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

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 University of Vienna

Michael Noonan

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Editorial Board Joan Bybee

Christian Lehmann

Ulrike Claudi

Robert E. Longacre

Bernard Comrie

Brian MacWhinney

University of New Mexico University of Cologne Max Planck Institute, Leipzig University of California, Santa Barbara

William Croft

University of New Mexico

Östen Dahl

University of Stockholm

Gerrit J. Dimmendaal University of Cologne

Ekkehard König

Free University of Berlin

University of Erfurt

University of Texas, Arlington Carnegie-Mellon University

Marianne Mithun

University of California, Santa Barbara

Edith Moravcsik

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Masayoshi Shibatani

Rice University and Kobe University

Russell S. Tomlin

University of Oregon

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

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of 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 isbn 978 90 272 0568 1 (Hb; alk. paper)

2008005501

© 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

chapter 2 Prerequisites 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 3.1 Out of area  31 3.2 Obligatoriness  36

3 11

29

Part B.  Tour d’Europe

chapter 4 Grammatical possession splits 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

43

vi

Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

4.3

4.4

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 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 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 Sources References Additional background literature Index of languages Index of authors Index of subjects

469

517 521 525 535 539 541 545

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 (“Deut­sche 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 studies according to which alienability is of no grammatical import in Europe. Since we were already familiar with a variety of European languages which display grammatically 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 result in the differential morpho-syntactic treatment of some segment(s) of their possessive 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 grammatical 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 native 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 concentrate 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 finished 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 referees 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 abs acc ade adj adjv adv all ani aor art attr aux caus class coll comp cond conj cop com dat dec def dem dep det dim du ela emph erg exi f fut

ablative absolutive accusative adessive adjective adjectiviser adverb allative animate aoriste article attributive auxiliary causative classifier collective comparative conditional conjunctive copula comitative dative declarative definite demonstrative dependent determiner diminutive dual elative emphatic ergative existential feminine future

gen ger hab hon ill imp imperf impers inani indef ine inf ins IO loc m med N neg nom NP nt num O obl opt ord part pass past perf pl plq POR PP

genitive gerund habitual honorific illative imperative imperfect(ive) impersonal inanimate indefinite inessive infinitive instrumental indirect object locative masculine medium noun negator nominative noun phrase neuter numeral object oblique optative ordinal participle passive past tense perfect(ive) plural pluperfect possessor prepositional phrase

x

Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

prep pres pret pro prog ptv PUM Q R ref rel S SB sg subj subord sup super u V VN voc VP X

preposition present tense preterit pronoun progressive partitive possessee interrogative relator reflexive relative sentence subject singular subjunctive subordinator superlative superessive utrum verb verb noun vocative verb phrase unspecified category

Superscripts A

H L

N P

aspirate mutation spirantisation lenition nasal mutation provection

Glossonyms alb arm aro aze bas br bret bulg cat cr

Albanian Armenian Aromunian Azeri Basque Belarusian Breton Bulgarian Catalan Croatian

cz dan du eng est far finn fr fris gal georg ger gr hung ice ir it kal kurd lat lg lith lov mac malt mari norw occ pol port rhaeto rum russ saa sard scg serb slok slov sor sp sw turk ukr w

Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Faroese Finnish French Frisian Galego Georgian German Greek Hungarian Icelandic Irish Italian Kalmyk Kurdish Latvian Low German Lithuanian Lovari Macedonian Maltese Mari Norwegian Occitan Polish Portuguese Rhaeto-Romance Rumanian Russian Saami Sardinian Scots Gaelic Serbian Slovak Slovene Sorbian Spanish Swedish Turkish Ukrainian Welsh

part a

What needs to be known beforehand

chapter 1

Introduction The languages of Europe, especially those which qualify as representatives of the so-called Standard Average European type, have sometimes been termed exotic because they either display certain properties which are less widespread outside the ­European continent or, the other way around, it is the absence or scarcity of features which are otherwise widely attested in languages spoken elsewhere on the globe that makes European languages stand out (Dahl 1990). Among the latter phenomena, the distinction of alienable and inalienable possession is mentioned as an example of a negative Europeanism i.e., an areal trait of (perhaps only certain) languages spoken in Europe. According to Nichols (1992: 123 and 294), the alienability correlation is practically unknown in Europe (including the Trans-Caucasus) because not a single one of her sample languages from that region makes a formal distinction between these two kinds of possession. In contrast, in every other of Nichols’s areas alienable and inalienable possession are formally kept apart in at least one sample language each (but usually by many more with statistical peaks in Australia, Oceania and the Americas, while the lowest rates occur in the vicinity of Europe). Thus, not distinguishing alienable possession from inalienable possession seems to be characteristic of Europe and perhaps its immediate neighbours. Haspelmath (2001) follows Nichols’s lead by considering the formal indistinguishability of alienable and inalienable possession a potential areal trait of Standard Average European languages. This hypothesis allows for the possibility that the alienability correlation exists in languages situated on the periphery of the geolinguistic map of the continent although Haspelmath (2001) does not elaborate on this side-issue, as other features are more important for the point he is trying to make. However, no convincing evidence of an alienability correlation in Europe or some of its sub-areas does not necessarily rule out other possession splits – some of which will be highlighted in the subsequent sections. In light of the advances the cross-linguistic and theoretical research on possession in general has made in the recent past, it comes as a surprise that our knowledge of the European situation has not progressed far beyond the stage of, at times, far too sweeping hypotheses. This is somewhat surprising as the one of the earliest contributions to (in)alienability issues by Bally (1926) addresses the phenomenon from an Indo-European perspective. The importance attributed to Bally’s study is reflected by the fact that Chappell & McGregor (1996: 31–61) deemed this early French contribution so essential for modern research that they re-published it in English in their



Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

bulky collection of articles on the grammar of inalienability. (Wherever we use the term ­ inalienable or derivations thereof we refer to the semantic classes of potential possessees mentioned in [A21], cf. below, which were already known to Bally to some extent.) Later publications as, e.g., Rosén (1959) looked at the opposition of alienable and inalienable possession in the classical languages (here: Ancient Greek). However, early on in the history of possession research, non-European languages were already the focus of interest (Lévy-Bruhl 1914). Philosophers such as the phenomenologist Cassirer ([1923]1977: 225–233) juggled with data from almost exclusively non-European languages in order to build up a kind of chronology of cultural development of which theory possession systems were one of the cornerstones. Until the 1970s, there was no full-blown paradigm of possession research, although pertinent publications were not entirely missing – among the most influential ones, we encounter Benveniste (1967) and Lyons (1977), to name just two oft-quoted articles. The foundations for the present boom of studies dedicated to possession were laid in the 1970s and 1980s by Seiler (1973 and 1983a–b) who approaches our subject-matter from a universalistic point of view and employs the cross-linguistic method. He refined his theory in several followup studies on possession (Seiler 1995, 2001). In contradistinction to Ultan (1978) who concentrates on NP-internal attributive noun-noun constructions, Seiler covers the whole range of morphosyntactic constructions in both attribution and predication. His disciples and other associates of the UNITYP project and its off-spring produced an enormous number of relevant publications on aspects of possession in Georgian (Boeder 1980), Tamil (Kukuczka 1982), Samoan (Breidbach 1983), Somali (Serzisko 1984), Hungarian (Biermann 1985), Lakhota (Pustet 1985), Yukatec (Lehmann 1998), Winnebago (Helmbrecht 2003), and Korean (Shin 2004). Likewise, Kwon (1995),with a scientific background at the university of Cologne, describes the possession system of Swahili & Heine (2001) looks at possession in Khoisan languages. This already impressive list could easily be extended as there are numerous studies which are in no way directly connected to UNITYP but are nevertheless devoted to the mostly partial description of possession systems in individual languages such as Tsujioka (2002) on the syntax of possession in Japanese and Velazquez-Castillo’s (1996) book-length study of possession in Guaraní. Obviously, possession is no longer a neglected phenomenon as is suggested by the publications devoted to it, including the special issue of the French journal Faits de langues No. 7 (1996) and two similar focus issues of Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung no. 53 (3/4) and 55 (2) (2002), the collections of articles edited by Chappell & McGregor (1996), Tasmowski (2001), Baron; Herslund & Sørensen (2001), Coene & D’Hulst (2003). Nichols (1988) and Chappell & McGregor (1989) are theory-challenging contributions to the alienability/inalienability problem. Heine’s (1997) monograph provides the most comprehensive attempt to describe the cross-linguistics of possession based on the axioms of grammaticalisation research. Payne & Barshi (1999) devote a volume to the phenomenon of external possession.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

Possession is also extensively talked about in such diverse frameworks as Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987) and semantic primitives research (Wierzbicka & Goddard 2002). It is thus safe to say that possession is currently a hotly debated issue in general linguistics and also, to some extent, in language-specific academic circles. As the many contributions to the possession systems of individual European ­languages in Chappell & McGregor (1996), Tasmowski (2001) and Baron; Herslund & Sørensen (2001) and others demonstrate, linguists have become aware of the fact that alienability and related phenomena are not a structural monopoly of languages outside Europe or outside the Indo-European phylum. As a matter of fact, studies like Taylor’s (1996) exploration of English possessives only make sense if there is something of a supposed mismatch of function and form in the systems they describe which calls for the identification of (rule-governed) options which is tantamount to postulating splits i.e., several possessive sub-categories. For a variety of European languages, the evidence adduced for possession splits is remarkable – with notable prominence given to Danish (Baron & Herslund 1997) and French (and Ibero-Romance languages) (Spanoghe 1995) – special interest for the latter started as early as the publication of Langacker (1968). Areally-minded studies with a pan-European perspective are still relatively rare within the framework of possession research – four notable exceptions being Manzelli (1990, 2007) on possessive pronouns, König & Haspelmath (1997) on external possessors, Stassen (2001) and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001, 2002, 2003a) on NP-internal possessive constructions. The full list of possession-oriented publications is too long to give each and every item full attention – all the more so since observations relevant to possession are often made in publications devoted to completely ­different topics. Further pertinent titles will be mentioned in due course. These recent developments notwithstanding, some things have remained unaltered. In the European tradition of descriptive grammar, there is no systematic place for the discussion of possession in its entirety. This situation is reflected by the fact that many linguistic handbooks and dictionaries fail to provide a separate entry for possession. Often, the best one can find are articles on possessive pronouns (Bussmann 2002: 526). Likewise, in descriptive grammars (e.g., of Icelandic [Kress 1982]), information with a bearing on possession is usually interspersed in paragraphs on possessive pronouns, genitive constructions, adpositional government and verb valency, if at all. One cannot help but suspect that it has been tacitly accepted by many philologists that the alienability correlation is an absolutely un-European feature because the descriptive tradition of European languages does not provide a separate slot for this phenomenon. Even where European languages do in fact treat alienable possession differently from inalienable possession or other splits of possession systems (in the sense of Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s [1998] “alienability splits”) apply in terms of grammatical structure, it is only mentioned in passing in grammars and handbooks, if at all. This attitude raises the question whether or not the alienability correlation is structurally





Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

as insignificant in Europe as the extant literature seems to suggest. Furthermore, one may ask whether the negligence with which the organisation of European possession systems has hitherto been treated is caused by the intricacies or covertness of the encoding strategies and the rules of their application. With a view to clarifying this issue, our study is dedicated to a thorough analysis of the areal linguistics of the possession systems in Europe. We start from the idea, inspired by Seiler (1983a–b), that the linguistic distinction between kinds of possession is a basically semantic one which can safely be considered a functional universal of language.1 Basically languages must provide the means of describing the relations their speakers believe they perceive in a given situation. Possession is a semantically vaguely defined segment on the continuum of these relations. Languages differ as to the parameter of formal correlates of this function, i.e., they may use different techniques of symbolisation, which in turn may attest to different degrees of grammaticalisation. In addition, there may be paradigms of various sizes crosslinguistically, although all inventories of possessive categories can be reduced to a fundamental bipartite categorial distinction. Whether the terminological choice of the labels alienable and inalienable possession for the major components of this opposition is a good one remains doubtful and will be discussed later and indirectly when we present possession splits whose conceptual basis is remote from the prototype of alienability correlations. For the time being, we continue to use the handy twin-terms alienability and inalienability and their derivations without however, prejudicing the necessary terminological revision to be undertaken tentatively in the course of our case studies. Clearly, these axioms must lead to a picture different from the one painted by Nichols (1992: 117), who prefers a strictly structural point of departure, the details of which are the subject of section 6.2. where we will also look into the possibility of a reconciliation of the two approaches. However, the methodological antagonism of the function-first approach vs. the structure-first approach is not the only reason why the outcome of our investigation diverges considerably from Nichols’ proposals. Another very important factor is the sample size and the sample composition. Nichols’s European sub-sample comprises only ten languages, namely the Caucasian languages Abkhaz (North-West Caucasian), Chechen (North-East Caucasian), and Georgian (South Caucasian), the Uralic languages Hungarian and Zyryan, the isolate Basque and the following members of the Indo-European phylum: Armenian, English, (colloquial) French, and Russian. For three of these languages (Armenian, Basque and Zyryan), she notes that “the category or constituent [is] known to be lacking” while the remaining seven languages receive the mark N for “the feature is not present” (Nichols 1992: 292).2 This leaves open the question of equivalence: is the lack of a category/ constituent the same as the absence of a given feature? In addition to this problem, we consider ten languages too small an empirical basis from which to draw any general conclusions. Admittedly, Nichols (1992) is a cross-linguistic study with a global



Chapter 1.  Introduction

(and not a primarily European) perspective which, for obvious reasons, allows only for a restricted number of languages of any area to be taken into consideration. Moreover, Nichols’s (1992) sample is composed according to sophisticated criteria designed specifically to avoid genetic and other biases. What all this laudable methodological soundness also implies is that one cannot simply extrapolate from Nichols’s necessarily superficial treatment of a small selection of European languages and depict Europe as linguistically homogeneous when organising possession systems. That Nichols’s interpretation of the structural facts sometimes calls for a revision is particularly evident in the Georgian data which we, in contrast to Nichols, understand as instances of a formal distinction between two kinds of possession which more or less fit the dichotomy of alienable vs. inalienable. For the particulars, we refer the reader to section 5.1.1.1. Additionally, European languages do not behave as one. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that at least some languages confirm Nichols’s hypothesis, then Faroese (Stolz & Gorsemann 2001) and Maltese (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1996) show that the alienability correlation is firmly established in the grammatical system of at least some of the other languages of the continent. Haspelmath’s (2001) claim that especially Standard Average European fails to make a formal distinction of the two kinds of possession (and thus supports its tacit implication that European languages outside the Standard Average European group may very well employ a more differentiated system of possession categories) can be supported by the fact that not only Faroese and Maltese but also other languages (among them Icelandic, Scots Gaelic, Georgian etc.) in which the alienability correlation is grammatically relevant are located on the rim of the European continent (Stolz 2001, 2004). Note however, that European languages with a functional split in their possession systems (as attested in Portuguese, for instance) are not invariably found far from the supposed core of the Standard Average European area. Nevertheless, there is also evidence for small sub-areas in certain parts of Europe (for instance in the North West) where grammaticalised possession systems are much more complex than in other places (for instance in Central Europe). What makes the study of possession systems intriguing, and at the same time difficult, is the fact that the relevant phenomena are not restricted to one and the same morphosyntactic level, but occur in a wide variety of constituents and constructions. Foremost among these is the co-existence of NP-internal possessive relations commonly called attributive possession and VP-based ones which go by the name of predicative possession. More often than not, the pertinent studies of possession highlight only one of these kinds of possession, (for predicative, see Baron & Herslund [2001]). If attributive possession is focused on, authors often only look at so-called genitive constructions (i.e., noun-noun syntagms as in Bartning [2001]) or at pronominal possession where the possessor is encoded pronominally (Stolz & Gorsemann 2001). This division of labour is justified in so far as an all-embracing description and analysis of a possession system is a rather demanding and time-consuming task, let alone the





Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

comparative study of several systems. Nevertheless, if one wants to make general statements about languages such that they can be classified as displaying or lacking an alienability correlation or other, it is hardly sufficient to base one’s judgements on the analysis of only a small segment of the grammar. Heine (1997: 183) summarises what has been said in possession research on the relationship between attributive and predicative possession: A common theme in works of the past decades is that predicative possession is basic/underived or underlying while attributive possession is derived from the former by means of a specific set of rules. One thread of reasoning underlying this thesis is that the two are semantically similar and that attributive possession is highly general in meaning whereas predicative possession is more specific. The problem is a complex one […].

If attributive and predicative possession are indeed semantically similar but differ as to their degree of specificity, then the lack of evidence for a possession split in the realm of attributive possession is not enough to prove that a given language fails to distinguish one possession category from the other because this could still be done predicatively. Whether the information conveyed in attributive possession can ever be richer than its predicative counterpart remains to be seen, independent of the fact that the above quote refers to a point of view which excludes this possibility.3 In our investigation of possession systems of European languages, we try to do justice to both attributive constructions and predicative ones – with the sole proviso that, for reasons of time and space, we cannot provide full-blown in-depth studies of the systems we scrutinise. One goal of this approach is to find out whether or not the kinds of possession splits we encounter corroborate the hypothesis of semantic equivalence of attributive and predicative possession. There is evidence for differential behaviour in European languages which ultimately calls for a revision of the equivalence hypothesis. Stolz (2004) demonstrates that the possession system of modern Icelandic is highly differentiated both in attributive and in predicative constructions; the sub-systems however do not map easily unto each other. This will be explained in more detail in section 4.2 where Icelandic is featured prominently. Our study is meant to provide a faithful picture of the structure and distribution of possession systems in Europe. Hence, it is a contribution to the areal linguistics of Europe. At the same time, our findings also have a bearing on the general theory of linguistic possession as they not only comprise hitherto little known facts, but also pinpoint those aspects of possession research which have to be revised for the benefit of theory. With a view to achieving these goals, European languages of different genetic, typological and areal backgrounds are reviewed in the empirical sections of this book (see sections 4–5). We employ a convenient sample which consists of altogether 43 European languages to which the occasional non-European language has to be added for



Chapter 1.  Introduction

contrastive purposes. Our definition of Europe (Stolz, Stroh & Urdze 2003) assumes relatively fixed boundaries in the North, West and South, namely the coast-line, all offshore and more remote islands. Therefore, the larger islands in the Mediterranean (including Malta) and the North Atlantic (as far as Iceland, but excluding Greenland) are considered part of the continent. In the East, we adopt a more flexible view allowing us to also evaluate possession systems in the languages of the Trans-Caucasian region and Turkey. The Ural, the Caspian Sea and the political boundary separating Syria, Iraq, and Iran from their neighbours in the North and West define the easternmost extension of Europe. Owing to the fact that we are exclusively interested in qualitative issues, there is no need to operate on the basis of a sample which allows for statistical statements beyond the individual language. However, frequency comes in as a means of identifying categories when we analyse the possession system of a given language.4 Our data stem from various sources: in addition to the usual descriptive grammars, handbooks, and linguistic articles, we make ample use of parallel corpora, original and translated literature,5 (and a questionnaire6). Further information on these sources is provided in the sources, part of the references. The investigation is primarily synchronic in nature – every once in a while, diachrony will also be considered, though only to a much lesser extent. Before we can proceed with the linguistic analysis proper, however, it is necessary to clarify a number of crucial terminological, methodological and theoretical issues beforehand which will help us to determine our own position within the wider framework of possession research. In our theoretical analysis, we largely follow the axiomatic ideas and frameworks put forward by Seiler (1983a–b), Heine (1997) and Lehmann (1998). In the final pages of this book (section 6), we draw some conclusions and make suggestions for future research on this and related topics. Methodologically, our approach follows common functional-typological practice. We specifically assume that there must be formal evidence if a semantic or conceptual distinction is to be shown to hold for a given language. Our principles are laid down in detail in Stolz, Stroh & Urdze (2006).



chapter 2

Prerequisites 2.1  Some basic structures A handful of terminological choices have to be fixed at this point in order to guarantee that the subsequent analyses and our evaluation thereof are compatible with each other. This section is intended to introduce our basic analytic vocabulary. Therefore, we do not aspire to exhaustiveness when giving examples. The phenomenology of possession will be discussed in detail in sections 4–5 when we look more closely at the European situation. In this section, we present those construction types which are normally responsible for the encoding of possession in European languages and beyond. In (A1), we survey the major morphosyntactic patterns one encounters when investigating possession. For further details, the reader is referred to the pertinent paragraphs in Heine (1997: 1–44), Lehmann (1998: 1–10) and Seiler (2000: 164–168). The order in which the components of the constructions appear in Table (A1) serves only the purpose of clear exposition and thus does not make any statement about possible and impossible linearisations in the languages (although the order chosen is indeed particularly frequent in Europe). Moreover, Table (A1) does not determine the exact morpheme status and distribution class of the constituents.7 (A1)  Constructions types

semantic level



possessor relator possessee



N pro pro/NP

X X V

N N NP/pro

syntactic level

kind of possession structure

NP NP VP/S

attributive: genitive attributive: pronominal predicative

On the semantic side, there are two participants involved in a situation of possession, namely the possessor i.e., the participant who in one way or other possesses the second participant; the second participant is the possessee or the entity which is actually or metaphorically in the possession of the possessor. The relation that holds between possessor and possessee is encoded by a relator. The structure of the relation is thus a⊥b with the possibility that the relation itself is inherent (and thus not specially marked) or established (and thus encoded by some morphosyntactic means).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

This takes us to the expression side: the possessor is either represented by a lexical noun or a pronoun (or other pronominal element), whereas the possessee normally comes in the shape of a lexical noun (for pronominal possessees see below). Wherever the morphosyntactic representatives of possessor and possessee form an NP together, we are dealing with attributive possession. If both participants are represented by full nouns (see [A2]), then this is an instance of a so-called genitive construction. If the possessor is encoded by a pronoun or pronominal affix (see [A3]), we term this an instance of pronominal possession. The asterisks in (A3) marks the conflation of information about the possessor, relator and to some extent also possessee in one and the same possessive pronoun (for the appropriateness of this term, see below). In subsequent examples, the sign * is employed to mark similar cases of fused information. Henceforth, POR and PUM are the labels used for possessor and possessee (based on the Latinate possessum ‘owned entity’) in the examples. ℜ stands for the relator. Wherever we deem it appropriate, the relevant construction – if it is not coextensive with the entire example – is additionally highlighted.8 (A2) Attributive possession: Genitive construction (A2.1) Inflectional relator [HP I Finnish, 7]



attribute head POR-ℜ PUM

Rouva Potter oli rouva [[Dursley-n]N [sisar]N]NP Mrs Potter be.past Mrs Dursley-gen sister ‘Mrs Potter was Mrs Dursley’s sister.’ (A2.2) Adpositional relator [HP I Catalan, 7] La senyora Potter era det Mrs Potter be.past.3sg head attribute PUM ℜ POR [[germana]N [de [la senyora Dursley]NP]PP]NP sister of det Mrs Dursley ‘Mrs Potter was Mrs Dursley’s sister.’

In the Finnish example (A2.1), the possessee is represented by the head noun sisar ‘sister’ which in turn governs the genitive case in -n on the dependent NP rouva Dursley ‘Mrs Dursley’. The inflectional genitive encodes the kind of relation between the head and its attribute. Since the relational marker is hosted by the dependent noun, this is an instance of dependent-marking. Dependent-marking dominates in the examples presented in this section,. In the Catalan example (A2.2), dependent-marking applies too, although this time the relator is the preposition de ‘of ’ which has scope over the NP la senyora Dursley ‘Mrs Dursley’ representing the possessor; the PP is the attribute of the possessee-NP germana ‘sister’.



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites 

(A3) Attributive possession: Pronominal possession (A3.1) Possessive pronoun [HP I Swedish, 13] Mr Dursley satt alltid med ryggen mot fönstret Mr Dursley sit:past always with back:def.u against window:def.nt attribute head POR* PUM i [sitt kontor]NP på nionde våningen in his:nt office on ninth floor:det.u ‘In his office on the ninth floor, Mr Dursley always sat with his back towards the window.’

(A3.2) Prepositional phrase [HP I Brazilian Portuguese, 9] head attribute PUM ℜ-POR é [[o filho]NP [d-[eles]PRO]PP]NP Harry is det son of-they Harry ‘Yes (= it is), their son, Harry.’

(A3.3) Pronominal genitive [HP I Basque, 10] attribute head POR-ℜ PUM bai [hai-en seme-a]NP Harry is they-gen son-def Harry ‘Yes, their son, Harry.’

In the Swedish example (A3), the possessor is encoded by the NP Mr Dursley which is anaphorically represented by the reflexive (= co-referential with the sentence-internal subject) possessive pronoun of the 3rd person sitt ‘his’ which at the same time agrees in number (singular) and gender (neuter) with the noun representing the possessee: kantor ‘office’. In (A3.2), Brazilian Portuguese allows for an alternative construction (in lieu of one which comprises an agreeing possessive pronoun seu ‘his’ similar to the Swedish example) with a PP governed by de ‘of ’ whose complement is the pronoun of the 3rd person plural eles ‘they’. The preposition and the vowel-initial pronoun fuse according to the laws of Portuguese sandhi. As for Basque, example (A3.3) shows that pronouns representing the possessor may behave like attributive nouns in the genitive construction (see for instance [A2.1]) by inflecting for the genitive. However, the possessor may also be encoded by bound morphology on the noun representing the possessee. Turkish is a paradigm-case of this kind of head-marking, cf. (A4). (A4) Possessor affix [HP I Turkish, 38] head-attribute PUM-POR istiyorum [mektub-um-u]NP letter-POR.1sg-acc want:pres:1sg ‘I want my letter!’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The noun mektup ‘letter’ is marked for 1st person singular possessor by the affix -Vm (the vowel quality being dependent on the rules of vowel harmony). The combination of the possessee and possessor is inflected for the definite accusative as the direct object of the finite verb. Furthermore, if and only if, one of the participants (often the possessee, but not exclusively so) is part of the VP and the other participant remains outside the VP, then the designation predicative possession is appropriate, as in (A5). Henceforth, the constituents of discontinuous constructions are shown to be associated to each other by connecting lines. (A5) Predicative possession (A5.1) Possessor = subject [HP I Albanian, 7] POR ℜ* PUM [Dërslit [kishin [një djalkë]NP]VP]]S Dursley:nom.pl have:imperf.3pl a son:dim ‘The Dursleys had a little son.’ (A5.2) Possessee = subject [HP I Irish, 1]



VP PUM ℜ-POR bhí [[maicín beag]NP [ac-u]PP was spoilt_child small at-3pl



‘They had a little spoilt child.’

Albanian is a language with a regular have-verb which is transitive and requires an object-NP to be present, see (A5.1). This object-NP is thus part of the VP and represents the possessee whereas the external argument or subject of the verb ka ‘to have’ represents the possessor. Note that the obligatory subject-verb agreement on the finite verb yields multiple encoding of the possessor. Since Albanian is a bona-fide pro-drop language, the subject person marker on the verb is often the only indicator of the possessor. In (A5.2), Irish attests to the inverse of the Albanian construction as this time the NP representing the possessee functions as the grammatical subject of the sentence, whereas the possessor-NP forms part of a PP (which in turn is part of the VP). The construction is identical to an existential construction where the PP is only a facultative constituent, an adjunct of the locative-adverbial kind. Whether or not the Irish example (and similar ones throughout Europe) is an instance of a belongconstruction (Heine 1997: 29–33) will be discussed below (section 2.3). As the above examples already suggest, relators may belong to a variety of word or morpheme classes. Wherever a relator is used overtly the possessive relation is an established one (Seiler 1983a). Within the NP, the relator can take the form of an adposition or of a more or less bound case marker, if it is phonologically realised at all, see (A6). The adpositions can also be inflected for person as in the Irish example (A5.2).



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites

(A6) Zero relator [HP I Welsh, 9] head attribute PUM POR crynai [[llais]N [yr Athro McGonagal]NP]NP tremble:imperf.3sg voice det Professor McGonagal wrth iddi fynd ymlaen by to:3sg.f go on ‘Professor McGonagal’s voice trembled as she went on.’

In (A6), a typical example of a Welsh noun-noun construction occurs: the genitive relation tying head and attribute together is not marked by overt morphological means. There are strict restrictions on the use of determiners and the order of possessor and possessee. Nevertheless, llais yr Athro McGonagal ‘the voice of Professor McGonagal’ is an uncontroversial case of juxtaposition which makes do without a phonologically realised relator. As for predicative possession, the relator is either a lexical verb or a copula/existential verb sometimes in combination with accompanying morphosyntactic encoding (morphological case or appropriate adposition) on the possessor and/or possessee NPs governed by the core predicator. In the scope of European languages, the finite verb more often than not agrees with the subject (only very rarely also with other constituents) and thus multiple encoding of the participant(s) is the rule rather than the exception. The core predicator may also be absent from the construction, especially in languages which allow for zero copulas/fully predicative NPs. In (A7), the Russian participle byl ‘been’ used for past tense could be dropped in order to produce an acceptable possession construction in the present tense (although the use of est’ ‘(there) is’, the defective present tense form of byt’ ‘to exist’, seems to be stylistically preferable [see below, section 5.3]). What remains of the relational marking after dropping the core predicator is the preposition u ‘at’ governing the genitive on the coordinated NPs representing the possessor. (A7) Optional core predicator [HP I Russian, 3] POR* (ℜ) PUM u mistera i missisi Darsli (byl) malen’ki syn at Mr:gen and Mrs Dursely (be:past) little son ‘Mr and Mrs Dursley had (have) a little son.’

As a matter of fact, it is not only the relator which may be absent from a construction. Both the possessor and – though less often, the possessee are also optional as long as at least the other participant is present in a given construction. In the Latvian example (A8), the noun mamma ‘mommy’ implies a possessor of the 1st person singular or plural, i.e., the invited reading is ‘my/our mum’. The possessor-possessee relation is inherent (Seiler 1983a). Note that the speaker uses the affectionate form mamma ‘mommy’ and not the neutral term māte ‘mother’. We will say more about this and similar phenomena in section 5.1.1.1.



 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(A8) Zero possessor [HP II Latvian, 39] head PUM mazliet ieķērusies viņā [Mamma]N ir mum is a_bit clutch:part:f:ref he:loc aux perf ‘Mum has fallen in love with him a little.’

The Low German examples in (A9) give us an idea of how the absence of an overt lexical possessee may be accounted for. However, the first idea that comes to mind on the basis of these examples is probably misleading. (A9) Zero lexical possessee (A9.1) Zero lexical possessee [HP I Low German, 41] ?attribute ?(head) POR dat is [mien]pro ?(___) that is my (letter) ‘This is mine!’ (A9.2) Realised lexical possessee [HP I Low German, 42] attribute head POR PUM ik will [mien breef]NP hebben I want my letter have:inf ‘I want to have my letter!’

Superficially, (A9.1) seems to be a case of ellipsis: the noun breef ‘letter’ of an underlying syntagm mien breef ‘my letter’ seems to be left out (represented by the bracketed slot) and thus the possessive pronoun is, in a manner of speaking, stranded. However, this analysis does not work for those languages which have a special set of pronouns for constructions without overt lexical possessee. In light of this evidence, it is doubtful whether mien in (A9.1) can be considered an attribute at all (hence the question marks). Since this issue is typologically relevant for the areal linguistics of Europe, we devote section 5.1.1.2.2 to a more detailed discussion of the phenomenon. As example (A3.2) suggests, the component parts of the ideal construction types in (A1) may not only be simply missing from a realised structure, they may also coalesce on the expression side. They may also be subject to discontinuous or multiple encoding via agreement etc. However, these two always imply that there is a primary representative of the category in question, while the surplus markers only have secondary status.



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites 

2.2  What is possession? The term possession is in itself controversial for various reasons. First of all, there are at least two rather dissimilar “emergent” traditions in possession research. One of these looks at possession from a rather broad perspective which is rooted in the framework put forward by Miller & Johnson-Laird (1976). According to this approach, a verb like English to give qualifies as the nucleus of a possessive construction because the action described involves the transferral of a possessee from one possessor to the other. The semantics of to give requires three arguments, two of which have in common that they function as possessor: the one who executes the giving is the original possessor of the transferred item and the one on the receiving end is the new possessor. This view works mostly for predications. As a matter of fact, handling verbs of giving (Newman 1998) on a par with verbs of having etc. opens up an interesting line of inquiry. Verbs like German schenken ‘to give a present’, erben ‘to inherit’, vererben ‘to bequeath’, verkaufen ‘to sell’, kaufen ‘to buy’, leihen ‘to borrow’, etc. would also qualify as possessive verbs as they all imply that a possessee passes from one possessor to the other. However, the same is true of verbs of deprivation: German entwenden ‘to take away’, stehlen ‘to steal’, enthaupten ‘to decapitate’ (if we regard one’s head as a case of a possessed body part), enteignen ‘to dispossess’, etc. While it is hardly possible to exclude these and other verbs from one’s investigation, if geben ‘to give’ is allowed on the list of typical verbs of possession, we agree with Reinheimer Rîpeanu (2001: 12) when she concludes her study of French verbs of possession that [l]a plupart des verbes de possession inventoriés […], [e]xcepté ‘avoir’ et ‘être à…, […] appartiennent, avec les sens d’une possession réelle, au domaine du langage juridique. La langue commune préfère les employer avec un sens figuré.

Interesting as they are,9 these verbs have highly specialised meanings and often form part of legal terminology or similar languages for special purposes. Legal concepts and the inventory of languages for special purposes are phenomena which are dependent on the cultural-historical background of a given speech-community and thus cannot be considered universal categories. Moreover, many of these so-called possessive verbs are deviant in so far as their argument structure provides slots for two non-identical possessors of the same possessee. This is already a complication of the more basic (and possibly also natural) binary constellation which involves one possessor per possessee. The verbs discussed are therefore marked cases (Heine 1997: 44) which will only be of marginal importance to our line of argumentation. For our purposes, it is more essential and also more promising to operate with unmarked cases, although it is necessary to look beyond the narrow frame of the prototype, as will become clear in the following paragraphs.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The notion of possession is also problematic because it is suggestive of a certain kind of relation re-phrasable as Possessor possesses possessee (or, attributively, Possessor’s possessee). While this paraphrasis is acceptable for many instances of linguistic possession, there is a wide variety of cases for which it does not fit semantically if taken too literally. That is why Manzelli; Ramat & Roma (2002) ask whether feelings can be owned (based on expressions like German ich habe Hunger ‘I am hungry’ [lit. ‘I have hunger’]). We can take it for granted that situations like the ones described in (A10) are seen as unproblematic and are accepted as instances of possession by the majority of linguists. (A10) Bona fide possession (A10.1) Attributive possession [HP II Afrikaans, 35] attribute head POR ℜ PUM tot die skoenlappers haal [[Ron se]NP [ou Shooting Star]NP]NP in until det butterfly:pl fetch Ron gen old Shooting Star in

overtake ‘Even the butterflies could overtake Ron’s old Shooting Star.’ (A10.2) Predicative possession [HP II Afrikaans, 26] POR PUM ℜ weet julle pa dat [[julle]pro [[die motor]NP het]VP]S know POR.2pl dad that pro.2pl det car have ‘Does your dad know that you have the car?’

In (A10.1), the possessor Ron is also the legal owner of the magic broom (= the Shooting Star) while, in (A10.2), the legal owner is not identical with those persons (identified by the pronoun julle ‘you’) who actually drive the car. This is a case of temporary possession (Heine 1997: 34). Nevertheless, these persons are treated as possessors of the possessee motor ‘car’. Clearly, legal ownership is not regularly invoked by constructions of the above type although legal ownership may be one of the options which first come to mind when an interpretation of the construction at hand is called for. What the two situations have in common is the fact that the possessor is in control of the possessee – either de jure or de facto. As a matter of fact, the exertion of control on the part of the possessor is widely believed to be the crucial criterion for the definition of possession relations – though certain adjustments are necessary (Lehmann 1998: 7). Control in the strict sense of the term fails to apply to other cases which are outwardly similar to the uncontroversial ones. In (A11) we present two more sentences from Afrikaans. The attributive and predicative constructions make use of the same patterns as the one exemplified in (A10). Nevertheless, it is difficult to ascribe legal ownership or control to the presumptive possessors. Does one legally own or control one’s death anniversary? Is having time for achieving a goal the same kind of relation



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites 

as having a car at one’s disposal? The answer to these questions, more likely than not, is negative. We are dealing with instances of abstract possession (Heine 1997: 34–35). (A11) Problematic cases (A11.1) Attributive [HP II Afrikaans, 86] attribute head POR PUM wel hierdie Allerheiligaand is [my vyfhonderdste doodsdag]NP well this Halloween be.pres my 500th dying_day ‘Well, this Halloween is the 500th anniversary of my death.’ (A11.2) Predicative [HP II Afrikaans, 99] POR PUM ℜ [[jy]pro [het [tien dae]np gehad]vp]s om dit klaar te maak you have ten day:pl part:have for this ready to make



aux perf

‘You had ten days to get this done.’

The problems usually involve the attempt to provide an intentional definition of possession a priori which fits the entire distributional profile of the constructions under scrutiny ideally. In typologically-minded language comparison, the quest for an allembracing definition of this kind has some disadvantages: either one allows oneself to be guided by semantics alone and thus is forced to draw a dividing line separating possession proper (understood as legal ownership) from supposed look-alike cases (and thus cut across the distributional profile of the constructions involved) or the distributional profiles define possession for each language individually and thus render comparison difficult. The most common strategy to circumvent these difficulties is based on the notion of prototype, i.e., a paradigm case of possession is identified from which all other cases can be derived according to the principle of family resemblance. In the literature on possession, the following semantic and syntactic traits are (some times only tacitly) assumed to be characteristic of the prototype (Lehmann 1998: 5–8) (A12). (A12) The prototype I possessor

relator

animate (human) (ego) definite in control X actor subject attribute

possessee

criterion

inanimate indefinite under control undergoer object head

animacy definiteness control macro role syntactic relation: S-level syntactic relation: NP-level

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The possessor normally ranks as high as possible in the empathy hierarchy and is thus a human participant, preferably identical with EGO. This implies that the possessor is definite. The possessee lacks all of these features and is an indefinite inanimate, preferably concrete, entity. Up until this point, the prototype has not been fully distinctive as nothing has been said so far about the quality of the relation between possessor and possessee in particular. Only the parameter of control allows us to specify the nature of the relation: the possessor is in control of the possessee which, in turn, is under the control of the possessor. This asymmetry of control corresponds to the distribution of possessor and possessee over different semantic macro roles: the prototypical possessor tends to display properties of an actor whereas the prototypical possessee has more features in common with an undergoer. Given that fundamental relations of the subject-object-kind are identifiable in a language, the prototypical possessor is often represented by a subject-NP while the prototypical possessee associates more readily with an object-NP (in ergative languages the possessor would be the NP marked for ergative). NP-internally, the possessee is the head of the construction and the possessor comes in the guise of the attribute. The macro roles and fundamental relations can be understood as being motivated by the semantic features assigned to the two participants. A prototypical possessive relation thus involves two participants with different specifications of animacy and agentivity and different syntactic status. One of the participants exerts control over the other.

2.3  Different viewpoints However, Table (A12) does not tell the whole story. As a matter of fact, it only accounts for what has been termed typical have-constructions, i.e., constructions which depict a situation from the point of view of the possessor. This possessor-orientation competes with another kind of construction which adopt the viewpoint of the possessee instead, namely the belong-constructions (Heine 1997: 29–33). The change of the viewpoints brings along with it changes affecting definiteness, the semantic macro roles and the fundamental syntactic relations on the sentence level: the possessee is no longer necessarily indefinite, it may also acquire properties of an actor and function as the subject of a clause. Accordingly, while retaining its definiteness, the possessor may be demoted to an undergoer and function as a direct/indirect object or as an adverbial adjunct/complement. Most importantly, the relator – here: the main predicator – in belong-constructions is generally different from the one used in have-constructions. As far as we can tell, there seems to be no formal correlate of the have-belong dichotomy NP-internally in terms of a reversal of the attributehead relation. In a number of European languages however, there is evidence for a certain degree of sensitivity to the have-belong distinction in the realm of so-called



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites 

zero lexical possessees – a phenomenon to which we turn our attention in section 5.1.1.2.2. The difference between have-constructions and belong-constructions is clearest in predicative possession, as the examples in (A13) suggest. (A13) have vs. belong (A13.1) have-construction [HP I French, 39] subject POR ℜ il avait entre les mains he have:imperf between det:pl hand ‘He had a letter in his hands.’

object PUM une lettre a letter

(A13.2) belong-construction [HP I French, 40] subject locative complement PUM ℜ POR c’ est à moi this be.pres.3sg at me ‘This (= letter) is mine/belongs to me!’

In both sentences, the participant roles are the same: the possessor is always Harry Potter, whereas the possessee is the contested letter addressed to Harry Potter (and is thus his). The possessor is represented pronominally in both examples and, the possessee appears as a lexical NP in (A13.1), which is an instance of physical possession (Heine 1997: 34), and it appears as a demonstrative pronoun in (A13.2). Unsurprisingly, the pronoun representing the possessor in (A13.1) functions as the subject of the transitive have-verb avoir ‘to have’ which takes an object-NP representing the possessee. The possessor is depicted as some kind of actor controlling the possessee which finds itself in the hands of the possessor and is thus a good example of an undergoer. As required by the feature list in (A12), the possessee-NP is indefinite and inanimate (= une lettre ‘a letter’), whereas the possessor-NP is relatively high on the animacy (= empathy) hierarchy. In (A13.2) however, the possessee has the subject function in a construction which involves the copula être ‘to be’ with a local adverbial as its complement. This complement represents the possessor. The possessor is treated on a par with the locative complement of other French constructions as in il est à Paris ‘he is in Paris’ in which Paris is the reference point to which the participant represented by the subject pronoun is oriented. Note that Heine (1997: 61) interprets the French case as an instance of his goal-schema, i.e., he assumes an originally dynamic reading similar to the one ascribed to the so-called dative construction in French (= il a donné une lettre à Pauline ‘he has given a letter to Pauline’ with the preposition à ‘to’ introducing the indirect object). Since the syntactic relations change, turning the possessee-NP into the subject, the possessee looses the typical characteristics of an undergoer, while the possessor is no longer a typical actor. In accordance with the French rules of word order, subject constituents come in pre-verbal position

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

while object-NPs and non-focused adverbials are placed to the right of the verb. Thus, in have-constructions, the possessor is mentioned first, whereas in belong-constructions, the possessee occurs sentence-initially. Put differently, in have-constructions the possessor is the theme and the possessee is rhematic, whereas it is the other way around in belong-constructions. The question arises whether or not have-constructions and belong-constructions are just two different perspectives of one and the same relation. The evidence speaks in favour of a strong bond between possessor and possessee in belongconstructions such that very often the reading of legal ownership or morally-founded entitlement is invited in addition to membership or part-whole readings (= Paul gehört zu meiner Mannschaft ‘Paul is part of my team’ with the German belong-verb gehören; the same is possible with French apartenir à ‘to belong to’ but not with the construction être à!). Typical have-constructions, on the other hand, are (more) neutral as to the tightness of the possessive relation. In languages where the two types of constructions are systematically differentiated, there is already the formal foundation (however embryonic) on which a possession split may be built. Given that belongconstructions are indeed suggestive of a closer tie between the two participants of the possessive relation, they should not only be compared to have-constructions but also (or even primarily) to own-constructions. Wherever the latter are formally distinct from have-con­structions, it makes more sense to assume a ternary paradigm in which belong-constructions and own-constructions are largely mirror images of each other. have-constructions have a special status which connects them to both the other constructions in peculiar ways. While it is safe to say that own-constructions can normally be translated into belong-constructions in order to change the viewpoint from possessor-orientation to possessee-orientation, this is not necessarily the case with have-constructions. There are have-constructions which lend themselves to viewpoint-inversion and may thus be re-phrased as belong-constructions. Those constructions which could be replaced by own-constructions are prominent among these convertible have-constructions. If this replacement by own-constructions is blocked for a have-construction then this normally also implies that it can not undergo viewpoint-inversion and thus no belong-construction is available as a substitute. Since have-constructions are usually semantically more general or less specific than own-constructions, the former have a much larger distributional profile allowing for contexts in which neither own-constructions nor belong-constructions are admitted. The functional domain of own-constructions and belong-constructions is largely (but not absolutely) co-extensive and fully included in the much larger domain of a typical have-construction – a situation which is schematically represented in (A14). In a way, every instance of an own-construction is also a virtual instance of a have-construction, but not vice versa. Except for the membership readings, belong-constructions are also virtual have-constructions.



