Charles. 2008. New Lakota dictionary. Bloomington: Lakota Language

Consortium.

de Vries, Lourens. 2006. 'Areal pragmatics of New Guinea: Thematization, distribution

and recapitulative linkage in Papuan narratives'. Journal of Pragmatics 38; 811-

826.

Waltisberg, Michael. 2011. 'Syntactic typology of Semitic', pp. 303-329 of Semitic

languages: an international handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger. Berlin: Walter

de Gruyter.

Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O'Connor. 1990. An introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax.

Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.