Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

STUF - Language Typology and Universals

Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung

Editor-in-Chief: Stolz, Thomas


CiteScore 2018: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.231
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.343

Online
ISSN
2196-7148
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 69, Issue 1

Issues

External possession and constructions that may have it

Ilja A. Seržant
  • Corresponding author
  • Johannes-Gutenberg-University of Mainz, TriMCo Project, FB 05, Institut für Slavistik, Saarstraße 21, 55099 Mainz, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0006

Abstract

There seems to be no construction that would code specifically the possession relation of external possessors. Instead, various host constructions such as the free-affectee construction (a subtype of which is the free-dative construction), monotransitive or applicative construction can – to a different degree – accommodate participants that are bound by a possession relation. The binding procedure identifying the possessor operates at the pragmatic-semantic interface and takes into account the semantic roles of the event participants, their discourse saliency and lexical properties (such as animacy), world knowledge, properties of the possessum (such as the degree of (in)alienability), etc. The external-possession relation and the meaning of the hosting construction are orthogonal to each other, but there is a strong interplay between them. Positing a dedicated external-possessor construction faces the following problems: the same binding procedure is found in other constructions as well (such as the monotransitive or ditransitive constructions); at the same time, the very possession relation is only inconsistently found in constructions referred to as external-possessor constructions, and, what is more, the possession relation may sometimes be canceled (even if it is inalienable). To account for this terminologically, I introduce the term non-thematic affectee construction, a subtype of which is the free (non-thematic) affectee construction particularly spread in European languages. The latter is found with different types of coding (accusative, dative, different prepositional phrases) which have different diachronic sources.

Keywords: external possessors; external possessor constructions; free datives; free affectee; dative; dativus (in)commodi

References

  • Abraham, Werner. 1973. The ethic dative in German. In Ferenc Kiefer & Nicolas Ruwet (eds.), Generative grammar in Europe, 1–19. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Aissen, Judith. 1999. External possessor and logical subject in Tz’utujil. In Doris L. Payne & Immauel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 451–485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.,Google Scholar

  • Arutjunova, N.D. 1976. Predloženie i ego smysl. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Baldi, Philip & Andrea Nuti. 2010. Possession. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, vol. 3, 239–387. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bally, Charles. 1926. L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues Indo-européennes. In Franz Fankhauser & Jakob Jud (eds.), Festschrift Louis Gauchat, 68–78. Aarau: Sauerländer.Google Scholar

  • Berman, Ruth. 1982. Dative marking and of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 6. 35–59.Google Scholar

  • Blake, Barry J. 1984. Problems for possessor ascension: Some Australian examples. Linguistics 22. 437–453.Google Scholar

  • Borkovskij, V. I. & P. S. Kuznecov 1963 [2003]. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Izd. Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Brugmann, Karl. 1911. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre nebst Lehre vom Gebrauch der Wortformen der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweite Bearbeitung. Zweiter Band: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar

  • Christians, Dagmar. to appear. Zur adjektivischen Wiedergabe griechischer adnominaler Genitive bei der slavischen Übersetzung liturgischer Hymnen.

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1985. Indirect object “lowering”. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 39–51.

  • Croft, William. 2015. Force dynamics and directional change in event lexicalization and argument realization. In Roberto G. de Almeida & Christina Manouilidou (eds.), Cognitive science perspectives on verb representation and processing, 103–129. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 2001. Kinship in grammar. In Irène Baron, Michael Herslund & Finn Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession, 201–225. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Danylenko, Andriy I. 2003. Predikaty, vidminky I diatezy v ukraїns’kij movi: istoryčnyj I typologičnyj aspekty. Xarkiv: Oko.Google Scholar

  • Danylenko, Andriy. 2006. The Greek accusative vs. new Slavic accusative in the impersonal environment. In Andriy Danylenko (ed.), Slavica et Islamica, 243–265. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar

  • Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432.Google Scholar

  • Delbecque, Nicole & Béatrice Lamiroy. 1996. Towards a typology of the Spanish dative. In William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendonck (eds.), The dative. Vol. 1: Descriptive studies, 73–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Der Satz. Band 2. 3. durchgesehene Auflage. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Kay O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam. 1999a. From interest to ownership: A constructional view of external possessors. In Doris L. Payne & Immauel Barshi (eds.), External possession, 473–504. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam 1999b. The “free” datives in Czech as a linking problem. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats, & Cynthia M. Vakareliyska (eds.), Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 7, 145–166. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam. 2011. The notion of affectedness in expressing interpersonal functions. In Marcin Grygiel & Laura A. Janda (eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework, 121–143. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • García, Erica. 1975. The role of the theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

  • Garde, Paul. 1985. O tak nazyvaemyx “simpatičeskix” padežax v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Russian Linguistics 9(2/3). 181–196.Google Scholar

  • Gianollo, Chiara. 2014. Competing constructions for inalienable possession in the Vulgate Gospels: Translator’s choices and grammatical constraints. Journal of Latin Linguistics 13(1). 93–114.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39.), 109–135. Amsterdam/Philadelpha: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average Euopean. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals/Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien/La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques. vol. 2, 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. A paper.

  • Havers, Wilhelm. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Helbig, Gerhard. 1981. Die freien Dative im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 18. 321–332.Google Scholar

  • Hens, Gregor. 1997. Constructional semantics in German: The dative of inaction. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 9(2). 191–219.Google Scholar

  • Holvoet, Axel. 2011. Beyond external possession: Genitive and dative with locational nouns in Latvian. Baltic Linguistics 2. 79–107.Google Scholar

  • Huumo, Tuomas & Jaakko Leino. 2012. Discontinuous constituents or independent constructions? The case of the Finnish “split genitive”. Constructions and Frames 4(1). 56–75.Google Scholar

  • Isačenko, Alexander V. 1965. Das syntaktische Verhältnis der Beziehungen von Körperteilen im Deutschen. Studia Grammatica 5. 7–27.Google Scholar

  • Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1966–1969. The syntactical distribution of the Cheremis genitive. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 146). Vols.1, 2. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

  • Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Kerevičienė, Jurgita. 2004. External possession in Lithuanian. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 50. 1–9.Google Scholar

  • König, Ekkehard. 2001. Internal and external possessors. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Reible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, Vol. 2, 970–978. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • König, Ekkehard & Martin Haspelmath. 1997. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues de l’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et Valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 525–606. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Krys’ko, Vadim B. 2006. Istoričeskij sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Objekt i perexodnost’. 2-e izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe. Moskva:Azbukovnik. [Historical syntax of Russian. Object and transitivity].Google Scholar

  • Kučanda, Dubravko. 1996. What is the dative of possession? Suvremena lingvistika (41–42) 22(1–2). 319–332.Google Scholar

  • Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 627–672.Google Scholar

  • Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2003. Grammaticalization and external possessor structures in Romance and Germanic languages. In Martine Coene & Yves d’Hulst (eds.), From NP to DP. 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases, 257–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 1–38.Google Scholar

  • Leclère, Christian. 1976. Datifs syntaxiques et datif éthique. In Jean-Claude Chevalier & Maurice Gross (eds.), Méthodes en Grammaire Française. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera 2006. German possessor datives: Raised and affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9. 101–142.Google Scholar

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera & Gabriele Diewald 2013. Explaining case variation in German inalienable possession constructions. Tampa Papers in Linguistics IV. 31–43.Google Scholar

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera & Gabriele Diewald. 2014. The pragmatics and syntax of German inalienable possession constructions. Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 40). 289–313.Google Scholar

  • Levine, J. 1986. Remarks on the pragmatics of the “inalienable Dative” in Russian. Russian Language Journal 40(135). 11–24.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin & Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2000. Unfolding of situation perspectives as a typological characteristic of languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 53(1). 71–79.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin & Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2004. Direkte und indirekte Partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen. 2nd edition. (Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 13). Erfurt: Universität Erfurt. Downloadable at http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/ ASSidUE13.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Lødrup, Helge. 2009. External and internal possessors with body part nouns: The case of Norwegian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22. 221–250.Google Scholar

  • Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010. Studies in ditransitive constructions. A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Merlier, Octave. 1931. Le remplacement du datif par le génitif en grec moderne. Bulletin de correspondance héllenique 55. 207–228.Google Scholar

  • Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1976. Diathesen und Satzstruktur im Tschuktschischen. In Ronald Lötzsch (ed.), Satzstruktur und Genus verbi, 181–211. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Niclot, Domenico. 2014. From semantic roles to evaluative markers: The dative and affected possessors. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles. 271–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. The Hungarian external possessor in a European perspective. In Cornelius Hasselblatt & Rogier Blokland (eds.), Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary contacts. Proceedings of the Symposium at the University of Groningen, November 22–24, 2001. (Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2), 272–285. Maastricht: Shaker.Google Scholar

  • Paul, Peter. 1987. Dependent or not? Drawing a line in verb valency. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7. 321–332.Google Scholar

  • Paykin, Katia & Marleen Van Peteghem. 2002. External vs. internal possessor structures and inalienability in Russian. Russian Linguistics 27. 329–348.Google Scholar

  • Payne, Doris L. & Immanuel Barshi. 1999. External possession. What, where, how and why. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 3–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Podlesskaya, Vera I. & Ekaterina V. Rakhilina. 1999. External possession, reflexivization and body parts in Russian. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 505–522. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Applicative constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/109, Accessed on 2015-03-11.)Google Scholar

  • Popov, Alexander V. 1881. Sintaksičeskie issledovanija. Voronezh: Syntactic Investigations.Google Scholar

  • Pravdin, A. B. 1956. Datel’nyj priglagol’nyj v staroslavjanskom i drevnerusskom jazykax, Učenye zapiski instituta slavjanovedenija XIII, 3–120.Google Scholar

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Roldán, Mercedes. 1972. Concerning Spanish datives and possessives. Language Sciences 21. 27–32.Google Scholar

  • Rowlands, Evan Colyn. 1969. Yoruba. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar

  • Seržant, Ilja A. 2013. The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. In Ilja A. Seržant & L. Kulikov (eds.), The diachrony of non-canonical subjects. SLCS 140, 313–360. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Seržant, Ilja A. & Valgerður Bjarnadóttir. 2014. Verbalization and non-canonical case marking of some irregular verbs in *-ē- in Baltic and Russian. In Artūras Judžentis, Tatyana Civjan & Maria Zavyalova (eds.), Balai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūrų sankritos. Vilnius: Versmės. [Proceedings of the international conference, dedicated to the academian Vladimir Toporov, The Balts and Slavs: Intersections of Spiritual Cultures.], 218–242. Vilnius: Versmės.Google Scholar

  • Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives and adversative passives. Berkeley Linguistic Society 20. 461–486.Google Scholar

  • Sieg, Emil & Wilhelm Siegling. 1949. Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B, Heft 1: Die Udānālaṅkāra-Fragmente. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

  • Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2008. Split possession. (Studies in Language Companion Series 101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.Google Scholar

  • Tuggy, David. 1980. Ethical dative and possessor omission si, possessor ascension no! Working Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 24. 97–141.Google Scholar

  • Van Hoecke, Willy 1998: The Latin dative. In William van Belle & Willy van Langendonck (eds.), The dative. Vol. 1. 3–38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & Maria-Louise Zubizarreta. 1992. The definit determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 595–652.Google Scholar

  • Vondrák, Wenzel. 1928. Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik. II. Band. Formenlehre und Syntax. Zweite Aufl. Neubearbeitet von Dr. O. Grünenthal. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

  • Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Wegener, Heide. 1990. Der Dativ – ein struktureller Kasus? In Gisbert Fanselow & Sascha W. Felix (eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 39), 70–103. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. The meaning of a case: A study of the Polish dative. In Richard D. Brecht & James S. Levine (eds.), Case in Slavic, 386–426. Columbus/OH: Slavica.Google Scholar

  • Forthcoming issuesIn preparation:Urum and Pontic Greek: Languages and communitiesConcha Höfler, Stefanie Böhm, Konstanze Jungbluth & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.)Nominalization: A view from Northwest AmazoniaSimon Overall & Kasia Wojtylak (eds.)Word formation: Language contact, language contrast and language comparisonMarcus Callies & Christel Stolz (eds.)

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-01

Published in Print: 2016-04-01


Citation Information: STUF - Language Typology and Universals, Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 131–169, ISSN (Online) 2196-7148, ISSN (Print) 1867-8319, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0006.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in