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites 

(A14) Inclusion of functional domains ownership/entitlement

HAVE

OWN

membership

BELONG

other

The German examples in (A15)–(A16) illustrate how the three constructions interact. (A15) contains three fully acceptable German sentences, (A15.1) is originally drawn from one of our major sample texts. By the choice of the transitive verb besitzen ‘to own’, the possessive relation is depicted as one of legal ownership or morally founded entitlement. There is absolutely no problem as to convertibility: besitzen can be replaced by haben ‘to have’ (A15.2). Moreover, the viewpoint inversion in (A15.3) yields a belong-construction based on the verb gehören ‘to belong to’ with dative government on the possessor-NP.10 (A15) Convertible constructions (A15.1) own-construction [HP I German, 5] subject direct object POR ℜ PUM die Dursleys besaßen alles was sie wollten det Dursley:pl own.imperf:3pl everything what they want:imperf:3pl ‘The Dursleys owned everything they desired.’ (A15.2) have-construction subject direct object POR ℜ PUM die Dursleys hatten alles was sie wollten det Dursley:pl have.imperf:3pl everything what they want:imperf:3pl ‘The Dursleys had everything they desired.’ (A15.3) belong-construction indirect object subject POR ℜ PUM den Dursleys gehörte alles det:dat Dursley:pl belong.imperf:3sg everything was sie wollten what they want:imperf:3pl ‘Everything the Dursleys desired belonged to them.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

However, there is no one-to-one-to-one mapping relation between the three constructions. Consider (A16): in the original sentence (A16.1) the verb is haben ‘to have’. The possessive relation is one of physical possession, i.e., the possessor happens to have the possessee on himself whereas the possessor may or may not be the owner of the object. As a matter of fact, the person who actually carries the key, the warden Hagrid, does not own it because the key legally belongs to Harry Potter. Unsurprisingly, a haveconstruction of this kind cannot be translated into an own-construction (A16.2) nor into a belong-construction (A16.3). This is important as there are no morphosyntactic indicators which allow us to decide whether or not a German have-construction is susceptible to conversion and viewpoint inversion. Formally, the construction patterns of (A15.2) and (A16.1) are the same – and additional semantic information is required in order to establish whether convertibility applies. The fact that a given construction can be converted or not may then be considered formal (but largely covert) evidence for the existence of distinct categories – meaning: in German besitzen and haben are not full equivalents of each other but are major representatives of two categories which are in a kind of inclusion relation (see [A14]). (A16) Inconvertible constructions (A16.1) have-construction [HP I German, 82] subject direct object POR1 ℜ PUM POR2 PUM sie [haben [seinen Schlüssel]NP]VP Sir they have:3pl his:acc key Sir hon ‘You have his key, sir?’ (A16.2) own-construction ?sie [besitzen [seinen Schlüssel]NP]VP they own:3pl his:acc key ‘You own his key, Sir?’ ( A16.3) belong-construction indirect object subject POR ℜ PUM ?[[ihnen] sein Schlüssel pro gehört]VP they:dat belong:3sg his key ‘His key belongs to you, Sir?’

Sir Sir

Sir Sir

2.4  Beyond the prototype One does not want to talk only about prototypes when doing typological research. Identifying prototypes as such belongs to the realm of universals research. Since we



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites 

have already stipulated the prototype above, it would be at best trivial to come to the conclusion that the languages compared have in common that they express the prototype one way or another. Language comparison becomes relevant for universals research only if the aim is to establish the exact extension of the prototypical category. This can be achieved by mapping the distributional profiles of constructions onto each other as is done in Croft (2001). The same procedure can be employed for typological purposes. The differences between the various constructions discussed in the previous section are indicative of typological relevance because the more complex the network of categories and constructions under scrutiny becomes, the higher the chances that languages opt for non-identical solutions. Methodologically, Lazard (2001) shows us how to proceed from the identification of the language-independent prototype to the cross-linguistic comparison of entire distributional profiles. If the expression of possessive relations is a universal function of language then it provides a suitable tertium comparationis because all languages are taken to provide some morphosyntactic means or another to fulfil the task of expressing possessive relations. Needless to say that functional universality must not be equated with identity of linguistic structures, not to mention the identity of degrees of grammaticalisation. One first has to identify those constructions which serve the purpose of expressing the prototypical instances of possession and which have the highest degree of grammaticalisation among a number of potential competitors. The next and typologically much more interesting step consists in taking stock of the functions for which this construction is used outside the context of the prototype. This is the point where typology starts working: not all languages behave similarly when one looks beyond the prototype and those which still do can be classified as representatives of the same type. In order to establish a typology of possession systems it is necessary to manipulate the feature specifications used for the characterisation of the prototype. Usually in Possession research the properties assigned to the possessee are changed, whereas those of the other participant are kept constant. Continuing this common practice for the time being, we extend the range of animacy of potential possessees to include inanimate concrete entities to animate beings on the one hand and abstract concepts on the other. In (A17)–(A19), the non-identity of distributional profiles is briefly exemplified by comparing three contexts in three European languages. (A17) Prototype = animate possessee = age (A17.1) Prototype [HP I Italian, 74] ℜ-POR PUM [avete [la chiave]NP]VP Signore have:2pl det key Sir hon ‘You have the key, Sir?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(A17.2) Animate possessee [HP I Italian, 5] POR ℜ PUM i Dursley avevano un figlioletto det.pl Dursley have:imperf:3pl a son:dim ‘The Dursleys had a little son.’ (A17.3) Age [HP III Italian, 8] ℜ-POR PUM [aveva [tredici anni]NP già da un’ ora]VP have:imperf:3sg thirteen year:pl already since one hour ‘He had been thirteen years old for an hour already.’

In Italian, the construction used for the expression of predicative possession with the transitive avere ‘to have’ is used in three selected contexts. In (A17.1), disregarding the parameter of definiteness, the situation resembles the prototype – a definite human possessor (= the grounds keeper Hagrid) controls an inanimate possessee (= the key). The same have-construction is employed in combination with an animate possessee in (A17.2) in which a definite human possessor (= the Dursleys) is said to have a son. Moreover, avere is also the best choice for telling one’s age: in (A17.3), the possessor is again a human participant (= Harry Potter), whereas this time the possessee is an abstract concept (= years of age). The same have-construction occurs in three different contexts (defined by the properties of the possessee) which are treated formally alike although it is next to absurd to assume that the degree of control the possessor exerts over the possessee remains the same throughout the examples. It is doubtful that the possessor is in control of his age (see above).11 Accordingly, Hungarian makes use of two different constructions: one serves the purpose of expressing prototypical possession and possession of an animate possessee (A18.1)–(A18.2) and the other is used for telling one’s age – and is in no way connected to possession (A18.3). (A18) Prototype = animate possessee ≠ age (A18.1) Prototype [HP II Hungarian, 48] indirect object subject POR-ℜ PUM Weasley-ék-nek volt fenn a dombon egy kis bekerített telkük Weasley-pl-dat be:past up det hill:super a little fenced plot ‘On the hill, the Weasleys had/owned a small fenced-in plot of land.’ (A18.2) Animate possessee [HP I Hungarian, 7] indirect object subject POR-ℜ PUM Dursley-ék-nak volt egy csemet-éjük is Dursley-pl-dat be:past one off_spring-POR.3pl too ‘The Dursleys also had a child.’



Chapter 2.  Prerequisites 

(A18.3) Age [HP III Hungarian, 11] predicate nominal [már egy órája [tizenhárom éves]NP volt]VP already one hour:POR.3sg thirteen year:adjv be:past ‘He had been thirteen years old for an hour already.’

For inanimate and animate possessees, Hungarian employs the same pattern, namely a construction in which the possessee-NP functions as subject and the possessor-NP is inflected for the dative. In contrast to these cases, (A18.3) contains a copula plus a predicate nominal similar to constructions involving predicative adjectives. Thus, there are no participants which could legitimately be called possessor or possessee. The abstract concept of age does not qualify as a good candidate for the role of possessee in Hungarian. The restrictions on the distribution of the have-construction(s) are even stricter in Icelandic (cf. also Stolz 2004 and section 4.2). There are three distinct constructions – one for each potential possessee (A19). (A19) Prototype ≠ animate possessee ≠ age (A19.1) Prototype [HP I Icelandic, 65] POR* ℜ PUM [ert-u [með lykilinn]PP]VP/S herra minn be.2sg-you with key:def.acc sir my ‘Do you have the key, Sir?’ (A19.2) Animate possessee [HP I Icelandic, 5] POR ℜ PUM Dursley-hjón-in á-tt-u lítinn dreng Dursley-couple-def have-past-3pl little:acc boy ‘The Dursleys had a little son.’ (A19.3) Age [HP III Icelandic, 8] subject predicate nominal hann hafði verið þrettan ára he have:past:3sg be:part thirteen year:gen.pl



aux plq í in

heila klukkustund whole hour

‘He had been thirteen for a full hour.’

In (A19.1), the relator is complex because it is comprised of the copula verb vera ‘to be’ and the preposition með ‘with’ which triggers the accusative inflection on the dependent noun (note that the same preposition has differential case-government: it requires the complement to be in the dative if the intended meaning does not

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

imply control [Stolz, Stroh & Urdze 2006: 346–348]). This is the appropriate predicative construction if the possessee is inanimate. For combinations with human possessees, however, vera með N[accusative] is ruled out. In (A19.2), the past tense of the verb eiga ‘to have/to own’ is the best choice because the relation between possessor (= the Dursleys) and possessee (= their son) is one of kinship. As in Hungarian, one’s age is not encoded by a possessive construction but rather a copula-construction with a predicate nominal in the partitive genitive (A19.3). In Table (A20), the fragmentary distributional profiles of the constructions in the three languages are compared. Italian is homogeneous as it employs one and the same construction (= A) to cover the three contexts. Hungarian converges with Italian in so far as one and the same construction (= A) is compatible with prototypical and animate/human possessees. At the same time, Hungarian deviates from the Italian pattern because the distributional profile of A does not include the category age as possessee. This however, is a property Hungarian shares with Icelandic: both languages do not treat age as a possessee. Furthermore, Icelandic differs from both Hungarian and Italian because the construction used for prototypical possessees (= A) is incompatible with animate/human possessees which nevertheless require a distinct predicative possessive construction (= B). In sum, the three languages represent three distinct types I-III which, however, share individual traits. (A20) A fragmentary typology possessee

Italian

Hungarian

Icelandic

prototypical animate/human age type

A A A I

A A B II

A B C III

The differences in the distributional profiles of the various constructions in the three languages provide evidence for us to assume that there are at least three potential categories, namely, actual physical possession, animate possession (kinship relations) and abstract possession. If it were not for the formal three-way distinctions in Icelandic, one could easily be induced to take the Italian and Hungarian solution for granted: both languages treat inanimate and animate possessees similarly and thus fail to suggest that animacy is a crucial criterion in possession at all. The method of distributional profile comparison cannot only be employed in cross-linguistics, but it may also be fruitfully applied to language-internal phenomena. Thus, possession is not a homogeneous monolithic category but rather a dimension which allows for a variety of linguistically relevant perspectives, i.e., there is a potentially rich system of sub-categories of possession. Wherever languages formally distinguish more than just one category of possession, it is legitimate to speak of split possession. Section 3 is devoted to a closer inspection of certain cross-linguistically recurrent splits.

chapter 3

Split possession From the above we have learned that split possession may show itself when different kinds of possessees are involved. At least in some languages, animacy and concreteness are relevant parameters which determine whether a given construction is appropriate for a given possessee. Furthermore, the nature of the relation (de jure vs. de facto possession or the like) between possessor and possessee may be decisive for the choice of the correct construction and/or relator (have vs. own). If we add the possibility of viewpoint inversion (have/own vs. belong) to these criteria, we already have a relatively complex taxonomy which still would have to be further differentiated according to the syntactic levels on which the distinctions apply (attributive vs. predicative possession etc.). For our topic, semantically motivated splits are the most important, though not to the exclusion of splits which are based on factors other than semantics because the different kinds of splits often interact. The most common terms used for the characterisation of a split possession system are alienable and inalienable possession. There are a number of terminological alternatives, especially for the latter (see the list in Heine [1997: 10]), but none of these has ousted the widely used twin terms. It has long been debated whether this terminological preference is semantically/conceptually adequate. Many scholars take issue with the universal suitability of the label inalienable possession because, to their minds, the classes of possessees which crosslinguistically show a certain predilection for “being singled out for special treatment” – as Dahl (2004: 148) put it – thus forming the group of inalienable possessees is not absolutely identical in those languages for which an alienability split has been reported (Nichols 1988). The relevant lines of argumentation are aptly summarised in Heine (1997: 10–16) whose report is the basis for most of the following. The cross-linguistic non-identity of the classes of inalienable concepts notwithstanding, it is possible to enumerate those classes of possessees (or semantic domains) which are prone to inalienability (A21). Interestingly, there are no such lists for alienable possessees, i.e., one has to define alienability ex negativo by crossing out all cases of inalienable possessees and leave the rest as a kind of semantically amorphous mass. However, some instances discussed below suggest that alienability itself is not this kind of waste paper category. Independent of the problems of defining alienable possession semantically, one thing is clear: if one of the potential classes of inalienable possessees requires a formally distinct morphosyntactic treatment, then there must also be a class of alienable possessees. The exact borderline between these two (or more) classes is a matter of the individual language.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(A21)

Prime candidates for inalienability (Heine 1997: 10) type

domain

example

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

kinship roles body parts relational spatial concepts part-whole relations physical/mental states nominalisations individual concepts

father head bottom branch strength, fear (his) singing footprints

Type (g) contains a semantically heterogeneous group of possessees, some of which can be subsumed under body-parts in the widest sense (such as blood, smell, voice). Inalienability as a grammatically-relevant category is strongest with types (a)–(b) although languages may prefer one over the other when making a formal distinction between inalienable and alienable possessees. This cross-linguistic vacillation between body-parts and kinship roles has given rise to serious doubts about the semantic or conceptual motivation of possession splits. Chappell & McGregor (1996) make an attempt at identifying the conceptual leitmotifs which tie together the various domains in Table (A21). The criteria they put forward are social and/or biological bonds (between people), integral relationships (body-parts/part-whole relations), inherent relationships (spatial relations), and items essential for survival (Heine 1997: 11). In (A22), we reduce the number of criteria to three. Brackets indicate that the feature cannot be applied to all potential members of the class of possessees. Biology can be made responsible for kinship relations, body-part relations, and those things which are essential for one’s survival, whereas inherent relationships are translatable into part-whole relations and the same applies to body-parts etc. If it were not for the nominalisations of type (f), the overarching principles would boil down to biology and the part-whole kind – often in combination. The social aspect is largely restricted to non-blood family relations.

(A22)

Simplified feature list type

social

biological

part-whole

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

+ 0 0 0 0 0 (+)

(+) + (+) (+) (+) 0 (+)

0 + + + 0 0 (+)



Chapter 3.  Split possession 

Given this preponderance of biology and part-whole relations, it does not strike us as particularly difficult to give a semantic account of the inalienable possession. A prototype-based solution is feasible, although Helmbrecht (2003) points out general weaknesses of the prototype approach to possession. For a more general critique of the prototype model in cognitively-oriented linguistics, we refer the reader to Croft & Cruse (2004). One thing is clear however, if a language is subject to a formal distinction of alienable and inalienable possession, than either (a) or (b) or both form part of the paradigm of inalienable possessees. If any other class of possessees is treated as inalienable, than at least one of the types (a)–(b) are also among the inalienable possessees (Nichols 1992: 572). Note however, that if we talk about classes of possessees, this does not mean that all semantically fitting items behave alike. As a matter of fact, languages differ as to which and how many kinship or other relations they treat as inalienable. Furthermore, there may also be additional distinctions cutting across the various classes (e.g., interior organs of the body are treated differently from exterior organs when possessed, although both classes are again distinguished from other potential possessees). Therefore, the best reading of the information provided in Table (A20) runs as follows: in a given language, there is at least one possessee of class X which qualifies as inalienable. Examples for such domain-internal splits will be amply discussed throughout the bulk of this book. It is now time to look at some uncontroversial cases of the alienability correlation in order to get a grip on how these systems work.

3.1  Out of area For a start, consider examples (A23)–(A24) drawn from two non-European languages, namely South-American Maká, a Macro-Guaicurú language spoken in Paraguay, and the North-American Montagnais, a member of the Algonkin phylum spoken in Quebec. Both languages – as are so many other autochthonous languages of the Americas – are bona fide cases of languages with a grammatical alienability correlation. Examples of pronominal possession have been chosen for both languages. The pronominal prefixes indicate the possessor. Grey shading marks absence of any dedicated morphological device.

(A23)

(A23.1)

Maká (Gerzenstein 1994: 147–150) Kinship term (animate possessee) possessor person

prefix

1st 2nd 3rd 1st plural inclusive

e- Re- in-



possessee

translation

k’inix k’inix k’inix k’inix

‘my younger brother’ ‘your younger brother’ ‘his/her younger brother’ ‘our younger brother’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(A23.2)

(A23.3)



(A24)

(A24.1)

(A24.2)

(A24.3)

Body-part possessor person

prefix

possessee

translation

1st 2nd 3rd 1st plural inclusive

yi- o- Ro- in-

noki’ noki’ noki’ noki’

‘my elbow’ ‘your elbow’ ‘his/her elbow’ ‘our elbow’

Alienable concept (prototypical possessee) possessor person

prefix

possessiviser

possessee

translation

1st 2nd 3rd 1st plural inclusive

ye- e- Re- in-

qe- qe- qe- qe-

nenek nenek nenek nenek

‘my spoon’ ‘your spoon ‘his/her spoon’ ‘our spoon’

Montagnais (Martin 1991: 82–84) Kinship term (animate possessee) possessor person

prefix

possessee

translation

1st 2nd 3rd indefinite

n- c- ut- m-

6kaw 6kaw 6kaw 6kaw

‘my mother’ ‘your mother’ ‘his/her mother’ ‘someone’s mother/a mother’

Body-part possessor person

prefix

possessee

translation

1st 2nd 3rd indefinite

nI- cI- u- mI-

hIt hIt hIt hIt

‘my foot’ ‘your foot’ ‘his/her foot’ ‘someone’s foot/a foot’

Alienable concept (prototypical possessee) possessor person

prefix

possessee

possessiviser

translation

1st 2nd 3rd indefinite

n- cI- u- mI-

nIpi nIpi nIpi nIpi

-m -m -m -m

‘my water’ ‘your water’ ‘his/her water’ ‘someone’s water’



Chapter 3.  Split possession 

Although the two languages are by no means closely related and their speech-communities live at opposing extremes of the Americas, their possession systems nevertheless resemble each other to at least some extent. What is striking is the fact that, in both languages, it makes a difference whether the possessee is a body-part or kinship term, or whether it belongs to any other semantic field. As long as the possessee is a bodypart or kinship term, the possessor prefixes and the lexical morpheme representing the possessee are sufficient to produce the correct form of the morphological word. Other kinds of possessees, however, require the presence of additional morphological material, namely, in Maká, the inner prefix12 -qV-(with V being determined by the rules of vowel harmony – a rule which also applies to other prefix vowels in [A23]) and, in Montagnais, the suffix -(I)m (the choice of the correct allomorph is phonologically conditioned). These additional morphemes mark the possessee as such (“possedible” in the terms of Lehmann 1998). Maká and Montagnais are similar in another respect: in both languages, body-part and kinship terms cannot freely occur in absolute i.e., unpossessed form. Montagnais employs the indefinite possessor prefix m(I)- in order for body-part and kinship terms to be used in a generic or unspecific way – a practice which is in accordance with the one observed for Maká where wi(t)- is the indefinite possessor prefix which allows a generic reading for wit-apxusi’ ‘someone’s beard = a/ the beard’ and wi(t)-tata ‘someone’s father = a/the father’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 147, note 41). This is a requirement which can safely be termed un-European as there are no systematic cases of obligatory possessed state for any class of possessa in the languages of our European sample. What is important for the following argumentation is the fact that there is formal evidence for a bipartition: one class of possessees lacks an overt relator whereas the other one cannot do without a dedicated morphological marker. That the relator is absent from constructions which involve body-parts or kinship terms is fully in line with Nichols’s (1988) form-oriented assumptions about the special properties of inalienable possession (Heine 1997: 172–183). However, we do not agree with Nichols when she attempts to desemanticise the systems of alienability (for more details, see section 6.1). In accordance with Haiman (1985), one could interpret the lack of a morphological means to encode the possessive relation as an iconic reflex of the conceptual closeness of possessor and possessee in the case of kinship relations and body-parts. Leaving this issue open for the moment, what we learn from the Amerindian examples is that absence of a dedicated morphological marker nevertheless counts as formal evidence for the identification of categorial distinctions. Absence of overt relators is a recurrent theme in split possession systems of European languages. With a view to avoiding lengthy discussions about the correct morphological interpretation of this absence, we do not employ the term zero-morpheme.13 Absence of morphological means comes into play again in Maká and Montagnais. For Montagnais, Martin (1991: 84) wonders why certain possessees which are neither kinship

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

terms nor body-part terms require the additional relator morpheme whereas others do not: nI-mokÁman ‘my knife’ vs. nI-matIh-Im ‘my lighter’. Apart from the observation that all French loan nouns and nominalised relative clauses with ka- require the presence of -im when possessed (ka kocit ‘submarine [lit. that which dives]’ → nI-ka koci-m ‘my submarine’ [Martin 1991: 70]), whereas deverbal nominalisations usually lack this additional morpheme (nI-pwam-on ‘my dream [lit. my dreaming]’ with nominaliser -on), Martin refrains from postulating any rules. However it is legitimate to assume that there is at least one additional class of possessees, namely, the one which has an overt relator morpheme but may be used in absolute i.e., unpossessed form when appropriate. The concepts organised in this class of possessees are in-between properly inalienable concepts of the body-part and kinship kind and properly alienable ones. This intermediate class presupposes a culturally-dependent concept of closeness between possessor and possessee which exceeds the one ascribed to culturally less salient possessees, but fails to equal the one associated with inalienable concepts. For Maká, Gerzenstein (1994: 147 note 42) observes that as possessees certain kinship terms regularly lack an overt exponent if the possessor is the 1st person singular, whereas other kinship terms and body-part terms always also require an overt marker in this paradigmatic slot: y-uk ‘my nephew’. Thus, there is a formal contrast within the larger class of inalienable possessees. Some kin-related concepts seem to invoke a closer i.e., more inherent relation to the 1st person singular than others. Both Amerindian languages attest to two differently organised three-way distinctions: In Montagnais, there are two splits: one which separates alienable possessees from inalienable ones, and the other distinguishes kinship and body-parts from culturally salient concepts. The two splits in Maká also partition the possessees into two larger groups, namely inalienable and alienable concepts. Within the inalienable class, there is an additional distinction of close kin vs. distant relations and body-parts. If we look more closely at the evidence from Maká we realise that this language even keeps two classes of alienable concepts formally apart. According to Gerzenstein (1994: 156), domestic animals and plants do not behave like other alienable possessees because they require the presence of a possessive classifier (Aikhenvald 2000: 125–148)-Rinwhich hosts the possessor affixes.

(A25)

Maká (Gerzenstein 1994 : 156) PUM

POR yi-R in-h-ey

nunax-its

POR.1--- ‘my dogs’

dog-



Chapter 3.  Split possession 

Thus there are formal grounds for postulating more fine-grained possession systems for the two Amerindian languages.14

(A26)

Possessee classes in Montagnais and Maká



Montagnais



II

III

kin/body-part

culturally salient items/ deverbal nominalisations

rest



kin I

kin II/body-parts

domestic animals/plants

rest



I

II

III

IV



I

Maká

The outcome of the comparison of the two Amerindian languages shows that their categorial distinctions map onto each other in a peculiar way. First of all, they have different numbers of distinctions: three vs. four. Both systems share the difference between possessees which belong to types (a)–(b) of Table (A20) and other possessees. However, these other possessees behave differently in both languages. On the one hand, Maká privileges domestic animals and plants by reserving a distinct possessive construction for them, whereas these possessees seem to belong to the general class of alienable items in Montagnais. In Montagnais, however, certain culturally important items and deverbal nominalisations receive a special morphological treatment which makes them similar to those possessees which are in the class of inalienable concepts. Furthermore, Maká sub-divides the inalienable concepts into two classes by way of granting certain kinship terms a special status. How does one account for this supposed over-differentiation? Are certain concepts more inalienable than others which are still inalienable? It is tempting to interpret systems of split possession as a more or less direct device of classifying possessed nouns.15 In languages like Maká and Montagnais, the choice of the correct possessive construction correlates with the semantic class-membership of a given noun. In a way, the relation between possessive construction and the possessee resembles, for instance, the one of nouns and grammatical gender in many IndoEuropean languages. This is especially the case in those languages where possessees belong to fixed classes, i.e., where it is not possible for a possessed noun to shift from one class to the other according to the actual aspects of a possessive situation the speaker wants to highlight at the time of the utterance. Just as with gender systems (Corbett 1999), classification via assignment to possessive classes allows for a wide range of cross-linguistic variation on the micro-level and also on the meso-level. A higher degree of similarity, however, is characteristic of the macro-level.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

3.2  Obligatoriness Possession splits are not the monopoly of non-European majority of the world’s languages. Possession splits of various kinds also abound in Europe. In contradistinction to the grammatical distinctions identified for Maká and Montagnais, however, the distinctions of possession categories are often less eye-catching because they either lack a dedicated morphological expression reserved solely for them or their overt marking is dependent on a variety of factors which affect obligatoriness. While a noun in Maká and Montagnais is always overtly classified as inalienable or alienable (or subcategories thereof) by morphosyntactic means, possessees in European languages may require a specification of their possessive status only under certain conditions or, the other way around, an overt dedicated marking of the possessive relation can be systematically blocked in a given context. Consider the Spanish examples in (A27).

(A27)

Variable marking

(A27.1)

[HP I Spanish, 30] POR PUM Tío Vernon golpeó con los nudillos Uncle Vernon knock:3sg.past with det:pl knuckle:pl ‘Uncle Vernon knocked with his knuckles (on the pane).’

(A27.2)

[HP I Spanish, 30] (POR1) PUM1 POR1* PUM2 levantó [la cabeza] hasta que [sus ojos] raise:3sg.past det head until that her:pl eye:pl PUM3 ℜ PUM2 ℜ POR2 estuvieron a-[l nivel [de los [de Harry]]] be:3pl.past at-det level of det:pl of Harry ‘She (= the boa) raised her head until her eyes were on the same level as Harry’s.’

The two Spanish sentences are revealing. In the simpler one (= [A27.1]), there is no possessive pronoun, although los nudillos ‘the knuckles’ are body-parts of the agent Tío Vernon who uses them as instruments. One would have expected to find sus – the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (both numbers) appropriate for a plural possessee. However, *sus nudillos ‘his knuckles’ in spite of its being perfectly grammatically well formed is, at least stylistically, unacceptable in the given context. The definite article accompanies the noun representing the possessee (Guéron 2003) in lieu of the possessive pronoun. What one usually expects when definite articles occur is the introduction of the determined noun as a new discourse participant in indefinite form in a previous part of the same discourse/text (see below). However, this is not the case with los nudillos: they have neither been mentioned before nor do they play any role in the subsequent paragraphs. The use of the definite article is justified solely by the relation



Chapter 3.  Split possession 

between the agent and the body-part instrument. As long as there is no reason to assume the contrary, the body-part mentioned is associated with the animate participant co-present as the agent or subject in the same utterance. This association between animate participant and body-part is underlined by the use of the definite article. Clearly, signalling possessive relationships is not the primary task of definite articles in Spanish. Thus, the possessive reading of the construction under scrutiny is indirect or parasitic, in a manner of speaking. (A27.2) is more complex in the sense that it contains four possessive relations. Moreover, it also illustrates why, under certain conditions, the use of the definite article is dispreferred although the animate agent is also the possessor of the body-part noun occurring in the same sentence. The possessor of la cabeza ‘the head’ is the boa constrictor known from the previous paragraphs of the text. The possessor is co-encoded in the person-tense marker on the sentence-initial finite verb. The possessee la cabeza behaves like los nudillos in the previous example: the definite article is used because there is an unequivocal possessive relationship to the subject of the sentence. Why then do we have sus ojos ‘her eyes’ in lieu of the expected los ojos? The body-part noun again represents the possessee of the subject of the sentence. However, this time, the sentential context is different: there are a second pair of eyes (in an elliptic construction los __ de Harry ‘the (ones = eyes) of Harry’) and another possessor comes into play too, namely Harry Potter. The possessive pronoun is employed as a contrastive device in order to ensure the correct reference. *los ojos alone would not be distinctive enough. Thus, the possessive pronoun can be dispensed with if the possessive relation involves a body-part term which is the possessee of the subject. The usual substitute for the possessive pronoun is the definite article. This strategy is blocked however if the co-presence of potentially competing possessors gives rise to uncertainties. These uncertainties are strongest if the same or a similar kind of possessee is co-present as well. Cases like (A28) are unproblematic.

(A28)

Disambiguating [HP I Spanish, 30] POR1 PUM1 Dudley permaneció con [la nariz] apretada contra el vidrio Dudley remain:3sg.past with det nose press:part against det glass PUM2 ℜ POR2* PUM3/POR3 contemplando [el brillo [de [su piel]]] contemplate:ger det shine of her skin ‘Dudley remained with his nose flat against the glass contemplating the shine of her skin.’

There is again a possessive relation between the subject Dudley and the body-part noun la nariz as a possessee. No likely competitor for the role of possessor of the nose is co-present. However, in the infinite adverbial clause there is the possessive pronoun su ‘her’ embedded in the genitive construction el brillo de su piel ‘the shine of her skin’ functioning as an attribute to the body-part noun piel ‘skin’. Su does not refer to

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Dudley but to the boa-constrictor mentioned earlier in the text whose skin is shining. The use of su is again motivated by the necessity to disambiguate two possible readings. This time, however, the pronoun does not refer to the subject as in (A27.2), but rather to a sentence-external participant. Thus, the main function of su in sentences with possessor competition is to create a contrast and it depends on the individual sentence whether the reference of su is to the subject or the other possessor. We may conclude therefore that the possessive pronoun is largely neutral as to alienability and inalienability – its use is determined by various factors one of which is disambiguation. The definite article is employed in possessive contexts mainly where the relation between possessor and possessee is of the inalienable kind (preferably body-parts as possessee), their morphosyntactic expressions belong to different phrases and the possessor is identical to the subject of the sentence. This is a rather complex set of conditions which makes the situation difficult to grasp even in a superficial inspection. Inalienable possessees are distinguished from other possessees in Spanish constructions of the above type as follows. Any possessee may be represented by a definite NP in a given sentence and thus lack the possessive pronoun. However, if the possessee is alienable, then the definite article is legitimate if and only if the possessee has been explicitly mentioned before. For body-part terms, prior introduction as a new discourse participant is not only unnecessary but also rarely observed. The definite article accompanying body-part nouns is justified by the undisputed “logical” relation between possessor and possessee when co-present in the same sentence, the definite article used with other possessees is motivated by discourse factors (cf. also section 5.1.1.2.4). This is exactly the point where our dissent with Nichols’s (1992) approach is strongest. If, for a possessive construction, a high degree of grammaticalisation is indispensable and if this high degree involves obligatory marking, then many languages of Europe indeed fail to qualify as languages with split possession. However, it is exactly this restriction to the most grammaticalised and obligatory instances which gives rise to the idea that especially inalienable possession as a morphosyntactically encoded category is largely dissociated from semantic or conceptual factors and owes its existence to discourse frequency and head-marking tendencies (Nichols 1992: 121–122). If we extend our view to (more or less) facultative encoding, however, the emerging picture is different from the one painted by Nichols (1988, 1992) and Chappell & McGregor (1989, 1996). The difference becomes even more radical if, in addition to facultative encoding, we also take indirect symbolisation into consideration. A case in point are external possessors. External possessors have been extensively investigated in the recent past. König & Haspelmath (1997) and Haspelmath (1999a) study external possessors from a European perspective, (cf. also section 5.1.1.2.3). Most of the descriptions of phenomena associated with inalienability in individual European languages, one way or another, focus on external possessors (see for instance Neumann [1996] on German, Manoliu-Manea [1996] on Rumanian, Burridge [1993]



Chapter 3.  Split possession 

on Middle Dutch, Haegeman [2003] on West Flemish, etc.). (A29) is an example of an external possessor construction typical of Maltese.

(A29)

External possessor [LPP Maltese, 3] (POR) PUM in-kisr-it-li xi ħaġa fil-magna ref-break.perf-3sg.f-IO:1sg some thing in:det-machine ‘Something broke in my machine.’

The possessive relation conforms to the prototype as the possessor is identical to ego and the possessee is an inanimate concrete object (although a definite one). The reading invoked is ‘my machine’ which could be rendered in Maltese as il-magna tiegħi ‘lit. the machine of-me’. In the latter construction, possessor and possessee form an NP together in which the possessee is syntactically the head and the possessor the attribute. In example (A29), however, in contrast to the bulk of the previous examples, the relation that connects possessor and possessee is only expressed indirectly. The possessor comes in the guise of the indirect object marked by the pronominal “clitic” -li ‘to me’ on the finite verb. Note that the argument structure of the verb does not require any indirect object at all since inkisritli is, on the one hand, a passive-reflexive form and, on the other, the active verb kiser ‘to break’ – on which the actual form is based – is monotransitive. There is thus no structural reason for the presence of -li on the finite verb. Semantically, the role of the participant encoded by the indirect object marker is the malefactive, i.e., the possessor of the machine is himself depicted as being affected negatively by the fact that something broke in the possessee. The necessity of expressing the affectedness of the possessor provides the functional motivation for what is called possessor raising or possessor ascension in the literature: an under­ lying NP-internal pronominal possessor is promoted to a higher syntactic rank. The position most easily accessed is the one of the free dative – a kind of fake argument of the finite verb. Affectedness and involvement overrule the default rules of syntax: the possessor is too strongly involved (though not actively) to be left in situ. The attributive function of the pronominal possessive does not adequately mirror the higher degree of involvement/affectedness of the possessor (Lehmann; Shin & Verhoeven 2000). External possessors are highly frequent with inalienably possessed items – especially body-parts. Example (A30) from the Germanic language West Frisian is a typical case.

(A30)

External possessor [LPP West-Frisian, 9–10] POR PUM ik […] wreau my I […] rub:1.. me ‘I rubbed my eyes fervently.’

[de 

eagen] eye:

út out

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

This is often the normal way to construe the possessive relationship between a prototypical possessor and a body-part possessee in Frisian and many other languages of Europe. The possessor may be identical with the referent of the sentence subject, but this is not compulsory. Possessor ascension is not obligatory either. If the possessee does not belong to the class of typical body-parts, the possessor remains in situ and is encoded by a possessive pronoun, as in (A31) where the colours (of the personified flower) are the possessee. However, possessor ascension is not absolutely ruled out.

(A31)

Internal possessor [LPP West-Frisian, 29] POR

PUM hy socht mei soarch he search: with care ‘He (=th flower) carefully sought out his colours.’

[syn his

kleuren] colour:

út out

Admittedly, both phenomena (= use of the definite article, external possessor) are examples of covert categorisation: neither of the two is dedicated to the encoding of possession. The definite article has other primary functions (determination; identification) and free datives as well as regular indirect objects have primarily non-possessive functions (benefactive, malefactive, recipient; third argument). The possessive reading of the respective constructions is only a secondary function whose activation depends on a range of special conditions. In this light, Nichols (1992) could still be right when she depicts Europe as an area free of the alienability correlation because she takes into account only those cases which are grammaticalised in the strict sense of the term. Her hypothesis about the dissociation of semantics and (in)alienability could then be acceptable for grammatically relevant possessive distinctions. Where the potential distinctions have not been fully grammaticalised yet or lack standardised ways of expression, one could argue that semantics are more important than discourse prominence (and in this way postulate a diachronic scenario leading from a stage of semanticallybased, but not grammaticalised, distinctions to discourse-based grammaticalised distinctions). With a view towards testing the tenability of this supposed reconciliation of Nichols’s approach and the more semantically-oriented one advocated here, we will first look extensively at cases of overt and grammatically relevant possession splits in the languages of Europe.

part b

Tour d’Europe

chapter 4

Grammatical possession splits Sections 4 and 5 are dedicated not only to those possessive categories which correspond more closely to what is usually termed the alienability correlation or alienability split, but also to other kinds of possession splits which are presented in some detail. In this section, we scrutinise those cases where European languages display highly grammaticalised and systematic possession splits. This distinction is not meant to be a strict one in the sense that possession splits in other languages of Europe would be “ungrammatical”. However, Maltese, the insular North Germanic languages, especially Icelandic and Faroese and to a somewhat lesser degree some of their relatives on the Scandinavian mainland, especially Norwegian, and finally members of the Celtic phylum, foremost among them Scots Gaelic and Breton, make use of possessive distinctions more consistently than many other European languages. Moreover, the lexico-semantic domains affected by possession splits are much larger in the above mentioned languages than elsewhere in Europe. Other languages often single out rather specific subsets of potential possessees and treat them differently from the bulk of their nominal lexicon and thus give the impression that the possession split is a relatively marginal phenomenon within the grammatical system. This apparent marginal status often goes along with a certain degree of optionality meaning that the various categories are formally distinguished only if certain pragmatic or stylistic conditions are met. In contradistinction to these cases, the possession splits are almost obligatorily made explicit in the individual languages mentioned above. Style interferes only on a minor scale, if at all. Pragmatics however is often a crucial factor. For expository purposes, we feel it is best to start our presentation of the facts with the most grammaticalised varieties of possession splits in Europe – and only after reviewing them will we continue with the discussion of the less obvious cases which then will become much clearer because of the knowledge we have acquired via the analysis of the major possession split systems. In section 4.1, Maltese is in the centre of attention because Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1996: 270–271) observes that with regard to possessive distinctions associated with the alienability correlation the Maltese pattern is typologically well-known and is found in many places of the world, [but] it is fairly unique in Europe and, probably, in Northern Eurasia, even though the alienability opposition is expressed in at least some of these languages […]. On the other hand, although this pattern is frequent in Africa and

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

occurs in some Afro-Asiatic languages […], it is definitely a rare phenomenon in the Semitic family.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm depict Maltese as special case both in terms of genealogy and areality: the Maltese alienability distinction [is] a typologically frequent, but utterly nonEuropean and fairly non-Semitic pattern (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1996: 271).

In order to demonstrate that the assumed uniqueness of Maltese within the confines of Europe does not hold up, we move to the North West of Europe to check the situation found in North Germanic (section 4.2). From there, we extend our perspective to include the Celtic languages on the western rim of the continent (section 4.3). Section 4.4 is devoted to an evaluation of the possession splits found in North Germanic and Celtic in which we identify the common core of the possession splits reported for our case studies.

4.1  Maltese Maltese is an Afro-Asiatic language closely related to the Neo-Arabic varieties of North Africa. Maltese has been under very intensive long-term influence from Italian and its southern varieties, especially Sicilian. This partial Romanisation has left its marks not only in the lexicon of modern Maltese, but also in the realm of Maltese grammar from phonology via morphology to syntax (Stolz 2003). To some extent, the possessive system has been affected indirectly by Italianisation, too, albeit without overly dramatic effects on the erstwhile Semitic structure except for an increase of the frequency of one of the competing constructions (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1996: 271). In section 4.1.1, we present the data from attributive possession divided into pronominal possession (section 4.1.1.1) and genitive constructions (section 4.1.1.2). Section 4.1.2 provides the necessary sketch of predicative possession in Maltese. The three types of possession are tentatively mapped onto each other in section 4.1.3.

4.1.1  Attributive possession 4.1.1.1  Pronominal possession For reasons which will become clear instantly, pronominal possession offers the best introduction to the possessive system of Maltese. Maltese employs two different possessive constructions with a pronominally encoded possessor. The two constructions are exemplified in (B1).16

(B1)



(B1.1)

Maltese: competing constructions Bound possessor marker [LPP Maltese, 19] iċ-ċkejken prinċep st-qarr-li sigriet dwar det-small prince ref-confess.perf-IO:1sg secret about



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

ħaj-t-u life-PUM.f-POR.3sg.M ‘The Little Prince confessed a secret about his life to me.’

(B1.2)

Inflected preposition [LPP Maltese, 36] imma inti qiegħed waħd-ek fuq il-pjaneta tiegh-ek but you be:part one-2sg on det-planet of-2sg ‘But you are alone on your planet!’

In (B1), the possessee is the common noun hajja ‘life’ which, as a feminine singular noun ending in -a, adds the dental increment -t-(called t-marbuta ‘bound t’ in Maltese grammar [Akkademja 2001: 20–21]) to the stem under possession. This -t- characterises the noun as possessed. The possessor is encoded by an additional suffix – in this case -u for a masculine singular possessor (anaphorically related to the sentence subject iċ-ċkejken prinċep ‘the little prince’). Thus, possessor marking takes place on the possessed noun itself. In (B2) however, the possessee pjaneta ‘planet’ does not host the possessor morpheme. Possessor marking is relegated to the inflected preposition ta’ ‘of ’ whose stem is subject to morphophonological changes.17 For the 2nd person singular, the possessor is marked by the suffix -ek added to the stem tiegh-. Possessee and possessor therefore do not form a single morphological word together but are distributed over two separate words. Furthermore, there is also a minor syntactic boundary separating possessee and possessor as the attribute is a PP of its own. For nouns which host a possessor affix, the combination with the proclitic definite article is blocked whereas those nouns which are accompanied by the inflected preposition almost invariably also take the definite article. In sum, the two constructions are formally maximally distinct (head-marking vs. dependentmarking). Since bound possessor markers are used for concepts which invoke the notion of inalienability whereas the prepositional construction normally does not, Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1996: 248) interprets the constructional differences along the lines of Haiman’s (1985: 106) hypothesis of iconic motivation according to which formal distance on the expression side reflects conceptual distance on the content side. Before we look at further distinctive properties of the two constructions, a survey of the morphological forms involved in the paradigms of possessor marking is in order (Ambros 1998: 73–75). In (B2) the possessor affixes on three different possessees are listed. In the singular, the affixes of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person masculine are subject to phonologically induced allomorphy. A 1st person singular possessor is normally encoded by -i; on (preferably monosyllabic) stems ending in a vowel or in the palatal approximant /j/, -ja is the appropriate allomorph. In the 2nd person, -ek is used on consonant-final stems except for those which contain a mid-high back vowel [ɔ]/ [o˜] – the presence of which triggers vowel harmony, i.e., the possessor marker takes

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

the form -ok. The third allomorph, the purely consonantal -k is used on vowel-final stems and those ending in -j. The possessor in the 3rd person masculine comes in two shapes: it is either encoded by -u on all kinds of consonant-final stems, with the notable exception of those with final -j, or by -h []/[χ] on stems ending in a vowel or the palatal approximant. This variation of possessor-marking allomorphs has no semantic correlate, it is purely phonological in nature.

(B2)

Paradigm of bound possessor markers ħajja ‘life’

fomm ‘mouth’

ħu ‘brother’

possessor

ħaj-t-i ħaj-t-ek ħaj-t-u ħaj-t-ha ħaj-t-na ħaj-t-kom ħaj-t-hom

fomm-i fomm-ok fomm-u fomm-ha fomm-na fomm-kom fomm-hom

ħi-ja ħu-k ħu-h ħu-ha ħu-na ħu-kom ħu-hom

1sg 2sg 3sg.m 3sg.f 1pl 2pl 3pl

In (B3), the paradigm of the preposition ta’ is given in full. Ta’ is only one of a rather large number of inflected prepositions in Maltese, i.e., there is nothing special about the fact that this preposition is sensitive to person distinctions. There are stem allomorphs in the paradigm, namely tiegħ- in the first three slots and tagħ- for the remainder of the paradigm. In combination with the possessor suffixes -ha and -hom, the otherwise “silent” stem-final is pronounced [χ] and thus a third stem alternate can be postulated. This fricative pronunciation is marked by the IPA symbol in the paradigm below. Stem alternations of this kind are not common in the prepositional morphology of Maltese. There is however one exact parallel: the comitative-prolative preposition ma’ ‘with, along’ displays exactly the same alternations in the same paradigmatic positions with miegħi ‘with me’, miegħek ‘with you’ and miegħu ‘with him’ as opposed to magħha [χ] ‘with her’, magħna ‘with us’, magħkom ‘with you’ and magħhom [χ] ‘with them’ (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1996: 260).

(B3)

Paradigm of inflected preposition ta’ ‘of ’

possessor

tiegħ-i tiegħ-ek tiegħ-u tagħ-ha [χ] tagħ-na tagħ-kom tagħ-hom [χ]

1sg 2sg 3sg.m 3sg.f 1pl 2pl 3pl



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

The functional domain of ta’ is relatively restricted as it mostly occurs in the wider context of possession. Other usages are summarised in Ambros (1998: 77–78). It has no spatial functions. Except for the 1st person singular, bound possessor markers themselves resemble direct and indirect object markers (“clitics”) on finite verbs. In addition, they are also frequently attested on hosts stemming from other word classes such as numerals, adverbs, etc. In sentence (B4), we encounter the bound object markers -k and -ha which correspond exactly to the possessor affixes of the 2nd and 3rd person singular feminine in (B2). In addition, (B4) also contains the inflected instrumental preposition bi ‘with’ which hosts the person suffix -h for the 3rd person singular masculine, which is identical to the appropriate allomorph of the possessor affix of the same person.

(B4)

Maltese bound object markers [LPP Maltese, 8] u jekk t-kun dħuli n-agħti-k ħabel and if 2sg-be.fut nice 1sg-give.imperf-O.2sg rope biex t-orbot-ha bi-h matul il-ġurnata with.which 2sg-tie.imperf-O.3sg.f with-3sg.m along det-day ‘And if you are kind, I’ll give you a rope to fasten it with (it) during daytime.’

Table (B5) surveys the entire paradigm of the object markers for both direct and indirect objects. The allomorphy is largely phonologically conditioned and follows the same rules as those mentioned for the possessor morphemes. Below we will look more closely at those cases which are not subsumed under the same set of allomorphic rules.

(B5)

Paradigm of Maltese bound object markers direct object

indirect object

person

-ni -k/-ek/-ok -u/-hu/-h -ha -na -kom -hom

-l-i -l-ek/-l-ok -l-u -(i)l-ha -(i)l-na -(i)l-kom -(i)l-hom

1sg 2sg 3sg.m 3sg.f 1pl 2pl 3pl

The indirect object marker is itself morphologically complex because it consists of an initial segment -l- (to which an epenthetic i- is added in inter-consonantal position) and the by now familiar person exponents normally found on inflected prepositions. This comes as no surprise as the indirect object marker is historically nothing other than the regularly inflected preposition lil ‘to, for’ agglutinated to the finite verb. For the direct object markers, only two forms need to be explained, while all the others are identical to the possessor affixes. In the 3rd person singular masculine, there is an

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

additional allomorph -hu which turns out to be more of an allograph. It is used only if the direct object marker is followed by an indirect object marker (with the consequence that stress is shifted to the direct object marker: when stressed, vowels of person markers – be they subject or object markers – are raised [ráj-t-ha ‘I saw her’ versus ma raj-t-híe-x ‘I did not see her’], whereas possessor affixes never bear stress and thus always remain phonologically unaltered). The use of -hu- in this context is motivated by the fact that complex word forms of this kind may become ambiguous (in reading!) because a simple -u- could also be understood as the plural marker of subjects in the imperfective (= j-iktb-(h)u-lu ‘they write to him’ versus ‘he writes it to him’) or the 3rd person plural subject marker in the perfective (= kitb-u-lu ‘they wrote to him’ versus kitib-hu-lu ‘he wrote it to him’) or the final segment of the marker of the 2nd person plural subject in the perfective (= ktib-tu-lu ‘you [pl] wrote to him’ versus ktib-t-hu-lu ‘I/you [sg] wrote it to him’). Apart form the written form, the markers for direct object and possessor in the 3rd person singular masculine are, of course, identical. This is different with the 1st person singular. In this paradigmatic slot, the direct object marker -ni and the allomorphs of the possessor affix -i/-ja are clearly distinct. Thus, there is considerable overlap of the two paradigms – but they are definitely not identical. What this means is that we can exclude any reference to the object markers from our further discussion and concentrate on the issue at hand, viz. possession proper. In extant descriptions and practical language teaching material, there is a tendency to downplay the importance of bound possessor markers. They are often depicted as exceptional (Vella 1994: 17), severely restricted as to combinations with nouns (Ambros 1998: 75) and largely optional (Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 113) remnants of an erstwhile more productive system (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1996: 252–253). They are considered typical of the written register, whereas they are supposed to occur less frequently in spoken Maltese and modern journalistic prose (Fenech 1978: 67–69). The prepositional construction therefore appears to be the dominating one. More pointedly, Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1996: 270) summarises her findings by saying that Maltese is a typical language with alienability distinction in that 1) it opposes a limited small set of ‘inalienably’ possessed nominals […] to an open class of nominals which can head constructions referring to alienable possession.

Before we discuss the functional domains of the two constructions, we will briefly look at what Ambros (1998: 75) has to say about the phonology-based rules which supposedly regulate the choice of the appropriate construction. According to him, possessor markers – in principle – can be affixed to all nouns of Arabic (probably more generally Semitic) origin. In addition to these, Italian (probably more generally Romance) nouns may also take the possessor suffixed provided that they are relatively short and end in a consonant. Vowel-final nouns and longer nouns whose



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

phonological shape deviates strongly from the Arabic patterns cannot host possessor affixes. Likewise, nouns borrowed from English do not undergo possessor affixation. Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear what exactly is meant by deviation from the Arabic pattern. Without further elaboration on this issue by the quoted author, we have serious difficulties in understanding why a noun like monument ‘monument’ should violate the phonological templates of the Semitic component of Maltese if we consider word-forms like wassalt ‘I/you led [somebody somewhere]’ where final consonant clusters are regularly admissible. Other examples provided by Ambros (1998: 75) suggest that the number of syllables may be decisive, although this is not explicitly stated: passiġġata ‘walk’ is one such presumably longish word. However, the plural of missier ‘father’, missierijiet ‘fathers’, also has four syllables and is nevertheless the host of possessor affixes as in missirijietkom ‘your (pl) fathers’. It cannot be ruled out that phonological complexity is a factor which also bears on the issue of possessor affixation. However, it seems to be of minor importance, if at all. Accordingly, Ambros (1998: 75) himself admits that the distribution of the possessor affixes over nouns is predominantly determined by semantic factors. What are these semantic factors? In the literature on Maltese, there is agreement as to the major groups of possessees which may take bound possessor markers. Kinship terms and body-part terms are acknowledged as the prototypical instances. In addition, there are a variety of other nouns which do not lend themselves to a classification as kinship terms or body-part terms. The exact composition of this additional group of nouns is often left unspecified. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1996: 257) evaluates the findings of Eksell Harning (1980) in order to provide a list of semantic areas which take possessor suffixes or require the prepositional construction. Ambros (1998: 75) enumerates five to six classes of possessor suffixation two of which are missing from Koptjevs­kaja-Tamm’s inventory, namely physical-mental states of humans and human occupations (in the widest sense of the term). However, Ambros’ own categorisation is not entirely satisfactory as he considers periods of one’s lifetime such as tfulija ‘childhood’ an example of a state although there is a category time/periods in his list too. Owing to this somewhat confusing situation, it is advisable to have a look at the actual language data and decide for ourselves. Ambros (1998: 75) briefly reports on a corpus analysis of journalistic Maltese. He only counted 58 types of nouns with possessor suffixes. Of the 58, only three types are said not to correspond to the semantically-based classes he postulates (= body-part terms, kinship terms, time/periods, place, physical-mental states of humans, human occupations). There are several remarks to be made on account of Ambros’ study. First of all, journalistic Maltese has been classified as a genre which disfavours possessor marking via suffixation (cf. above). Therefore, the supposedly low figures of type frequency have to be taken with some caution, because they are expected. Secondly,

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

type frequency is perhaps not indicative of the overall frequency of the phenomenon under scrutiny. Given that many of the items which allow for possessor suffixes are themselves highly frequent nouns, the token frequency of possessor suffixes might still be noteworthy, and thus the formal distinction of two possessive categories, in all likelihood, is not a marginal affair. In the absence of a fully-fledged frequency dictionary of Maltese, much of what we have to say remains conjecture. Likewise, we cannot counterbalance Ambros’ findings with the urgently needed data from spoken Maltese for the simple reason that there is as yet no suitably large corpus available. The best we can do for the time being is to have a look at the transcripts in Puech’s (1994) collection of dialect texts and Vanhove’s (1993) syntactic description of spoken Maltese. Both authors provide valuable material from spontaneous spoken language. It is of course hardly sufficient to investigate the frequency of one of the competing constructions alone because the preferences and dispreferences become clear only if both options are statistically compared. For the purpose of comparison, we have selected the dialect texts from the village Sannat, spoken on Gozo, the smaller sister island of Malta (Puech 1994: 39–58) and the bread-baking story (Vanhoeve 1993: 434–459). The dialect texts from Sannat centre around religiously inspired topics, whereas the bread-baking story is a detailed description of the procedure of baking bread before the introduction of modern bakeries on Malta. Consider the statistical results in (B6)–(B7). The possessees are given in the standard orthography in their citation form (= singular) with the English translation for the citation form. Note that, under possession, ħaġa appears in the plural ħwejjeġ with the meaning ‘clothes’ and raġel in its secondary meaning ‘husband’.

(B6)

Sannat dialect data

suffixed possessor

types missier ‘father’ omm ‘mother iben ‘son’ id ‘hand’ għajn ‘eye’ għonq ‘neck’ ħdan ‘bossom’ pajjiż ‘country’ ras ‘head’ rkobba ‘knee’ sid ‘master’ ħaġa ‘thing’ 12 types

prepositional construction

tokens 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 tokens

types parruċċan ‘member of parish’ port ‘harbour’ raba’ ‘fields, farmland’ affari ‘affair’ familja ‘family’ għalqa ‘field’ isqof ‘bishop’ maħżen ‘warehouse’ mant ‘mantle’ reliġjun ‘religion’ studju ‘studies’ qassis ‘priest’ 12 types

tokens 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 tokens





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits

(B7)

Bread-baking story

suffixed possessor

types omm ‘mother’ missier ‘father’ ras ‘head’ ħu ‘brother’ id ‘hand’ wiċċ ‘face’ 6 types

prepositional construction tokens 6 4 4 1 1 1

17 tokens

types raġel ‘man’ forn ‘oven, stove’ ħobż ‘bread’ xogħol ‘work’

4 types

tokens 3 1 1 1

6 tokens

In both tables, the results do not confirm the supposed statistical dominance of the prepositional construction for the encoding of pronominal possessors. The number of types is fairly evenly distributed: there are altogether 14 different types for possessor suffixation as opposed to 16 types of the prepositional construction. As to token frequency, possessor suffixation with 38 tokens is clearly preferred over the PP which accounts for only 22 tokens. No noun appears in both columns. The most frequent types with possessor suffixation – omm, missier, ras – each outnumber those possessees which rank highest in the frequency count for prepositional encoding of the possessor (parruċċan, raġel). With a value of 2.71, the average token frequency of nouns with possessor suffixes is significantly higher than the one calculated for the members of the other group which amounts to 1.375 per item. Notwithstanding the fact that the statistical basis is still insufficient to allow any definite conclusions, it is nevertheless clear that an exact relation between the two competing constructions is less straightforward than previously assumed. In Tables (B6–7), kinship terms and body-part terms clearly dominate among the possessees taking possessor suffixes. With a view to establishing how far beyond these two prototypical cases the functional domain of possessor suffixation actually extends, we have looked at the occurrences of possessor marking via suffixation in the fourth volume of Herbert Ganado’s bulky memoires, entitled Rajt Malta tinbidel ‘I saw Malta changing’; volume IV is 590 pages long and written in educated but not stilted literary Maltese. Ganado’s book suits our purpose in many respects because it contains a bit of everything: side by side, we find dialogues both in everyday language and officialese, sometimes longish quotes from administrative documents, lawyers’ terminology, speeches, reports, narrative passages etc. (not to mention entire paragraphs in English and verses from once popular Italian operas and songs). This source dates back to 1977. The attested cases of possessor marking appear in top-down order according to their token frequency in Table (B8).



 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B8)

Possessees with suffixed possessor in Ganado’s autobiography type

possessee

gloss

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

pajjiż ruħ id ras missier qalb ħajja isem mara ulied dar nifs għajn post omm żmien moħħ ħasba ħila sieħeb flus ħu bżonn wiċċ saħħa żewġ nofs ġmiel iben sieq waqt ħalq tfulija xagħra bint ġisem ħabib nanna oħt sid spalla dmir saba’ triq

‘country’ ‘soul’ ‘hand’ ‘head’ ‘father’ ‘heart’ ‘life’ ‘name’ ‘wife, woman’ ‘children’ ‘home, house’ ‘breath, self ’ ‘eye’ ‘place’ ‘mother’ ‘time’ ‘brain’ ‘thought’ ‘ability’ ‘companion’ ‘money’ ‘brother’ ‘need’ ‘face’ ‘health’ ‘husband’ ‘half ’ ‘beauty’ ‘son’ ‘foot’ ‘point in time’ ‘mouth’ ‘childhood’ ‘hair’ ‘daughter’ ‘body’ ‘friend’ ‘grandmother’ ‘sister’ ‘Lord, master’ ‘shoulder’ ‘duty’ ‘finger’ ‘street’

tokens 448 251 106 81 52 50 48 41 41 41 40 39 37 37 33 33 31 28 24 24 22 22 20 20 19 18 17 16 16 16 14 13 12 11 10 10 10 9 8 8 8 7 7 6

semantic field home X body-part body-part kinship body-part life kinship kinship home X body-part home kinship life body-part X X kinship kinship body-part X kinship part-whole X kinship body-part life body-part life body-part kinship body-part kinship kinship kinship kinship body-part body-part



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits  45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90



żgħożija ziju dahar għonq kamra leħen nannu nies raj widen xogħol denb għomor sehem sinna xoffa ħaġa mnieher qoxra sider affari bieb ċkunija dnub għemil gieh kelma kwiet lsien rkobba salib art but bużnannu demm fomm ġenb għerf ħdan ħin ħobż ħoġor jedd kuġinu kunjom mewt

‘youth’ ‘uncle’ ‘back’ ‘neck’ ‘room’ ‘voice’ ‘grandfather’ ‘people’ ‘opinion’ ‘ear’ ‘work’ ‘tail’ ‘lifetime’ ‘share, part’ ‘tooth’ ‘lip’ ‘thing’ ‘nose’ ‘shell’ ‘breast, chest’ ‘business’ ‘door’ ‘childhood’ ‘sin’ ‘deed’ ‘honour’ ‘word’ ‘rest’ ‘language’ ‘knee’ ‘cross’ ‘land’ ‘pocket’ ‘great-grandfather’ ‘blood’ ‘mouth’ ‘side’ ‘knowledge’ ‘bosom’ ‘time’ ‘bread’ ‘lap’ ‘right’ ‘cousin’ ‘surname’ ‘death’

6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

life kinship body-part body-part home X kinship kinship X body-part body-part life part-whole body-part body-part clothes body-part part-whole body-part home life

X

body-part home clothes kinship body-part body-part body-part X body-part life body-part X kinship life

Continued

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe type

possessee

gloss

91 92 93 94 95 96 97

minfes neputija qarib rux sensu tarf twelid

‘nostril’ ‘niece, granddaughter’ ‘next, family relation’ ‘feathers’ ‘sense’ ‘extremity’ ‘birth’

tokens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

semantic field body-part kinship kinship body-part part-whole life

In terms of qualities, the possessees can be classified as follows:18 • class A – body-part terms: this group can be divided into two sub-groups, namely body parts proper and body parts per extension: a.  b  ody parts proper: id ‘hand’, ras ‘head’, qalb ‘heart’, għajn ‘eye’, moħħ ‘brain’, wiċċ ‘face’, sieq ‘foot’, ħalq ‘mouth’, xagħra ‘hair’, ġisem ‘body’, spalla ‘shoulder’, saba’ ‘finger’, dahar ‘back’, għonq ‘neck’, widen ‘ear’, denb ‘tail’, sinna ‘tooth’, xoffa ‘lip’, minfes ‘nostrils’, mnieħer ‘nose’, rux ‘feathers’, sider ‘breast, chest’, rkobba ‘knee’, fomm ‘mouth’, ġenb ‘side’, ħdan ‘bosom’, ħoġor ‘lap’, qoxra ‘shell’. There are 28 types in this group – a figure which alone represents about 29% of the possessees in (B8). b. body part per extension: In this sub-group, we encounter possessees which are closely associated with the (not necessarily human) body and which may be termed abstract body parts, namely ruħ ‘soul’, nifs ‘breath, self ’, leħen ‘voice’, demm ‘blood’. There are other potential candidates for this class under the heading abstract personal properties below. • class B – kinship terms: We give this term a broad interpretation to include social relations which are not based on blood relationships. The items are: missier ‘father’, mara ‘woman, wife’, ulied ‘children’, omm ‘mother’, sieħeb ‘companion’, ħu ‘brother’, żewġ ‘husband’, iben ‘son’, bint ‘daughter’, ħabib ‘friend’, nanna ‘grandmother’, oħt ‘sister’, sid ‘Lord, master’, ziju ‘uncle’, nannu ‘grandfather’, nies ‘people’, bużnannu ‘greatgrandfather’, kuġinu ‘cousin’, neputija ‘niece, granddaughter’, qarib ‘next, family relation’. These 20 possessees cover 20.5% of the inventory of types in (B8). • class C – life-cycle: This group is made up mostly of expressions which designate a phase or event in the life-cycle of a human being: ħajja ‘life’, żmien ‘time’, waqt ‘point in time’, tfulija ‘childhood’, żgħożija ‘youth’, għomor ‘lifetime’, ċkunija ‘childhood’, ħin ‘time’, mewt ‘death’, twelid ‘birth’. With ten types, this group accounts for close to 10.5% of the types in (B8). • class D – home: Seven concepts (= 7.3% of [B8]) are represented in this group, all of which suggest a close relationship between possessor and possessees as the places they indicate are those to which one usually belongs – metaphorically



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

speaking: pajjiż ‘country’ (this noun alone accounts for almost a quarter [= 23%] of all attested cases of possessor affixes on nouns. This high frequency is occasioned by the authors permanent concern with the historical, social, economical, cultural and political development of his native country – a concern which calls for numerous comments and comparisons involving reference to ‘our country’ as opposed to ‘their country’), dar ‘home, house’, post ‘place’, kamra ‘room’, art ‘land’, bieb ‘door’. We also consider lsien ‘language’ part of this group although it does not designate a place, but rather an important cultural aspect commonly associated with one’s home. One may also put xogħol ‘work’ here (cf. below). • class E – abstract properties: It becomes difficult to find an appropriate classification for a variety of more or less abstract concepts which are closely associated with human character, cognition and behaviour. Rather arbitrarily, we have opted for division into three sub-groups: a. socially induced properties: isem ‘name’, kunjom ‘surname’, ġieħ ‘honour’, dmir ‘duty’, jedd ‘right’, bżonn ‘need’ b.  mental and physical states: ħila ‘ability’, saħħa ‘health, ġmiel ‘beauty’, kwiet ‘rest’, għerf ‘knowledge’, sensu ‘sense’, c. products: ħasba ‘thought’, raj ‘opinion’, xogħol ‘work’, affari ‘business’, dnub ‘sin’, għemil ‘deed’, kelma ‘word’  uture investigation might reveal that there are better ways to classify the above posF sessees. However, for our present purpose this classification will do. With 19 nouns, this group is fairly strong and has a share of almost 20% of the types in (B8). • class F – part-whole: nofs ‘half ’, sehem ‘share, part’, tarf ‘extremity’. These items bear close resemblance to body-part terminology because both groups deal with parts of wholes. • class G – clothes/furniture/belongings: ħaġa ‘thing’, but ‘pocket’. Again, there is a certain affinity to body-part terms as the clothes one wears can be easily understood as extensions of the body, whereas the furniture belongs to one’s everyday surroundings. • class H – various: triq ‘street’, flus ‘money’, salib ‘cross’, ħobż ‘bread’. Three of these items might perhaps better be classified elsewhere: salib ‘cross’ and ħobż ‘bread’ host possessor suffixes if and only if metaphor applies. In that case, salib is to be read as ‘trouble, suffering’ and ħobż as ‘a living to be gained’. Similarly, triq is used metonymically as a translation equivalent of ‘on one’s way’, ‘one’s route to somewhere’ (or metaphorically, ‘the right or wrong path [of leading a life]’) and hardly ever as ‘the street one lives in’.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Examples for each class and sub-class are given in (B9). It almost goes without saying that the above classes of possessees largely meet the expectations a linguist would have as to inalienably possessed items. Body-part terms, kinship terms, part-whole relations etc. are all among the prime candidates for inalienability according to the extant literature. In the list of the Maltese inalienable possessees, those concepts which associate with a prototype of man as a biologically, socially/culturally and psychologically determined human being predominate. Thus, we find concepts in the above inventory which a human being simply cannot help “having”, namely, for biological reasons, parents and ancestors, birth (place and time), periods of one’s life-time, death, body-parts, and, for socio-cultural reasons, a home, a language, a name, clothing and other belongings, etc. Psychologically, one is bound to have thoughts and states of the mind and body, etc. One’s intellectual products, morals and other behaviour are also among the concepts which are intimately associated with the individual personality and thus cannot be disposed of easily. For the time since Genesis until the spread of the DINKs as a social pattern, it is not too far-fetched to assume that having siblings and off-spring was also the normal case for the average human being. Therefore, the majority of the possessees classified above are such that they escape direct control by the possessor. This is what we expect of inalienability. In global perspective Maltese is thus hardly a sensation.

(B9)

Maltese examples of possessees with possessor suffixes



(B9.1)

Class A (a) [Malta 256] din t-qgħied-et fi-l-karozz-ell-a li akkompanja-t-a this.f pass-stay.perf-3sg.f in-det-coach-dim-f rel accompany-part-f minn erba staffier-i b-torċa t-ixgħel f-id-ej-hom from four footman-pl with-torch 3f-shine.imperf in-hand-pl-POR.3pl ‘This (= the little box) was placed in the small coach which was accompanied by four footmen with burning torches in their hands.’



(B9.2)

Class A (b) [Malta 217] il-poplu Malti mi-n-naħa tiegħ-u huwa lest det-people Maltese from-det-side of-3sg.m he ready j-agħmel is-sagrifiċċj-i koll-ha 3-make.imperf det-sacrifice-pl all-3sg.f akkost li j-xerred demm-u even_at_the_risk rel 3-shed:caus blood-POR.3sg.m biex j-akkwista d-dritt-ijiet tiegħ-u in_order_to 3-acquire.imperf det-right-pl of-3sg.m ‘The Maltese people for their part are ready to make every sacrifice even at the risk of shedding their blood in order to acquire their rights.’



(B9.3)

Class B [Malta 280] iżda sa-s-seklu l-ieħor kell-na lil Salvu Cauchi but till-det-century det-other have.past-1pl to Salvu Cauchi



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

u lil ibn-u Ġulju and to son-POR.3sg.m Ġulju ‘But until the last century, we had Salvu Cauchi and his son Ġulju [as church-bell makers].’

(B9.4)

Class C [Malta 321] batej-t bi-ha haj-t-i koll-ha fi suffer.perf-1sg with-3sg.f life-PUM-POR.1sg all-3sg.f in żmien il-faħam time det-coal ‘I suffered from it for my entire life in the time of coal.’



(B9.5)

Class D [Malta 87] dana koll-u kif kien-u j-irrealiżża-w-h this.m all-3sg.m as be.past-3pl 3-realise.imperf-pl-O.3sg.m l-Ingliż-i f-pajjiż-hom kon-na det-English-pl in-country-POR.3pl be.past-1pl n-irrealiżża-w-h il-Malti-n f-pajjiż-na 1-realise.imperf-pl-O.3sg.m det-Maltese-pl in-country-POR.1pl ‘We Maltese realised all this in our country as the English did in their country.’



(B9.6)

Class E a) [Malta 318] haqq-u li ism-u ma ji-ntesie-x deserve.perf-O.3sg.m rel name-POR.3sg.m neg 3-forget.pass-neg ‘He deserved that his name not be forgotten.’



(B9.7)

Class E b) [Malta 361] wegħid-na li n-agħml-u hil-it-na promise.perf-1pl rel 1-make.imperf-pl ability-PUM-POR.1pl koll-ha all-3sg.f biex Malta s-sir il-port frank in_order_to Malta 3f-become det-port free ‘We promised to do our best to let Malta become the free-port.’



(B9.8)

Class E c) [Malta 302] għand-hom dnub-ijiet-hom huma wkoll at-3pl sin-pl-POR.3pl they also ‘They too have their sins.’



(B9.9)

Class F [Malta 37] il-battalja […] hi nofs-ha m-irbuħ-a det-battle she half-POR.3sg.f pass.part-win-f ‘The battle is half won (lit. half of the battle is won).’

(B9.10)

Class G [Malta 44] iżda wara l-gwerra ġe-w f-pajjiż-na xi but after det-war come.perf-3pl in-country-POR.1pl some

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

familjfamily-pl Ingliż-i ta’ kondizzjoni soċjali tajb-a English-pl of condition social good-f li waqqf-u dar-hom f-Malta rel stand.caus-3pl home-POR.3pl in-Malta u li ġieb-u ħwejjiġ-hom and rel bring.perf-3pl thing:pl-POR.3pl ‘But after the war some socially well off English families came to our country who built their homes on Malta and brought their things here.’ (B9.11)

Class H [Malta 144] kien-et qiegħed-a t-ħalli lil Mintoff be.past-3sg.f prog-f 3sg.f-leave to Mintoff j-irkeb il-mewġ koll-u 3-ride det-wave all-3sg-m li j-sib fi triq-t-u rel 3-find in street-PUM-POR.3sg.m ‘They (= the opposition) were allowing Mintoff to ride every wave he found on his way.’

As the above examples show, the possessees may be inflected for number and gender, i.e., they do not loose their categorial properties as nouns under possession – except for their inability to combine with the pro-clitic definite article. The possessor affix is always the rightmost suffix in the morphotactic chain. Among the possessees mentioned in the inventory, four deserve special attention. For ruħ ‘soul’, nifs ‘breath, self ’, bżonn ‘need’ and ġmiel ‘beauty’ a high degree of grammaticalisation can be attested to. The first two items are frequently used as reflexive pronouns (Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 275), whereas bżonn is one of those words which have acquired properties of verbs (at least native speakers are ready to consider them verboids [= pseudo-verbs] – the most prominent example being the preposition għand ‘at’ [Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 112] which is used in predicative possession construction and will be discussed below). Ġmiel on the other hand serves as an intensifier (Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 76). The examples in (B10) oppose these grammaticalised uses to other more lexical ones.

(B10)

(B10.1)

Maltese: problematic cases ruħ [Malta 134] Dun Salv Laspina kien j-assisti Dun Salv Laspina be.past 3-assist.imperf imma ma kien-x j-imponi ruħ-u but neg be.past 3-impose.imperf soul-POR.3sg.m ‘Dun Salv Laspina assisted but he did not impose himself.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B10.2)

ruħ/bżonn [Malta 555] għand-u bżonn ukoll għal-l-ġid ta’ ruħ-u at-3sg.m need also for-det-good of soul-POR.3sg.m min i-fakkr-u fi-d-dmir-ijiet tiegħ-u who 3-remember:caus-O.3sg.m in-det-duty-pl of-3sg.m ‘He (= the Maltese emigrant) needs – also for the good of his soul – someone who reminds him of his duties.’

(B10.3)

bżonn [Malta 197] u l-meetings hemm bżonn-hom and det-meetings there need-POR.3pl ‘And there is a need for political gatherings.’

(B10.4)

nifs [Malta 48] xi staj-t ghamil-t staqsej-t lil-i what can.perf-1sg make.perf-1sg ask.perf-1sg to-1sg nnifs-i breath-POR.1sg ‘What could I have done? I asked myself.’

(B10.5)

nifs [Malta 158] Padre Toth daħal j-iġri bla nifs Father Toth enter.perf 3-run.imperf without breath f-kamar-t-i in-room-PUM-POR.1sg ‘Father Toth came into my room breathless.’

(B10.6)

nifs [Ġaħan 75) qtaj-t nifs-i cut.perf-2sg breath-POR.1sg ‘You strangled me!’

(B10.7)

ġmiel [Malta 404–405] billi ġie-li kon-na n-iltaqgħ-u wkoll since come.perf-IO.1sg be.past-1pl 1-meet.imperf-pl also bi-l-lejl with-det-night ġib-u-lna tumbler kbir ġmiel-u bring.perf-3pl-IO.1pl tumbler big beauty-POR.3sg.m illi il-waiters ferrgħ-u-lna l-whisky bi-s-soda which det-waiters pour.perf-3pl-IO.1pl det-whisky with-det-soda ‘Since we happened to meet also in the evening, they brought us a pretty large tumbler for the waiters to pour us whisky soda.’

(B10.8)

ġmiel [Malta 129] i-sofri għal ġmiel-ha l-umiljazzoni-jiet koll-ha 3-suffer for beauty-POR.3sg.f det-humiliation-pl all-3sg.f ‘He endures all kinds of humiliation because of her beauty.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The sentence pair (B10.1)–(B10.2) contrasts the grammaticalised use of ruħ as a kind of reflexive marker with the lexical use as a body-part noun per extension meaning ‘soul’. It is clear that the reflexive marker and the body-part term are historically related and that the former developed from the latter via grammaticalisation. In both usages, ruħ may host a pronominal affix which is always identical to those used for the purpose of possessor marking. However, it is doubtful – to say the least – that the reflexive marker counts as an instance of possessor marking. In (B10.2) possessor marking applies because the referent of ruħ is indeed the soul of the Maltese emigrant and thus the suffix -u in fact marks the possessor on the possessee. The -u on ruħ in (B10.1) however, marks the co-reference with the sentence subject and does not establish a possessive relationship per se. The reflexive ruħ can only occur in object function, whereas the pronominally possessed noun may fulfil any function in a sentence. Therefore, whether or not to include the grammaticalised cases in the statistics of possessor marking is a controversial issue. We have opted for the inclusion because of the formal (= morphological) identity (cf. above part A section 2.2). This also applies to most of the other examples. For the Italian borrowing bżonn (< Italian bisogno ‘need’), the situation is particularly interesting as, semantically, it does not seem very appropriate to consider the referent marked by the pronominal affix the possessor of bżonn. What the pronominal affix indicates though is the entity for which there is a need in the situation described. In (B10.2), bżonn forms part of a construction which includes the predicative possessive PP (or pseudo-verb) għandu ‘at him/he has’ and the relative clause headed by min ‘who’. One could argue that this relative clause is the object-like complement of għandu bżonn ‘he has a need for’ and thus bżonn could be understood as a component of a verb-like syntagm. In this way, the pronominal affix -hom in (B10.3) may also be analysed as the bound object marker of the predicator bżonn. It is not possible for us to clarify this issue in this book because it requires extensive discussion of a number of other of such pseudoverbs or verboids and thus calls for a book-length study of its own. For our present purpose, it is sufficient to state that bżonn is clearly not a prototypical case of possession. Nifs ‘breath’ is a bit different. In (10.4) it is used in a fashion similar to ruħ, viz. as a reflexive pronoun. A lexical reading ‘breath’ does not make sense in this sentence, only ‘self ’ can be the appropriate translation equivalent. However, in (B10.5)–(B10.6), nifs is used in its lexical meaning because the situations described actually involve the loss of breath of a participant. In this function, nifs may host the regular possessor affixes. As far as we can tell, as a reflexive pronoun, nifs is not only the host of the very same affixes but it also takes a special form: the initial nasal is geminated/lengthened to yield (i)nnifs- (Aquilina 1990: 911 [the gemination is the reflex of the prefixation of the particle in- to



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

pronouns of various kinds (Aquilina 1987: 572)]). Thus, lexical and pronominal nifs are formally distinct since the morphological make-up of their word-forms is different. Therefore one may argue that we are dealing with two completely distinct entities which should not be lumped together in the statistical analysis. The frequency of nifs as a proper possessee bearing a possessor affix is relatively low. This is the reason why we had to use a different source for the documentation of (B10.6). Strictly speaking, the statistics could be reduced by about 35 attestations of grammaticalised nifs. For ġmiel ‘beauty’, no such formal differences can be identified. It has the same morphological properties no matter if it is used as an intensifier (B10.7) or as an abstract possessee (B10.8). As an intensifier, ġmiel parallels the use of English pretty in the same function. In formal aspects however, the two items are different. Both modify an adjectival attribute of a head noun but only ġmiel agrees with the head noun in number and gender. It is difficult to accommodate this and similar adverbial functions of ġmiel with a proper possessive relation. However, ġmiel is also frequently used with its literal meaning ‘beauty’ as in (B10.8) where the beauty of the Blue Angel gets Professor Unrath into trouble. The relation between the property beauty and the person to whom it is ascribed is undoubtedly one of possession in the sense introduced in part A. On the one hand, the various uses of the problematic items reflect grammaticalisation processes which brought into existence those cases to which the label possession is not easily attached and, on the other hand, show that the lexical sources from which the grammaticalisation started may persist and thus continue to exist side by side with their grammaticalised off-spring. The grammaticalisation involves context-sensitive metonymy and metaphor.19 However, even possessees which have not undergone any discernible grammaticalisation may be used metaphorically – and thus do not always fit the prototypical possessive relation. We do not think that this disqualifies them as instances of linguistic possession. The problems posed by style and metaphor are discussed below. Before we turn our attention to this issue, however, it is necessary to determine the nature of the relation of the two strategies of possessor marking in Maltese. As to frequencies, there are altogether 97 types with a total token frequency of 1,937 attestations (including all instances of nifs). This is equivalent to an average of 19.96 tokens per type or 3.27 tokens per page of the book we evaluated. Clearly, possessor marking by means of bound morphemes on the possessee is anything but a negligible phenomenon. To be on the safe side, we have checked our findings with ten other Maltese texts by various authors. For brevity’s sake, we arbitrarily chose pages 59 and 80 of the ten additional sources in order to determine, on the one hand, which concepts associate with possessor marking via affixation and, on the other, whether bound possessor morphemes can compete with prepositionally marked possessors in terms of their token frequency. In Table (B11), the values are listed according to the

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

sources we worked with. Boldface is used on words which are newcomers to the inventory in (B8). Grey shading is used when a possessee occurs with both possessive constructions. The data are given for each source separately in order to demonstrate that there is a general trend independent of the individual author. The possessee nouns appear in their order of appearance in the respective sources.

(B11)

Ten more sources

PP

pro

source

types

tokens

LPP

ras ‘head’ bżonn ‘need’ fomm ‘mouth’ ġisem ‘body’ 4

1 2 2 1 6

fjura ‘flower’

1

1

1

Ulied

leħen ‘voice’ ras ‘head’ id ‘hand’ qalb ‘heart’ moħħ ‘brain’ nifs ‘breath’ riġel ‘leg’ oħt ‘sister’ missier ‘father’ għajn ‘eye’ rkobba ‘knee’ sensu ‘sense’ qadd ‘waist’ bint ‘daughter’ ruħ ‘soul’ 15

1 3 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24

laqgħa ‘meeting’ ritratt ‘picture’ karrettun ‘cart’

1 1 1

3

3

mara ‘wife’ ħlif ‘oath’ mgħallem ‘teacher’ uffiċju ‘office’ kamra ‘room’ umda ‘moisture’ ċella ‘cell’ ħabs ‘prison’ rabja ‘rage’ rapport ‘report’ telefonata ‘phone call’ 11

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

Kappa mara ‘wife’ 2 id ‘hand’ 1 qalb ‘heart’ 1 pajjiż ‘country’ 1 razza ‘race’ 1 missier ‘father’ 1 wiċċ ‘face’ 1 ħu ‘brother’ 1 8 9

types

tokens



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits  Qamar

id ‘hand’ ħu ‘brother għomor ‘lifetime’ 3

4 1 1 6

0

0

Għajn

għajn ‘eye’ nofs ‘half ’ denb ‘tail’ omm ‘mother’ ħu ‘brother’ sieq ‘foot’ għonq ‘neck’ 7

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8

0

0

Butlettax

moħħ ‘brain’ 1

1 1

0

0

Għeruq

sehem ‘share, part’ ħdan ‘bosom’ ħabib ‘friend’ leħen ‘voice’ 4

1 1 1 1 4

Gerfex

ħaġra ‘stone’ oħt ‘sister’ isem ‘name’ ħalq ‘mouth’ ras ‘head’ id ‘hand’ sider ‘breast, chest’ sieħeb ‘companion’ kelma ‘word’ difer ‘fingernail’ 10

Mudest Tazza

oratorija ‘oratory’ xogħol ‘work’

1 1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 13

0

0

ras ‘head’ dahar ‘back’ kamra ‘room’ ħalq ‘mouth’ 4

1 1 2 1 5

0

0

0

0

0

0

Several observations can be made: first of all, the above glimpses of the additional sources clearly show that the already relatively long list of instances of possessor suffixation in (B8) does not exhaust the possibilities. Except for the unique case ħaġra

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

‘stone’, the new entries in the lexicon of possessees allowing for a possessor suffix belong to the semantic classes which dominate in (B8). The noun razza ‘race’ for instance belongs to Class D home as it identifies the supposed membership of a (not necessarily human) being in a biologically determined class. Ħaġra ‘stone’, however, forms part of an idiom meaning ‘in large amounts’ for which (B12) is a typical example.

(B12)

Maltese [Gerfex 80] kollox kien j-uri li ser j-attend-u all be.past 3-show.imperf that fut 3-attend-pl ħġar-hom bi with stone.coll-POR.3pl ‘Everything showed that they would attend in masses (lit. with their stones).’

We will come back to the issue of idiomatic language below. Another interesting aspect of the data in (B11) is the fact that possessor suffixation has a significantly higher token and type frequency than the competing prepositional construction. Only in one source do we have more types and tokens for the latter. There are altogether 41 types of possessees which combine with possessor suffixes as opposed to 17 types for the PP. The 41 types with bound possessor morphemes have 76 tokens, whereas the PP counts 17 tokens (meaning: there is never more than one attestation for each type of the PP construction). Disregarding the last mentioned source Tazza from which both constructions are incidentally absent (because of empty pages), the possessor-marking PP has zero frequency in five of the sources whereas possessor suffixation is attested in nine out of ten sources. For eight sources, possessor suffixation scores higher than the PP strategy. This suggests that possessor suffixation is a quite natural morphological device. Furthermore, there are only three possessees (mara, kamra and xogħol) which are used with both constructions. This competition is interesting in itself as it either suggests that one of the two constructions is giving way to the other or it implies that one and the same possessee can be possessed differently according to criteria yet to be determined. Disregarding the cases of overlap for a moment, it is clear that the prepositional construction fulfils all the tacitly assumed requirements for alienable possession. Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 113) state that the PP can always replace possessor suffixation as a marking strategy – but not the other way around. Thus, the prepositional construction may neutralise the possessive distinctions. This ability to neutralise is tantamount to the status of an unmarked member of the pair of categories. Needless to say that neutralisation by the PP is in conflict with the higher token and type frequency of possessor suffixation. The issue as to which of the two competitors is entitled to the rank of unmarked category is thus not settled. Moreover, it still needs to be investigated whether neutralisation depends on other factors or



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

occurs randomly. To do this we will consider a number of examples taken again from Ganado’s autobiography, cf. (B13).

(B13)

Maltese: PP instead of possessor suffix

(B13.1)

pajjiż [Malta 47] u dan il-pajjiż tagħ-na li għad-u j-ħobb and this.m det-country of-1pl rel still-3sg.m 3-love.imperf il-familja u għal-hekk id-dar li għand-u fi-h det-family and for-so det-house rel at-3sg.m in-3sg.m tradizzjoni artistika u tradizzjoni ta’ sinjorilità tradition artistic and tradition of refined_manners kieku n-aħdm-u id f-id if 1-work.imperf-pl hand in-hand għad j-ista’ j-kun il-ġenna ta’ l-art still 3-can.imperf 3-be.fut det-paradise of det-land ‘And this land of ours that still loves the family and therefore the home, which carries within it a tradition of arts and a tradition of refined manners, might become the paradise on earth if we work together hand in hand.’

(B13.2)

dmir [Malta 120] Alda meta bd-iet t-ifhem Alda when begin.perf-3sg.f 3sg.f-understand.imperf li kien dmir tiegħ-i rel be.past duty of-1sg ma n-ibqa-x lura bd-iet iċ-ċedi neg 1-remain.imperf-neg back begin.perf-3sg.f 3sg.f-cede.imperf ‘When Alda began to understand that it was my duty she did not remain behind, she began to give way.’

(B13.3)

mewt [Malta 137] u l-mewt tiegħ-u kien-et bħal apoteosi and det-death of-3sg.m be.past-3sg.f like apotheosis ‘And his death was like an apotheosis.’

(B13.4)

ħila [Malta 153] l-Ingilterra t-uri l-ħila tagħ-ha det-England 3sg.f-show.imperf det-ability of-3sg.f fi-l-Kanal ta’ Suez in-det-Channel of Suez ‘England shows her ability at the Suez Canal.’

(B13.5)

triq [Malta 183] bd-ew i-għid-u li t-triq tagħ-hom begin.perf-3pl 3-say-pl rel det-street of-3pl

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

i-morr-u fejn i-rid-u 3-go.imperf-pl where 3-want.imperf-pl ‘They started to say that they would go their own way.’ (B13.6)

dar [Malta 242] t-inkoraġġixxi l-proprjetarj-i j-immodernizza-w id-djar 3sg.f-encourage det-owner-pl 3-modernise-pl det-house:pl tagħ-hom of-3pl ‘It (= the housing organisation) encourages the owners to modernise their houses.’

(B13.7)

bżonn [Malta 449] Lord Strickland kien diġà ħass il-bżonn tiegħ-u Lord Strickland be.past already feel.perf det-need of-3sg.m kważi mitt sena il-u about hundred year ago-3sg.m ‘Lord Strickland had already felt the need for it (= the free port) about a hundred years ago.’

(B13.8)

ħabib [Malta 454] jiena kif i-miss-hom il-hom li nduna-w I how 3-touch.imperf-O.3pl ago-3pl rel notice.perf-3pl il-qarejja det-reader ħbieb tiegħ-i kon-t in-ħobb minn dejjem friend:pl of-1sg be.past-1sg 1-love.imperf from always n-ara Malta qiegħd-a t-ikber u 1–see.imperf Malta prog-f 3sg.f-grow.imperf and t-iżviluppa ruħ-ha 3sg.f-develop soul-POR.3sg.f ‘As the readers, my friends, already should have noticed, I have always loved to see Malta grow and develop.’

(B13.9)

dmir and żghożija [Malta 557] in-ħoss-u dmir tiegħ-i li n-irrakkonta 1sg-feel.imperf-o.3sg.m duty of-1sg rel 1sg-tell.imperf fi-l-qosor in-det-shortness l-istorja ta-l-benniena li fi-ha t-welid-na u det-history of-det-cradle rel in-3sg.f pass-be_born.perf-1pl and ta-ż-żgħożija tagħ-na f-Palazzo Carafa of-det-youth of-1pl in-Palazzo Carafa ‘I consider it my duty to briefly tell the story of the cradle in which we were born and of our youth in the Palazzo Carafa.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Pajjiż ‘country’ and dmir ‘duty’ are the two possessees which repeatedly oscillate between possessor suffixation and the PP although the former is for both possessees clearly the preferred strategy. Whenever they take the PP, there is a certain degree of emphasis involved. This was already made most obvious in the example (B13.1) (see also [B9.5] and [B9.10] above): Malta is profiled against the rest of the world (mentioned in the previous context) and depicted as our country as opposed to their countries, i.e., there is emphasis or contrastive focus on the possessor rather than on the possessee. Since the possessor suffix can never bear stress, the suffixation strategy does not lend itself to being used when the possessor is under contrastive focus (although [B9.5] does not seem affected by this problem). Only the lexical morpheme can be highlighted with suprasegmental means and thus the first invited interpretation is always that of a focussed possessee. In contrast to the bound possessor morpheme, the inflected preposition may be freely stressed and thus may be used for the purpose of putting emphasis on the possessor. The PP replaces the suffixed possessor morpheme especially if the possessor is in focus. To our minds, this analysis is valid for most of the examples in (B13). For dmir, (B13.2), (B13.9) and also (B10.2) above provide evidence; in all these cases, it is the possessor which is under focus, meaning: the fact is stressed that it is the duty of the possessor and not of someone else. In (B14) however, dmir takes the possessor suffix because in the preceding context, there was no mention of other people’s duties, but rather of their abilities and leanings. Thus, dmir is in focus as this item introduces a new quality which is in contrast with the previously mentioned ones.

(B14)

dmir with suffixed possessor [Malta 161] oħr-ajn kien-u tobba li kien-u j-aqd-u other-pl be.past-pl physician:pl rel be.past-pl 3-serve.imperf-pl fi-d-dinja żgħir-a ta-l-belt dmir-hom duty-POR.3pl in-det-world small-f of-det-town jew ta-r-raħal tagħ-hom or of-det-village of-3pl ‘Others were physicians who fulfilled their duty in the small world of their town or village.’

A look at the remaining cases of PP-marking instead of possessor suffixation corroborates this hypothesis. When we compare sentences (B9.7) and (B13.4), we immediately see that the possessee ħila ‘ability’ itself is focussed on in (B9.7) because what is important for the meaning the sentence conveys is not so much who will be doing their best but what they will be doing. In (B13.4) however, Britain’s status as one of the world’s most powerful states is at stake because of the Suez crisis. Britain’s ability is contrasted with those of her political competitors. Thus, the focus is on the possessor and not on the ability itself. This fact explains why the PP is given precedence over possessor suffixation. In (B9.11), the possessee triq ‘street’ is more important to the

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

message than the information whose career is meant because the author complains about the inexplicably tolerant behaviour of the opposition party during the entire period of the Labour government headed by Mintoff. It is the length of this period that is emphasised, not the identity of the person who is involved. In contrast to this case, (B13.5) is an instance of triq in combination with the possessor-marking PP. This sentence is about a secession from a political party/movement: the splitting off of a group of dissenters who try to emancipate themselves from the party doctrine by claiming to follow a route of their own is described. In this case, the possessor is focussed on because it is set apart from other potential possessors mentioned in the previous context. In (B13.7), the controversial possessee bżonn ‘need’ appears in one of the rare combinations with the PP. Within Ganado’s text, this is the only exception to possessor suffixation on this word. What distinguishes (B13.7) from (B10.3) is again the scope of focus: in (B10.3) the emphasis is on the fact that the meetings are really needed and not just negligible phenomena, whereas in (B13.7) the emphasis is on the fact that a certain project is urgently called for in contrast to the realisation of other potential undertakings. This shift of focus explains why in the first mentioned case possessor suffixation is preferred, and in the second example the PP is more appropriate as it (most probably) bears the stress. A similar explanation is possible with mewt ‘death’. In (B13.3) the PP is used, whereas mewt hosts the possessor suffix in (B15).

(B15)

mewt [Malta 19] kien l-addio tiegħ-u bħala Kap be.past det-farewell of-3sg.m like Leader lil dik it-tradizzjoni splendid-a to this.f det-tradition splendid-f fi-x-xen-i tagħ-ha ta’ Imperu in-det-scene-pl of-3sg.f of Empire li kiber miegħ-u u spiċċa wara mewt-u rel grow.perf with-3sg.m and end.perf after death-POR.3sg.m ‘It was his (= Churchill) farewell in the function of leader to this splendid tradition (= the parade of the Horse Guards) with all its scenes of an Empire with which he grew older and which came to an end after his death.’

The difference between the two occurrences of mewt is obvious: in (B13.3), the emphasis is on the fact that it is the death of this particular cleric which transformed into an apotheosis – in contrast to many other people’s deaths. The possessor is in focus. In (B15) the chronology of events is important: the disintegration of the British Empire took place after Churchill’s death – and not before. The possessee is in focus. The case of żgħożija ‘youth’ looks different – at least superficially. Consider (B13.7) and (B16).





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B16)

żgħożija [Malta 212] kif Lord Strickland f-żgħożi-t-u studja u how Lord Strickland in-youth-PUM-POR.3sg.m study.perf and għex ħafna f-l-Ingilterra hekk Dr. Mizzi live.perf much in-det-England so Dr. Mizzi f-żgħożi-t-u studja u għex ħafna f-l-Italja in-youth-PUM-POR.3sg.m study.perf and live.perf much in-det-Italy ‘Just as Lord Strickland studied and lived for a long time in England during his youth, so too did Dr. Mizzi study and live a long time in Italy during his youth.’

In (B13.7), the emphasis on the possessor is evident from the wider context. This sentence is taken from a speech given in the House of Maltese Emigrants. The life of the emigrants who settled down somewhere far away from their home country is contrasted with the life of those who stayed in Malta. The person who delivers this speech takes his own family history as an example for the latter group. Thus, the use of the PP tagħna ‘of us’ is justified because it contrasts with the understood tagħhom ‘of them’. (B16) is again an explicit comparison of two options, this time of the cultural background of the two major opponents in the early history of Maltese parliamentarianism, Lord Strickland and Dr. Mizzi. In their youth, they were educated in different countries and this determined their divergent political ideas which clashed in the time prior to the second World War. What one expects is that the possessor of the possessee żgħożija is stressed and thus the PP be chosen. However, this is not the case: both occurrences of żgħożija involve the possessor suffix. Does this disprove our hypothesis according to which the PP is chosen if the possessor is in focus? Not necessarily, because the context in which (B16) is placed recounts the various phases of the political lives of the two protagonists yielding a chronology in which the youth of both is only one step in a succession of developments. One could argue that it is not so much the possessor which is in focus but the possessee as it is important to the message the author wants to deliver that certain things happened during certain phases of the lives of Strickland and Mizzi, respectively. In this case, the fact is stressed that their orientation towards English and Italian culture started early on in their lives, i.e., żgħożija itself is in focus. In (13.8) ħbieb tiegħi ‘my friends’ is used as an apposition to the noun il-qarejja ‘the readers’. Nowhere in the accompanying context is there mention of readers of other authors. Nevertheless, it is likely that the author emphasises the fact that the readers are in an intimate relation to him and not to anybody else. In (B17) the focus is on the possessee: those members of parliament which are on friendly terms with the editor – and not just any member of the House of Commons.

(B17)

ħabib [Malta 39] l-editur tiegħ-u kien m-idħla ta-l-Commons u det-editor of-3sg.m be.past part-enter of-det-Commons and

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

jiena stess ħad-t it-tè miegħ-u u ma-l-ħafna I self take.perf-1sg det-tea with-3sg.m and with-det-many ħbieb-u f-dik il-gallerja tant membr-i member-pl friend:pl-POR.3sg.m in-that:f det-gallery so sabiħ-a li t-agħti għa-t-Thames beautiful-f rel 3sg.f-give for-det-Thames ‘His editor socialised with people from the House of Commons and I myself took tea with him and with many members of parliament, friends of his, in this beautiful gallery which overlooks the Thames.’

This leaves us with the possessee dar. This word has two readings, namely, on the one hand, ‘home’ with all the usual connotations and, on the other, ‘house’ as the concrete object used to live in. Skipping a variety of open questions, we suggest the following solution: in (B9.10) dar hosts the possessor suffix as reference is not to houses as objects, but to the concept of home(stead) which may include a house but definitely implies a wide variety of other things such as centre of one’s family life etc. The British immigrants coming to Malta did not only build houses (if they did not rent or buy already existing ones) but established their new homes on the island. In (B13.6) we are no longer dealing with homes, but rather with real houses whose proprietors may own a large number of houses without considering any of them their home. The choice of the appropriate possessor-marking strategy may thus be seen as reflecting the difference in meaning: home = more intimate relation, house = business-like relation. In addition to this disambiguation of meanings, (B13.6) also involves emphasis on the possessor because in the immediate context state-owned buildings are mentioned. In (B9.10) the possessee is in focus. There is another piece of evidence in favour of the idea that the alternation between possessor suffixation and PP is not absolutely arbitrary. In (B18) we quote a longer stretch of text from a paragraph in a short story.

(B18)

mara [Kappa 80] ċempil-t-lu d-dar u l-mara tiegħ-u call.perf-1sg-IO.3sg.m det-house and det-woman of-3sg.m qal-t-li li kien xogħol fi-l-għodu dakinhar.[…] say-3sg.f-IO.1sg rel be.past work in-det-morning this_day Ħallej-t-lu risposta ma’ mar-t-u leave.perf-1sg-IO.3sg.m answer with woman-PUM-POR.3sg.m biex i-ċempil-li malli j-idħol lura in_order_to 3-call.imperf-IO.1sg as_soon_as 3-enter.imperf back iżda inzerta kien ċempel id-dar but incidentally be.past call.perf det-house waqt il-break u mar-t-u qal-t-lu during det-break and woman-PUM-POR.3sg.m say-3sg.f-IO.3sg.m



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

bi-t-telefonata tiegħ-i with-det-phone_call of-1sg ‘I called him at home and his wife told me that he was at work on that morning. […] I left him a note with his wife that he should call me as soon as he came back but incidentally he had phoned home during the break and his wife told him about my call.’

In this passage, the possessee mara ‘woman’ occurs three times. In all these cases, the noun is overtly possessed, but the morphological means employed differ: when the participant is introduced for the first time, the PP is used, whereas in the remainder of the paragraph possessor suffixation applies. At the beginning of the paragraph it is necessary to make clear in what way the newly introduced participant – the woman – is related to the already prominent participant, her husband. This necessity motivates the use of the PP. Once this relationship is made clear there is no need for the PP in the remainder of the paragraph and the possessor suffix is again the appropriate choice. In light of these findings, we suggest the following rule for the distribution of the two competing constructions:

POR

N -POR

/

[+emphasis]

N-POR

/

[¬emphasis]

�



Emphasis or focus on the possessor triggers the PP, whereas lack of emphasis on the possessor favours the possessor suffixes on the possessee. Of course, this hypothesis still needs to be confirmed by data from spoken language. We admit that it is far from easy to determine focus and emphasis exclusively on the basis of the written register. Nevertheless, subsequent sections will demonstrate that pragmatic factors such as emphasis and focus also have a say in the organisation of possessive systems of other languages (cf. below). Note that we do not claim that emphasis/focus are the only factors which come into play. Likewise we do not deny that the domain of possessor suffixation has been shrinking to the benefit of the domain of the PP. This retreat of possessor suffixation however has not gone too far – and thus it is not fully correct to depict this strategy as largely residual and marginal. A final word on metaphor and idioms: working with literary corpora produces a number of problems because chances are that one will encounter a considerable number of cases in which the possessee is not used in its basic meaning. Ganado’s autobiography testifies to this fact. In (B19) there are no real teeth, but only metaphorical ones used to describe the attitude of someone who is preparing to fight.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B19)

Metaphorical teeth [Malta 210] meta l-Ġermanja ta-l-Kaiser kibr-et when det-Germany of-det-Kaiser grow.perf-3sg.f bd-iet t-uri snien-ha begin.perf-3sg.f 3sg.f-show.imperf tooth:pl-POR.3sg.f u bn-iet flotta kbir-a and build.perf-3sg.f fleet big-f ‘When the Germany of the Kaiser grew she began to show her teeth and built a large fleet.’

This metaphorical usage is very often tied to idioms which have a lexical meaning of their own. For a number of possessees, their occurrence in the text is almost exclusively within fixed expressions and idioms. The word ħobż ‘bread’ in a possessive construction, for instance, is attested only once in the whole text. In this single case, it forms part of an idiom qala’ ħobżu ‘earn a living’, lit. ‘gain one’s bread’. In (B20) it is clear that there is no reference to bread either as material/mass or a loaf of bread.

(B20)

Metaphorical bread [Malta 568] b-dan il-mod ji-t-għallm-u j-aqalgħ-u with-this.m det-manner 3-ref-teach.imperf-pl 3-gain.imperf-pl ħobż-hom bread-POR.3pl ‘In this way, they learn how to earn themselves a living.’

Metaphor and metonymy however, are everyday processes which may affect all kinds of words in a given language and this does not make them unsuitable examples even if their reference in an idiom is different from the one of the lexical meaning of the individual item. The idiomatic usage along with metaphor and metonymy must have been motivated by the lexical meaning at least in some way and thus arbitrariness is restricted. The metaphorical use of words meaning ‘bread’ in expressions referring to one’s living is motivated exactly because bread used to be a major ingredient of one’s diet and thus helped a person to survive. We therefore accept the attested idiomatic cases as full-blown instances of the possessees under scrutiny. This solution of ours notwithstanding, we have checked Fenech’s (1984) inventory of Maltese idioms in order to determine if there is a noticeable difference in frequency between possessor suffixation and the prepositional strategy. The collection we consulted contains about 6,000 current idioms, not all of which involve pronominally possessed possessees. There are however, altogether 140 types of possessees with an overall token frequency of 1,142. Table (B21) surveys the frequency of possessees over possessor-marking strategies in these idioms.





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B21)

(B21.1)

Pronominal possessors in Maltese idioms Only with PP

type

possessee

translation

token frequency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

stonku aħjar aqwa barka biċċa bżonn daqqa sittin dinja dritta età fellus fjur ġurnata grazzja għassa għoġol ħass ħmar kaġun knisja kuxjenza linja polza qatgħa qatta salib takkuna

‘stomach’ ‘better; best’ ‘stronger; strongest’ ‘blessing’ ‘piece’ ‘need’ ‘hit’ ‘sixty’ ‘world’ ‘one’s due’ ‘age’ ‘chicken’ ‘flower’ ‘day’ ‘grace; affection’ ‘vigilance’ ‘calf ’ ‘lettuce’ ‘ass; donkey’ ‘cause; reason’ ‘church’ ‘conscience’ ‘line’ ‘pulse’ ‘cut; slice’ ‘bundle’ ‘cross’ ‘heel’

4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1



(B21.2)

28 types

32 tokens

Possessees with both possessor-marking strategies



token frequency

type

possessee

translation

PP

suffixation

1 2 3 4 5

affari dell riħ ġmiel saħħa

‘business’ ‘shadow’ ‘wind’ ‘beauty’ ‘health’

3 1 1 1 1

2 1 3 4 6

7

16



5 types

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B21.3)

Possessees exclusively with possessor suffixation

type

possessee

translation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

għajn id ras qalb wiċċ moħħ ruħ lsien sieq omm ħalq demm żaqq mnieħer għonq kelma sinna widen denb ġisem ħajja dahar saba’ riġel difer sider sorm xagħar driegħ But fomm grieżem qaddis ġenb ġild nifs qadd qarn xoffa ħasba missier sehem spalla

‘eye’ ‘hand’ ‘head’ ‘heart’ ‘face’ ‘brain’ ‘soul’ ‘language; tongue’ ‘foot’ ‘mother’ ‘mouth’ ‘blood’ ‘belly’ ‘nose’ ‘neck’ ‘word’ ‘tooth’ ‘ear’ ‘tail’ ‘body’ ‘life’ ‘back’ ‘finger’ ‘leg’ ‘fingernail’ ‘breast; chest’ ‘arse’ ‘hair’ ‘arm’ ‘pocket’ ‘mouth’ ‘throats’ ‘saint’ ‘side’ ‘skin’ ‘breath’ ‘waist’ ‘horn’ ‘lip’ ‘thought’ ‘father’ ‘part; share’ ‘shoulder’

token frequency 108 107 107 85 71 55 43 40 28 26 21 20 19 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 10 9 9 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits  dar flus ġid ġwienaħ għaqal għomor ħaġa ħobż leħen qoxra sid xtur (xatar) żmien bieb djul (dejl) dnub geddum għadam għanqud għarqub ħobb ħożża isem kus mara rix xogħol xorti żejt żokra aħħar aptit fetta fwied għażel għomma ħabib ħoss ħotba iben komma ktieb kustilja laħam mewt minkeb

‘house; home’ ‘money’ ‘wealth’ ‘wings’ ‘wisdom; prudence’ ‘life’ ‘thing’ ‘bread’ ‘voice’ ‘shell’ ‘master; Lord’ ‘uneven edges’ ‘time’ ‘door’ ‘extremity; skirt’ ‘sin’ ‘jaw’ ‘bones’ ‘bunch’ ‘heel’ ‘bosom’ ‘girdle; waistband’ ‘name’ ‘pitcher; jug’ ‘woman’ ‘feathers’ ‘work’ ‘luck’ ‘oil’ ‘navel’ ‘final’ ‘appetite’ ‘sop; slice’ ‘liver’ ‘choice’ ‘clouds’ ‘friend’ ‘sound’ ‘match-maker’ ‘son’ ‘sleeve’ ‘book’ ‘rib’ ‘flesh’ ‘death’ ‘elbow’

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe type

possessee

87 meraq 88 moxa 89 musrana 90 nanna 91 ngħas 92 qattus 93 raj 94 rkobba 95 sabar 96 senduq 97 sieħeb 98 suf 99 triq 100 wens 101 waqt 102 ulied 103 xaħam 104 xiber 105 xuxa 106 żewġ 107 żnied 107 types

translation ‘juice’ ‘comb’ ‘bowel’ ‘grandmother’ ‘drowsiness’ ‘cat’ ‘opinion’ ‘knee’ ‘patience’ ‘chest’ ‘companion’ ‘fur’ ‘street’ ‘company’ ‘point in time’ ‘children’ ‘fat’ ‘span’ ‘long hair’ ‘husband’ ‘invention’

token frequency 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1087 tokens

The tables almost speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of cases – be it types or tokens – involve possessor suffixation. Possessor suffixation is about four times as frequent as the PP with regard to types. As to tokens, the ratio is even more impressive: for each instance of the PP there are almost 34 instances of possessor suffixation. With the exception of affari ‘business’, the prepositional strategy never has a higher token frequency than possessor suffixation with those possessees which are attested with both strategies in (B21.2). There is no denying that idioms are indeed a stronghold for possessor suffixation. This is hardly surprising as idioms (also in other languages) often involve body-part terms and other prime candidates for inalienability. Thus, Maltese again meets our expectations. In (B21.3) there are many more possessees which do not appear on the list based on Ganado’s autobiography (B8). Among these we also encounter possessees which do not invite an interpretation as inalienable (for instance, ktieb ‘book’ and qattus ‘cat’). This may mean two things, namely: • the inventory is incomplete as there are many more potential inalienably possessed possessa which will be found if we extend the corpus, • idioms are the area where properties of older stages of a language may survive in a kind of niche for a longer time and thus we find numerous instances of



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

possessor suffixation which have long ceased to be used productively in everyday language. Be that as it may, one thing is clear: possessor suffixation is far from obsolete in Maltese. There are at least certain sections of its formerly more extensive domain which seem to be relatively immune to substitution by the PP. Likewise, possessor suffixation is firmly established in certain styles of modern Maltese. Loanwords from Italian and its varieties have also been integrated into the class of possessees taking the possessor suffixes (for instance, aptit ‘appetite’, fetta ‘sop; slice’, spalla ‘shoulder’ etc.) although they are not particularly numerous. The subsequent sections are devoted to the question of whether the above situation is unique to pronominal possession. For this purpose, we look in a slightly more abbreviated fashion at adnominal genitive constructions and, ultimately, at predicative possession.

4.1.1.2  Genitive constructions Perhaps one of the reasons why possessor suffixation is treated as an almost obsolete phenomenon in the literature on Maltese is the tacit lumping together of two different types of possessive constructions, namely those which involve a pronominal possessor and those which involve lexical possessors. Possessor suffixation is of course absent from the latter, whereas it is still relatively strong in the former. In order to decide whether or not the prepositional construction is indeed taking over, one cannot refer to constructions from which possessor suffixation is excluded per se. The typical PP construction used with lexical possessors resembles the one we have encountered with alienable possessees in pronominal possession (cf. section 4.1.1): the preposition ta’ ‘of ’ functions as the relator joining possessee and possessor NPs to each other. The possessive PP is described in Harning (1980: 145–151), Vanhove (1993: 348–349) and Ambros (1998: 76–78). Ambros (1998: 262–263) also reviews the non-possessive usage of ta’. The morphosyntax of the PP construction obeys the following rules: • linear order: the possessee precedes the possessor • adjacency: lexical morphemes (= attributes) may be inserted between relator, possessee and possessor • separate modification: each of the constituents of the PP can be modified separately by post-nominal or pre-nominal adjectives • definiteness: both constituents of the PP may be marked overtly for definiteness • agreement: the inflected preposition ta’ may co-occur with the lexical possessor in one construction if the latter is topicalised (Fabri 1993: 155). In (B22.1) these principles are reflected by the final complex NP: the possessee pjaneta ‘planet’ is placed to the left of the possessor prinċep ‘prince’. In between possessee and

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

possessor another lexical morpheme intervenes, viz. the adjective ċkejken ‘little’ which in turn pre-modifies only the possessor. Last but not least, both the possessee and the possessor host the definite article. Unsurprisingly, a possessee like pjaneta also triggers the PP when pronominal possession applies, as in (B22.2).

(B22)

PP strategy with alienable possessees

(B22.1)

Lexical possessor [LPP Maltese, 13] ma kull jum li għadda t-għallim-t xi with each day rel pass.perf ref-learn.perf-1sg some ħaġa ġdid-a dwar thing new-f about il-pjaneta ta-ċ-ċkejken prinċep det-planet of-det-little prince ‘With every passing day I learned something new about the planet of the Little Prince.’

(B22.2)

Pronominal possessor [LPP Maltese, 24] m-hawn-x tigr-i fuq il-pjaneta tiegħ-i neg-here-neg tiger-pl on det-planet of-1sg ‘There are no tigers here on my planet.’

Simplifying, these possessive PPs are not much different from similar constructions in many other SAE languages: English of, French de, German von, etc. are all prepositions which, just like Maltese ta’, combine their complement (= the possessor NP) to the possessee. The PP is the attribute of the possessee. Linearisation, adjacency, separate modification and definiteness are parameters on which the possessive PPs of these languages largely converge. So far, Maltese does not behave unexpectedly. However, saying that possessor suffixation does not come into play with lexical possessors does not automatically mean that the PP is the only encoding strategy used in this area. In addition to the prepositional construction, there is the so-called construct state which largely comes in the shape of juxtaposition of possessor and possessee. The best descriptions of the Maltese construct state and its functional domain to-date are provided by Fabri (1993: 154–183; 1996). Following Fabri’s (1996: 231–235) sketch of the morphosyntactic properties of the construct state, we can briefly characterise it as follows: • linear order: the possessee precedes the possessor • adjacency: no lexical morphemes may be inserted between possessee and possessor • common modification: attributive adjectives follow the possessor regardless of whether they modify the possessee or the possessor



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

• definiteness: the possessee is inherently definite but can never host the pro-clitic definite article, whereas the possessor has to be marked overtly for definiteness (for the problem of indefinite possessors see below) • agreement: the possessee may additional host the possessor suffix if the possessor is topicalised (Fabri 1993: 155) In (B23.1) the possessee wiċċ ‘face’ combines with a lexical possessor mħallef ‘judge’. Only the latter can be marked for definiteness overtly and host the pro-clitic definite article. Adjectival and other attributes follow the possessor noun and are often ambiguous as to which of the two nominal constituents of the construct state they modify (“young face” vs. “young judge”) (Fabri 1996: 234). Possessees like wiċċ which appear in the construct state with a lexical possessor also take possessor affixes when pronominal possession applies, as in (B23.2).

(B23)

Construct state and possessor suffixation

(B23.1)

Lexical possessor [LPP Maltese, 6] iżda ssorprendej-t ruħ-i ferm n-ara but be_surprised.perf-1sg soul-POR.1sg strong 1sg-see.imperf wiċċ l-imħallef żagħżugħ tiegħ-i j-ixgħel face det-judge young of-1sg 3-lighten_up.imperf ‘But I was really surprised to see the face of my young judge beam.’

(B23.2)

Pronominal possessor [Malta 130–131] kien-et iġ-ġegħil-ha t-għatti wiċċ-ha be.past-3sg.f 3sg.f-compel-O.3sg.f 3sg.f-cover face-POR.3sg.f ħlief għajn-ej-ha except eye-pl-POR.3sg.f ‘She made her cover her face except for her eyes.’

What is important to note is the fact that the construct state is mostly used in constructions which involve inalienable possessees. Thus, we expect to find the same set of possessees not using the PP construction both with pronominal and with lexical possessors. Fabri (1996: 230) states that [i]n Maltese the CS [= construct state] is mostly restricted to constructions in which the noun in construct is an inalienable possessed noun denoting a body part […] or a family relation […].

In (B24) two instances of kinship terms as possessees with a lexical possessor occur. The possessees omm ‘mother’ and bint ‘daughter’ are juxtaposed with their possessors which in turn are marked for definiteness. Superficially, it looks as if the construction is asyndetic in the sense that there is no phonologically realised element which signals a possessive relation.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B24)

Kinship terms [Malta 299]

(B24.1)

omm wara ċertu żmien ġew arresta-t-i Ġiġa Aquilina after certain time come.perf:3pl arrest-part-pl Ġiġa Aquilina omm it-tifel u żewġ-ha Manwel Camilleri mother det-child and husband-POR.3sg.f Manwel Camilleri ‘After some time Ġiġa Aquilina, the mother of the boy, and her husband Manwel Camilleri were arrested.’

(B24.2)

bint kell-ha żewġt itfal Twanny u Carmen u have.past-3sg.f two child.pl Twanny and Carmen and tifl-a oħr-a żgħir-a li kien-et bint ir-raġel child-f other-f small-f rel be.past-3sg.f daughter det-man ‘She had two children, Twanny and Carmen, and another little girl who was the daughter of the man.’

Upon closer inspection however, we learn that possessed nouns in the construct state behave morphologically like possessed nouns equipped with the possessor suffix. Under possession, feminine nouns ending in -a loose their gender-marking suffix which is replaced by the t-marbuta i.e., the marker of possessed state. This happens not only in pronominal possession but also in the construct state. In (B25.1) the noun mara ‘woman’ is used in its kinship sense of ‘wife’ with the lexical possessor kuntistabbli ‘constable’. Mara takes the t-marbuta and appears in the form mart ‘wife of ’. The same applies in (B25.2) where the very same possessee is pronominally possessed.

(B25)

t-marbuta [Delitti 103]

(B25.1)

Lexical possessor Lela Vella […] mar-t il-kuntistabbli ta-l-pulizija Lela Vella woman-PUM det-constable of-det-police Karmenu Vella […] kien-et irrapurta-t-a nieqs-a Karmenu Vella be.past-3sg.f report-part-f want.part-f mi-d-dar from-det-house ‘Lela Vella, the wife of the police constable Karmenu Vella, was reported missing from her home.’

(B25.2)

Pronominal possessor kien l-istess żewġ-ha li għamel rapport be.past det-same husband-pro.3sg.f rel make.perf report li dak in-nhar mar-t-u rel this det-day woman-PUM-POR.3sg.m



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

kien-et marr-et ħdej-h be.past-3sg.f go.perf-3sg.f near-3sg.m ‘It was her husband who reported that on that day his wife had come to him.’

Thus the possessee behaves similarly in the construct state and under pronominal possession. The formal resemblance is accompanied by semantic closeness, as those concepts which allow for the construct state with lexical possessors are also among the possessees which take the possessor suffix. However, these two classes of possessees are by no means co-extensive. Possessees which require the construct state with lexical possessors form a proper sub-set of those possessees which allow for possessor suffixation. Again, according to Fabri (1996: 235–236), body-part terms as possessees usually require the construct state when possessed by a lexical possessor, whereas kinship terms may occur either in the construct state or the prepositional construction. For body parts, Fabri (1996: 236) observes that the use of the PP would “sound rather odd, since the body part is then interpreted as being somehow separable from the body”. However, body-part terms may also be used with inanimate possessors (via metonymy) and in these cases the PP is more acceptable. In (B26) typical instances of body parts as possessees in the construct state are given. In all cases, these possessees would normally require the possessor suffix with a pronominal possessor. Note that (B26.3) and (B26.4) form a kind of minimal contrast: għonq ‘neck’ is used in the former to denote the body part of a human being, whereas in the latter it refers to the extension of the street.

(B26)

Possessed body parts in the construct state

(B26.1)

moħħ [Ġaħan 126] u sultan-a baqgħ-et mi-stagħġb-a u and king-f remain.perf-3sg.f part-wonder-f and ma t-ista-x t-ifhem x-kien neg 3sg.f-can.imperf-neg 3sg.f-understand.imperf what-be.past għaddej minn moħħ il-prinċep pass.part from brain det-prince ‘And the queen was astonished and could not understand what was going through the prince’s mind.’

(B26.2)

denb [Ġaħan 135] is-saħħar għal naqra ma kien-x laħaq det-magician for bit neg be.past-neg reach.perf mess denb ż-żiemel touch.perf tail det-horse ‘The magician almost managed to touch the horse’s tail.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B26.3)

għonq [Delitti 62] is-sodda ċ-ċapps-et bi-d-demm det-bed ref-stain.perf-3sg.f with-det-blood li kien ħiereġ minn għonq Twannie rel be.past come_out.part from neck Twannie ‘The bed was stained with the blood that emerged from Twannie’s neck.’

(B26.4)

għonq [Ġaħan 136] Balmies beda miexi waħd-u għal għonq it-triq Balmies began.perf walk.part one-3sg.m for neck det-street ‘Balmies began walking aimlessly along the street.’

(B26.5)

id [Fa 73] u dan minbarra għoti-jiet oħra ta‘ flus and this apart_from present-pl other of money li minn żmien għal żmien kien-et iż-żerħaq baxx baxx rel from time for time be.past-3sg.f 3sg.f-slip low low f-id-ejn il-Madre biex t-għin-ha in-det-hand-pl det-Madre in_order_to 3sg.f-help.imperf-O.3sg.f f-l-ispejjeż ta-d-Dar in-det-expenses of-det-house ‘And this in addition to other monetary presents which from time to time she let secretly slip into the hands of the Prioress in order to help her with the budget of the House.’

There are in fact hardly any cases of the prepositional construction used for body parts possessed by a lexical possessor. The construct state is still the first, and largely, the sole option when possessing a body part lexically. For kinship terms the situation is different. Consider the longish chains of possessive constructions in the sentences in (B27). Square brackets indicate the various embedded structures.

(B27)

(B27.1)

Possessor chains [Delitti 28] l-akkuża kien-et ta-l-qtil ta-t-tarbija det-accusation be.past-3sg.f of-det-murder of-det-baby li n-stab-et […] taħt siġra rel pass-find.perf:pass-3sg.f under tree fi-l-ġnien ta’ [missier [omm [it-tarbija]]] in-det-garden of father mother det-baby ‘The accusation was one of the murder of the infant who was found under a tree in the garden of the father of the baby’s mother.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B27.2)

[Delitti 357] kien-et [prim-a kuġin-a [ta’ missier [il-mara [tiegħ-u]]]] be.past-3sg.f first-f cousin-f of father det-woman of-3sg.m ‘She was the first cousin of the father of his wife.’

(B27.3)

[Delitti 357] din il-parti ta’ l-istqarrija kien-et ikkonferma-t-a this.f det-part of det-confession be.past-3sg.f confirm-part-f [ta’ omm [il-mara [ta’ l-akkużat]]]] mi-[s-seftura from-det-maid_servant of mother det-woman of det-accused ‘This part of the confession was confirmed by the maid of the mother of the wife of the accused.’

(B27.4)

[Delitti 424] il-vittma kien det-victim be.past [ir-raġel [ta’ oħt [il-mara [ta’ l-awtur [ta-d-delitt]]]]] det-man of sister det-woman of det-author of-det-delict ‘The victim was the husband of the sister of the wife of the delinquent.’

What immediately strikes the eye is the fact that kinship terms are treated differently. Those terms which denote close blood relations such as missier ‘father’, omm ‘mother’ and oħt ‘sister’ – to which we may add bint ‘daughter’ (B24.2) – are constituents of construct-state constructions, whereas mara ‘woman’ in the sense of ‘wife’, raġel ‘man’ in the sense of ‘husband’, kuġina ‘female cousin’ behave like seftura ‘maid’, awtur ‘author’ and other possessees with no relation to kinship, i.e., their possessors are complements of ta’. As the formal contrast between (B25.1) and (B27.2)–(B27.4) shows, mara oscillates between the construct state and the PP. This is reminiscent of the oscillation of the same possessee between possessor suffixation and prepositional possessor marking (cf. [B18] in section 4.1.1). If the PP can replace both the possessor suffixation and construct state with the same possessee, then this variation is suggestive of a transition from one type of construction to the other. For the competition between PP and possessor suffixation, we have invoked pragmatic factors which determine the speakers choice. Do these factors also apply to constructions with lexical possessors? More generally, Ambros (1998: 78) observes that the frequency of the construct state is bound to the stylistic level of the communication act. The higher the stylistic level, the more extended the use of the construct state may become – and vice versa. In literary Maltese, the construct state seems to be very much alive and there are obvious signs for its being productively used, whereas productivity is low or even non-existent in every-day use where the construct state survives mainly in fixed expressions. Harning (1980: 149–150) states that stylistic factors may indeed influence

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

the choice of the possessive strategy. The PP seems to be preferred in those contexts in which contrastive focus, emphasis and a generally more dramatic atmosphere prevail. In addition, Harning (1980: 149) also remarks that there might be other more structurally anchored reasons that impel speakers to opt for the PP, viz. the complexity of the possessor NP. Unfortunately, Harning does not elaborate on these issues. Nevertheless, we consider these highly valuable observations which are corroborated by the data drawn from our sample texts. First of all, the possessee mara is always embedded in complex possessor chains in the examples in (B27). It always occurs in non-initial position in the chain, meaning other possessees (and possessors) precede it. Also using the construct state with mara too would have created sequences of similar structures which are difficult to parse for the hearer. Alternating between the two construction types – construct state and PP – helps to give structure to the whole possessor chain and thus facilitate decoding. Second, syntactic complexity of the constituents involved in the possessive construction may have a say as to which of the options is actually chosen. In (B28) there are two telling examples from the life of the famous womaniser Henry VIII.

(B28)

Complexity

(B28.1)

Plural [Malta 405] u Henry VIII ħa f-Hampton Court waħd-a wara and Henry VIII take.perf in-Hampton Court one-f after l-oħr-a il-ħames nisa tiegħ-u det-other-f det-five woman.pl of-3sg.m ‘And Henry VIII took his five wives one after the other to Hampton Court.’

(B28.2)

Singular [Malta 405] j-għid-u li t-idher Catherine Howard 3-say.imperf-pl rel 3sg.f-appear Catherine Howard il-ħames mara ta’ Henry VIII det-five woman of Henry VIII ‘They say that Catherine Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII, haunts the place.’

There are two interesting things in these examples: nisa ‘women’ – the only fully suppletive plural formation of a noun in Maltese – does not appear as the possessee in the construct state although *nis-t with the t-marbuta would conform to the morphological rules of the language. However, the possessees nisa and mara in (B28) share one property, namely that they have an attribute of their own – the numeral ħames (cardinal ‘five’ in [B28.1] and ordinal ‘fifth’ in [B28.2]). The attributive numeral makes the possessee syntactically heavy since the possessed NP consists of more than one syntactic word. This hypothesis is corroborated by examples like (B29) in which the possessor suffixation is blocked because the possessee noun itself is modified by a cardinal numeral.





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B29)

Heavy possessee [Mu 21] li kon-t f-lok-ok kon-t in-dabbar rel be.past-1sg in-place-POR.2sg be.past-1sg 1sg-acquire ras-i baxx baxx għand it-tlitt iħbieb tiegħ-i head-POR.1sg low low at det-three friend.pl of-1sg ‘If I was in your place I would try to seek refuge secretly with my three friends.’

Ħbiebi ‘my friends’ is perfectly acceptable, but dispreferred if there is a pre-nominal attribute. All the more so because the numeral is normally the host of the definite article, which in turn is excluded from combinations with possessees with suffixed possessor markers. Fabri (1993: 158) observes that the construct state can never be used in combination with cardinal numerals (modifying the possessee) because “sie ein indefinites Nomen regieren”. They have to be made overtly definite and this contrasts with the rule of implicit definiteness of the possessee. We assume that this constraint should be valid for possessor suffixation as well because the possessees bearing the possessor suffix are definite per se and thus would exclude combinations with numerals along the same lines as the construct state. There is however one exception in our corpus – (B30).

(B30)

Numerals and definiteness [Ġaħan 148] miegħ-u kell-u li-ż-żewgt ulied-u with-3sg.m have.past-3sg.m to-det-two child.pl-POR.3sg.m l-kbar det-great.pl ‘He had his two elder children with him.’

The definiteness is also marked on the post-nominal attributive adjective which is nothing remarkable as it functions as a means of contrastive focus (in this case: elder vs. younger children). This example may be a unique case because ulied ‘off-spring; children’ is obligatorily possessed, meaning: it either bears a possessor suffix or occurs as a possessee in the construct state, cf. (B31).

(B31)

[Tlikki 11] baqa’ j-ilmaħ il-blu ta-s-sema u l-abjad remain.perf 3-watch.imperf det-blue of-det-sky and det-white ta-s-sħab u d-daħqa fuq [wiċċ [ulied of-det-cloud.pl and det-laughter on face children [ulied-u]]] children-POR.3sg.m ‘He continued to watch the blue sky and the white clouds and the laughter on his grandchildren’s faces.’

In (B31) there is again a possessor chain involving two instances of ulied – both of which are clearly treated as inalienable because they instantiate the construct state

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(= ulied ulied) and possessor suffixation (= uliedu). The collocation ulied ulied has been lexicalised as meaning ‘grandchildren’ (Aquilina 1990: 1533). The title of one of our Maltese sources, Ulied ta’ l-Azzar ‘Children (made) of steel’ (as opposed to another title, viz. Ulied il-Kwiekeb ‘Children of (= belonging to) the stars’) suggests that ulied behaves differently if the relation into which it enters is not properly possessive – in this case: the PP introduces the material of which someone is made and not the possessor to whom someone belongs. Thus, there is the possibility that possessed form has been (over)-generalised (a simple typo can be ruled out because we would then expect some other expression of the possessor to be present as well). Post-nominal attributes do not pose such a severe a restriction on the applicability of possessor suffixation, as the examples in (B32) seem to demonstrate.

(B32)

Possessor suffixation under attribution

(B32.1)

[Ma 106] it-tewm-in kien-u obde-w-h det-twin-pl be.past-3pl obey.perf-3pl-O.3sg.m m-agħluq-a b-għajn-ej-hom with-eye-pl-POR.3pl part-close-pl ‘The twins had obeyed him with their eyes closed.’

(B32.2)

[Ulied 27] kien ta’ mpar ħut Irene iżda itwal be.past of same_age brother:PUM Irene but long:comp aktar m-agħqud għajn-ej-h suwed minn-hom u from-3pl and more part-unite eye-pl-POR.3sg.m black:pl wiċċ-u ħamrani face-POR.3sg.m reddish ‘He was the same age as Irene’s brothers but taller than they with swollen, dark-eyes and slightly red-faced.’

A word of caution is in order. In (B32.2) especially, the post-nominal adjectives have a highly predicative character in the sense that għajnejh suwed and wiċċu ħamrani could also be read as ‘his eyes are/being dark’ and ‘his face is/being slightly red’, respectively. This is a possibility (which we consider realistic in the present case, cf. Fabri [1993: 176–177]) since there is no copula in the present tense, which is the appropriate tense for the above example because the past tense is already indicated at the beginning of the sentence/paragraph and all other subsequent predications within the same discourse unit may forgo any further indication of past tense provided that they are in the imperfective aspect (which they are in [B32.2]). In (B33.1), the possessee is made syntactically heavy by double attribution of coordinated adjectives. In addition, the possessor NP itself is also complex. On top of that, the possessor is indefinite – a property which does not necessarily rule out the use of the construct state (Fabri [1996: 241],



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Ambros [1998: 78]; but see (B35) below). In our corpus, we have not encountered a single convincing instance of an indefinite possessor forming part of the construct state – but this may be a problem created by the insufficient size of the corpus. A problematic case is discussed in relation to example (B40) below. (B33.2) is another interesting instance of indefiniteness although in this particular case both the possessor and the possessee are indefinite and thus it cannot be decided whether the PP is triggered by possessor or by possessee indefiniteness. Both NPs are again syntactically heavy because of participial and PP attributes, respectively.

(B33)

Maltese

(B33.1)

Heavy NPs [LPP Maltese, 4] ħaris-t mela lejn din id-dehra look.perf-1sg thus towards dem.f det-apparition tond-i u kbar ta’ wieħed mi-stagħġeb b-l-għajn-ejn with-det-eye-pl round-pl and big.pl of one part-wonder ‘I thus looked at this apparition with the big round eyes of one being surprised.’

(B33.2)

Indefinite possessor vs. indefinite possessee [Futbol 5] l-ewwel ballun uża-t mil-l-Ingliż-i kien det-first ball use-part from-det-English-pl be.past ras m-aqtugħ-a ta’ wieħed mil-l-għedewwa tagħ-hom head part-cut-f of one from-det-enemy.pl of-3pl ‘The first ball used by the English was the/a cut-off head of one of their enemies.’

As we learned above, there is only one slot for attributes to the right of the constructstate construction, and the correct association of these attributes with the constituent they modify may become difficult, especially if both the possessor and the possessee have attributes of their own. In the case of (B33), the construct state would yield a rather clumsy syntagm with three adjectives to the right of the possessor, two of which modify the possessee: *għajnejn wieħed mistagħġeb tondi u kbar. Admittedly, the plural forms of the final two adjectives only allow for a relation to the plural noun għajnejn. Nevertheless, this property does not seem to be strong enough to make up for the problems created by the non-adjacency of head and modifier (including the intercalation of a potential alternative head). A higher degree of complexity of the possessor alone is not always sufficient to block the construct state. Two consecutive sentences from one of our Maltese sources suggest that a syntactically heavy possessor may still be part of the construct state. In (B34) the possessors ġenituri ‘parents’ and tifel ‘boy’ not only host the pro-clitic article, but also combine with pre-nominal demonstratives. Moreover, in the first of the two sentences, the possessor is further modified by a postnominal relative clause (marked by single underlining).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B34)

Heavy possessors [Delitti 37] għand-u j-iftaħ għajn-ejn dawk il-ġenitur-i at-3sg.m 3-open.imperf eye-pl this:pl det-parent-pl li għand-hom il-vizzju mi-sħut det-vice part-curse rel at-3pl j-sawt-u t-tfal b-mod esaġerat// li rel 3-beat.imperf-pl det-child.pl with-manner exaggerated Jiena ma n-emmin-x li omm dan it-tifel I neg 1sg-believe.imperf-neg rel mother this det-boy kell-ha l-intenzjoni li t-oqtol lil have.past-3sg.f det-intention rel 3sg.f-kill.imperf to bin-ha son-POR.3sg.f ‘It [= the report] has to open the eyes of those parents who have the cursed vice of beating their children too much. // I do not believe that the mother of this boy had the intention to kill her son.’

Syntactic weight is a criterion that applies to all kinds of possessees independent of their semantic classes. Thus, we find kinship terms together with body part terms in the above examples. If the possessee is syntactically complex the PP becomes the more attractive morphosyntactic encoding strategy even though the possessee belongs to the inalienable concepts. This is because the PP allows for a more transparent linearisation of head and attribute since they are syntactic neighbours, whereas in the construct state the possessee and its attributes wind up in different positions, between which the possessor NP is sandwiched. In (B35) we see that the PP may also be used in lieu of the construct state if the possessor is not only heavy but indefinite at the same time (cf. [B33] above).

(B35)

Heavy possessor

(B35.1)

omm [Delitti 156] dak in-nhar in-stab-et mejt-a f-banju ta-ż-żingu this det-day pass-find.perf:pass-3sg.f dead-f in-bath of-det-zinc fi-r-residenza tagħ-ha […] Marija Grech […] omm Marija Grech mother in-det-residence of-3sg.f ta’ żewgt itfal of two child.pl ‘On that day, Marija Grech, mother of two children, was found dead in a bathtub in her residence.’

(B35.2)

missier [Delitti 205] u l-vittma kien Carmelo Catania […] missier ta’ and det-victim be.past Carmelo Catania father of disat itfal nine child.pl ‘And the victim was Carmelo Catania, father of nine children.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Syntactic complexity and indefiniteness of the possessor conspire against the construct state, in a manner of speaking. There is an additional complication in that the possessee is ambiguous as to its definiteness in these examples. The stylistics of this kind of police-report inspired texts often employ appositions of the above kind. The appositions refer to a participant who has been introduced into the discourse by name – and is therefore highly definite. This suggests that omm and missier should be understood as definite too. At the same time, they could be seen as indefinite in the sense that the persons mentioned are examples of mothers and fathers with a certain number of children. If we accept the latter reading then the construct state is made impossible because of the indefiniteness of the possessee – and all other arguments pro or con are overruled. Syntactic complexity of the constituents of a possessive construction is one thing. However, complexity cannot explain every instance of competition between the two construction types. We have already discussed the vacillation to which possessor marking is subject in the case of the possessee mara. In contrast to kinship terms which more consistently require the construct state, mara has the following properties: • it does not refer to a blood relation, • it has two readings, viz. ‘woman’ which is clearly not an instance of a social relationship and ‘wife’ which qualifies as a kinship relation of some sort; only the latter licences the use of possessive constructions which are associated with inalienability, • the male counterpart of mara, raġel not only has two readings, too, namely ‘man’ and ‘husband’, but is never treated as an inalienable possessee, i.e., it always requires the PP independent of the reading; if inalienability is to be emphasised, speakers have to use żewġ ‘husband’ – a noun which is obligatorily possessed either by possessor suffixation or in the construct state (Aquilina 1990: 1662), certain partial synonyms of mara likewise fail to allow for the construct state and possessor suffixation. An example of the latter is the noun armla ‘widow’ which denotes a former wife who lost her erstwhile marital status not via divorce but via the death of her husband. Consider (B36).

(B36)

Maltese [Malta 98] l-armla ta’ Toninu Aquilina miskina det-widow:f of Toninu Aquilina poor:f kien-et għad-ha xxokkja-t-a be.past-3sg.f still-3sg.f shock-part-f ‘The poor widow of Toninu Aquilina was still in shock.’

It cannot be decided whether there are phonological reasons or semantic reasons for the fact that armla does not allow for the construct state. In phonological terms,

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

the addition of the t-marbuta would yield a consonant quadruple in final position (*armlt) which is absolutely inadmissible in Maltese. Fabri (1993: 160) discusses phonological constraints on the construct state. According to his description, possessees with final -u or -i do not lend themselves to forming part of the construct state,20 nor do words ending in -CCa i.e., feminine nouns with consonant clusters to the left of the gender indicating final vowel. Due to this phonological restriction, there are asymmetries of the following kind: zija ‘aunt’ and ziju ‘uncle’ are kinship terms which allow for possessor suffixation yielding zi-t-i ‘my aunt’ (with the t-marbuta) and zijuw-i ‘my uncle’ (with epenthetic bilabial glide /w/), but only the feminine term appears in the construct state (= zi-t Pawlu ‘Pawlu’s aunt’) whereas for ziju the PP has to be used (= iz-ziju ta’ Pawlu) (Fabri 1996: 232), the same divergent behaviour occurs with the pair nannu ‘grandfather’ and nanna ‘grandmother’, etc. There seem to be exceptions to these rules in the second class of phonologically induced blocking of the construct state, as the word kelma ‘word’ and like words suggest (Ambros 1998: 78), cf. also (B38) below. It has the sequence -CCa but it nevertheless takes the t-marbuta plus possessor suffixes as in kelm-t-u ‘his word’ and may also occur in the construct state as in kelm-e-t il-general ‘the general’s word’ (Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 112). The t-marbuta is joined to the stem by means of an epenthetic vowel – and thus a hypothetical form *arml-e-t ‘widow of ’ would be fully in line with other actually attested cases. On the other hand, armla again does not denote a blood relationship. Other kinship nouns which never show signs of inalienability are tarbija ‘baby-child, infant’, tifel ‘boy; son’, tifla ‘girl; daughter’, tfal ‘children’, maħbub(a) ‘lover’, għarus(a) ‘fiancé(e)’, etc. We now know that there is again a relatively intricate network of factors which influence the choice of the appropriate possessive construction with lexical possessors. Nouns which semantically qualify for the construct state because they denote inalienable possessees occur in the prepositional construction if certain morphosyntactic factors come into play, viz. syntactic complexity, indefiniteness, pragmatics (let alone, phonology). Since these factors operate on the discourse level, they do not affect the basic semantic distinctions as such, but instead demonstrate that there are more powerful aspects than lexical meaning. However, this does not mean that semantics is completely irrelevant, quite the contrary. This becomes evident when we compare the domains of possessor suffixation and construct state. A first hypothesis could be that the same concepts allow possessor suffixation and construct state because in both cases inalienability is crucial. However, the two domains are far from being co-extensive. The construct state is largely restricted to a proper sub-set of those possessees which allow for possessor suffixation. Only two of the eight classes of possessees identified for possessor suffixation in section 4.1.1.1 are also regularly involved in the construct state, cf. the schematic representation of this relation in (B37).





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B37)

Inclusion relation

construct state

possessor suffixation

The construct state thus singles out two areas which might be termed prototypical inalienable concepts, whereas possessor suffixation also applies to less prototypical representatives of inalienability. It is also telling that body-part terms constitute the most stable class of possessees. Kinship terms appear to be more open to shifting into the realm of alienability – at least for those concerning non-blood relations. Put differently, the two types of adnominal possession – pronominal possession and genitive constructions – display largely individual behaviour with only a relatively small constant component attested for both. Their differences allow us to postulate different degrees of inalienability – from properly prototypical, down to marginally associated. What happens to those concepts which allow possessor suffixation but do not belong to the prototypical classes of possessees? Fabri (1993: 168–171; 1996: 237–238) discusses them at length under the label pseudo-construct state. In Maltese, there are frequent examples of syntagms which formally look like instances of the construct state. Fabri (1993: 168) claims that these syntagms are not very numerous in terms of types nevertheless, they may display a high token frequency. One sub-set of these syntagms fails to share the properties which are typical of the construct state (discussed above) and are therefore classified as compounds by Fabri (1993: 170). This applies for instance to xatt il-baħar {shore} {det}-{sea} ‘seashore’: all attributes can only modify the head (= xatt) which, in addition, does not normally take the possessor suffix as a replacement for the second constituent of the syntagm (= *xatt-u ‘its shore’). This restriction also precludes the possibility of topicalisation of the supposed possessor (= *il-baħar xatt-u ‘the sea, its shore’). Finally, the slots in the syntagms under inspection are lexically specified, i.e., the two nouns occur in fixed collocations without the possibility of paradigmatic variation (Fabri 1993: 169–172). Having accounted for these compound-like constructions, a set of other possessees remains which, on the one hand, belong neither to the class of body part terms nor to the one of kinship terms while, on the other hand, they are heads of the construct state relatively often. Fabri (1993: 169; 1996: 237) provides a list of such possessees – a list which Fabri (1996: 237) himself concedes cannot be considered exhaustive. This incompleteness notwithstanding, it is worth while to reproduce the list here, cf. (B38). Boldface identifies the t-marbuta on the possessee whereas grey shading indicates human possessors.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B38)

Additional cases of the construct state (Fabri 1996: 237) possessee

possessor

gloss

xewq-et lejl-et kelm-et ħeġġ-et ħajj-et xogħol mewt dar żmien

it-tfal il-festa is-sultan it-tijm il-fqar omm-ok il-mara il-Malti-n it-tadam

the children’s wish the eve of the feast the king’s word the team’s stamina the life of the poor your mother’s work the woman’s death the house of the Maltese the tomato season

What distinguishes these cases from the ones termed pseudo-construct state is the fact that morphosyntactically they behave in large part like the prototypical construct states which involve inalienable possessees. Furthermore, the examples in (B38) are not fixed lexicalised expressions: each possessee allows for combinations with a variety of possessors, i.e., there is paradigmatic variation in the syntactic slots. With the sole (perhaps only accidental) exception of lejla ‘evening’, all the possessees mentioned in (B38) have also been found to host the possessor suffix (cf. section 4.1.1.1). A cursory look at our corpus reveals that the number of non-prototypical possessees which enter the construct state is probably much higher than Fabri’s lists suggest, cf. (B39).

(B39)

Further non-prototypical cases

(B39.1)

flus [Ulied 27] Irene ma ken-it-x xebb-a ħażin-a Irene neg be.past-3sg.f-neg young_person-f bad-f iżda m-infuħ-a bi ġmiel-ha u but part-blow-f with beauty-POR.3sg.f and m-kabbr-a bi flus missier-ha part-grow.caus-f with money father-POR.3sg.f ‘Irene was not a bad girl but her head was inflated by her beauty and made bigger by her father’s money.’

(B39.2)

riħa [Ulied 37] fehem li b-riħ-et din ix-xbejba sata’ understand.perf rel with-smell-PUM this.f det-girl can.perf j-in-dehes ma’ nies ta’ ġidd għoli 3-ref-ingratiate with people of ancestry high ‘He understood that by the association with this girl he could ingratiate himself with people of respectable lineage.’

Two possessees which are also included above in (B8), though not among the top ranking concepts, occur in the construct state, flus ‘money’ and riħa ‘smell, odour’.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

There is no reason to assume that we are dealing with full-blown lexicalisations because the possessor slot can be filled by a variety of nouns. Thus these cases do not qualify as compounds in the sense introduced by Fabri (1996). The possessees may all take the possessor suffixes – an observation that is not true for many of the heads of pseudo-construct state constructions. Consider example (B40).

(B40)

Lion king [Ġaħan 139] Sultan il-iljun-i ġie king det-lion-pl come.perf ‘The king of the lions had come.’

In the same traditional story, there is an abundance of similar formations: besides sultan il-Iljuni ‘lion king’ we encountered sultan in-Nemel ‘king of ants’ and sultan il-Ħut ‘king of fish’. In principle, the pattern sultan det-X could yield an open paradigm as the possessor slot is lexically unspecified. Sultan itself however, does not take possessor suffixes. Moreover, attributes only modify the head of the construction and topicalisation is blocked. The constructions therefore again resemble compounds, although they are by no means as lexicalised as the other instances of pseudo-construct states. For the purpose of comparison, we will add two more sentences in (B41).

(B41)

Maltese

(B41.1)

Indefinite [LPP Maltese, 3] kon-t iżola-t ħafna aktar minn nawfragu be.past-1sg isolate-part much more from ship wrecked fuq ċattra f-nofs oċean on raft in-half ocean ‘I was more isolated that a shipwrecked person on a raft in the middle of an ocean.’

(B41.2)

Definite [LPP Maltese, 5] b-l-ebda mod ma kell-u bixra ta’ tifel with-det-no manner neg have.past-3sg.m appearance of child mi-tluf f-nofs id-deżert part-loose in-half det-desert ‘In no way did he have the appearance of a child lost in the middle of the desert.’

Nofs ‘half ’ – here used metonymically as ‘middle’ – is among the possessees which allow for possessor suffixation. In (B8) it occurs with a token frequency of 17 attestations. As with sultan, the head of these constructions allows for combinations with a variety of possessors in so far as part-whole relations make sense. In contradistinction to sultan however, nofs allows for combinations with indefinite possessees. This would be the only example in our corpus of a construct state involving an indefinite possessor (see above). However, it remains doubtful whether or not the properties

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

associated with proper construct states can be identified with nofs: Is nofs-u ‘its half ’ a feasible pronominalised version of nofs id-deżert? Does topicalisation of the possessor apply? Is it at all possible to modify the possessee? Is it possible to use the collocation nofs id-deżert in other syntactic contexts, meaning: outside of PPs? We assume that the answer to all these open questions is very likely no. Lexicalised univerbations (Aquilina 1990: 921) like nofsillejl ‘midnight’ (< nofs il-lejl ‘middle/half of the night’) and nofsinhar ‘midday’ (< nofs in-nhar ‘middle/half of the day’) suggest that nofs has been subject at least to partial decategorialisation and thus must be discounted as evidence for the construct state. In light of the above discussion we may conclude that the parallels of possessor suffixation and construct state occasionally (though not systematically) go beyond the limits imposed by (B38) in the sense that any possessee which allows for possessor suffixation may also optionally occur as head of the construct state with the proviso that this probability decreases if we leave the realm of prototypical inalienability. Owing to the fact that the use of the construct state with possessees other than body-part terms and kinship terms depends heavily on stylistic criteria, we will refrain from looking further into this issue (although a detailed account of the productivity of the construct state on the whole array of stylistic levels is indeed a promising task for the future). A final remark as to the domain of ta’ is called for: The preposition is indeed widely used and probably represents one of the most frequent elements of Maltese in terms of token frequency. It is by no means exceptional to find relatively long sequences of PPs – all headed by ta’ – in one and the same sentence. (B42) shows this possibility.

(B42)

Ta’ chains [Delitti 341] Ġużeppi stqarr ukoll kif kien qatta’ Ġużeppi confess.perf also how be.past cut.perf n-nofs ta’ nhar ta’ filgħodu ta’ dakinhar det-half of day of morning of that_day ta-t-Tnejn ta’ l-Erwieħ of-det-Monday of det-soul:pl ‘Ġużeppi also declared how he spent the time before noon of this Monday of All Souls’

There are five instances of ta’: it heads five successive PPs – each with a single noun as complement. Not all of these instances fit the description of possessive relations in the more prototypical sense of the term. What these multi-occurrences suggest is that ta’ has a very strong position in those areas which form the periphery of the domain of possession. Harning (1980: 148) provides an inventory of functional sub-domains of ta’ among which we encounter concrete possession alongside a variety of other categories such as qualification (including material), place, constant hierarchic relations (possibly including part-whole relations), family relations (mostly of the non-blood kind), and partitive relations. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1996: 257) has re-organised these



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

distinctions according to more general criteria. No matter how these distinctions are ordered or organised, the outcome is more or less the same: ta’ dominates outside the domain of the possessive prototype, it lays claim to those areas of possession which are clearly associated with alienability – and it intrudes on the territory of possessor suffixation and of the construct state where inalienability is only weakly established. Kinship relations are conceptually further removed from the self of a possessor when compared to parts of his body. This does not only apply to non-blood relations, although the differential morphosyntactic treatment of blood relations and non-blood relations might also support a formal levelling by analogy. However, this semantically based criterion is not as strong as the fact that syntactic weight/complexity, definiteness, pragmatics, and even phonology may constrain the formal distinction of alienable and inalienable possession. This is a theme that will recur as a kind of leitmotif in subsequent chapters when we discuss possession splits in other languages. Before we turn to these however, the Maltese picture has to be completed by a glance at predicative possession.

4.1.2  Predicative possession Predicative possession has not been a prominent theme in the general linguistic discussion of Maltese. The only grammatical description which devotes more than the odd line to this topic is the one provided by Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander (1997) who deal with predicative possession because this is prescribed by the LDS format they use. According to their contribution, Maltese behaves more or less like SAE languages when predicating possession – meaning there are no categorial distinctions, and one and the same expression is employed to cover the whole range of possessive relations in predication. This view is largely supported by the data we elicited during a fieldwork session on Malta in March 2003: native speakers regularly responded to our questionnaire with identical constructions. Thus, one could get the impression that there is not much need for a detailed treatment of predicative possession, as the distinctions which are considered to be there in attributive possession are neutralised. However, as will become clear in this section, the situation in Maltese is much more complex. Let us start with a number of relatively well-known facts. The translation equivalent of to have in Maltese is one of the rare cases of full-blown suppletion. There are three different stems associated with the meaning of having, cf. (B43). The distribution of these stems depends on tense categories, viz. għand- for present, kell- for past and koll- for future. This sensitivity to tense is remarkable in itself (Borg & AzzopardiAlexander 1997: 114) as similar distinctions can only be found with the copula in Maltese, which is usually zero in the present, kon-/kien- in the past and kun- in the future. Elsewhere in the realm of predication, Maltese prefers aspect-based distinctions corresponding to the perfective-imperfective pair of categories.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B43)

Paradigm of predicative-possessive expressions possessor

present

past

future

1sg 2sg 3sg.m 3sg.f 1pl 2pl 3pl

għand-i għand-ek għand-u għand-ha għand-na għand-kom għand-hom

kell-i kell-ek kell-u kell-ha kell-na kell-kom kell-hom

i-koll-i i-koll-ok i-koll-u i-koll-ha i-koll-na i-koll-kom i-koll-hom

Historically, the three stems reflect different Arabic possessive constructions (Elkady 2001). Two prepositions of Semitic origin are involved, namely għand ‘at’ (< Arabic Ìinda) and li ‘to’ (< Arabic li-). These (erstwhile) prepositions have retained their ability to inflect for person. In the two non-present tenses, the word-forms are the result of a univerbation of a former syntagm of which the copula formed a part: kell- goes back to *kien li ‘it was for’, whereas ikoll- stems from *ikun li ‘it will be for’. In both cases, the final nasal of the copula assimilated to the initial lateral of the preposition when the word boundary was blurred. In the future tense, the new expression of having continues to host the subject prefix j-/i- of the 3rd person singular masculine. The past tense form reflects the (basic and thus affixless) 3rd person singular masculine of the copula. For contemporary speakers of Maltese, these original constructions are no longer reconstructible from the word-forms of the above paradigm. Thus they are nowadays at least formally independent of the original syntagms. Whether this also applies to their semantics will be discussed below. Għand is different in so far as it is clearly homophonous with the spatial preposition għand ‘at’ which is of course also its etymological source. In (B44) għand is the head of a PP indicating the metaphorical place (owned by/associated with someone) to which the late mother of two orphaned children went. This is of course a euphemistic expression for dying.

(B44)

Spatial għand [Serafin 6] dik marr-et għand il-Bambin this.f go.perf-3sg.f at det-divine_child ‘She has gone to Jesus.’

The example demonstrates that not all instances of għand are automatically associated with possession. Returning to possessive għand however, we can see that since there is no proper copula in the present tense in Maltese (but see Borg [1988: 265–320]), the fact that no univerbation similar to the ones discussed in the previous paragraph has taken place is hardly surprising: there simply was no syntactic neighbour to fuse with. Given that kell- and koll- are no longer morphologically transparent, they may



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

be re-analysed as verbs especially because the future forms contain the usual subject prefix and are thus recognisable as inflected verbs. The two stems would be suppletive and cumulative because they convey lexical (= ‘have’) and grammatical meaning (= tenses). The erstwhile person affixes of the preposition li turn into object markers in this way (with the known problems for the 1st person singular, cf. above). If the non-present forms of the paradigm are interpreted as verbal, then it almost suggests itself that this interpretation be extended to the present tense form. Following Comrie (1982; 1989: 219–224), Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 112) suggest a reanalysis of the preposition as an irregular verb. The authors insist that “in this construction, the possessor is subject of the sentence”. Pre-verbal position of the supposed subject (in pragmatically neutral utterances!) and negation by the circumpositive ma…-x, otherwise reserved for verbs proper (with some exceptions), are strong arguments in favour of an analysis of għand as a verb. While we do not deny this possibility, we want to point out a number of interesting facts. First of all, the person markers on the supposedly verb-like preposition are the ones regularly used for pronominal complements of prepositions i.e., they resemble the direct object markers and are clearly different from subject markers (see [B5]). In addition, these markers are suffixed to the stem, which means that they deviate from the pattern of subject prefixes of the imperfective aspect. Moreover, if the possessor is the subject in the present tense, then it is legitimate to assume that it also has subject status in the non-present tenses. Apart from the fact that the suffixed pronominal markers of kell- and koll- are reminiscent of the bound indirect object markers, there is the additional problem that, in the future tense, the subject prefix of the 3rd person singular masculine is obligatorily present. The intricacy of the problem becomes obvious when we look at examples like (B45).

(B45)

Subject [Ġaħan 226] sar j-af li become.perf 3-know.imperf rel kien-et se j-koll-ha lil-l-Bambin be.past-3sg.f fut 3-have.fut-(O.)3sg.f to-det-divine_child ‘He came to know that she would have (= give birth to) the divine child.’

The possessor is the Virgin Mary to whom the person markers specified for feminine gender refer. In kienet ‘she was’ the suffix -et is an uncontroversial case of a subject marker. In terms of morphology, however the co-referential -ha of jkollha ‘she will have’ is an object marker the subject slot being occupied by the prefix j- which refers to masculine. Animate nouns in object function normally take the preposition lil ‘to’ as a marker, whereas inanimate objects make do without any special marker (Borg 1988: 161–167). In (B45), this preposition is used on the NP (i)l-Bambin ‘the divine child’ which is therefore morphosyntactically characterised as the direct object

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

of jkollha! The subject prefix j- cannot be co-referential with the lexical NP in the object slot, nor can -ha be in a relation to Bambin (because of different gender). There are several possible solutions to the problem – none of which is really convincing. One possibility would be to deny the initial j- the status of a subject markers and declare it a semantically empty part of the stem (which then becomes ikoll- for the future). An alternative solution treats the same prefix as a kind of impersonal marker which then makes it unnecessary for us to find a co-referential participant in the sentence. Both possibilities leave us with the problem of what to make of the alternation between bona fide subject markers and morphological object markers on the finite verb forms. If we take for granted that the participant marked by -et and -ha in (B45) has the same syntactic status for both verb forms, then this assumption gives rise to the idea that we are dealing with some kind of alignment split – either of the nominative vs. ergative dichotomy or else involving an active-stative distinction. The exact semantics of the pseudo-verbs is crucial in this respect. Since we know their origins, we feel entitled to postulate that għand/kell-/koll- display the semantics of static relations – and have not developed into full-blown action verbs (irrespective of the fact that they are of course transitive). As to the verbal character of għand however, we doubt that this re-analysis has reached the final stage as the formal identity with the spatial preposition is still an obstacle. One might best term it a semi-verb or pseudoverb. For further arguments on this topic we refer the reader to Haspelmath & Caruana (2000) who propose a model of subject diffuseness to account for the above facts. Independent of these questions, Maltese instantiates a case of a split. In Heine’s (1997) terms, Maltese employs constructions based historically (!) on the goal schema in the non-present tenses, whereas in the present tense, the location schema applies. The importance of this mixed character of the system to our present purpose will become clearer in the course of the subsequent discussion. To begin, we take stock of the functional domains in which the suppletive forms of (B43) are used in modern Maltese. All kinds of possessees combine freely with the pseudo- or semi-verbs of having. The examples below (= [B46]–[B48]) by no means exhaust the possibilities of għand/kell-/koll-.

(B46)

Present tense

(B46.1)

Concrete possession [LPP Maltese, 10] għand-u kollezzjoni ta’ friefet at-3sg.m collection of butterfly.pl ‘Does he have a butterfly collection?’

(B46.2)

Abstract possession [+control] [LPP Maltese, 20] għand-i affari-jiet serj-i x-n-aghmel at-1sg business-pl serious-pl what-1sg-make.imperf ‘I have some serious things to do.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B46.3)

Abstract possession [¬control] [Ġaħan 172] għand-ek id-dawl ta-l-qamar at-2sg det-light of-det-moon ‘You have the moonlight [= as a means to find one’s way by night-time]!’



Past

(B47)

(B47.1)

Animate possessee/kinship [Ġaħan 121] dan is-sultan ma kell-u-x tfal this det-king neg have.past-3sg.m-neg child.pl ‘This king had no children.’

(B47.2)

Physical state [Ġaħan 11] tefagħ-hu-lha b-kemm kell-u saħħa throw-O.3sg.m-IO.3sg.f with-how_many have.past-3sg.m health għal fuq ras-ha for on head-POR.3sg.f ‘He threw it onto her head with all his might.’

(B47.3)

Mental state [Malta 310] hemm-hekk kell-ek moħħ-ok iktar kwiet there-so have.past-2sg brain-POR.2sg more quiet ‘In that place you had (more) peace of mind.’

(B47.4)

Body part [Ġaħan 226] kell-ha wiċċ-ha ovali u bajdani have.past-3sg.f face-POR.3sg.f oval and whitish ‘She had an oval whitish face.’



Future

(B48)

(B48.1)

Age [Ġaħan 163] imqar j-itlaq meta j-koll-u maybe 3-leave.imperf when 3-have.fut-3sg.m ‘I wish that he will quit when he is twenty years old.’

għoxrin sena twenty year

(B48.2)

Obligation [Serafin 15] kien i-koll-u j-itlaq be.past 3-have.fut-3sg.m 3-leave.imperf ‘He would have had to leave.’

(B48.3)

Actual/temporary possession [Ġaħan 238] u ma r-rid-x li lil-l-Bambin and neg 1sg-want-neg rel to-det-divine_child ma j-koll-ok-x xi t-libbs-u neg 3-have.fut-2sg-neg what 2sg-dress.imperf:caus-O.3sg.m ‘And I do not want that you have nothing to dress the divine child with.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

No matter how one interprets these predicative constructions (properly verbal or something different) the outcome is the same. The expressions used for predicative possession cover all varieties of combinations with possessees – and even display the likewise typical extension to express obligation (= ‘to have to’) as in (B48.2). Distinctions which still yield a structural dichotomy on the level of the NP are neutralised on the level of the VP. The opposition of alienable vs. inalienable possession seems to be restricted to adnominal constructions. Upon closer inspection the picture becomes a bit more colourful. As a matter of fact, there is evidence of two additional predicative possessive constructions in Maltese which have so far not gained sufficient attention among specialists. The first of these two constructions which we introduce here has probably escaped notice because it has a relatively low text frequency. In addition, it does not seem to be compulsory, meaning it could always be replaced by the above mentioned pseudo-verbs. Interestingly, even Maltese linguists as native speakers had a hard time acknowledging that this construction exists at all. The construction to which we are alluding consists of the regular copula plus a PP headed by the preposition bi ‘with’ whose complement is the possessee. The use of bi for the purpose of predicative possession is mentioned among the functions of the preposition in Aquilina (1987: 114) where it is classified as indicating the possession of a quality. The subject of the copula is identical with the possessor. A good example of this construction is (B49). See also Stolz; Stroh & Urdze (2006) who discuss possessive functions of the preposition bi in Maltese.

(B49)

bi [Serafin 8] ℜ possessee possessor żewġ-ha kien bi-l-ħanut husband-POR.3sg.f be.past with-det-shop ‘Her husband had a shop.’

ta-l-merċa of-det-goods

There is nothing about the situation described by this sentence which would preclude the use of the expected verb of having: żewġha kellu (l-)ħanut ta-l-merċa ‘her husband had a/(the) shop’ is a perfectly well-formed sentence. With a view to determining why kien bi was chosen in lieu of kellu, we have to review a number of other examples first. In (B50) the possessee is a beard i.e., a part of the body which is disposable without putting the survival of the human being at risk. Again the possessive relation is encoded by kien bi and not kellu.

(B50)

[Qrempuċu 71] il-Baruni Garmiġo kien bi-l-baffi det-baron Garmiġo be.past with-det-whiskers ‘Baron Garmiġo had whiskers.’

Note however that bil-baffi can also be used to indicate first-rate quality of objects (Aquilina 1987: 59) which is a reading we cannot completely rule out for the present case.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

In what follows however we take (B50) as an instance of possession. Do shops and beards have anything in common that would justify their being treated morphosyntactically similar under possession? This question can only be answered after we have looked at still more instances of the Copula + bi-construction. It is important to distinguish two types of bi-phrases in copular sentences. In one of the two, the PP functions as a kind of manner adverbial which may occur relatively freely in combination with core predicators other than the copula. In (B51), we enumerate a number of these rather frequent cases which are structurally different from their possessive look-alikes because the former do not allow for replacement by għand/kell-/koll-. The sentences in (B51) are based on Aquilina (1987) and Ganado’s autobiography.

(B51)

Adverbial bi-phrases

copular sentences

other verbal predicates

possessive construction

Il-ktieb kien bit-Taljan ‘the book was in Italian’ Ommu kienet bil-qiegħda ‘his mother was sitting’ Il-kafè kien bis-sold ‘coffee cost a penny’

Ommu titkellem bit-Taljan ‘his mother speaks Italian’ Ommu tahdem bil-qiegħda ‘his mother works while sitting’ Begħt b’sold drapp ‘I sold cloth for a penny.’

*il-ktieb kellu t-Taljan *Ommu kellha bil-qiegħda *il-kafè kellu s-sold

Substitution by a full-blown predicative expression of possession is the crucial criterion for the distinction of the two types of bi-phrases whereas extended use beyond copular sentences is less indicative of categorial differences. The two types of bi-phrases are closely connected to each other both in terms of formal properties and as to conceptual criteria. There is a continuum-like range of functions and chances are that possessive bi and truly adverbial bi are diachronically related. This closeness is reflected by sentences of the type given in (B52) where we encounter two PPs in combination.

(B52)

Double PPs

(B52.1)

[Kwiekeb 110] Ġanni għamel sinjal b-ras-u lil Salvu Ġanni make.perf sign with-head-POR.3sg.m to Salvu li kien bi-t-tmun [f-id-ej-h]PP rel be.past with-det-rudder in-hand-pl-POR.3sg.m ‘Ġanni signalled with his head to Salvu who had the rudder in his hands.’

(B52.2)

[Xindi 43] kien dejjem bi-l-fanal m-ixghul [f-id-u]PP be.past always with-det-lantern part-light in-hand-POR.3sg.m ‘He always had the lantern in his hand.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B52.3)

[Għafrid 32] wieħed minn dawn […] kien bi ktieb [fuq bank one from that.pl be.past with book on bench [f-rokna]PP]PP in-corner ‘One of them sat on a bench in a corner with a book.’

In these examples, the possessee is the complement of the PP headed by bi. In addition, there is at least one other PP which provides the spatial co-ordinates of the whereabouts of either the possessee or the possessor. These additional PPs are optional adjuncts and can thus be classified as bona fide adverbials. Without them the sentences still make sense (if we discount stylistics for the moment). With the exception of (B52.3) however, the bi-phrases cannot simply be left out: in (B52.1)–(B52.2) their being deleted would yield nonce sentences or invite completely divergent readings. Thus, if the additional adverbial phrase relates to the possessee, the bi-phrase cannot be dropped. If it is the possessor which the additional PP modifies, then deletion of the bi-phrase may be possible. Therefore, in (B52.3), the construction involving bi is still very close to an adverbial phrase. In the first two examples in (B52), kien bi can be replaced by kellu whereas this substitution is less acceptable in (B52.3). Note however, that the substitution is absolutely fine if the additional PP is deleted first. With the latter present and replacement by kellu, the sentence could be understood to mean that the possessor had put a book of his on the bench but is not necessarily sitting there himself. This is of course exactly the opposite of the meaning expressed by (B52.3) which describes a person sitting on a bench with some reading matter within his reach. What the additional PPs also suggest is that we are dealing with current or temporary possession: the possessor has physical control over the possessee exactly in the situation described whether or not this control extends over time. Physical control does not apply to (B49)–(B50) – nor does it apply in a variety of other instances. In (B53), the possessee is a body-part (used in more or less idiomatic expressions).

(B53)

Body-parts

(B53.1)

[Qrempuċu 73] iżda Qrempuċellu kien għad-u bi-l-geddum but Qrempuċellu be.past still-3sg.m with-det-jaw ‘But Qrempuċellu was still disappointed.’

(B53.2)

[Kollu 26] dak iż-żmien kon-t għad-ni b-widn-ej-ja that det-time be.past-1sg still-1sg with-ear-pl-POR.1sg m-xarb-in part-wet-pl ‘At that time, I was still inexperienced.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B53.3)

[Kappillan 26] hekk serraħ ras l-omm so give_rest.perf head det-mother li kien-et ġa b-ħalq-ha mimli rel be.past-3sg.f already with-mouth-POR.3sg.f full b-ħafna kliem biex t-iġġieled with-many word.coll in_order_to 3sg-f-fight.imperf ma-l-bejjiegħ ta-l-ġugarell-i with-det-seller of-toy-pl ‘In this way, he calmed down the mother who already had her mouth full of words in order to fight with the toy-seller.’

In these sentences, temporary physical states of body-parts are described (and made use of to metonymically characterise the psychological state of a participant). In (B53.2) the ears do not remain wet for the full life-cycle of the participant to whom they belong and, in (B53.3), the lady’s mouth is full of words only for the period before peace is restored among the litigants. In (B53.1) the inflected adverbs għad- ‘still’ indicates that the situation is not expected to last for very much longer. The participants do not literally control the body-parts in focus. Thus, physical control cannot be the decisive factor for these cases to be treated on par with the ones mentioned above in (B52). It is very likely that the common denominator is temporariness. This is corroborated by the situation described in (B54).

(B54)

[Malta 430] kon-na lkoll bi-l-morning coat with-det-morning coat be.past-1pl all u b-l-uniformi-jiet ta-l-gala and with-det-uniform-pl of-det-gala ‘We were all dressed in morning coats and gala uniforms.’

Numerous representatives of various countries gather for a ceremonial meeting with members of the British Royal family. For this occasion, they have put on their best attire. Wearing their morning coat or gala uniform is a state of affairs which lasted only for the duration of the ceremony and thus can be classified as temporary. Under these circumstances, kellna in lieu of konna bi does not seem to be a particularly good replacement as kell- is not explicitly specified for temporariness. Kell- also invites, say, timeless readings which may border on the meaning of ownership. However, for the context from which (B54) has been taken, ownership and/or permanent possession are absolutely irrelevant notions. What counts instead is the fact that one had the dress on at that particular occasion. This also applies to cases as (B55) where the possessor is not a human being.

(B55)

Non-human possessor

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B55.1)

Country [Malta 323] il-kumplament ta’ pajjiż-na […] kien għad-u det-rest of country-POR.1pl be.past still-3sg.m bi-l-fosos with-det-ditch.pl ‘The rest of our country still had ditches.’

(B55.2)

Eyes [Kappillan 35] għajn-ej-ha kien-u bi-d-dmugħ eye-pl-POR.3sg.f be.past-pl with-det-tear.coll ‘There were tears in her eyes.’

(B55.3)

Plane [Malta 205] iżda wara xi sagħt-ejn ġie lura but after some hour-du come.perf back għax l-ajruplan kien bi-l-ħsara because det-plane be.past with-det-damage ‘But after about two hours, he came back because the plane was damaged.’

(B55.4)

nassa [Malta 402] in-nassa kien-et b-ġobn-a Borg Olivier-jan-a det-trap be.past-3sg.f with-cheese-sg Borg Olivier-adj-f ‘The trap used a slice of cheese à la Borg Olivier.’

The necessity to modernise the system of drainage and irrigation in the rural parts of Malta in the 1950s is discussed in the immediate context of (B55.1). The adverb għadu again makes clear that the unhealthy situation is not considered to go on for ever – but having to work on the basis of open ditches was the current situation at the moment described in Ganado’s memoires. In (B55.2), the temporary state of a body-part is described: the tears are in the eyes of the person again at the moment described in the book. The technical problems of the plane to which (B55.3) alludes can likewise be seen as temporary because the plane returned to its home-base in order to be repaired there. In (B55.4), there is the metaphorical trap which contains something to attract potential victims (= a political plan offered by the then-prime minister of Malta to the public and his adversaries). As soon as the cheese has been swallowed by the mouse, the situation described has also come to an end because the possessee has disappeared, meaning: the presence of the possessee is only temporary. For (B55.1) and perhaps also for (B55.3)–(B55.4), a replacement by kellu is an option – which however, seems to be ruled out with (B55.2). Superficially, this contradicts our above observations, according to which there must be a substitution-relation involving an uncontroversial instance of a possessive construction. We will tackle this issue below. For the time being, we will continue with (B56) which easily fits in with the pattern discussed in the previous paragraphs: the possessor does not physically control her being sleepy but, unless it is pathological, sleepiness is not a constant physical state.





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B56)

[Malta 498] kien-et għad-ha bi-n-ngħas be.past-3sg.f still-3sg.f with-det-sleep ‘She was still sleepy.’

The sleepiness is there at a given moment in time. In this way, ngħas ‘sleep’ behaves like the corporeal possessees in (B52). The class of possessees which enter the Copula + biconstruction thus extends to abstract phenomena – a fact to which (B57) shows.

(B57)

[Xindi 41] jiena dejjem bi-l-kurzità I always with-det-curiosity ‘I am always curious.’

In the present tense, there is no copula in the construction. Kurzità ‘curiosity’ is of course an abstract possessee. What disturbs the picture a bit is the presence of the adverb dejjem ‘always’ which is in conflict with the idea that the possessive construction under scrutiny encodes temporary relations. However, (B57) does not necessarily state that the participant is permanently curious. His curiosity can be easily triggered by the adequate stimulus (which may be absent for longer spans of time). Be that as it may, curiosity is a mental state that escapes the possessor’s control. In (B58) there are the abstract possessees ħsieb ‘thought(s)’ and idea ‘idea’ which are perhaps more accessible to the possessor’s control (“plan-making”). Nevertheless, they refer to ideas that were there at a given point in time and their existence did not last very much beyond this moment (or whose potential persistence in time is irrelevant for the context).

(B58)

Thoughts/ideas

(B58.1)

[Kwiekeb 11] kon-t bi ħsieb-ni n-ieħu lil Apollo għal dawra be.past-1sg with thought.pl-1sg 1sg-take to Apollo for round ‘I had taking Apollo for a walk in mind.’

(B58.2)

[Malta 139] il-parti kbir-a ta-l-membr-i ta’ l-esekuttiv det-part big-f of-det-member-pl of det-executive kien-u b-l-idea be.past-pl with-det-idea li post-hom fi-h kien bħal ċens perpetwu rel place-POR.3pl in-3sg.m be.past like lease perpetual ‘The majority of the members of the executive committee had the idea that their place on it was like a perpetual lease.’

As far as we can judge, kellhom could replace kienu bi, at least in (B58.2). In (B59), the substitutive relation between the Copula + bi-construction and the pseudo-verbs of having is even more transparent.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B59)

kienu bi vs. Jkollhom [Malta 260] il-knejjes ġodda li telgħ-u det-church.pl new.pl rel rise.perf-3pl ma kin-u-x bi-l-pjan rettangolari antik neg be.past-pl-neg with-det-plan rectangular old imma beda j-koll-hom il-pjan ta’ salib Latin but begin.perf 3-have.fut-3pl det-plan of cross Latin ‘The new churches that were built did not have the old rectangular groundplan, but they began to be built according to the pattern of the Latin cross.’

Both construction types are used with the same possessee, namely il-pjan ‘the plan’. When il-pjan is used for the first time in (B59), the Copula + bi-construction is employed. The second attestation of the possessee goes along with the use of the future form koll-. On the one hand, this sentence may pass as proof of the fact that the Copula + bi-construction is indeed an instance of a possessive construction on a par with the pseudo-verbs. On the other hand, the question remains as to why there is an alternation of constructions in the same sentence. One hypothesis could be that the two possessive constructions are not fully synonymous. As we have seen above, the pseudo-verbs neutralise time-based distinctions with a certain privilege for relations which cover a longer period of time, whereas the Copula + bi-construction highlights temporary possession. How does this distinction map onto the relations expressed in (B59)? This is easy for the pseudo-verb: it is used in its future form to indicate that from an unspecified point in the past onwards a new architectural principle became the rule – and thus developed into the permanent scheme for church-building. Therefore, jkollhom is motivated by the fact that permanence or extension over time is the intended reading. The answer for the Copula + bi-construction is not so obvious. In formal terms, the two constructions display different polarity with the Copula + bi-construction having been negated. Whether it is feasible to equate negative polarity with a restriction of temporal extension is a question we cannot investigate here. However, the possessee of the negated construction is at the same time characterised as the old church-building plan which is being supplanted by the new one mentioned in the second part of the sentence. Thus, the use of kienu bi is perhaps motivated by the wish of the speaker to highlight that the old principles are no longer in vigour – and have thus proved to be only of a temporary nature. The reading invited is therefore the one of no longer. With these hypotheses in the back of our minds, we may now return to examples (B49)–(B50). In both sentences the possessees – no matter how different their ontological status – most probably have in common that their relation to the possessor is depicted as a temporary one. In (B49) the shop is not necessarily the permanent property of the possessor. What is important however, is the fact that the possessor had legal rights to the shop at a certain point in time. A possible reading could be had/ran a shop at that time. Likewise, the whiskers in (B50) are just a temporary bodily characteristics of the baron. The whiskers can be disposed of at any time and thus the reading could be had



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

whiskers at that time. To summarise, in Maltese there is a potential competitor of the pseudo-verbs of having, namely the Copula + bi-construction whose functional domain is the expression of (rather short-lived) temporary possession. This distinction is not identical with the distinctions made in the realm of attributive possession. The same can be said of the second construction we want to focus on. This construction involves the usual pseudo-verb of having in combination with the preposition fuq ‘on’ (inflected for person wherever suitable). Aquilina (1987: 368) mentions the possessive functions of this preposition in his dictionary. (B60) is a typical example of this kind of construction.

(B60)

fuq [Ġaħan 21] il-ġuħ li kell-u Ġaħan fuq-u det-hunger rel have.past-3sg.m Ġaħan on-3sg.m ma ħallie-x j-oqgħod f-sikkt-u d-dar neg leave.perf-neg 3-stay.imperf in-stillness-POR.3sg.m det-house ‘The hunger he had did not allow Ġaħan to stay quietly at home.’

The possessee is the noun ġuħ ‘hunger’, denoting a temporary physical state. The possessee is relativised and the remainder of the possessive construction appears in the relative clause. The two suffixes –u on kell- and fuq- are co-referential with the possessor, Ġaħan. This is a pattern which recurs quite frequently. However, we do not always find it, even with the same possessee or similar ones. In (B61) two examples taken from the same story as the previous sentence contain the possessee għatx ‘thirst’ which we would expect to behave just like ġuħ ‘hunger’ – however, our expectations are not fulfilled as there is no trace of the preposition fuq.

(B61)

Without fuq

(B61.1)

[Ġaħan 250] b-hekk t-aqta’ l-għatx kbir li kell-ha with-so 3sg.f-cut.imperf det-thirst big rel have.past-3sg.f ‘In this way she quenched the great thirst she had.’

(B61.2)

[Ġaħan 251] għax għand-I għatx kbir because at-1sg thirst big ‘Because I feel very thirsty.’

Admittedly, there is some variation even with ġuħ when treating it as a possessee. As a matter of fact, both ġuħ and għatx occur in various constructions. Apart from combinations with the pseudo-verbs of having, the two possessees may occur in the Copula + bi-construction (= jiena kont bil-guħ/għatx ‘I was hungry/thirsty’) and with fuq (= għandi ġuħ/għatx kbir fuqi ‘I am terribly hungry/thirsty’). The choice of the appropriate construction may depend on several factors, among which the degree of hunger/thirst is perhaps decisive, although this must remain speculation.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

There seem to be two domains in which the fuq-construction is made use of with a certain degree of consistency. According to the examples provided by Aquilina (1987: 368), the preposition is mainly employed in combination with the pseudo-verbs when the intended meaning is temporary physical possession corresponding more or less to English to have(/carry) something on/with oneself, see (B62.1). The same construction may however, also be used with possessees which are more abstract, as is the sadness in (B62.2).

(B62)

(B62.1)

(B62.2)

fuq-constructions according to Aquilina (1987: 368) Physical possession fuq-i ma kell-i-x ħlief żewġ on-1sg neg have.past-1sg-neg except two ‘I had only two shillings with me.’

xelin-i shilling-pl

Abstract possession għand-i dwejjaq kbar fuq-i at-1sg grief.coll big.pl on-1sg ‘I am really sad today.’

Interestingly, Aquilina’s own translation of (B62.2) is suggestive of current possession and temporary possession as the temporal adverbial today shows. In our corpus, we mainly encountered cases of abstract possession for which the fuq-construction was employed. The examples in (B63) are representative of this dominance of abstract possession.

(B63)

Abstract possession: physical and mental states

(B63.1)

Shame [Ġaħan 233] imma l-mogħża but det-goat kbir-a li kell-ha fuq-ha bi-l-mistħija with-det-shame big-f rel have.past-3sg.f on-3sg.f ħarb-et flee.perf-3sg.f ‘But because of the strong shame it felt the goat ran away.’

(B63.2)

Fear [Ġaħan 221] Sonja u Benna kien-u se j-itilq-u Sonja and Benna be.past-3pl fut 3-leave.imperf-pl j-iġr-u 3-run.imperf-pl ‘l isfel bi-l-biża’ li kell-hom fuq-hom to below with-det-fear rel have.past-3pl on-3pl ‘Sonja and Benna would have run downstairs because of the fear they felt.’



(B63.3)

Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Joy [Ġaħan 203] u ż-żiemel beda j-aqbeż […] u j-ħabbat and det-horse begin.perf 3-jump.imperf and 3-knock.imperf in-nagħla ta’ quddiem ta’ saqa-j-h ma-l-blat det-horseshoe of in_front of foot-pl-POR.3sg.m with-det-rock li kell-u fuq-u bi-l-ferħ with-det-joy rel have.past-3sg.m on-3sg.m ‘And the horse began to jump and stamp its front horseshoe on the rock because of the joy it felt.’

The physico-mental states which function as possessees in the above examples are all temporary: a sudden attack of panic, a momentary feeling of joy or shame are important at the moment they are felt by the experiencer, but are otherwise ephemeral phenomena. Of course, they are outside the control of the possessor/experiencer. In this way, they are different from the concrete objects one may happen to carry on one’s body (see [B62.1]). To some extent, the functional domains of the Copula + bi-construction and the fuq-construction coincide because both highlight temporary possessive relations. What distinguishes the one from the other is the fact that the Copula + bi-construction combines with a much wider range of possessees independent of the concrete vs. abstract distinction, whereas the fuq-construction has a clear predilection for physicomental states with the addition of objects carried along on one’s body.

4.1.3  Attributive vs. predicative possession in Maltese This last observation leads us to the final section of our Maltese case-study. The above discussion reveals that the system of possessive distinctions is not homogeneous across the various syntactically defined types. There are differences between attributive and predicative possession, on the one hand, and between pronominal and adnominal possession, on the other. This is true even if we discount the pragmatic and stylistic factors which we discussed in sections 4.1.1.1–4.1.1.2. Evidently, the formal distinctions on the three levels overlap to varying degrees but each level is characterised by an individual solution. What they have in common is the fact that there is at least a division into two categories on each of the levels. For the two types of attributive possession, we have already seen that possessor suffixation and the construct state are in a kind of inclusion, i.e., the distribution of possessor suffixation over possessee classes in pronominal possession is extended further than the domain of the construct state in genitive constructions. The latter is included in the domain of the former. Body-part terms and kinship terms of the blood-relation kind have proved to belong to the core of the inalienable possessees as they still have a pronounced preference for possessor suffixation and the construct state. Concrete and abstract possessees of other qualities tend to favour the PP headed by ta’. Those concepts which constitute the core of inalienability in Maltese are associated

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

with a certain degree of time-stability, meaning: the relations persist over long periods of time (ideally for a whole life-cycle of a potential possessor). In contradistinction to these, the prepositional strategy of marking the possessor is neutral with respect to time. The relations may be permanent or temporary. We may therefore assume that in attributive possession, time-stability is the criterion which singles out possessor suffixation and the construct state as the “special” cases, in a manner of speaking. This is exactly the other way around for predicative possession. The pseudo-verbs of having do not specify whether the duration of the possessive relation qualifies as short or long whereas the two additional constructions, the Copula + bi-construction and the fuq-construction, are devoted to relations of limited extension over time. This is tantamount to a complete reversal of perspectives: in attributive possession, timestability is given formal prominence while, in predicative possession, temporariness receives special attention (although we have to repeat that these constructions are not compulsory and their exact weight within the possessive system of Maltese still awaits clarification). Moreover, the two constructions highlighting temporary relations interact differently with the alienability-inaliena­bility distinction of attributive possession. As far as we can judge, the Copula + bi-con­struction is largely insensitive to the inherent semantics of the possessees, i.e., almost any kind of possessee can form part of the construction – with the notable exception of the majority of representatives of inalienability. For the fuq-construction, there is, on the one hand, a close association with concrete portable (= small-size) objects of the alienable kind and, on the other, with physico-mental states which are otherwise among those concepts which allow for possessor suffixation in pronominal possession (see section 4.1.1.1). However, possessor suffixation is reserved largely for physico-mental states of potentially unbounded extension over time whereas the fuq-construction depicts the state as momentary. This intricate relationship between the different levels is schematically represented in (B64).21

(B64)

time

Synopsis of possessive distinctions in Maltese possessive categories

inalienable alienable alienable/ inalienable stable construct state possessor suffixation neutral PP pseudo-verbs temporary bi fuq attributive predicative syntactic level

In following chapters, we present a number of similar cases from other parts of the European linguistic landscape. With these new insights we will be able to refine the above matrix and re-consider the most important issues which cannot be properly dealt with on the basis of Maltese alone.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

4.2  North Germanic At the opposite end of the continent, a far distance from Malta, we encounter a ­number of languages which are characterised by highly diversified possessive systems. North Germanic and, in particular, the insular varieties of West Scandinavian display possession splits of various kinds. Phenomena of this kind have only recently begun to attract the attention of general linguists (and Nordic philologists, too) as the articles on Danish possession (Togeby 2001; Sørensen 2001; Heltoft 2001) especially demonstrate. The first unified account of the possessive system of modern Icelandic, for instance, is provided by Stolz (2004). In his practical course “Icelandic for foreigners”, ­Friðjónsson (1978) makes a number of pertinent statements about Icelandic possession. In the descriptive grammars of Icelandic (Kress 1982) and Faroese (Thráinsson et al. 2004) important observations about possession are made – though in various mostly unconnected paragraphs, as our citations from these sources below amply document. For some of the interesting North-Germanic phenomena, the relevant distinctions follow the alienability-inalienability divide more or less closely and thus resemble the ­Maltese system at least to some extent. It goes without saying that the North Germanic languages are neither genetically nor areally related to Maltese. Moreover, these representatives of the Indo-European macrophylum are also typologically or structurally different, on various parameters, from the Afro-Asiatic language described in the foregoing sections. These differences notwithstanding, these unrelated languages share some common features in the realm of possession. In what follows, we will focus on evidence from West Scandinavian. The other North Germanic languages (Nynorsk, Swedish and Danish) enter the stage occasionally and in an unsystematic way. This section is divided into sub-sections according to the pattern introduced for the description of Maltese. We will focus on Icelandic in the case study and devote sections 4.2.1–4.2.3 to a detailed description of the possessive system of this language. In section 4.2.1, we start with a discussion of the facts observed for attributive possession: pronominal possession (section 4.2.1.1) precedes genitive constructions (section 4.2.1.2). We then continue with predicative possession (section 4.2.2) before we integrate the results in order to characterise the system in its entirety in section 4.2.3. In section 4.2.4, data from other North Germanic languages – especially Faroese and Norwegian (Bokmål) – are compared to our Icelandic findings, thus preparing the ground for generalisations.

4.2.1  Attributive possession Delsing (1993: 147–84) provides valuable information about attributive possession in North Germanic in general, including a sketch of NP-internal possession in Icelandic. Stolz & Gorseman (2001) give the first detailed account of pronominal ­possession in

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

modern Faroese. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003a) is also very helpful. Descriptive ­grammars however, do not allot a systematic place to possession – the relevant phenomena are mentioned, if at all, at different places and mostly only in passing. Even if we add the occasional paper devoted to special aspects of possession in North ­Germanic, it is still true to say that the information is still too diffuse to yield a coherent picture of the entire system. It is hoped therefore, that we will succeed in remedying this situation by way of reviewing the facts characteristic of attributive (and ­predicative) ­possession in Icelandic, Faroese and Norwegian in the subsequent pages.

4.2.1.1  Pronominal possession In contrast to Maltese (which employs the regularly inflected forms of the preposition ta’), all North Germanic languages have a distinct set of possessive pronouns. These possessive pronouns can be further sub-divided into two classes because the members of one class behave largely like attributive adjectives as they agree with the possessee noun in a number of grammatical categories whereas the members of the other class behave like genitive forms of the nominal paradigm (cf. section 5.1.1.2.5). In (B65) we present the paradigm of the Icelandic possessive pronouns, which is largely representative of the insular varieties of North Germanic (for the mainland varieties one has to discount the case distinctions). Agreement involves gender, number and case. Boldface highlights the invariable genitive forms.

(B65)

Possessive pronouns in Icelandic (Kress 1982: 105–106)

adjectival

genitive

POR

PUM

m

f

nt

1sg 2sg

nom.sg acc.sg dat.sg gen.sg nom.pl acc.pl dat.pl gen.pl nom.sg acc.sg dat.sg gen.sg nom.pl acc.pl dat.pl gen.pl

minn minn mínum míns mínir mína mínum minna Þinn Þinn Þínum Þíns Þínir Þína Þínum Þinna

mín mína minni minnar mínar mínar mínum minna Þín Þína Þinni Þinnar Þínar Þínar Þínum Þinna

mitt mitt mínu míns mín mín mínum minna Þitt Þitt Þínu Þíns Þín Þín Þínum Þinna

m

f

nt



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits  3sg nom.sg sinn sín sitt hans acc.sg sinn sína sitt dat.sg sínum sinni sínu gen.sg síns sinnar síns nom.pl sínir sínar sín acc.pl sína sínar sín dat.pl sínum sínum sínum gen.pl sinna sinna sinna 1pl 2pl nom.sg sinn sín sitt 3pl acc.sg sinn sína sitt dat.sg sínum sinni sínu gen.sg síns sinnar síns nom.pl sínir sínar sín acc.pl sína sínar sín dat.pl sínum sínum sínum gen.pl sinna sinna sinna

hennar Þess

okkar ykkar Þeirra

The 1st and 2nd persons plural only have genitive-like pronouns (the archaic pronouns vor ‘Our’ [now used only for the pluralis maiestatis] and yðvar ‘your (Honour’s)’ [only used for respectful address in times gone by] inflect for gender, number and case according to the specifications of their head-noun [Kress 1982: 106]). For the 3rd person of both numbers, forms of both types co-exist. Those which agree with their head noun are usually termed “reflexive” as they may only be used if the possessor is identical with the subject of the clause, whereas the genitive forms have to be employed if the possessor is referentially different from the subject (cf. section 5.1.1.2.1). Sentences (B66.1)–(B66.2) illustrate this rule.

(B66)

Icelandic: Reflexive vs. non-reflexive possessive pronoun

(B66.1)

Reflexive [LPP Icelandic, 13] síðan dró hann kind-in-a úr vas-a sínum then draw.pret he sheep-def-acc from pocket-dat POR.3sg.ref-dat ‘Then he took the sheep out of his pocket.’

(B66.2)

Non-reflexive [LPP Icelandic, 14] en enginn haf-ð-i trú-að honum but nobody have-pret-3sg believe-part he:dat vegna klaeð-ar-n-ar han-s because_of clothe-acc.pl-def-acc.pl he-gen ‘But nobody believed him because of his clothes.’

In (B66.1), the possessor of the trouser pocket is co-referential with the subject of the verb dró ‘(he) drew’, namely hann ‘he’. Thus, the possessive pronoun must be sinn in the appropriate gender, number and case form dictated by the head-noun vasi ‘pocket’.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

However, in (B66.2), the possessor of the clothes is not identical with the sentence subject enginn ‘nobody’ (but rather with the [indirect] object of the lexical verb trúa ‘believe’). There is thus only one option: the possessive pronoun must be the genitival one exempt from agreement. This distinction of reflexive vs. non-reflexive possessor in the 3rd person of both numbers continues to be observed in all North Germanic languages. Similar distinctions can be found in a variety of other languages especially in the European east. We take up this areal issue below in section 5.1.1.2.2. The existence of distinct possessive pronouns is one thing and the other is the fact that these pronouns are in competition with other expressions involving non­possessive pronouns – a fact which, surprisingly, goes unmentioned in Delsing’s (1993: 157–158) treatment of Icelandic. These are PPs in which the possessor is encoded by a personal pronoun functioning as the complement of the preposition (Stolz 2004: 81–83). In our corpus, the possessee is always marked for definiteness. A typical ­example of this construction type is (B67).

(B67)

Icelandic [Jón 21] tvær stelp-ur stó-ð-u og fliss-uð-u two.nom.f girl-nom.pl stand-pret-3pl and laugh-pret-3pl PUM ℜ POR í lóf-a-n-a á sér in palm-acc.pl-def-acc.pl on ref.3.dat ‘Two girls were laughing behind their palms.’

Literally, the possessive construction would translate into English as ‘the palms on them’, i.e., the possessee is depicted as being located somewhere on (the body of) the possessor. The possessor is still expressed by a pronoun but this time it is not a proper possessive pronoun: sér is the reflexive dative form of a 3rd person to be used when the sentence/clause subject and the pronominally encoded participant are co-referential. Why is this construction used in lieu of lofa sína or another which would still be grammatically well-formed (though clearly dispreferred in the given context)? The answer is a straightforward one: Icelandic relatively strictly observes possessive distinctions according to the semantics of the possessee. The preposition á ‘on, at’ (governing the dative case on its complement) functioning as the relator to join possessor and possessee is used particularly often when the possessee is an outer body-part, as in (B68) (Kress 1982: 197). To begin we will only look at those examples where the possessee precedes the PP which introduces the possessor. The inverse order is discussed separately for all relevant construction (including their frequency values) below.

(B68)

(B68.1)

Icelandic possessee á pronoun Mouth [Mei 82] munn-ur-inn á henni var nefnilega mouth-nom-def on she.dat be.pret namely



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

ein-s og sprung-inn hjólbarði one-gen and explode-part tyre ‘Her mouth was like a flat tyre.’ (B68.2)

Arse [Enn 87] þeir skul-u sko aldri sjá í rass-inn á mér they should-3pl well never look in arse-def on I.dat ‘They should never look at my arse.’

(B68.3)

Cheeks [Jón 42] tár-in fló-ð-u niður kinn-ar-n-ir á henni tear-def run-pret-3pl down cheek-acc.pl-def-acc.pl on she.dat ‘The tears rolled down her cheeks.’

With a view to coming to grips with the Icelandic possessive system we have based our research on a corpus of an original trilogy of children’s books by Icelandic writer Guðrún Helgadóttir with about 360 pages of Icelandic text. Besides easy comprehension and funny content, the books have the advantage of also being available in a Faroese translation and thus facilitate the comparison of the two insular North-Germanic languages (wherever appropriate we complement our corpus data with material from various other Icelandic texts). From this textual basis, we have drawn 962 sentences which are relevant for our topic. Of these 962 pertinent examples, 745 (or 77.5%) are connected to attributive possession. In the course of our investigation, we have found that the following possessees associate with the preposition á in pronominal possession (the token frequency of the individual possessees is added in brackets after the English gloss): •  b  ody-part terms (31 types/53 tokens): kinn ‘chin, cheek’ (6), magi ‘stomach’ (6), bak ‘back’ (4), rass ‘arse’ (3), hönd ‘hand’ (3), nef ‘nose’ (2), flétta ‘plait’ (2), fótur ‘foot’ (2), munnur ‘mouth’ (2), hár ‘hair’ (2), handleggur ‘arm’ (2), fang ‘lap’ (1), mitti ‘waist’ (1), kjálki ‘jaw’ (1), brjóst ‘breast’ (1), kok ‘throat’ (1), höfuð ‘head’ (1), öxl ‘shoulder’ (1), rófa ‘tail’ (1), lófi ‘palm’ (1), enni ‘forehead’ (1), tá ‘toe’ (1), haus ‘head, skull’ (1), lúka ‘palm’ (1), herðar ‘shoulder’ (1), eyra ‘ear’ (1), putti ‘little finger’ (1), háls ‘throat’ (1), auga ‘eye’ (1), •  other (2 types/2 tokens): löpp ‘rag’ (1), viðgerð ‘repair’ (1) Body-part terms clearly outnumber other possessees with this construction as there are more than 15 times as many types of possessed body parts as there are other items. The disproportion is even more pronounced on the level of token frequency because body-part terms occur 26 times as often as other possessees. The statistics will become more important when we integrate our findings on the various possession types in ­section 4.2.3. With the notable exception of magi ‘stomach’ and the two words for throat, kok and háls, the above body-part terms are all uncontroversial cases of outer body parts. For the translation equivalents of English throat, it must be conceded that

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

they may refer to both the inner and outer sides of the neck. For inner organs of the body, á competes with the preposition í ‘in’ (again governing the dative case on the complement) whose major domain however, is with physico-mental states and bodyparts by extension (Kress 1982: 195). In the monolingual Icelandic dictionary, the possessive usage of á [ɑì~] and í [i] is mentioned in passing among a wide variety of other mostly spatial functions; á is said to be used for external body parts and í combines with internal ones (Böðvarson 1985: 1 and 15). Consider the examples in (B69).

(B69)

Icelandic possessee í pronoun

(B69.1)

Heart [Enn 86] hjarta-ð í þeim sló svo hratt heart-def.nt in they.dat beat.pret so hard að ulp-ur-n-ar hopp-uð-u til á that sweater-nom.pl-def-nom.pl jump-pret-3pl towards on brjóst-i-n-u á Þeim breast-dat-def-dat on they.dat ‘Their hearts beat so hard that their sweaters jumped on their breasts.’

(B69.2)

Voice [Mei 49] þeir vor-ufarnir að þekkja org-in í honum they be.pret-3pl to recognise voice-def in he:dat ‘They had become used to recognising his voice.’

(B69.3)

Ungratefulness [Jón 29] en strák-u-n-um fann-st Soffía tala sjaldnar but boy-dat-def-dat find.pret-med Soffia speak seldom um óþekkt-in-a í þeim eftir þetta about ungratefulness-def-acc in they.dat after that ‘But the boys found that Soffía talked more rarely about their ungratefulness after that.’

In combination with pronominal possessors, the preposition í is used relatively rarely. In our corpus, we counted seven tokens for six types altogether, namely hjarta ‘heart’ (2), ópekkt ‘ungratefulness’ (1), sál ‘soul’ (1), org ‘voice’ (1), auga ‘eye’ (1), bjanalát ‘foolishness’ (1), of which auga also occurs in combination with the preposition á. We will address the issue of the competition of the two prepositions below. For the time being it suffices to state that proper body parts are in the minority (two as opposed to four others) among the possessees introduced by í. These other concepts however, are anything but tangible objects: soul, voice, foolishness and ungratefulness are more or less abstract concepts closely associated with one’s body, mind and character. This is different from the possessees which are found with á: they are overwhelmingly concrete, visible (and thus tangible) body parts. Therefore there are good grounds to ­assume a semantically based partition into at least two classes of possessees: those which ­combine with



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

á and qualify as proper body parts and those which choose í as the ­relator. The latter group is made up of internal (= “invisible”) body parts and body parts by extension, including physical and mental states, etc. If á and í are largely responsible for body part terms (in the widest sense), then the possessive pronouns may lay claim to all other potential classes of possessees. This is in fact the case – but not in a simple way. First of all, a pronominal possessor and a nominal possessee may be linearised differently (as is the case with the above mentioned PPs, cf. below). Possessive pronouns occur either to the right of the possessee (= in postnominal position) or they may precede it (and thus appear in pre-nominal position) (Stolz 2004: 77–81). These differing orders are exemplified in (B70).

(B70)

Linearisation

(B70.1)

Postnominal possessive pronoun [Jón 11] hann reis upp og star-ð-i á bróður sinn he rise.pret up and stare-pret-3sg on brother.acc POR.ref.3 ‘He rose and stared at his brother.’

(B70.2)

Prenominal possessive pronoun [Jón 26] Pabbi fór líka úr sín-um pok-a Dad go.pret also from POR.ref.3 dat bag-dat ‘Father also got out of his sleeping-bag.’

In both sentences there is a reflexive possessive pronoun of the 3rd person. In (B70.1), it occurs to the right of the possessee bróðir ‘brother’, whereas it is placed on the left of the possessee poki ‘bag’ in (B70.2). Before we elaborate on the motivation of the divergent orders (cf. below [B93] and accompanying discussion), we have to point out that there are further phenomena which call for our attention. When the pronominal possessor precedes the nominal possessee the latter is normally not marked for definiteness (i.e., the so-called suffixed definite article is not employed on the noun). Among the 50 cases of pre-nominal possessive pronouns we encountered only two (= 4%) exceptions to this tendency. According to Kress (1982: 175) “ist der Artikel beim Substantiv überflüssig” (= but not completely illicit) if the possessive pronoun precedes the possessed noun. This is different with post-nominal possessive pronouns: there are 104 tokens of overtly definite possessed nouns, as opposed to 262 cases without a definite article on the possessee, i.e., there is a ratio of 1-to-2.5 between overtly definite possessees and those which lack a definiteness marker. In (B71) we present two sentences with typical examples of this phenomenon.

(B71)

(B71.1)

Definiteness No article [Mei 24] hún er systir okkar svo hálfsystir okkar she be.pres sister our well half_sister our ‘She is our sister, well our half-sister.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B71.2)

Article [Jón 81] hún stóð í stóf-u-n-ni sin-ni she stand.pret in room-dat-def-dat POR.ref.3-dat við mynd-in-a af af-a sem dó opposite picture-def-acc of grandfather-dat rel die.pret ‘She stood in her room facing the picture of the grandfather who had died.’

In (B71.1), there are two instances of a post-nominally positioned possessive pronoun which combines with a “bare” noun, meaning that the definite article is absent from the construction. It is present however, in (B71.2) where the possessee stófa ‘room’ is overtly made definite by the suffixation of the feminine article additionally inflected for case. Despite the fact that there are morphological differences, all three possessees are equally definite. Note that (B71.1) does not allow for a partitive (and thus, mildly indefinite) reading in the sense of ‘one of our sisters; a sister of ours’. The above patterns are by no means in free variation. As a matter of fact, word order and definiteness marking are systematically exploited in Icelandic to distinguish formally between various kinds of possessive relations. Kress (1982: 173) interprets the co-occurrence of post-nominal possessive pronouns and possessees marked for definiteness as instances of an erstwhile hypercorrection turned into a grammaticalised device, which for him is typical for col­ loquial style. His list of domains for which the construction N[+ definit] + possessive pro is employed contains the following categories (boldface identifies the definite article, single underlining marks the possessive pronoun): •  •  •  • 

concrete possession: ideal possession: close relationship: emotionally motivated:

úr-ið mitt ‘my watch’ bók-in mín ‘my book (i.e., the one I wrote)’ með nafn-in-u mín-u ‘in my name’ móðurmál-ið mitt góða ‘my sweet native language’

For the third category – close relationship – Kress has to juggle with the problem that especially those relationships which normally qualify as the closest do not take the definite article and are thus at odds with his idea that “enge Zugehörigkeit” is what this construction encodes. For a solution suggested by Friðjónsson (1978: 94) see below. These problematic cases belong to the class of kinship terms which deserve closer scrutiny. Except for two borderline cases to be discussed presently, kinship terms do never occur in combination with pronominal possessors in our corpus. Similarly, of the 104 attestations of possessees hosting the definite article in combination with post-nominal possessive pronouns there are exactly 20 tokens (= less than 5%) of nouns which are potential candidates for the status of kinship terms because they refer to human beings. Interestingly, the two borderline cases which allow for pre-nominal possessive pronouns are also among the possessees which take the definite article, namely barn ‘child’ and strákur ‘boy’. Barn without a definite article also occurs in combination with post-nominal possessive pronouns. This is the majority solution in terms of types and



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

tokens for kinship terms. In our corpus, we found the following set of kinship terms which always lack the definite article and combine exclusively with post-nominal possessive pronouns (in brackets after the English gloss of each term, we specify the token frequency of the possessee in the relevant construction type): •  kinship terms [¬article]; [N pro] (18 types/184 tokens): bróður ‘brother’ (52), mamma ‘mother’ (35), pabbi ‘father’ (27), móður ‘mother’ (12), dóttir ‘daughter’ (12), systir ‘sister’ (7), vinur ‘friend’ (6), sonur ‘son’ (6), afi ‘grandfather’ (6), vinkona ‘girl-friend’ (5), fjölskylda ‘family’ (3), amma ‘grandmother’ (3), hálfsystir ‘half-sister’ (2), frænka ‘cousin’ (2), foreldrar ‘parents’ (2), frændi ‘family relation’ (2), langafi ‘great-grandfather’ (1), sonarsonur ‘grandson’ (1) In addition to these items, we find three more potential kinship terms which nevertheless are also represented in a different group, namely where the possessee hosts the definite article. The token frequencies in each group are given for each of the three nouns in the order: possessee without article/possessee with article: barn ‘child’ (2/5), maður ‘husband; man’ (1/4), kona ‘wife; woman’ (1/3). In all three cases, the possessee is attested more often when equipped with the definite article. In (B71) we contrast instances of these terms as possessees with and without the definite article.

(B72)

Definite vs. indefinite possessees

(B72.1)

barn definite [Jón 28] hún […] æp-t-i eitthvað um sjúkrabíl-inn og she scream-pret-3sg something about ambulance-def and elsk-u barn-ið sitt beloved-nt child-def.nt POR.ref.3.nt ‘She screamed something about the ambulance and her beloved child.’

(B72.2)

barn indefinite [Mei 52] hún sá þrjú af fjörum börn-um sín-um she see.pret three of four:dat child-dat.pl POR.ref.3-dat koma upp stig-a-nn come up stairs-acc-def ‘She saw three of her four children climb the stairs.’

(B72.3)

maður definite [Jón 35] gæt-u þetta ver-ið föt-in mann-s-in-s þin-s can.conj-3pl this be-part clothe-def man-gen-def-gen you-gen ‘Could these be your husband’s clothes?’

(B72.4)

maður indefinite [Mei 47] Mamma Jó-a rauk á faet-ur og tog-að-i mother Jói-gen jump.pret on foot-acc.pl and pull-pret-3sg í mann sinn in man.acc POR.ref.3 ‘Jói’s mother jumped to her feet and pulled at her husband.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B72.5)

kona definite [Jón 52] kona-n han-s bros-t-i líka án aflát-s woman-def he-gen smile-pret-3sg also without stop-gen ‘His wife also smiled incessantly.’

(B72.6)

kona indefinite [Enn 110] Afi aetl-að-i svo bara að flytja-st Grandfather want-pret-3sg so only to move-med til kon-u sinn-ar till woman-gen POR.ref.3-gen ‘Grandfather just wanted to move in with his wife.’

With a view to better understanding what motivates this oscillation and variation, a closer look at the other possessees which normally take the definite article is required. In addition to the three cases above, there are altogether 53 types of possessees with a joint token frequency of 110. Semantically, these possessees form six classes (for each class, we provide one random sentential example; boldface marks those possessees which are attested with and without definite articles attached): •  h  uman/animate beings (9 types/11 tokens): krakki ‘child’ (3), kall ‘man’ (1) [here used with the meaning ‘puppet’ and thus probably better placed among various below], elska ‘love(d one)’ (1), kelling ‘elderly woman’ (1), kennari ‘teacher’ (1), ungi ‘young; off-spring’ (1), strákur ‘boy’ (1), læknir ‘doctor’ (1), stelpa ‘girl’ (1);

(B73)

kelling [Jón 77] kelling-in han-s lam-d-i hann með old_woman-def he-gen knock_down-pret-3sg him with kökukefl-i kitchen_gear-dat ‘His old woman knocked him down with a kitchen-utensil.’

As to the “human factor” among the possessees, it is immediately striking that Icelandic makes choices similar to the ones we know from Maltese: blood relations are treated differently from other kinds of social relations, including those of family (by marriage). Maður ‘man; husband’ and kona ‘woman; wife’ display an oscillation between two construction types that is reminiscent of the variation we encountered with raġel ‘man; husband’ and mara ‘woman; wife’ in the Afro-Asiatic language (cf. section 4.1.1.1). This is partly explicable by the fact that the nouns under scrutiny have two competing readings, one denoting a family relation by marriage and one specifying the sex of an adult human being. Apart from this parallel, it is also interesting to see that Icelandic and Maltese behave similarly when marking words denoting children or off-spring as possessed. Sonur ‘son’ and iben ‘son’ as well as dóttir ‘daughter’ and bint ‘daughter’ have the formal characteristics of inalienable possessees in both languages since their semantics is specified for blood relationship. The partially synonymous



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

terms strákur ‘boy’ and tifel ‘boy’ as well as stelpa ‘girl’ and tifla ‘girl’ are commonly used in both languages as (not only) colloquial substitutes for the above mentioned kinship terms. However, they still retain their more general semantics which is devoid of any indication of kinship, namely the one that specifies the sex of an underage human being. Like maður, kona, raġel and mara they simply are not full-blown kinship terms on a par with the semantically more specialised ones. What Icelandic seems to lack is a lexicalised expression equivalent to Maltese ulied ‘children; off-spring’; krakki ‘child’ and its plural forms behave more like Maltese tifel/tfal. Social relations like kennari ‘teacher’ and læknir ‘doctor’ clearly lie outside the realm of proper family relations. Unsurprisingly, we do not have any evidence of these outside relations siding with inalienable possessees in either Icelandic or Maltese. •  c  lothes and related things (10 types/15 tokens): föt ‘clothes’ (4), svunta ‘apron’ (2), buxur ‘trousers’ (2), vasaklútur ‘handkerchief ’ (1), kjóll ‘dress’ (1), matrósaföt ‘sailor’s uniform’ (1), svuntuhorn ‘corner of an apron’ (1), stígvél ‘boot’ (1), gleraugu ‘spectacles’ (1), budda ‘purse’ (1);

(B74)

föt [Jón 36] var föt-u-n-um Þín-um stol-ið be.pret clothes-dat-def-dat you-dat stole-part ‘Have your clothes been stolen?’

•  h  ome/house/furniture (16 types/39 tokens): herbergi ‘room’ (12), rúm ‘bed’ (4), karfa ‘basket’ (4), garður ‘garden’ (3), stofa ‘room’ (2), koppur ‘chamber-pot’ (2), hús ‘house’ (2), svefnpoki ‘sleeping-bag’ (2), heimili ‘home’ (1), ból ‘camp; bedstead’ (1), sæng ‘bed-sheet’ (1), bær ‘town; farm’ (1), skrifborð ‘desk’ (1), stóll ‘chair’ (1), koja ‘bed’ (1), skál ‘bowl’ (1);

(B75)

rúm [Jón 90] spánnýj-ar skólatösk-ur lág-u á stól-um brandnew-nom.pl schoolbag-nom.pl lie.pret-3pl on chair-dat.pl fyrir aftan rúm-in þeirra for behind bed-def.pl they:gen ‘Brand-new schoolbags were lying on chairs behind their beds.’

•  n  utrition (4 types/4 tokens): matur ‘food’ (1), kaka ‘cake’ (1), morgunmjólk ‘morning milk’ (1), kaffi ‘coffee’ (1);

(B76)

morgunmjólk [Enn 14–15] hann fékk ekki morgunmjólk-in-a sín-a he get.pret neg morning_milk-def-acc POR.ref.3-acc ‘He (= the tom-cat) did not get his morning milk.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

•  m  oney (4 types/5 tokens) : peningar ‘money’ (2), krútt ‘treasure’ (1), vasapeningar ‘pocket-money’ (1), laun ‘wages’ (1);

•



(B77)

laun [Enn 23] fólk gaet-i ekki lif-ad af people can.conj-3sg neg live-part of laun-u-n-um sín-um wages-dat-def-dat.pl POR.ref.3-dat ‘People cannot live on their wages.’

various (12 types/25 tokens): taska ‘handbag; suitcase’ (7), nafn ‘name’ (5), dót ‘things; bagage’ (3), hjól ‘bicycle’ (2), flokkur ‘party’ (1), bolur ‘torso’ (1), ­miðdegislúr ‘noon-time nap’ (1), vatnsbyssa ‘water-gun’ (1), snudda ‘pacifier’ (1), jólagjöf ‘Christmas present’ (1), blýantur ‘pencil’ (1), auga ‘eye’; (B78)

taska [Enn 66] okkur lang-að-i bara að sjá í tösk-u-n-a han-s we.acc long-pret-3sg only to look in bag-acc-def-acc he-gen ‘We just wanted to look into his bag.’

Superficially, there seems to be a preference for concepts which qualify as belonging to the psycho-social sphere of the prototypical human possessor. However, these concepts are most probably somewhat over-represented because of the nature of the stories we included in our corpus. Upon closer inspection, it becomes much more likely that the construction type N[+ definite] + pro covers all kinds of possessive relations where the possessee bears the feature [+ concrete] (Friðjónsson 1978: 94), i.e., Kress’s (1982) own highest ranking criterion is decisive. A particularly emotional component is not immediately recognisable although it has to be admitted that (B76) is taken from a lively, politically-motivated debate. The only “slightly” abstract possessees are the relative frequent nafn ‘name’, and miðdegislúr ‘noon-time nap’ which however, occurs with the minimal token frequency of one. One may also add flokkur ‘party’ to this group. The majority of inanimate possessees in the above list are concrete objects which can be carried along (either on one’s body [= clothes] or in one’s hands). Those concepts which do not follow our definition are marked by single underlining above: only eight out of 44 inanimate types fail to conform to this criterion. We now need to check this strong tendency towards concrete possession against the semantic properties of those possessees which occur in the construction type N[¬definite] + pro. There are altogether 60 types with 72 tokens in addition to the kinship terms mentioned above which alone account for 18 types with 184 tokens. It is obvious therefore, that kinship terms are at the heart of the functional domain of the construction under review. For the other, less frequently attested possessees, we have identified eight classes (with the eighth one being semantically heterogeneous) which are sufficiently different from the ones postulated for the competing construction with overtly definite possessees.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

We will first exemplify the various classes before we discuss further implications. In the lists we present, certain possessees are additionally marked by underlying and/ or boldface. Some of these items will be focused on in the discussion after the presentation of the eight groups. The largest group of possessees requiring the construction type N[¬definite] + pro are the more abstract physico-mental states, none of which are attested with any other possessive construction type. •



physico-mental states (14 types/17 tokens): hugur ‘thought; mind’ (3), athygli ‘attention’ (2), stolt ‘pride’ (1), hæfni ‘skill’ (1), áhugamál ‘interest’ (1), vonbrigði ‘disappointment’ (1), áhugi ‘interest; enthusiasm’ (1), skynsemi ‘sensitivity’ (1), vöxtur ‘growth’ (1), vit ‘wit’ (1), málflytningur ‘judgment’ (1), augnaráð ‘look’ (1), gleði ‘happiness’ (1), gaman ‘fun’ (1); (B79)

[Mei 53] Pabb-i á-tt-i erfitt með að leyna stolt-i sín-u father-nom own-pret-3sg difficult with to hide pride-dat POR.ref.3-dat ‘Father had difficulties hiding his pride.’

The prominence of this class fits in well with Friðjónsson’s (1978: 94) observation that the feature [¬concrete] has an important say in employing possessees without a definite article. Not a single one of the above concepts occurs in other attributive ­possessive constructions. The same is true for the next class which involves abstract situations which characterise a person’s social standing or image, etc. •



situation (7 types/8 tokens): ráð ‘council’ (2), álit ‘renown’ (1), afrek ‘achievement; deed’ (1), hagur ‘situation’ (1), afdrif ‘fate’ (1), raun ‘trouble’ (1), áform ‘plan’ (1) [perhaps better allocated under various], (B80)

[Mei 57] strák-ar-n-ir spur-ð-u hana um afdrif han-s boy-nom.pl-def-nom.pl ask-pret-3pl she:acc about fate he-gen ‘The boys asked her about his fate.’

These possessees are attested exclusively with the construction type N[¬definite] + pro. The following two classes travel and life-cycle display similar properties. Not only do the possessees in these classes denote abstract concepts, but they also allow only for the construction type N[¬definite] + pro. •

travel (6 types/6 tokens): vist ‘sojourn’ (1), vera ‘presence’ (1), ferðalag ‘journey’ (1), vegur ‘way’ (1), svaðilför ‘adventurous journey’ (1), kvöldganga ‘night-walk’ (1); (B81)

[Enn 112] hann var á venjulegr-i kvöldgöng-u sinn-i he be.pret on usual-dat night_walk-dat POR.ref.3-dat ‘He was on his usual night-walk.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

•

life-cycle (3 types/4 tokens): ævi ‘life-time; age’ (2), líf ‘life’ (1), skóladagur ‘school-day’ (1); (B82)

[Mei 12] henni fann-st þetta svo mikill merkisdag-ur she:dat find.pret-med this so big:nom remarkable_day-nom í líf-i þeirra in life-dat they:gen ‘She considered this a very remarkable day in their life.’

At this point we cross the boundary into the realm of [+concrete]. The relative abundance of expressions referring to wealth is an effect of the text genre: in at least one of the stories, the twin brothers fantasise about the supposed treasures their prodigal and seafaring grandfather might have collected while he was abroad. On the other hand, some of the possessees may also be used in a more abstract sense without reference to any concrete material goods. •

belongings/wealth (6 types/7 tokens) : fjársjóður ‘treasure’ (2), hluti ‘part; share’ (1), ríkidæmi ‘riches’ (1), eiga ‘possession’ (1), gull ‘gold’ (1), auður ‘richness’ (1); (B83)

[Enn 45] skyl-d-i hann nú opna hana og leyfa þeim shall.conj-pret-3sg he now open she:acc and permit they:dat að sjá gull sín to look gold POR.ref.3 ‘Should he open it and let them see his gold?’

There is also a rather small class of human possessees which are all attested with the minimal frequency of one. None of these is a full-blown kinship term. One (= elstur) is a nominalised superlative while gestur ‘guest’ can be understood as denoting a social function and not a human individual, cf. (B84). Interestingly, proper nouns combine with post-nominal possessives. •

human beings (4 types/4 tokens): förunautur ‘fellow-traveller’ (1), Soffía [personal name] (1), elstur ‘oldest one’ (1), gestur ‘guest’ (1), (B84)

[Enn 36] þú er-t gest-ur okkar hér you be-2sg guest-nom we:gen here ‘You are our guest here.’

A bit surprisingly, body-part terms are relatively frequent both in terms of types and tokens. There are several terms which also occur in combination with other construction types. These items are highlighted by underlining and boldface, respectively. We discuss these and similar cases below. •

body-parts (proper and by extension) (10 types/14 tokens) : andlit ‘face’ (2), hönd ‘hand’ (2), auga ‘eye’ (2), nögl ‘finger-nail’ (2), enni ‘forehead’ (1), fótur ‘foot’ (1), raust ‘voice’ (1), rödd ‘voice’ (1), il ‘sole’ (1), hné ‘knee’ (1);





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B85)

[Mei 32] […] svo að blóð og sand-ur breid-d-i-st enn betur so to blood and sand-nom spread-pret-3sg-med even better um andlit han-s about face he-gen ‘[…] and thus blood and sand spread even better over his face.’

Last in line is a collection of semantically heterogeneous possessees some of which might find a more suitable place in one of the other classes. Like body-part terms, some of the members of this eighth group have the feature [+concrete], although the majority of the items enumerated here are bona fide instances of [¬concrete]. Among the former, matur ‘food’ is especially interesting as it is not restricted to the construction type N[¬definite] + pro – a property it shares with heimili ‘home’, as the examples in (B85) demonstrate. •



various (9 types/11 tokens): vasi ‘pocket’ (2), mál ‘language; speech’ (2), ræða ‘speech’ (1) [both words meaning ‘speech’ could also be understood as body parts by extension], heimili ‘home’ (1), bústaður ‘dwelling’ (1), saga ‘story’ (1), matur ‘food’ (1), vinna ‘work’ (1), nægur ‘enough’ (1); (B86)

Definiteness doublets

(B86.1)

Indefinite food [Jón 69] […] og aldrei höf-ð-u þeir tek-ið ein-s hraustlega and never have-pret-3pl they take-part one-gen energetically til mat-ar sin-s to food-gen POR.ref.3-gen ‘And never had they eaten their meal so greedily.’

(B86.2)

Definite food [Enn 60] þau vor-u langt kom-in með mat-inn sinn they.nt be.pret-3pl already come-part with food-def POR.ref.3 í notalegr-i matstof-u niðri í bæ in cosy-acc place_to_eat-acc down in town ‘They had already arrived with their food at a cosy place to eat down in the town.’

(B86.3)

Indefinite home [Mei 18] fyrst í stað tal-að-i hann lítið first in place speak-pret-3sg he little um heimili sitt og fjölskyld-u about home POR.ref.3.nt and family-acc ‘At first, he did not talk much about his home and family.’

(B86.4)

Definite home [Enn 105] heimili-n þeirra vor-u leiðinleg home-def.nt.pl they:gen be.pret-3pl boring ‘Their homes were boring.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Before we continue our discussion of these and similar examples, a word of caution is in order. When we dwell on doublets of this kind or other instances of possessees which occur in several constructions, this should not give rise to the false impression that this variation is the predominant trait of the Icelandic possessive system. As the above lists of possessees clearly show, oscillation between possessive constructions is restricted to a relatively small number of types and tokens, and is thus a minority phenomenon. For the bulk of the possessees, association with one particular construction type seems to be the rule – at least in the sense of default solutions. Nevertheless, it is a promising task to determine whether there are any motivations (structural or other) which regulate the observed variation. To facilitate comparison we have summarised the above observations in Table (B87). The table is organised according to the lexico-semantic fields to which the possessees belong. For each construction type, we indicate how many types and tokens of possessees representing a given lexico-semantic field are attested to. We skip those categories which labelled various as they are usually assortments of disparate possessees with relatively low frequencies and thus are only of limited value for the topic at hand. The sub-totals for the various categories therefore do not yield 100% of all the attestations of the construction or the semantic class in our corpus. Grey shading marks those cells which attest to zero frequency.



(B87)

(B87.1)

Constructions and semantic classes Tokens

constructions N + pro N[+definite] + pro pro + N total

á

í

I body parts II kinship terms III human beings IV physico-mental states V situation VI travel VII life-cycle VIII wealth IX clothes X home XI nutrition XII money

53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 184 4 17 8 6 4 7 0 0 0 0

0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 15 39 4 5

9 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 2

81 184 18 19 8 6 6 7 15 48 4 7

total

53

7

244

84

25

423

class



(B87.2)

Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

types

constructions N + pro N[+definite] + pro pro + N total

á

í

I body parts II kinship terms III human beings IV physico-mental states V situation VI travel VII life-cycle VIII wealth IX clothes X home XI nutrition XII money

31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 18 4 14 7 6 3 6 0 0 0 0

0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 36 4 4

6 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 2

51 18 16 16 7 6 5 6 10 41 4 6

total

31

6

68

63

18

186

class

There are some striking discrepancies in the above tables. First and foremost, the functional specialisation of the PPs is uncontroversial. The á-construction alone accounts for 65% of all tokens and 60% of all types of cases which involve a body-part term as possessee. Except for two isolated unmentioned instances, the á-construction does not occur outside the realm of body-part possession. Together with the í-construction, the PPs lay claim to about 70% of all types and tokens of possessed body parts. None of the other constructions can compete with these scores, as they fail to reach the 20%-mark. N[+definite] + pro is counted out completely. With proper kinship terms, the construction type N[¬definite] + pro holds the uncontested monopoly whereas human possessees outside the area of blood relationships are divided among three construction types. Among these, N[+definite] + pro scores highest with well over 50% to 60% of types and tokens, respectively. It is also remarkable that kinship terms are involved in 75% of all attestations of N[¬definite] + pro – an outstanding token frequency which goes far beyond the related type frequency (= slightly more than 26%). Physico-mental states are another area where the construction N[¬definite] + pro dominates with slightly less than 90% of all tokens and types involved. The same construction continues to dominate from class V through VIII which are all instances of possessees with the property [+abstract]. The only relatively minor intrusion are two tokens and types which are connected to pro + N. No other construction type intervenes. N[¬definite] + pro outnumbers pro + N by a ratio of 25-to-2 for tokens and 11-to-1 for types. The

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

same picture holds true for the dominance of the construction type N[+definite] + pro with classes IX through XII. These are classes whose members are bona fide cases of [+ concrete] possessees. Here, N[+definite] + pro only has to compete with pro + N in two categories. The latter is clearly outnumbered: N[+definite] + pro occurs about seven times as often as pro + N whether types or tokens are considered. These statistics corroborate our earlier observations that there is a functional specialisation according to which N[+definite] + pro and N[¬definite] + pro have neatly distinct domains, as do PPs (cf. above). Abstract vs. concrete is the decisive dichotomy for the two constructions whose formal distinctness relies on the presence or absence of overt definiteness marking on the possessee. In what follows we look into possible further factors determining the choice of the appropriate possessive construction. The two pairs of sentences in (B85) are characterised by the presence/absence of the definite article on identical possessees. Where the definite article is attached to the noun, there is reference to a concrete identifiable object involved. In (B85.2) reference is made to a special lunch-package the travellers are carrying. In (B85.4) the homes are associated with certain individuals and thus have themselves individual characteristics. These are aspects which distinguish the two sentences with overtly definite possessees from their indefinite counterparts. In (B85.1), the “bare” possessee has a generic reading – meaning ‘one’s daily food’ in general and not a particular dish on a given occasion. The same applies to (B85.3) where heimili ‘home’ is used in an unspecific, generic sense. Genericity goes along with a higher degree of abstractness, as referentiality is not connected to individual entities/phenomena. In principle, generic usage is possible for all possessees and thus the above alternation of forms with and without definite articles may be seen as a general pattern according to which possessees which otherwise bear the feature [+concrete] lose or neutralise this to become similar to genuinely abstract concepts. As the subsequent paragraphs demonstrate, the flexibility of the concrete-abstract dichotomy is not the only factor which influences which of the possessive constructions is employed in a given context. Body-part terms provide a good starting point for our argumentation. As a matter of fact, three of these items (marked by single underlining in the above list) are also attested with prepositional possessive constructions. Note however, that the prepositional phrases clearly outnumber the attestations of possessive pronouns by a ratio of 3-to-1 for types and almost 4-to-1 for tokens. This suggests that the PPs – especially the one headed by á ‘on’ – are the unmarked case for pronominally possessed body parts. This statistical evidence notwithstanding it still remains to be seen whether the occasional possessive pronoun is a random exception or is motivated by certain rules. The highest degree of variation as to possessor marking is reached by auga ‘eye’ which allows for five different constructions, cf. (B88).





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B88)

auga

(B88.1)

PP: á [Mei 77] og það kom-u tár í aug-u-n á henni and it come.pret-3pl tear:pl in eye-pl-def on she:dat ‘And tears came to her eyes.’

(B88.2)

PP: í [Mei 110] nú er bráðum kom-inn tími til að láta laga now is soon come-part time till to let repair auga-ð í þér eye-def.nt in you:dat ‘Now, it will be time soon to have your eye operated.’

(B88.3)

Definite possessee [Enn 9] nú vill hann fara að skera auga-ð þitt upp now will he go to cut eye-def.nt you:nt up ‘Now he wants to operate your eye.’

(B88.4)

Indefinite possessee [Jón 65] aug-u þeirra vor-u far-in að venja-st myrkri-n-u eye-pl they:gen be.past-3pl go-part to get_used-med darkness-def-dat ‘Their eyes had begun to get used to the darkness.’

(B88.5)

Pre-nominal possessive pronoun [Jón 40] strák-ar-n-ir trú-ð-u varla boy-nom.pl-def-nom.pl believe-pret-3pl hardly sín-um eigin aug-um POR.ref.3-dat own eye-dat.pl ‘The boys hardly believed their (own) eyes.’

For the variation of á ‘on’ and í ‘in’, there is a ready explanation: eyes are visible body parts and may thus qualify for the status of external ones which motivates the employment of á. At the same time, the eye’s sockets are also situated inside one’s skull which makes the use of í plausible. The two cases (B88.3)–(B88.4) however are not as easily dealt with. For (B88.3), a higher degree of emotion may be invoked as the sentence is uttered by one of the twin brothers who is concerned about his brothers chances of surviving the operation of his eyes. In the first-form pupil’s imagination the doctor is going to cut the eye open – which is a horrible prospect to both boys. Kress’ (1982) idea that emotional engagement motivates some of the instances of definiteness marking on the possessee provides a good explanation for this case. It is tempting to extend it to (B88.5) because the astonishment of the two boys watching an unexpected scene

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

suggests a higher degree of emotion or dramatic effect. However, there is a more convincing explanation to which the subsequent argumentation is meant to lead us step by step. Speaking of emotion, (B88.4) cannot be accounted for in the same way as (B88.3). We approach the problem as follows: the choice of the construction type N[¬definite] + pro is in line with the classification of body-part terms as inalienable possessees. They are treated like kinship terms of the blood-relation kind. It is a possibility to assume that this construction neutralises the possessive distinctions which otherwise further sub-divide inalienable possession. What are the conditions which determine the neutralisation? Syntactic relations seem to condition the choice of construction – at least to some extent. Pronominally possessed body parts occur only infrequently in subject function – and this holds for all competing construction types except one. In (B89), we survey the distribution of construction types over syntactic relations in general (i.e., including all kinds of possessees). For convenience, we subsume all non-subject functions (object – direct and indirect, adverbial adjuncts etc.) in one category.

(B89)

Constructions and syntactic functions relation

PP

N + pro +definite

pro + N

sum

á

í

subject non-subject

3 52

2 5

11 93

73 189

3 47

92 386

total

55

7

104

262

50

478

¬definite

For prepositionally marked pronominal possessors, we counted five instances of subject function (see [B90.2]) as opposed to 57 cases of non-subject functions whereas body parts in the construction type N[¬definite] + pro are subjects only twice and ten times non-subjects. Apart from this observation, we immediately see that almost 80% of all instances of possessed nouns in subject function involve the construction type N[¬definite] + pro. Moreover, 30% of all attestations of this construction type are subjects – a percentage which is not reached by any of the other construction types (the í-construction alone comes close with 28.5% but this is perhaps a statistical effect caused by the small number of examples of this construction type). This association of the construction type N[¬definite] + pro with subjecthood is hardly surprising because the possessees requiring this construction are predominantly kinship terms, i.e., their referents are human beings and thus qualify for the agent role which, in turn, often coincides with the subject function. For all other construction types, the subject function is of minor importance although it is excluded from none of the construction



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

types nor is the construction type N[¬definite] + pro restricted to subject functions: In all categories in (B89), non-subject outnumbers subject by far (less than a quarter of all possessed NPs are subjects). There are of course other possible structural constraints which might be held ­responsible for determining the choice of construction. In (B90), we present examples of three further body-part terms which allow for the two constructions types PP vs. N[¬definite] + pro. The examples given here are of definite possessees with a post-­nominal possessive pronoun. Wherever there is a difference in frequency of the two constructions, the PP is always the one with the higher number of attestations.

(B90)

Further doublets

(B90.1)

enn [Jón 21] Jón Bjarni star-ð-i á svitdrop-a-n-a Jón Bjarni stare-pret-3sg on bead_of_sweat-acc.pl-def-acc.pl à enn-i han-s on forehead-dat he-gen ‘Jón Bjarni stared at the beads of sweat on his (= his brother’s) forehead.’

(B90.2)

hönd [Enn 71] Kormákur afi kyss-t-i á hönd hennar Kormákur grandfather kiss-pret-3sg on hand she:gen ‘Grandfather Kormákur kissed her hand.’

(B90.3)

fótur [Enn 96] þeir hvil-d-u þreytt-a faet-ur sín-a they rest-pret-3pl tired-acc.pl foot.pl-acc.pl POR.ref.3-acc.pl við vegarbrún-in-a along kerb-def-acc ‘They gave their tired feet a rest on the kerb.’

Starting with (B90.2)–(B90.3), one could think of the following explanation: As the sentences already contain one or two other occurrences of á ‘on’, the speaker avoids to produce yet another PP headed by á and thus opts for the other construction available for inalienable possessees. The alternation of constructions within one and the same sentence may serve two purposes at one go, namely stylistic avoidance of repetition and, on the other hand, transparency in order to facilitate parsing. This intuitively plausible argument however is much too strong as we have collected a sizeable variety of cases which demonstrate that multiple use of identical prepositions poses serious problems neither to speech production nor – presumably – to speech recognition. (B91) contains two examples of co-occurrence of two instances of á in the same utterance; (B91.2) ­additionally shows that possessive PPs are also legitimate on subject NPs.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B91)

Counter-evidence

(B91.1)

Two co-occurring á [Jón 29] nágrannakon-a-n lét hana leggja-st upp female_neighbour-nom-def let.pret she:acc lie_down-med up í legubekk og lag-ð-i kalda-n klút in bench and lay-pret-3sg cold-acc cloth á enni-ð á henni on forehead-def.nt on she:dat ‘The woman from next door let her lie down on a bench and put a cold cloth on her forehead.’

(B91.2)

Subject function + double PP [Enn 82] hend-ur-n-ar á þeim skulf-u líka svo mikið hand.pl-nom.pl-def-nom.pl on they:dat shake.pret-3pl also so much að þeir hit-t-u varla á munn-inn á sér to they meet-pret-3pl hardly on mouth-def on ref.3.dat ‘Their hands trembled so much, too, that they hardly met their mouths.’

Avoidance of chains of similar PPs therefore is not compulsory and the occasional preference for N[¬definite] + pro in lieu of pum á/í pro must be relegated to optional considerations of style. For (B90.3), the situation is different. The possessee faetur ‘feet’ is modified by a pre-nominal adjectival attribute þreytta ‘tired’. The presence of the attribute renders the NP syntactically “heavy” as it is more complex than an NP in which the nominal possessee stands on its own. Our definition of syntactic heaviness or weight is rather simple: if the noun representing the possessee is further modified by an element with word status (quantifier, numeral, attributive adjective, demonstrative etc.) or is embedded in possessor chains (and is thus modified by another NP), the possessee is said to be heavy. None of the 62 instances of the prepositional constructions involves a heavy possessee whereas definite possessees with post-nominal possessive pronouns occur twenty times in syntactically heavy constructions (to which one would have to add a number of other more weighty constructions we discuss separately below). Since the syntactic heaviness is not restricted to NPs with body-part terms as lexical head, we survey the overall statistics of the distribution of construction types over light and heavy NPs in (B91) independent of the class to which a given possessee belongs.

(B92)

Constructions and weight weight

PP

N + pro

pro + N

sum



á

í

+ definite

heavy light

0 55

0 7

13 91

27 235

19 31

59 419

total

55

7

104

262

50

478

¬definite



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

The values are telling. The complete absence of heavy NPs in combination with the two PPs provides substantial evidence for the hypothesis that the complexity of the possessed NP regulates the choice of construction. Heavy NPs occur in the remaining three construction types which all contain a proper possessive pronoun. The construction type N[¬definite] + pro accounts for less than half of the heavy NPs (about 45%), leaving a third for pre-nominal possessives and 22% to the construction type N[+definite] + pro. However, this prominence of the numerically dominating construction type is mitigated if we look at the share heavy constructions have within the column of each construction type. Heavy NPs cover only little more than 10% of all attestations of the construction type N[¬definite] + pro. The percentage is not much higher for the competitor with definite possessees which has just 12.5% heavy NPs. In contrast to these relatively insignificant percentages, the score rises to 38% with pre-nominal possessive pronouns. (B88.5) is a typical example of a heavy NP combining with a pre-nominal possessive pronoun. The heavy NP includes an appropriate form of eiginn ‘own’ whose slot is always to the left of the possessee noun. If eiginn is present, the NP becomes automatically heavy as it consists of more than one word – and this complexity also attracts the possessive pronoun to a pre-nominal position, more precisely to the left of eiginn, cf. (B93).

(B93)

Heavy NP – eyra [Mei 101] hún try-ð-i ekki sín-um eigin eyr-um she believe.conj-pret-3sg neg POR.ref.3-dat own ear-dat.pl ‘She would not have believed her (own) ears.’

In our corpus, this rule is obeyed without exception. Since the number of cases is relatively small – just five attestations of eiginn – the tendency for heavy NPs to combine with pre-nominal possessive pronouns cannot entirely be attributed to this one item. In the position of eiginn, we also encounter adjectives and adjective-like participles such as ákveðinn ‘decided’, rjúkandi ‘smoking’, venjulegur ‘usual’, síðasti ‘last; final’, ­réttur ‘correct; rightful’, veraldlegur ‘worldly’ – none of which, alas, modifies a possessed body-part term. The heavy NPs in which body-part terms occur however mostly ­involve a quantifier as in (B94).

(B94)

Heavy NP with possessed body part

(B94.1)

hver ‘each’ [Enn 24] Jón Bjarni lék við hver-n sinn fingur Jón Bjarni play.pret with each-acc POR.ref.3 finger ‘Jón Bjarni played with each finger of his.’

(B94.2)

hvor ‘each of two’ [Mei 8] þeir geng-u hægt og virðulega inn og they go.pret-3pl slowly and dignified in and

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

þrýs-t-u sinn hvor-a hönd pabb-a þettingsfast press-pret-3pl POR.ref.3 each_of_two-acc hand father-gen closely ‘They walked in slowly and in a dignified manner and they pressed hard each of the two of them on the hand of father (which they held).’

What the above discussion shows is that there is an interaction of factors which ­determine which construction type is employed. We may distinguish several layers. At the bottom, there is the basic semantic distinction of alienable and inalienable possession with the latter being further divided into body-parts, on the one hand, and kinship terms and abstract concepts which are beyond the possessor’s control, on the other. These require two distinct encoding strategies, namely PPs as opposed to the construction type N[¬definite] + pro. For alienable possessees which mostly go along with the feature [+ concrete] the third construction type N[+definite] + pro is reserved. These semantically motivated distinctions are subject to variation if certain non-semantic aspects come to the fore. Subject function favours the construction type N[¬definite] + pro for all inalienable possessees, i.e., neutralisation within the domain of inalienability may take place under certain conditions. Similarly, the syntactic weight of the possessee leads to neutralisation of possessive distinctions – this time without respecting the alienableinalienable dichotomy. In this case, a fourth construction type serves as expression of all kinds of possessive relations independent of (in)alienability: pro N[±definite]. Note that this construction type has no discernible semantic motivation of its own. Interestingly, it is itself subject to syntactic restrictions. If in a possessor chain the slot to the left of a pronominally possessed noun A is already occupied by another lexical possessee B, then pre-nominal position of the possessive pronoun encoding the possessor of A is blocked: *hönd sina pabba/*sina hönd pabba ‘his/her/their father’s hand’ but always hönd pabba sina. In addition to the syntactic motivation, pro N[±definite] seems to be a good option if emphasis or contrastive focus is involved. In (B95), we present a small number of examples in which these pragmatic factors are crucial.

(B95)

Emphasis/contrastive focus

(B95.1)

[Mei 7] kvenmað-ur með hennar vit woman-nom with she:gen intelligence haf-ð-i lítið í skól-a að gera have-pret-3sg little in school-dat to do ‘A woman of her intelligence had little to do at school.’

(B95.2)

[Jón 27] og auðvitað haf-ð-i Soffía and obviously have-pret-3sg Soffía sem pass-að-i krakk-a-n-a hálfa-n dag-inn rel look_after-pret-3sg child-acc.pl-def-acc.pl half-acc day-def



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

þá líka feng-ið sitt sumarfrí that also get-part POR.ref.3.nt summer_holidays ‘And obviously had Soffía who looked after the kids on a part-time basis, got her summer holidays, too.’ (B95.3)

[Jón 54] hennar flokk-ur haf-ð-i unn-ið mikinn sigur she:gen party-nom have-pret-3sg win-part big:acc victory ‘Her party has won a huge victory.’

In all these cases (to which we may also add [B70.2] above), the possessees are light in the sense that modifiers other than the possessive pronoun are absent. Nevertheless, the possessive pronoun precedes the possessee. There is nothing about the structural makeup of the sentences which gives us a clue as to the reason for this linearisation. The possessive construction itself can be a subject as in (B95.3), an object as in (B95.2) or the complement of an attributive PP as in (B95.1). Neither is the semantics of the possessees in any way decisive for what happens on the level of word order. We have to go beyond the sentence boundary to find a convincing solution to the problem. The three sentences contain possessees whose possessor is given special emphasis. In (B95.1), the extraordinary intelligence of this particular woman is highlighted to set it apart from average instances of intelligence. In (B95.2), people have discussed their plans for the summer only to notice all of a sudden that the babysitter cannot be taken along because she has a right to her own summer holidays. Here, the possessor Soffía contrasts with all other possible possessors (= the family for which she works): her summer holidays are different from theirs. In (B95.3), the context is even clearer. The family is divided as to which political party to support during the election campaign. In the end, it is grandmother’s party to win the elections. In this way, her party stands out from all the other parties as the winner. Thus, contrastive focus with a certain degree of emphasis is involved throughout these examples. However, it cannot be ascertained on the basis of our exclusively written data whether or not other construction types may also be used for pragmatic purposes of the above kind. In the absence of tangible proof, we nevertheless dare to hypothesise that pro N[±definite] is at least the primary candidate when it comes to encoding contrastive focus and/or emphasis (Delsing 1993: 158). Interestingly though, in Icelandic in contrast to its North-Germanic relatives, the so-called “disparaging vocatives” (Delsing 1993: 152 note 2) which require pre-nominal possessive pronouns, are unheard of. In their stead we regularly find post-nominal possessive pronouns. In (B95), we contrast two types of vocatives which involve possessive pronouns. In (B96.1), the meaning of the construction is clearly negative whereas (B96.2) has hyperchoristic connotations. The formal difference between the two vocatives lies in the fact that the disparaging one treats the addressee as the possessor of the negative property/entity while the hyperchoristic vocative has an ego-centric orientation and depicts the speaker as the possessor of the property/entity in question.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



(B96)

Vocatives

(B96.1)

Disparaging vocative [Jón 73] nei kjáni-nn þinn sag-ð-i hún no fool-def your say-pret-3sg she ‘No, you fool, she said.’

(B96.2)

Hyperchoristic vocative [Jón 89] elsk-u krútt-in mín sag-ð-i hún beloved-pl treasure-pl my say-pret-3sg she ‘My beloved treasures, she said.’

What is important is the fact that despite the unquestionably high degree of emotional content the possessive pronoun remains in post-nominal position. This is the case even if the possessee is syntactically heavy as in (B96.2). These vocatives deserve being investigated more closely. However, since they do not actually denote a prototypical possessive relation, we cannot follow up on this issue in the present discussion. We will nevertheless note similar cases in other languages wherever necessary. Notwithstanding the absence of a one-to-one mapping relation of pre-nominal position of the possessive pronoun and emotion, we strongly believe that there is a close relation between the two which becomes tangible in the tendency of pre-nominal possessives to occur under emphasis and/or focus. Simplifying a bit, we may summarise our findings in the following diagram (B97). The diagram reflects an orientation from left to right unto which the features [+concrete] and [+abstract] are mapped. Now that we have got the gist of the workings of the Icelandic sub-system of pronominal possession, we are sufficiently prepared for a closer look at two additional constructions types about which we have not said anything so far. These construction types are external possessors and the so-called proprial possessors (Delsing 1993: 151). We start with external possessors as they constitute a phenomenon which has recently been discussed in a variety of publications and thus has become known to a wide audience. In contradistinction to external possessors, proprial ones are more of a special trait of North Germanic languages (cf. section 5.1.2.1 for additional data) and thus may not be as generally known in the linguistic community as the former category. a.  External possessor In Icelandic, there is no evidence for the dative external possessor which is otherwise prominent in the SAE languages (Haspelmath 2001: 1498). In its stead, Icelandic makes use of a different construction. As external possessors, in universal perspective, are especially frequent with inalienable possessees of the body-part kind, it comes





Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B97)

Pronominal possession in Icelandic: systematic organisation possession

alienable

inalienable

body-parts external

N[+DEFINITE] PRO N á PRO

other [internal] [by extension]

N í PRO

other kinship other [physico-mental states] [social standing] [abstract concepts] [nominalisations]

N[¬DEFINITE] PRO

[+concrete]

[¬concrete]

[¬abstract]

[+abstract]

 N[±DEFINITE] /

[heavy] [emphasis]/[focus]

neutralisation

as no surprise to find the Icelandic possessive PPs involved in this context. External possessors are not too frequent in our corpus. In (B98), we provide two examples for each of the PPs.

(B98)

(B98.1)

External possessors [Jón 91] ℜ POR PUM hún var að strjúka á honum fæt-ur-n-a she be.pret to stroke on he:dat foot.pl-acc.pl-def-acc.pl ‘She was stroking his feet (lit. on him the feet).’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B98.2)

[Mei 47] Anna Jóna haf-ð-i set-ið og nag-að Anna Jóna have-pret-3sg sit-part and gnaw-part PUM ℜ POR á sér negl-ur-n-ar on ref.3.dat nail-acc.pl-def-acc.pl í stól úti í horn-i in chair out in corner-dat ‘Seated on a chair in the corner, Anna Jóna was gnawing (on) her fingernails (lit. on her the fingernails)’

(B98.3)

[Jón 7] hún haf-ð-i meira að segja gleym-t she have-pret-3sg more to say forget-part að láta Jón Bjarn-a bursta to let Jón Bjarni-acc brush ℜ POR PUM í sér tenn-ur-n-ar í kvöld in ref.3.dat tooth.pl-acc.pl-def-acc.pl in evening ‘She had even forgotten to let Jón Bjarni brush his teeth (lit. in them the teeth) in the evening.’

(B98.4)

[Jón 15] Pabb-i sag-ð-i-st samt hafa heyr-t father-nom say-pret-3sg-med however have hear-part PUM ℜ POR í þeim hrot-ur-n-ar út í garð in they:dat snore-acc.pl-def-acc.pl out in garden ‘Father however said that he had heard their snores (lit. in them the snores) out in the garden.’

In these examples, the normal order in which the possessee precedes the possessor (which would be for [B98.1] fæturna á honum ‘his feet’, for [B98.2] neglurnar á sér ‘her fingernails’, for [B98.3] tennurnar í sér ‘his teeth’, for [B98.4] hroturnar í þeim ‘their snores’) is inverted in such a way that the PP whose complement the pronoun is moves to the left of the noun representing the possessee. In this way, the possessor is much closer to the lexical verb which governs case on the possessee whose (semantic) attribute the moved PP functions as. The possessor acquires certain properties by moving into the immediate neighbourhood of the lexical verb. There is promotion to a higher syntactic level as the PP is no longer a subordinated part of the NP headed by the possessee. The PP turns into something more directly linked to the lexical verb than to the possessee, i.e., it behaves like a prepositional object of the verb although no object slot of this kind is provided by the valency and case-frame of the verb! This is absolutely in line with what happens elsewhere with external possessors. In König & Haspelmath (1997: 559) and Haspelmath (1999a: 123), the authors only mention the á-construction (called superessive construction)



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

and its inversion for Icelandic. As the above examples suggest however, both PPs are possible with external possessors. This necessary, minor correction notwithstanding, König & Haspelmath’s (1997) observation is fine. According to this observation Icelandic belongs to a sub-area in the northern part of Europe where languages such as Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Estonian, Russian and Irish all of which make use of socalled “construction(s) à possesseur externe locatif ”. For the time being, it suffices to state that external possessors are restricted to the prepositional possessive constructions in Icelandic. This is a constraint which again singles out those possessees which require PPs as their normal possessive constructions to introduce the possessor. Body-part terms and other items which require the PPs are thus formally distinct not only from alienable possessees but also from other inalienable ones which disallow external possessors. b.  Proprial possessor Proprial possessors are special in so far as they constitute a combination of nominal and pronominal possessor.22 If the possessor comes in the shape of a proper noun, it is very often (though not obligatorily) accompanied by a personal pronoun agreeing in gender and case with the lexical possessor. The position of the pronoun is on the immediate left of the proper noun. From the obligatory presence of a lexical possessor in this construction type it follows that this is a phenomenon restricted to possessors in the 3rd person singular or plural. Delsing (1993: 157–158) only mentions combinations of possessive pronouns and proper nouns as examples of proprial possessors (and considers them to be characteristics of colloquial style). However, in our Icelandic corpus, there is also the occasional example of proprial possessors involving the PPs. Admittedly, this phenomenon is anything but frequent, nevertheless it does not seem to be stylistically marked. In (B99), we present all four examples we were able to gather from the three children’s books.

(B99)

Proprial possessor/PP

(B99.1)

[Jón 17] Mamma skil-ur svo vel mother:nom understand-3sg so well PUM ℜ [pro N]POR veik-in-a í henni Önn-u Jón-u sickness-def-acc in she:dat Anna-dat Jóna-dat ‘Mother understands Anna Jóna’s disease so well.’

(B99.2)

[Enn 17] PUM ℜ [pro N]POR vitleys-a-n í henni Mögg-u idiocy-nom-def in she:dat Magga-dat var ekki alltaf svona skemmtileg be.pret neg always so funny ‘Magga’s stupidity was not always so much fun.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B99.3)

[Jón 27] Jón Odd-ur og Jón Bjarn-i vor-u ákaflega hneykslaðir Jón Oddur-nom and Jón Bjarni-nom be.pret-3pl extremely upset:pl PUM ℜ [pro N]POR á fatadell-u-nn-i í henni Önn-u Jón-u on clothe_craze-dat-def-dat in she:dat Anna-dat Jóna-dat ‘Jón Oddur and Jón Bjarni were extremely upset because of Ann Joa’s being crazy about clothes.’

(B99.4)

[Mei 5] hún sag-ð-i ein-u sinn-i she say-pret-3sg one-dat time-dat að hún Lovísa vær-i bara alltaf með straujárn-ið to she Lovísa be.conj-3sg only always with flat_iron-def.nt PUM ℜ [pro N]POR á rass-i-n-um á honum Ól-a on arse-dat-def-dat on he:dat Óli-dat ‘She once said that Lovísa always had her flat-iron on Óli’s bottom.’

As section 4.2.1.2 will show, the PP-strategy of introducing the possessor makes do much more frequently without the additional personal pronoun and thus does not seem to favour the proprial possessor. This is different with possessive pronouns. According to our count, there are 44 instances of proprial possessors involving full-blown possessive pronouns (= exceeding the attestations of the PPs by a ration of 11-to-1). A selection of pertinent cases is given in (B100). (B100)

Proprial possessor/possessive pronouns

(B100.1)

[Mei 53] PUM1 [pro NP[PUM2 all-ir karlmenn í ætti-nn-i han-s pabb-a all-nom.pl man.pl in family-def-dat he-gen father-gen pro]]POR1 þín-s hafa ver-ið stórundarleg-ir your-gen have be-part very_strange-pl ‘All the men in your father’s family have been very strange.’

(B100.2)

[Enn 48] PUM1 [pro NP[PUM2 pro]]POR þetta er nú hún móðir hennar dóttur þinn-ar this be.3sg now she mother she:gen daughter your-gen ‘This now is the mother of your daughter.’

(B100.3)

[Enn 55] hún hef-ð-i bara ver-ið lát-in nota she have-pret-3sg only be-part let-part note



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

PUM1 [pro NP[PUM2 pro]]POR nafn-ið han-s af-a sín-s name-def.nt he-gen grandfather-gen POR.ref.3-gen ‘She had only the name of her grandfather taken down.’ (B100.4)

[Jón 29] og nú var Soffía í frí-i að passa and now be.pret Soffía:nom in holiday-dat to take_care PUM1 [pro þaeg-u krakk-a-n-a hennar well_behaved child-acc.pl-def-acc.pl she:gen pro]]POR NP[PUM2 dóttur sinn-ar daughter:gen POR.ref.3-gen ‘And now Soffía was on holiday to take care of the well-behaved children of her daughter.’

(B100.5)

[Enn 10] PUM [pro N]POR karf-a-n hennar Soffí-u basket-nom-def she:gen Soffía-gen var því bústað-ur han-s núna be.pret thus dwelling-nom he-gen now ‘Soffía’s basket thus was his place to live now.’

(B100.6)

[Mei 44] PUM [pro N]POR Pabb-i han-s Jó-a var ógurlega lang-ur father-nom he-gen Jói-gen be.pret incredibly long-nom.sg ‘Jói’s father was incredibly tall.’

As the first four examples demonstrate, the possessive construction may be rather complex as the proprial possessor is often embedded in a possessor chain with two different possessees and two different possessors at the same time. The possessive pronoun is always co-referential with the lexical possessor to its right which, in turn, may function as the possessee of another post-nominal possessor. In possessor chains, the reason for the presence of the lexical possessor is obvious: the second possessee must be represented lexically – and the lexical possessor happens to be identical with the second possessee. However, there is no compelling structural reason for the copresence of the possessive pronoun (and it is therefore not obligatory). Pure genitive constructions without the intervening possessive pronoun are legitimate, but largely disfavoured. On the other hand, the constructions resemble appositions – at least superficially. Our texts contain a sizeable number of appositions where a pronoun – not necessarily a possessive one – is explicated by a lexical noun to its immediate right. A typical example is (B101).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B101)

Apposition [Enn 48] hún dó þegar [hún [dóttir þín]] she die.pret when she daughter your var átján ár-a be.pret eighteen year-gen.pl ‘She died when your daughter was eighteen years old.’

It is worth noting that there is no evidence for prosodic means setting pronouns and lexically filled NPs apart. We do not assume a pause of any kind between hún and dóttir in the above example. Orthographic clues are likewise missing. In analogy to these cases from outside the realm of possession, it is tempting to interpret the cases in (B100) as also being appositions. This issue needs further elaboration in a separate study devoted to proprial possessors. What we can say anyway is that there is no syntactic or semantic restriction as to which class of possessees may occur in constructions of the proprial type. Thus, we are dealing with a possession split which is determined by the properties of the possessor. In addition, examples (B99.1)–(B99.4) show that not only proper nouns trigger the proprial possessive construction, but also kinship terms (although kinship terms may be used when addressing family relations and thus they are functionally often equivalent to proper nouns). Possessors with the highest degree of animacy behave in a special way morphosyntactically which sets them apart from the bulk of other potential possessors. To complete the picture of attributive possession in Icelandic, we will consider genitive constructions in the subsequent section. As a working hypothesis we assume that we will find evidence for similar possessive distinctions like the ones we identified for pronominal possession in the realm of noun-noun constructions.

4.2.1.2  Genitive constructions In this section, the term genitive should not be taken too literally. Of course, we will also deal with the morphological genitive of Icelandic nouns, however, the present section is meant to cover all constructions which include a nominal possessee and a nominal possessor as that possessee’s attribute. This attribute comes in two varieties, viz. either as complement of an attributive PP or as a noun inflected for genitive. Following the order of the previous section, we will first take a look at the PPs before we proceed to proper genitives. The PPs which are familiar from the discussion of pronominal possession turn up again in nominal attribution constructions. There are 33 tokens for the preposition á as the head of a PP which introduces the possessor. The preposition í displays a much lower score with just 12 tokens. This asymmetrical statistical relationship of the two prepositions is absolutely in line with what we have learned in the previous section. It is interesting to see which possessees occur in combination with these PPs. For each



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

of the two, we distinguish between those possessees which also go together with the PP under pronominal possession and those which do not. Below we enumerate the possessees according to this distinction and add one sentential example for each of the groups of possessees. For á, it suffices to mention just two groups because neither external nor proprial possessors are attested with possessees other than those which occur in the normal possessive construction. •  p  ossessees which take the á-construction with both pronominal possession and adnominal genitives: eyra ‘ear’ (3), fótur ‘foot’ (3), munnur ‘mouth’ (2), fang ‘lap’ (2), handleggur ‘arm’ (2), bak ‘back’ (2), öxl ‘shoulder’ (2), höfuð ‘head’ (1), löpp ‘rag’ (1), magi ‘stomach’ (1), lófi ‘palm’ (1), tá ‘toe’ (1), rass ‘arse’ (1), nef ‘nose’ (1), haus ‘head, skull’ (1), herðar ‘shoulders’ (1), háls ‘neck’ (1); •  p  ossessees which take the á-construction with adnominal genitives: andlit ‘face’ (2), nafn ‘name’ (1), kollur ‘head’ (1), beisli ‘bridle’ (1), haka ‘chin’ (1); (B102)

á-construction

(B102.1)

[Jón 32] stór-a tá-in á pabb-a er ein-s og apríkósa big-nom toe-def on father-dat be.3sg one-gen and apricot:nom ‘Father’s big toe is like an apricot.’

(B102.2)

[Jón 11] andlit-ið á Jón-i Bjarn-a face-def.nt on Jón-dat Bjarni-dat var útatað einhverj-u eldrauð-u be.pret smear:part somehow-dat fiery_red-dat ‘Somehow, Jón Bjarni’s face was smeared fiery red.’

With the notable exceptions of löpp ‘rag’, nafn ‘name’ and beisli ‘bridle’ (the latter being used metaphorically), all possessees belong to the group of external body parts – including the majority of the newcomers to the list. Thus, our expectation are largely met. The same holds true for the possessees which combine with the preposition í. The additions to the list of possessees include an internal body part (tunga ‘tongue’) and a number of concepts which could be classified as body-parts by extension or physico-mental states. In this way, the same range of concepts is covered in both kinds of attributive possession. Note too, that the high token frequency for auga ‘eye’ clearly shows that the status as internal body part is the default solution (as opposed to [B88] above). We also add the short lists of possessees which require the PP headed by í for their possessors in external and in proprial possessive constructions. These additional concepts corroborate the above mentioned trend: there are bona fide internal body parts (botnlangi ‘appendix’), body-parts by extension (andi ‘breath’) and physico-mental states (veiki ‘illness’).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

• possessees which take the í-construction with both pronominal possession and adnominal genitives: auga ‘eye’ (7), org ‘voice’ (1); • possessees which take the í-construction with external pronominal possessors: andi ‘breath’ (2), tönn ‘tooth’ (2), botnlangi ‘appendix’ (2), hrotur ‘snore’ (1); • possessees which take the í-construction with proprial possessors: veiki ‘illness’ (1), fatadella ‘clothes-craziness’ (1), vitleysa ‘stupidity’ (1); • possessees which take the í-construction with adnominal genitives: fliss ‘laughter’ (1), hljóð ‘sound’ (1), öfund ‘envy’ (1), tunga ‘tongue’ (1), hávaði ‘noise’ (1); (B103)

í-construction

(B103.1)

[Jón 20] annað aug-a-ð í Jón-i Bjarn-a other:nt eye-nom-def.nt in Jón-dat Bjarni-dat rann alveg inn að nef-in-u run.pret always in to nose-def-dat ‘One of Jón Bjarni’s eyes always looked towards the nose.’

(B103.2)

[Mei 39] þetta var bara öfund í Jó-a this be.pret only envy in Jói-dat ‘This was only Jói’s envy.’

Among these 45 tokens of PPs, there is only one instance of a possessee not bearing the definite article, namely öfund ‘envy’ in example (B103.2). According to Kress (1982: 175–178), there is a tendency in Icelandic to avoid the definite article with abstract nouns (including physical states such as illnesses, etc.), although this tendency is subject to much variation. By and large, the picture we painted for pronominal possession is copied by adnominal possession as long as the PPs are involved. There is another preposition, af ‘from’ with its complement in the dative which is employed quite frequently in adnominal contexts. Its range of functions lies at the margins of possession as it sometimes encodes partitive relations (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003b) (properly spatial readings are still dominant [Kress 1982: 189]). In (B104), three typical examples of the usage of af are given. In (B104.1) af introduces the point of departure of a journey (“source”) and is thus purely spatial (“ablative”), whereas in (B104.2), it occurs twice: the first one is clearly partitive as it selects one member of a set of two while the second instance of af in this sentence marks a relation of appurtenance (= the picture does not belong to the pronominally encoded participant, nor was it made by him –, however, the person in question is visible on the picture). In addition, the preposition is also the standard option for the marking of agent in passive constructions. For the remainder of this and further sections, we will skip the issue of allocating this preposition in the area of possessive constructions because of its peripheral status.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B104)

Usage of af

(B104.1)

Ablative [LPP Icelandic, 13] þú kem-ur þá af annarri stjörn-u you come-2sg then from other:dat star-dat ‘Are you then from another planet?’

(B104.2)

Partitive (and appartenance) [LPP Icelandic, 11] þar sem ég haf-ð-i aldrei teikna-ð kind there rel I have-pret-1sg never draw-part sheep dró ég upp fyrir hann draw.pret I up for he.acc aðra af þeim tveimur mynd-um other:acc from they:dat two:dat picture-dat.pl sem ég fær um að gera rel I get.pret about to make mynd-in-a af kyrkislöng-u-nn-i untanverðri picture-def-acc from boa-dat-def-dat from_outside ‘Since I had never painted a sheep, I drew for him one of the two pictures I had managed to paint: the picture of the boa viewed from the outside.’

For those constructions which involve possessive pronouns in pronominal possession there is of course no exact equivalent in the realm of genitive constructions as pronouns do not form part of these – except in proprial possessive constructions. Proprial possessors require both a pronoun and a case-marked proper noun. Outside proprial possession, noun-noun combinations require the attributive noun to appear in the inflectional genitive although this rule does not invariably apply as the many instances of prepositional substitutes for the genitive suggest – PPs with af ‘from’ are relatively common among these, especially for the purpose of indicating material, partitive, so-called object genitive and part-whole relations (Kress 1982: 227–229). For brevity’s sake, we do not elaborate on this otherwise highly interesting issue here because it is not of central importance to possession as such. In (B105) we present two sentences which involve typical adnominal genitives. (B105)

Adnominal genitives

(B105.1)

[Jón 44] ein frænka sag-ð-i að þeir vær-u one female_cousin:nom say-pret-3sg to they be.conj-3pl lif-andi eftirmynd móður sinn-ar live-part copy mother:gen POR.ref.3-gen ‘A cousin said that they were the living likeness of their mother.’

(B105.2)

[Jón 51] en enginn spur-ð-i um álit barn-a-nn-a but nobody:nom ask-pret-3sg about opinion child-gen.pl-def-gen.pl ‘But nobody asked for the opinion of the children.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B105.1) is an instance of a heavy possessee, whereas (B105.2) represents the light variety. In both cases the possessee is devoid of any definiteness marker – the possessor however, bears the definite article. The linear order is such that the genitival attribute follows the possessee. These properties – lack of definiteness marking on the possessee and possessee preceding the possessor – indeed apply to the vast majority of genitive constructions. However, they do not constitute the only choice available to speakers of Icelandic. Table (B106) surveys the type and token frequencies of the three genitive constructions attested in our corpus. (B106)  Token and type frequency of genitival constructions

tokens

types

construction

absolute

percentage

absolute

percentage

PUM + POR PUM[+definite] + POR POR + PUM total

148 6 12 166

88.7% 4.0% 7.3% 100%

89 6 12 107

83% 5.7% 11.3% 100%

In a minority of cases, the possessee is either definite or occurs to the right of the possessee. The construction exemplified by the sentences in (B105) however, accounts for almost 90% of the tokens and significantly more than 80% of the types – the other two constructions oscillating between 4–6% and 7–12% of the tokens and types, respectively. Thus, there can be no doubt about the unmarked status of the construction type PUM + POR. Except for this striking disproportion among these three constructions, they seem to parallel the relation that exists between PPs and possessive pronoun strategies in pronominal possession (cf. section 4.2.1.1): like the latter, adnominal genitives clearly outnumber PPs while they themselves come in three different shapes with definiteness being irrelevant (and hardly ever marked) if the possessor precedes the possessee. Definiteness marking does not have any importance even for the numerically more significant inverse order. We compare the relevant figures in Table (B107) (excluding the values calculated for proprial and external possessors). (B107)  Statistical relations compared

pronominal

adnominal

construction

tokens

ratio

tokens

ratio

PUM + POR PUM[+definite] + POR POR + PUM sub-total PPs

262 104 50 416 62

5.24 2.08 1 6.70 1

148 6 12 166 45

24.66 1 2 3.68 1



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

In all categories, there are more tokens under pronominal possession than under adnominal possession. This is explicable in terms of discourse organisation. Adnominal constructions consist of (at least) two lexically expressed participants, i.e., their use makes sense only if at least one (ideally even both) of these participants is newly introduced to the discourse. For pronominal possession however at least one of the participants – namely the possessor – has previously been mentioned in the discourse. The latter constellation is the more likely one in coherent texts since discourse participants usually remain activated over longer stretches of text instead of coming and going at liberty. The ratios given in Table (B107) reflect the numerical disproportion within each column: the construction type PUM + POR is the uncontested majority solution which outnumbers all other construction types. For the two remaining types not based on PPs, the statistical weight is different for pronominal and adnominal possession. Definite possessees followed by the expression of the possessor have the second highest score under pronominal possession but are down to rank three under adnominal possession because they change ranks with the construction characterised by inverse linear order. The absolute figures of these two latter construction types drop dramatically under adnominal possession. As a group, the three construction types PUM + POR, PUM[+definite] + POR and POR + PUM are statistically more prominent than the PPs. Note however, that the ratio is clearly less significant for adnominal possession than it is for pronominal possession. Moreover, it should not go unmentioned that the PPs have a higher token frequency than POR + PUM throughout, and are also attested more frequently than PUM[+ definite] + POR with adnominal genitives. The prepositional constructions are thus neither exceptional nor marginal phenomena. The formal similarities and statistical dissimilarities between adnominal genitive constructions and constructions involving possessive pronouns are potentially indicative of similarities and dissimilarities on the content level. To check this double assumption, we have surveyed the lists of possessees of each of the three construction types identified for adnominal genitives. The longest list is given first. Underlining identifies those possessees which are also attested with the same construction type under pronominal possession; boldface marks those possessees which are attested with other construction types used for adnominal genitives. •  PUM[¬definite] + POR (89 types/148 tokens): mamma ‘mother’ (13), pabbi ‘father’ (5), hönd ‘hand’ (5), lif ‘life’ (4), almanak ‘calendar’ (4), foreldrar ‘parents’ (3), herbergi ‘room’ (3), rúm ‘bed’ (3), ævintýraheimur ‘Land of Adventures’ (3), svefnherbergi ‘bedroom’ (3), hluti ‘part, share’ (2), auga ‘eye’ (2), lófi ‘palm’ (2), handleggur ‘arm’ (2), háls ‘neck’ (2), hugmynd ‘idea’ (2), ferming ‘conformation’ (2), pakki ‘parcel’ (2), hetja ‘hero’ (2), maður ‘man’ (1), systir ‘sister’ (1), rödd ‘voice’ (1), amma ‘grandmother’ (1), heimili ‘home’ (1), athygli ‘attention’ (1), ríkidæmi ‘wealth, riches’ (1), vinkona ‘girlfriend’ (1),

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

nafn ‘name’ (1), sál ‘soul’ (1), blað ‘magazine’ (1), stag ‘tent rope’ (1), poki ‘bag’ (1), ófarir ‘bad luck’ (1), bakstur ‘baking’ (1), fermingadagur ‘confirmation day’ (1), eftirmynd ‘likeness’ (1), íbúð ‘apartment’ (1), álit ‘opinion’ (1), heimskautaleiðangur ‘polar expedition’ (1), sorphaugur ‘dustbin’ (1), grátur ‘crying’ (1), klemmupoki ‘clothes-pin sack’ (1), afrek ‘deeds, achievement’ (1), hjálp ‘help’ (1), þjóðbúningur ‘national costume’ (1), afmæli ‘birthday’ (1), jafnrétti ‘equal rights’ (1), alvara ‘seriousness’ (1), kenning ‘theory’ (1), vandi ‘problem’ (1), lítilsvirðing ‘contempt’ (1), veikindi ‘illness’ (1), glens ‘joke’ (1), sár ‘wound’ (1), heðun ‘behaviour’ (1), tildrög ‘reason’ (1), vettlingur ‘mitten’ (1), neyðaróp ‘cry for help’ (1), tiltæki ‘idea’ (1), dagskrá ‘program’ (1), frásaga ‘story’ (1), símtal ‘phonecall’ (1), framleiðsla ‘product’ (1), systkini ‘sibling’ (1), gluggi ‘window’ (1), leikur ‘game’ (1), ættartala ‘genealogy’ (1), gjöf ‘present’ (1), friður ‘peace’ (1), dvalarstaður ‘dwelling place’ (1), vaxmyndasafn ‘wax collection’ (1), barnatími ‘children’s hour’ (1), atburður ‘event’ (1), bústaður ‘place to live’ (1), norðurhvel ‘northern hemisphere’ (1), garður ‘garden’ (1), svar ‘answer’ (1), söngur ‘singing’ (1), undirrót ‘root’ (1), innihald ‘content’ (1), athugasemd ‘remark’ (1), herbergisdyr ‘door to a room’ (1), stærð ‘size’ (1), staður ‘place; situation’ (1), vandamál ‘problem’ (1), orð ‘word’ (1), aðdáun ‘admiration’ (1), svefnsherbergisgluggi ‘bedroom window’ (1), hjálparsveit ‘support unit’ (1); The vast majority of the types in this list occurs just once in our corpus. Only a relatively small number of concepts (altogether 19 of 89) display a token frequency of n > 1. Altogether 14 concepts are also attested as possessees in the construction type N + pro (= the underlined ones; those marked by boldface are discussed further below). Among these we find a variety of kinship terms of the blood-relation kind (mamma, pabbi, foreldrar, amma, systir) alongside various body-part terms (hönd, auga, rödd). For kinship terms like mamma and pabbi, this is what we would expect because they are also statistically prominent for the construction type N + pro (cf. [B87]). With the same construction type, we also encounter the occasional body-part term. There was a slight tendency for these body-part terms to occur in constructions of this kind when the NP functioned as the subject of a clause. It is difficult to find a convincing common semantic or syntactic denominator for the rest of the above possessees, although it is still possible to identify certain lexico-semantic fields which are strongly represented in the above list. Thus, the situations resembles rather closely the one observed for the construction type PUM + pro described in the foregoing section 4.2.1.1, i.e., the list of possessees is in itself highly variegated ranging from concrete to abstract. In a way, the two construction types subsumed under the formula PUM + POR come close to the status of default solutions. If it is too difficult to identify any convincing or unitary criterion for the classmembership of the possessees occurring in PUM + POR-constructions, then maybe the less frequent construction types are more promising, as their lower frequency



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

suggests a higher degree of specialisation – be it in semantic terms or other. We continue our investigation with definite possessees in combination with a genitival attribute on their right. Boldface indicates doublets within the group of adnominal genitive constructions, whereas underlining shows where a possessee is attested with the same construction type in both varieties of attributive possession. •  P  UM[+definite] + POR (6 types/6 tokens): herbergi ‘room’ (1), föt ‘cloth’ (1), ból ‘bed’ (1), heili ‘brain’ (1), súrmjólk ‘sour milk’ (1), hótun ‘threat’ (1); (B108)

PUM[+definite] + POR

(B108.1)

[Jón 91] litl-u heil-ar-n-ir bræðr-a-nn-a little-pl brain-nom.pl-def-nom.pl brother.pl-gen.pl-def-gen.pl hringsner-u-st af hugs-u-n-um surround-3pl-med from thought-dat-def-dat.pl ‘The little brains of the brothers were surrounded by the thoughts.’

(B108.2)

[Enn 52] þeir minn-t-u-st allt í ein-u they remember-pret-3pl-med all on one-dat hót-a-n-a afgreiðslustúlk-u-nn-ar threat-acc-def-acc waitress-gen-def-gen ‘They at once remembered the threat of the waitress.’

Three of the six types identified for this construction are also attested with its structural equivalent under pronominal possession. Since the overall frequency of definite possessees with adnominal genitives is very low, we are not in a position to make definite statements about the motivation which drives Icelandic speakers to employ PUM[+definite] + POR. Nevertheless, we may speculate that it is similar to the one postulated for N[+definite] + pro. The definite possessee is used when a generic reading is to be avoided because the possessee has an individuated referent. Without the definite article, the possessee might be understood as referentially unspecified. In (B108.2), talk is of a concrete threat (namely to call the police if the boys’ grandfather misbehaves in public one more time) uttered by a waitress on a particular occasion – although the waitress cannot be characterised as being generally threatening. The construction under review thus makes the possessee more concrete, in a manner of speaking. For the third construction type, there are twice as many attestations as for the previous one. In the list, the same graphic conventions are used. Those possessees which also allow for other adnominal genitive constructions appear in boldface whereas the only two possessees which take the pro + N-construction under pronominal possession are underlined.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

•  P  OR + PUM (12 types/12 tokens): líf ‘life’ (1), flokkur ‘party’, hlutur ‘things’ (1), maður ‘man’ (1), faðir ‘father’ (1), tala ‘number’ (1), limur ‘limb’ (1), litur ‘colour’ (1), peningar ‘money’ (1), rola ‘weakling’ (1), vandraeði ‘evil’ (1), haf ‘sea’ (1); (B109)

POR + PUM

(B109.1)

[Enn 47] hann haf-ð-i sigl-t um öll heim-s-in-s höf he have-pret-3sg sail-part about all.pl world-gen-def-gen sea.pl ‘He had sailed on all oceans of the world.’

(B109.2)

[Jón 49] og pabb-i var ekki heldur í mömm-u flokk-i and father-nom be.pret neg rather in mother-gen party-dat og all-s ekki í flokk-um hennar ömm-u and all-gen neg in party-dat.pl she:gen grandmother-gen ‘And Father was neither in Mother’s party nor in the ones of Grandmother.’

This set of possessees looks like an assortment of everything from abstract to concrete, from inanimate to animate, from body parts to kinship terms. The identical minimal token frequency of the types is not helpful either, if one is on the look-out for a semantic basis. However, semantics are most probably not decisive – at least not for what concerns the possessees themselves. As a matter of fact, there are two interconnected factors. To start with, the nouns inflected for genitive in this construction are special. In three instances, heimsins ‘of the world’ occurs with different possessees. Likewise, the genitive singular and plural of maður ‘man’ (manns and manna, respectively) is used three times with three different possessees. What this means is that in contradistinction to other constructions which are often characterised by a certain permanence of possessees and variability of possessors there is the inverse tendency with the POR + PUM-construction. In Table (B110), we enumerate all pertinent instances but one, which is discussed below. (B110)  Possessors used in the POR + PUM-construction example

gloss

source

alla heimsins peninga undirrót allra heimsins vandræða öll heimsins höf kristinna manna tölu hvers mans líf og lími annarra manna hluti átján barna faðir öllum regnbogans litan einhverri dauðans rolu neinn andans maður

‘all the money in the world’ ‘the root of all the evil in the world’ ‘all the seven seas’ ‘(among) the number Christians’ ‘everybody’s life and body’ ‘other people’s things’ ‘father of eighteen children’ ‘all colours of the rainbow’ ‘with any bloody weakling’ ‘no intellectual’

Mei 78 Enn 41 Enn 47 Jón 42 Jón 88 Enn 66 Jón 26 Mei 71 Enn 35 Mei 51



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Several observations have to be made. First, some of the combinations of possessor noun and possessee noun are not only frequent collocations but some of them are so closely associated that they might pass as compounds (this applies for instance to the last case: andansmaður ‘intellectual’ [lit. man of the spirit] is a lexical entry in ­Ellertsson [1993: 12]). For several of the other cases, a high degree of idiomatic usage i.e., lexicalised status can be assumed (“colours of the rainbow”, “the seven seas”, “the evil of the world”, etc.). The phrase átján barna faðir ‘father of eighteen’ is taken from a newspaper headline and thus reflects journalistic style. For some of the above examples, emphatic speech is a likely factor. This is especially so with einhverri dauðans rolu ‘with any bloody weakling [lit. any weakling of the devil]’ where the swearword is telling evidence of emphasis and emotional involvement. On top of all this, the ten examples in Table (B110) have one crucial commonality, namely the fact that all syntagms are syntactically heavy. Either the possessee is modified by a quantifier, or the possessor is subject to further modification (or a combination of both). Thus, there is a clear parallel to the primary motivation for pre-nominal possessive pronouns on which we elaborated in the previous section: the syntactic weight of the construction triggers the placement of the possessor on the left of the possessee. Meaning: POR + PUM has the same motivation throughout attributive possession. The syntactic weight of the possessive construction cannot explain the only light syntagm exemplified in (B109.2). Mömmu flokki ‘(for) Mother’s party’ invites an interpretation as contrastive focus because it is important for the context from which the sentence is taken that the father has not voted for the parties supported by the other adult members of his family. What is highlighted in the syntagm is not political parties in general but specifically whose party has not been voted for. Thus the possessor is in focus. Its position on the left of the possessee is again fully in line with what we have observed for the construction type pro + N under pronominal possession to whose functional domain contrastive focus and emphasis belong. Why then, one might ask, does the pre-nominal position of the genitival attribute not apply to the second possessive construction in the same sentence? The father also did not vote for the political parties fancied by the grandmother and thus, flokkum hennar ömmu ‘(for) grandmother’s parties’ is on a par with mömmu flokki as to suitability for contrastive focus. There is however one syntactic criterion which blocks pre-nominal positioning of the possessor in this case: we are dealing with an instance of a proprial possessor which in spite of its syntactic heaviness is excluded from variable linear order. Whether or not this can be attributed to the hypothesised higher contrastiveness inherent to a construction which already involves two separate expressions of the possessor is an issue we cannot investigate on the basis of our necessarily limited written corpus.23 Before we conclude the description of attributive possession in Icelandic, a glance at the two possessees líf ‘life’ and herbergi ‘room’ is in order. These items are each

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

a­ ttested with two of the adnominal genitive constructions. In (B111), two linear orders of possessor and possessee occur for the possessee líf ‘life’. (B111)

líf

(B111.1)

PUM + POR [Jón 41] þetta yr-ð-i mesta hamingjustund this become.conj-pret-3sg most congratulation_action í líf-i Soffí-u in life-dat Soffía-gen ‘This would become the best congratulatory action in Soffía’s life.’

(B111.2)

POR + PUM [Jón 88] þeir höf-ð-u heyrt Jó-a segja frá voðaleg-um they have-pret-3pl hear:part Jói-acc say from terrible-dat.pl hrekkisvín-um sem þar stund-uð-u nám og sæt-u bully-dat.pl rel there carry_out-pret-3pl study and compare-3pl um hver-s mann-s líf og lim-i about each-gen man-gen life and limb-dat ‘They had heard Jói tell about terrible bullies who studied and compared every body’s life and body.’

The difference between (B111.1) and (B111.2) lies in the fact that the possessor in the latter example is heavy as it contains an additional quantifier, as opposed to the light NP in (B111.1). Thus there is no semantic trigger but rather a syntactic one. For the cases in (B112), a similar explanation is impossible because linear order is not affected. (B112)

herbergi

(B112.1)

PUM + POR [Mei 112] seinna um dag-inn sát-u vin-ir-n-ir þrír late:comp about day-def sit.pret-3pl friend-nom.pl.def-nom.pl three í herbergi Jón-s Odd-s og Jón-s Bjarn-a in room Jón-gen Oddur-gen and Jón-gen Bjarni-gen ‘Later that day, the three friends sat in the room of Jón Oddur and Jón Bjarni.’

(B112.2)

PUM[+definite] + POR [Mei 20] hún […] sag-ð-i að þeir mæt-t-u leika sér she say-pret-3sg to they might.conj-pret-3pl play ref.3.dat inni í herbergi-n-u krakk-a-n-a inside in room-def-dat child-gen.pl-def-gen.pl ‘She said that they might play in the room of the children.’

It is difficult to find any distinctive properties which could functionally motivate the differential treatment of the possessee herbergi in the two sentences. From the context



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

of (B112.1), it is evident that it does not really matter whose room the three friends meet in, whereas in (B112.2) the context reveals that the mother of one of the boys is interested in keeping the children out of her way. She feeds them in her kitchen and then indicates the children’s room to them as a potential playground. Whether these circumstances allow us to tie the absence/presence of the definite article to contextual factors must remain conjecture because we do not have sufficient evidence for parallel cases on hand. These final uncertainties notwithstanding, we consider attributive possession in Icelandic to be relatively homogeneously organised for both pronominal and adnominal constructions without however claiming them to be absolutely identical in terms of the distinctions they make. In terms of morphosyntax, body-part terms are treated differently from other possessees independent of the pronominal or lexical status of the possessor. Wherever the constructions dedicated to body-part possession are replaced by others, pragmatic and/or syntactic factors such as emphasis, contrastive focus or heaviness are responsible. Kinship terms of the blood relation kind are likewise formally distinct, although the evidence for their special status stems almost exclusively from pronominal possession. Abstract and concrete possessees are also distinguished from each other by the absence and presence of the definite article. The employment of the definite article may serve the purpose of giving a concrete or individuated reading to possessees which otherwise might be understood as referentially unspecific or generic. For the sake of clarity, we repeat that the pragmatic and syntactic factors may influence the choice of the possessive construction, but this need not necessarily lead to a conflict with the semantically-based distinctions. Syntactic and/or pragmatic factors only optionally overrule semantic ones. However, they do not always prove to be stronger. What exactly the mechanisms are which determine the actual choice is still largely unclear. Combinations of several nonsemantically-based properties at least seem to favour the employment of alternative constructions. The following section checks whether or not the system identified for attributive possession has any counter-part in the realm of predicative possession in modern Icelandic.

4.2.2  Predicative possession 4.2.2.1  Three verbs of having Like Maltese, Icelandic has a variety of predicative possessive constructions. However, in contrast to the Afro-Asiatic language, the three Icelandic constructions do not depend on stylistic criteria, nor are they optional means of disambiguation. Speakers of Icelandic must make a choice every time they want to express possessive relations predicatively because none of the three constructions can be used as the neutral form. They are not synonyms of each other, at least not total synonyms (Stolz 2004: 87–91).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Given that formal differentiation is compulsory not only in predicative possession but also, as we have seen, in attributive possession, chances are that the distinctions we encounter in one area of grammar are also valid in the other. Do the three predicative expressions reflect the same semantically-based possessive categories as their attributive counterparts? In order to answer this question this section provides a thorough check of the systematicity of predicative possession. Among the three predicative constructions, we find two transitive verbs, namely eiga, which we gloss as ‘own’ for convenience, and hafa for which we reserve the gloss ‘have’. Both verbs take their object in the accusative case. The third construction consists of the copula vera ‘be’ and the preposition með ‘with’ also governing the accusative case on the complement of the PP. Accordingly, we transmorphemise this construction as compositional: ‘be with’. However, these glossing conventions should not be taken too literally. In most of the cases, all three constructions invite an English translation as have whereas own or be with would not make much sense. This translation equivalence must be borne in mind when we discuss the categorial distinctions connected with the three different expressions. Typical examples of these expressions are given in (B113). (B113)

Three predicative constructions

(B113.1)

eiga [Jón 15] hún átt-i jepp-a she own.pret-3sg jeep-acc sem hún ferð-að-i-st í um landi-ð rel she ride-pret-3sg-med in about land-def.nt ‘She had a jeep in which she drove around the country.’

(B113.2)

hafa [Jón 25] Magga haf-ð-i hæfileik-a Magga.nom have-pret-3sg talent-acc til að koma öll-um í gott skap till to come all.pl-dat.pl in good.nt humour ‘Magga had the talent of putting everybody in a good mood.’

(B113.3)

vera með [Jón 52] sumir krakk-ar vor-u með lítil flögg some:nom.pl child-nom.pl be.pret-3pl with little flag.pl ‘Some kids had little flags.’

To make the recognition of the inflected forms of the partially irregular verbs involved easier, we provide the paradigm for present and preterite indicative in (B114). For obvious reasons, we only mention the masculine forms for the subject pronouns of the third person singular and plural although there are separate forms in both numbers for all three genders.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B114)  Partial paradigms

present

subject

pro

eiga

hafa

vera með

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

ég þú hann við þið þeir

á átt á eigum eigið eiga

hef/hefi hefur/hefir hefur/hefir höfum hafið hafa

er með ert með er með erum með eruð með eru með

ég þú hann við þið þeir

átt áttir átt áttum áttuð áttu

hafði hafðir hafði höfðum höfðuð höfðu

var með varst með var með vorum með voruð með voru með



preterite

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

Before we look more closely at the functional domains of the three expressions in the realm of possession, a word or two about their use outside possession are in order. Apart from indicating a possessive relation of some kind, eiga also serves the purpose of functioning as an auxiliary of obligation. Hafa on the other hand is regularly used as the tense-marking auxiliary in the periphrastic perfect of transitive and non-motion intransitive verbs. For vera með, a slightly different function is reported. However the expression of this requires the complement noun to be in the dative. In this case, the intended meaning is the one of classification or allocation in a class/group/category (for a comprehensive account of the functional domain of með in general and the vera með-construction in particular, cf. Stolz; Stroh & Urdze 2006). Examples for these strictly speaking non-possessive functions are given in (B115). (B115)

Non-possessive functions

(B115.1)

eiga as modal verb [Enn 71] hún viss-i ekki hvað hún átt-i að gera she know.pret-3sg neg what she own.pret-3sg to do við Ól-a á meðan with Óli-acc on middle ‘She did not know what she should do with Óli in the meantime.’

(B115.2)

hafa as perfect auxiliary [LPP Icelandic, 35] ég hef-i enn ekki far-ið um all-t konungsríki-ð I have-1sg still neg go-part about all-nt kingdom-def.nt ‘I have not been around the entire kingdom yet.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B115.3)

vera með – classification/allocation [Kress 1982: 205] Guðrún er með þeim efstu í sín-um bekk Guðrún be.3sg with they:dat high:sup:dat in POR.ref.3-dat bench ‘Guðrún is among the best in her class.’

The grammaticalisation of verbs of having to modal verbs of obligation and to perfect auxiliaries is of course nothing spectacularly exceptional (Heine & Kuteva 2002: 243–245). This is the usual pattern for verbs of having, in a manner of speaking. What is interesting though is the fact that two different verbs have been grammaticalised for these two functions. Their parallel grammaticalisation is also indicative of their basic equivalence as verbs of having. For vera með, there is of course a certain connection to the classificatory usage in (B115.3) and proper possessive categories because classification/allocation is reminiscent of belonging-constructions: entities are allocated in a class of other similar entities and in this partitive sense they belong to this class. Með is a preposition with variable case government: the dative is required inter alia for relations of appurtenance, whereas the accusative is used when the relation is one of control exerted by a potential possessor (Kress 1982: 205–207; Stolz; Stroh & Urdze 2006). The three predicative constructions are in unequal distribution – this inequality applies not only to their functional domains but also to their type and token frequency. In Table (B116) we present the comparative statistics of the three constructions. (B116)  Predicative construction types – statistics

types

construction

absolute

eiga hafa vera með total

56 51 25 132

tokens

percentage 42.4% 38.6% 19% 100%

absolute

percentage

109 80 30 219

49.7% 36.6% 13.7% 100%

There is a certain statistical disproportion. Despite the higher type and token frequency of eiga, hafa displays values which are still not too far away from the ones attested for the construction with the highest percentage. The third candidate, vera með, however is clearly distanced from the two other constructions without becoming an exceptional phenomenon. We discuss the construction in the order of decreasing type/token frequencies. Thus, we zoom in on eiga first. In the catalogues of possessees we use boldface to indicate doublets shared by eiga and hafa, single underlining marks parallels between hafa and vera með whereas there are no instances of possessees which combine both with eiga and vera með in our sample texts. We have identified five classes of possessees – with the fifth group being semantically too heterogeneous to allow for any other designation than just various. In what follows, we also consider the possibility of re-organising the classes whose number



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

may be reduced to just three. The division into classes or groups primarily serves the purpose of practical orientation in order to facilitate the subsequent discussion. For eiga as well as hafa and vera með, the proposed classes differ as to their degree of internal coherence. A variety of individual concepts do not easily lend themselves to classification and thus might turn out to allow for multiple class-membership. These acknowledged problems notwithstanding, kinship terms are clearly prominent among the possessees which favour eiga. eiga – kinship relations (14 types/21 tokens): mamma ‘mother (4), krakki ‘child’ (4), pabbi ‘father’ (2), afi ‘grandfather’ (1), amma (1), foreldrar ‘parents’ (1), systkini ‘sibling’ (1), aukaafi ‘step-grandfather’ (1), aukaamma ‘step-grandmother’ (1), aukapabbi ‘stepfather’ (1), bróðir ‘brother’ (1), barn ‘child’ (1), fjölskylda ‘family’ (1), strákur ‘boy’ (1); (B117)

eiga + kinship term [Jón 15] svo átt-i hún líka aukaömm-u og so own.pret-3sg she also step_grandmother-acc and aukaaf-a step_grandfather-acc ‘Then she also had a step-grandmother and a step-grandfather.’

As can be seen from example (B117), the use of eiga is by no means restricted to bloodrelationships but also extends to non-biologically based family relations. In all of the above cases, the relationship is always one of kin, be it by blood or by law. This also includes those items which may have other readings. We will look at this more closely below when we address the human possessees of hafa. In addition to kinship relations, there are a number of (more or less) abstract concepts which usually associate with eiga. Calendaric concepts are somewhat prominent among these. eiga – abstract concepts (9 types/16 tokens): von ‘hope’ (5), frí ‘holidays’ (4), orð ‘word’ (1), vist ‘sojourn’ (1), afmæli ‘birthday’ (1), sök ‘’guilt’ (1), erindi ‘errand’ (1), ferð ‘journey’ (1), dagur ‘day’ (1); (B118)

eiga + abstract concept [Jón 7] hún átt-i von á gest-um she own.pret-3sg hope on guest-dat.pl ‘She was expecting guests.’

However, abstract concepts cannot compete with concrete ones. The latter occur roughly twice as often as the former ones. Except for sjukrahús ‘hospital’, the possessees in this group are all of such a size and material that they could be carried in the hands or in one’s pocket. eiga – concrete objects (20 types/31 tokens): bók ‘book’ (6), peningar ‘money’ (6), bill ‘car’ (2), uppáhaldsmatur ‘favourite treat’ (2), mynd ‘picture’ (1), jeppi ‘toy jeep’ (1), poki ‘bag’ (1), dót ‘things; baggage’ (1), taska ‘pocket; bag’ (1), flaska ‘bottle’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(1), sloppur ‘coat’ (1), króna ‘crown’ (1), kassi ‘box’ (1), tjörudallur ‘tar-container’ (1), sjónvarp ‘TV’ (1), stafur ‘stick’ (1), sjukrahús ‘hospital’ (1), drasl ‘rubbish’ (1), fimmhundruðkall ‘500 crown note’ (1); (B119)

eiga + concrete object [Mei 44] sjálf vil-d-i hún all-s ekki eiga sjónvarp self want-pret-3sg she all-gen neg own TV ‘She herself did not want to have a TV at all.’

One could argue that at least two of the possessees subsumed under the following heading would be better placed in the previous group, as garður ‘garden’ and hús ‘house’ are clearly more concrete than the remaining two concepts. If so, then heima and heimili – both meaning ‘home’ – could also be moved to another class, namely, to the one comprised of abstract concepts above. Owing to the rather high frequency of heima, this would have consequences for the token-frequency based ratio of abstract and concrete possessees. As to types however, this shuffling about of concepts would not alter the situation too much. The question of whether it makes sense at all to keep a distinct class house and home will most probably be answered negatively. eiga – h  ouse and home (4 types/19 tokens): heima ‘home’ (16) [perhaps to be allocated under abstract concepts], heimili ‘home’ (1) [perhaps to be allocated under abstract concepts], garður ‘garden’ (1), hús ‘house’ (1); (B120)

eiga + house and home [Mei 56] hvar á hann heima where own he home ‘Where does he live?’

A similar problem arises with the final group of possessees requiring eiga. First of all, we note various (positive and negative) quantifiers and indefinite pronouns among the possessees. Some of the quantifiers form part of a partitive construction in which they govern a noun (either in the genitive or as complement of a PP). It is this noun – and not the quantifier – which is semantically important (as in mikið af leikföng ‘a lot of toys’ where leikföng ‘toys’ conveys the lexical information as mikið is semantically almost empty). If we accept this, then most of the possessees below have to change class – and would wind up in the class reserved for concrete objects. The remaining three items (erfitt, bágt and skilið) are special. Consider example (B121).  arious (9 types/22 tokens): erfítt ‘difficult’ (5), bágt ‘(under) pressure’ (5), eiga – v allur ‘all’ (3), skilið ‘deserve’ (3), ekkert ‘nothing’ (2), helmingur ‘half ’ (1), mikið ‘much’ (1), meira ‘more’ (1), eitthvað ‘something’ (1); (B121)

eiga + various [Enn 43] það er meira en ég á skil-ið it be.3sg more than I own understand-part.nt ‘This is more than I deserve.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

The items which occur in the usual position of the possessee in this case, are not nouns, but rather adjectives and participles, respectively. They all come in the shape of the neuter singular (ending in a dental consonant). We suppose that we are dealing with idiomatised constructions from which an erstwhile pronoun of the 3rd person neuter singular (= það ‘it’) has been lost, meaning that (B121) presupposes a structure of the type *það er meira en ég á það skilið ‘this is more than I deserve (lit. understand) it’ where the “reconstructed” það ‘it’ triggers the gender and number agreement on the adjective/participle. This phantom það represents the actual possessee which has to be considered abstract as the pronoun normally refers to a situation or a state of affairs and not to tangible objects. No matter how many classes we postulate, one thing is certain. On semantic grounds, it is next to impossible to find a common bond for kinship relations, concrete objects and abstract concepts as possessees requiring the same verb of having. One may own concrete objects – and via the legal side of ownership it is perhaps possible to look at kinship relations as something similar. This however does not apply to abstract concepts which belong to an area from which ownership is largely excluded. Nevertheless these possessees tend to have one more thing in common: a formal property. According to Friðjónsson (1978: 94), possessees of eiga do not take the definite article. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this rule applies – but there are a handful of exceptions, more precisely four tokens (= 3.6% of all tokens of eiga) and the same number of types (= 7.2% of all types of eiga). In (B122) we present these exceptional cases. (B122)

Definite possessees with eiga

(B122.1)

Superlative [Jón 43] kannski á hún ljótasta barn-ið perhaps own she ugly:sup child-def.nt ‘Perhaps she has the ugliest child.’

(B122.2)

Relative clause [Jón 48] Anna Jóna má eiga pening-a-n-a Anna:nom Jona:nom may own money-acc.pl-def-acc.pl sem Jói skila-ð-i rel Jói:nom return-pret-3sg ‘Anna Jóna may have the money Jói returned.’

(B122.3)

Disambiguation [Jón 81] allveg ein-s og allir eiga sjúkrahús-ið hérna always one-gen and all:nom.pl own hospital-def.nt here ‘Just like everybody owns the hospital here.’

(B122.4)

Prepositional attribute [Enn 28–29] næst þegar þau fór-u uppeftir hit-t-u þau next when they.nt go.pret-3pl up meet-pret-3pl they.nt

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

mann-inn sem át-t-i garð-inn man-def rel own-pret-3sg garden-def við hlið-in-a á þeirra garð-i along side-def-acc on they:gen garden-dat ‘The next time they went up there again, they met the man who owned the garden next to theirs.’

In all these cases, the context – either immediate or not – makes overt definiteness marking the best choice. According to Kress (1982: 170), superlatives of qualitative and quantitative adjectives normally trigger the definite article on the head noun, independent of other criteria. This explains why we have barnið ‘the child’ instead of just barn ‘child’ in (B122.1). Kress (1982: 168) also mentions that attribution by relative clauses normally goes hand in hand with suffixation of the definite article on the head noun and thus (B122.2) is fully in line with what he expects. That Kress’s rule is much too strong nevertheless can be shown in the examples in (B123). (B123)

Relative clauses do not always trigger definiteness marking

(B123.1)

Indefiniteness made explicit [Jón 27] hún haf-ð-i far-ið til Akureyr-ar til að passa she have-pret-3sg go-part till Akureyri-gen till to look_after einhverj-a krakk-a sem dóttir hennar át-t-i some-acc child-acc rel daughter she:gen own-pret-3sg ‘She had gone to Akureyri in order to look after a child her daughter had.’

(B123.2)

Indefinite possessee [Jón 31] sjálf át-t-i hún strák sem hét Jói self own-pret-3sg she boy rel be_called.pret Jói:nom ‘She herself had a boy called Jói.’

(B123.3)

Implicit definiteness [Enn 68] þvílíkur pabbi sem hún át-t-i such father rel she own-pret-3sg ‘What a father she had.’

In fact, indefinite nouns may freely be the head of a relative clause. In (B123.3) it is even unclear whether pabbi ‘father’ should be read as an indefinite or as an implicitly definite noun. In the end, the decision for this controversial issue has no relevance for the topic at hand as kinship terms of the pabbi-type never take the definite article because of their closeness to proper nouns (note that they may take suffixed articles if they are pluralised and thus also de-personalised). The reason for the definite article on the possessee in (B122.3) is of a different nature. The definite article is necessary on sjúkrahús ‘hospital’ in order to avoid a different interpretation: without the definite article, the sentence would be understood as meaning something like ‘just like everybody owns a hospital (of their own) here’. The intended reading however is that a certain hospital is considered common property



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(and thus everybody behaves presumptuously when dealing with the staff). Another of Kress’s (1982: 168) rules seems to apply in (B122.4): prepositional attributes are likely to trigger definiteness marking on the head noun. The syntagm garðinn við hliðina ‘the garden at the side (of)’ fits this rule nicely. More generally, overt determination of the possessee is especially frequent if some kind of attribute co-occurs which narrows down the reference of the head noun. In this way, the prepositional attribute behaves more or less like the relative clause or other types of attribution mentioned by Kress (1982: 168–169). We may also look at definiteness marking from the opposite direction: if the definite article depends upon the presence of an attribute to some extent, then this relatively loose dependence could also mean that the majority of the cases of possessees attested in combination with eiga lack this property. Thus, they should be bare nouns. This however, is a hypothesis which is not borne out by the facts. Only half of the cases are bare nouns (and thus indicate generic rather than specific relations). According to the extant descriptions of Icelandic, definiteness marking should be much more frequent with the possessees which combine with hafa. However, our expectations are not met by the data. For hafa, there are exactly as many possessees hosting the definite article as there are for eiga, namely four tokens and four types which is equivalent to 5% of all tokens and 7.8% of all types, respectively. These yield ratios which do not differ too much from the ones reported for eiga above. Three of four definite possessees of hafa occur in so-called definiteness-sensitive contexts i.e., in combination with attributes such as superlatives etc., which often require the definite article on a noun even outside possessive constructions (cf. above). There are six classes of possessees (including one mixed group). We begin our discussion of these classes with those possessees which display the highest degree of animacy, namely human possessees. hafa – human possessees (11 types/17 tokens): afi ‘grandfather’ [6 – of which 4 times pronominally hann ‘her’], Soffía [2 – of which once pronominally hana ‘her’], Anna Jóna (1), Simbi (1), Selma (1), krakki ‘child’ (1), stelpa ‘girl’ (1), maður ‘man’ (1), þið (= ykkur) ‘you’ (1), fólk ‘people’ (1), einkahjúkrunarkona ‘private nurse’ (1); The most striking fact about this class of possessees is the presence of five proper nouns (with a combined token frequency of six). None of the other predicative constructions in our sample texts is attested with a human possessee represented by a proper noun. A telling example is (B124). Note also that hafa occurs relatively often with a pronominal possessee (seven times), whereas eiga is attested with a possessed pronoun only once – and this one time the possessee is an inanimate concrete object! (B124)

hafa vs. eiga [Jón 31] en þeir vil-d-u heldur hafa Soffí-u but they want-pret-3pl rather have Soffía-acc en að eiga mömm-u ein-s og Jói át-t-i but to own mother-acc one-gen and Jói:nom own-pret-3sg ‘But they would rather have Soffía than have a mother like the one Jói had.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

In this sentence, predicative possession of a human being is expressed three times. Eiga is used twice as the possessee comes in the shape of a kinship term, viz. mamma ‘mother’. Hafa occurs once in combination with the proper noun Soffía. Superficially, this differential treatment of the possessees seems to be at odds with the observation that kinship terms of the mamma-kind are very similar to proper nouns because they can be used as forms of address, etc. In contrast to proper nouns however kinship terms are not confined to this function, but they still denote the relation between two or more human beings – a function which is alien to proper names. Thus, despite their similarities in other respects, proper nouns and kinship terms do not form a common set. This is especially evident in (B124) where the two boys whose thoughts are reported in this sentence weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having to interact daily with certain persons. The caretaker Soffía and her imagined rival – a rather unfriendly mother of the kind one of the boys’ playmates has – are the two options being compared. Notwithstanding the common ground necessary for the comparison, namely the social connection to the boys, two different verbs of having have to be employed because a mother-child relationship is something categorically different from a relationship not based on kin, independent of the degree of intensity or intimacy. The emotional involvement of the boys (who clearly favour the caretaker) is irrelevant for the choice of the verb of having. The property [+ kin] overrules all other criteria. This also applies to those expressions which are ambiguous in the sense that they allow not only a kinship reading, but also a non-relational interpretation. In (B125) two instances of krakki ‘child’ are presented. (B125)

krakki

(B125.1)

hafa [Mei 64] við get-um ekki haf-t krakk-a hér inni we can-1pl neg have-part child-acc.pl here inside ‘We cannot have kids in here.’

(B125.2)

eiga [Jón 16] en ósköp vor-u þeir fegnir að mamma but large_amount be.pret-3pl they happy:pl to mother:nom ekki all-a þess-a krakk-a át-t-i own-pret-3sg neg all-acc.pl this-acc.pl child-acc.pl ‘They were just happy that these children did not all belong to mother [lit. that mother did not own all these children].’

Krakki ‘child’ may mean ‘young under-age human being’ as in (B125.1) or ‘someone’s offspring’ as in (B125.2). The intended reading obligatorily triggers the employment of either eiga or hafa. Eiga is reserved for those contexts where there is talk of kinship, whereas hafa is excluded from such contexts. The domain of hafa on the other hand, is the non-relational reading which, in turn, is impossible for eiga. The two



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

verbs of ­having thus serve the purpose of disambiguating the meaning of a potentially ­ambiguous term. But what about afi ‘grandfather’, an uncontested example of a kinship term? Afi is attested in combinations with eiga and with hafa. In (B126) we present three pertinent examples. (B126)

afi

(B126.1)

hafa [Enn 73] það vær-i nú fjör að hafa af-a með this be.conj-3sg now life to have grandfather-acc with ‘That would be the life to have grandfather around.’

(B126.2)

hafa [Enn 103] til dæmis að hafa af-a till example:gen to have grandfather-acc þó að þú vilj-ir ekki hafa hann although to you want-2sg neg have him ‘For instance to have (a) grandfather although you do not want to have him.’

(B126.3)

eiga [Enn 48] enginn nema þeir haf-ð-i átt nobody:nom except they have-pret-3sg own:part af-a í strápils-i grandfather-acc in straw_skirt-dat ‘Nobody apart from themselves had a grandfather wearing a straw-skirt.’

The motivation for the use of hafa in (B126.1) and the use of eiga in (B126.3) is straightforward. In the former case, a situation of accompaniment is described. For this situation, it is absolutely unimportant whether the person being taken along is in a kinship relation to his companions. The fact that we are dealing with accompaniment is additionally underlined by the adverbial use of the preposition með ‘with’. One could even argue that hafa með forms a discontinuous construction with the status of a distinct verb – different from simple hafa. In this book however, we subsume hafa með under the same lexical entry as hafa. In (B126.3), the kinship relation connecting the two boys to their grandfather is focussed on – as other kids are said not to be so lucky to have a grandfather of this special kind. Thus, the use of eiga is what we expect. Between these two clear examples however, there is (B126.2) which is hard to classify without additional contextual information. Before this sentence is uttered by one of the two boys they had a number of awkward experiences with their grandfather who was strange and did not behave in a socially acceptable way in public. One could therefore understand (B126.2) as the hidden expression of the wish of the boys not to have a grandfather at all. However, this conclusion is not fully to the point. As a matter of fact, the whole story clearly shows that the boys are eager to have a grandfather in the sense that they want to boast of a full-blown family (and thus be on a par with other children they know). The grandfather, a sailor of sorts, was believed to have died because he had not been

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

heard of for several decades, but then all of a sudden he returns to Iceland for good and seeks a home with his family. The boys are happy with the fact that they indeed have (= eiga) a grandfather. What creates problems however is being around him in public. His mostly inappropriate behaviour leads to the boys’ growing uneasiness when they have to accompany him outdoors. The dilemma they are in is nicely reflected by (B126.2): they have to be with him although they do not want to be with him. They want to have a grandfather for a family relation (= eiga) but they do not want to have him along (= hafa). We therefore read (B126.2) as referring to accompaniment or co­presence rather than to kinship relations as such. As kinship is not at issue, the employment of eiga is ruled out – and hafa enters the scene. The way hafa competes with vera með when expressing relations of this non-kinship type will be discussed below. Before we determine the borderline which separates hafa from vera með, we still have to look more closely at the functional domain which is genuinely hafa. First of all, there is a class of possessees which has no equivalent in the list provided for eiga above. Body-part terms are not exactly prominent for hafa but they nevertheless occur every once in a while. hafa – body-part terms (3 types/4 tokens): vit ‘mind’ (2) [perhaps better placed under abstract concepts], nef ‘nose’ (1), tönn ‘tooth’ (1); (B127)

[Enn 48] þú hef-ur klassísk-t nef you have-2sg classic-nt nose ‘You have a classical nose.’

While it would be impossible to replace hafa by eiga in this example, it is certainly acceptable to substitute vera með for hafa. Whether this potential substitution is indicative of partial synonymy or has a different reading will become clear when we discuss the functional domain of vera með below. For the time being it suffices to note that hafa and eiga clearly go separate ways. This separation becomes even more pronounced when we consider the class of possessees with the highest type and token frequency: physico-mental states form a distinct category for neither eiga nor vera með, but they are highly prominent as possessees of hafa. hafa – physico-mental states (11 types/23 tokens): áhyggja ‘concern’ (8), áhugi ‘interest’ (4), gaman ‘fun’ (2), ofnæmi ‘allergy’ (2), skoðun ‘opinion’ (1), hæfileiki ‘talent’ (1), heilsa ‘health’ (1), ræna ‘energy’ (1), ágirnd ‘greed’ (1), samviskubit ‘bad ­conscience’ (1), gott ‘good’ (1); (B128)

[Mei 57] þeir bræð-ur-n-ir höf-ð-u áhyggj-ur they brother.pl-nom.pl-def-nom.pl have.pl-pret-3pl concern-acc.pl af Selm-u of elma-dat ‘The brothers were concerned about Selma.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

It may be possible to enlarge this class by re-locating some of the possessees which we have classified as abstract concepts (and vice versa). Abstract concepts are also relatively strong as possessees combed with hafa. hafa – abstract concepts (10 types/16 tokens): orð ‘word’ (6), hugmynd ‘idea’ (2), hlutverk ‘task’ (1), tími ‘time’ (1), þökk ‘thanks’ (1), réttur ‘right, correct’ (1) [possibly better placed under various], skylda ‘obligation’ (1), lækningamáttur ‘healing power’ (1), mætur ‘respect’ (1), ríkidæmi ‘wealth’ (1); (B129)

[Enn 57] í gaml-a dag-a trú-ð-u menn in old-acc.pl day-acc.pl believe-pret-3pl man.pl að þessi steinn hef-ð-i lækningamátt to this stone:nom have.conj-pret-3sg healing_power ‘In the old days people believed that this stone had the power to heal.’

There is no overlap with vera með this time. However, orð ‘word’ is a possessee which is also attested with eiga, though only marginally. Except for this one case, hafa and eiga do not share any possessees among the abstract concepts. In (B130) we contrast hafa and eiga as verbs of having for orð. (B130)

orð

(B130.1)

hafa [Enn 41] Pabbi haf-ð-i oft haf-t orð á því father:nom have-pret-3sg often have-part word on this.dat ‘Father often spoke about this.’

(B130.2)

eiga [Enn 34] ég á ekki orð I own neg word ‘I am speechless.’

In both cases the constructions are idiomatised. The one involving hafa also includes the preposition á introducing the subject matter about which people talk (or of which they make a fuss – which is an alternative interpretation of hafa orð á [Böðvarsson 1985: 715]). As far as we know, orð cannot be modified in any way in this construction – which means that it is already largely decategorialised. The same applies to its combination with eiga. In addition to orð being again decategorialised, the polarity for this combination seems to be always negative, at least this is our impression after a random check of other Icelandic sources. In contradistinction to eiga, hafa orð can be combined with a small set of prepositions (um ‘about’, fyrir ‘for’, etc.) yielding a

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

­ aradigm of semantically different constructions. Superficially, this higher paradigp maticity characterises hafa as the unmarked verb of having for orð. This however is a false impression as the immediately following discussion is meant to prove. Like eiga, hafa also allows for combinations with possessees which belong to the class of concrete objects. The type and token frequency is much lower for hafa than for eiga – the latter being the preferred option when possessing concrete objects. Eiga occurs three to four times as often as hafa in combination with concrete objects. hafa – concrete objects (6 types/8 tokens): peningar ‘money’ (2), blóm ‘flower’ (2), bók ‘book’ (1), nagli ‘nail’ (1), úlpa ‘anorak’ (1), pláss ‘place’ (1); Owing to the fact that the above list includes two possessees which are attested not only with hafa but also with eiga, we will take a closer look at these doublets. In (B131) the differential behaviour of bók ‘book’ is under scrutiny. (B131)

bók

(B131.1)

hafa [Mei 112] mundu að hafa með þér bók-in-a should:you to have with you.dat book-def-acc ‘You should have the book with you.’

(B131.2)

eiga [Mei 25] bæk-ur eig-ið þið eng-ar own-2pl you.pl no-acc.pl book.pl-acc.pl ‘Don’t you have any books?’

This “minimal” pair is not difficult to explain. In (B131.1) ownership is irrelevant – what counts here is the fact that someone is supposed to have a certain book on him. As in (B126.1), the preposition með – this time used as head of a PP governing the dative of its pronominal complement – is indicative of this focus on physical possession. In contrast to this, eiga is the only possible choice for (B131.2) because in this sentence legal ownership is highlighted, whereas it is of absolutely no importance whether the owner of the book has it on him at the moment the question is uttered. The two verbs of having cannot be exchanged without changing the meaning of the sentences. Much the same holds true for the following examples in (B132). This time, the possessee is peninga ‘money’. (B132)

peninga

(B132.1)

hafa [Jón 47] hún hef-ð-i komist að því að she have.conj-pret-3sg come:med to this.dat to Jóhannes hef-ð-i undir hönd-u-n-um Jóhannes have.conj-pret-3sg under hand.pl-dat-def-dat.pl pening-a em hann hef-ð-i fengið money-acc.pl rel he have.conj-pret-3sg get:part



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

fyrir að útvega bræðr-u-n-um mús for to provide brother.pl-dat-def-dat.pl mouse ‘She had come because Johannes had money on him which he had received for providing the brothers with a mouse.’ (B132.2)

hafa [Enn 63] honum fann-st að af-i gæt-i nú vel he:dat find.pret-med to grandfather-nom can.conj-3sg now well látið pabb-a hafa einhverj-a pening-a fyrir bíl-n-um let:part father-acc have some-acc.pl money-acc.pl for car-def-dat ‘He felt that grandfather could very well let father have some money for the car now.’

(B132.3)

eiga [Mei 25] eigiði eng-a pening-a fyrir bók-um own:2pl no-acc.pl money-acc.pl for book-dat.pl ‘Don’t you have any money for books?’

The difference between (B132.3) and the first two examples is again one of legal ­ownership and current control. The former is encoded by eiga. In (B132.3) there is no question about whether the money is in one’s pocket or on one’s bank account. Hafa is used in (B132.1)–(B132.2) although the situations described are semantically not absolutely identical. In (B132.1), we encounter a familiar plot: a person is caught with money on him i.e., exercising physical control over money that does not legally belong to him. The sentence is additionally interesting if we compare it to (B122.2) above. In the example (B122.2), the money on which (B132.1) focuses is transferred back from Jóhannes to the original owners, the two brothers. However, they refuse to accept the money and renounce ownership by donating it to their sister Anna Jóna who then becomes the legal owner of the money – and thus the use of eiga is legitimate in (B122.2). In (B132.1) eiga does not show up although the brothers had given the money to Jóhannes in payment for his services (selling them a mouse). This financial transaction could very well call for the use of eiga – were it not for the parental viewpoint. (B132.1) reflects Jóhannes’s mother’s way of seeing things and she considers the whole affair a children’s prank and thus an illegal action. Jóhannes was not supposed to sell any mice and receive money from anybody. Thus, the money has never been his legal property and must now be returned to the original owners. This aspect is conveyed by the use of hafa in lieu of eiga. If the latter had been used instead the meaning would have been different, too. In (B132.2) a similar transaction is imagined by one of the boys. His grandfather apparently has a lot of money, some of which would come in handy as the family is in need of a new car, but money is rather tight. Therefore, the idea of having the rich grandfather pass a sum to his son-in-law for the purpose of buying the car appeals to the boy. Owing to the fact that the boy’s father would have the money in his control only for a limited period of time and also owing to the fact that

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

his control is rather restricted because the money can only be spent in a certain way, eiga is not the appropriate verb of having. The father can only have the money in the sense conveyed by hafa, namely have it on him or under his control in order to execute the task of buying the car. The ownership ideally remains with the grandfather. Additional evidence for this semantic contrast of these two verbs of having stems from a source which we have not made use of for our statistics. Example (B133) is drawn from the mystery novel Dauða rósir by Arnaldur Indriðason – a text which does not belong to the genre of children’s books. (B133)

hafa vs. eiga [Rósir 126] í örvænting-u sinn-i lét hann in desperation-dat POR.ref.3-dat let.pret he vinkon-u sín-a girlfriend-acc POR.ref.3-acc hafa all-t sem hann át-t-i fémætt have all-nt rel he own-pret-3sg money_power en það var ekki mikið but it be.pret neg much ‘In his desperation he let his girlfriend have everything he owned money-wise, but it was not much.’

This example is similar to (B132.2) because there is a possessor (= the male ­protagonist) who legally owns things (= money) and who puts his financial resources at the disposal of his girl-friend who thus becomes a temporary/secondary possessor. His rights to the things are reflected by the use of eiga whereas her freedom to use the same things without being their owner is reflected by hafa. This pattern of ownership expressed by eiga vs. temporary or physical control expressed by hafa also applies to the remaining cases. Concrete objects combining with eiga are always depicted as belonging legally to the owner, whereas those combining with hafa do not have the ownership reading. It is therefore possible that one of the same possessee occurs with two different verbs of having – according to the intended reading. This is tantamount to the absence of a lexical specification of these possessees. Furthermore, this lack of specification sets them apart from kinship terms, physicomental states and the bulk of abstract concepts which only allow for one of the verbs of having unless some very special circumstances apply. In a way, we may extend this interpretation to the problematic case of orð above. As long as orð is understood literally, eiga is the verb of having because then orð ‘word’ retains its less abstract meaning. This meaning becomes more abstract however, in combination with hafa where orð does not automatically mean ‘word’ in the usual sense, but is semantically generalised to embrace all sorts of acts of communication including metaphorical extensions of these. The more abstract the concept becomes the farther it is removed from the idea of ownership. However, it is likewise impossible to claim that (B130.2) is a genuine case of ownership.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

This still open question leaves us with the last, heterogeneous group of possessees. In this group, we encounter a number of items which are also attested in combination with eiga. hafa – various (10 types/12 tokens): ekkert ‘nothing’ (2), nóg ‘enough’ (2), erfítt ‘difficult’ (1), allur ‘all’ (1), ævintýraland ‘Land of Adventure’ (1) [possibly better classified as either abstract concept or concrete object], hreinn ‘clean’ (1), nokkuð ‘something’ (1), neinn ‘nobody’ (1), dýr ‘animal’ (1) [possibly better classified as concrete object], hár ‘high’ (1); First of all, ekkert, allur, nokkuð and neinn are positive or negative (pronominal) quantifiers. Nóg ‘enough’ has to be added to these as it is used in an example where the degree of a property is measured (nóg um X = enough of X). They cannot always be considered the possessee of hafa, but often form a complex construction in which the lexical possessor is represented by the noun quantified by the above elements. In addition, the lexical possessee may be absent from the sentence itself, while it is retrievable from the immediate context. The pseudo-possessee is then in an ­anaphoric relationship to the possessee. Hafa allows for these phenomena just as eiga does (cf. above). There is thus no need to go into the details here. In a way, even the discussion of erfitt, hreinn and hár is largely superfluous because hafa and eiga again behave rather similarly. These items are also pseudo-possessees at best as they are not nouny enough – as predicative adjectives. The same explanation as the one put forward above for eiga ­applies to hafa. In the constructions under scrutiny, the predicative adjectives display the inflectional morphology for agreement with a noun/pronoun in the neuter singular. We assume an erstwhile það ‘it’ which originally triggered the agreement morphology on the predicative adjective. This “lost” it is the proper possessee referring to an unspecific situation. (B134) contains the relevant examples – all of which are on the verge of lexicalisation. (B134)

Reduced nouniness

(B134.1)

[Jón 38] mamma vil-d-i hafa alveg ein-s hrein-t mother:nom want-pret-3sg have always one-gen clean-nt og all-ar hin-ar kon-ur-n-ar and all-nom.pl that-nom.pl woman-nom.pl-def-nom.pl ‘Mother wanted to have it clean like all the other women.’

(B134.2)

[Enn 51] þú hef-ur dálítið hátt you have-2sg a_bit loud:nt ‘You are a bit too noisy.’

(B134.3)

erfitt/hafa [Mei 70] sérstaklega haf-ð-i honum reynst erfitt especially have-pret-3sg he:dat clean:sup difficult.nt

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

að koma hár-i-n-u á Marí-u to come hair-dat-def-dat on María-acc ‘It was especially difficult for him to place the hair onto María.’ (B134.4)

erfitt/eiga [Mei 53] Pabbi át-t-i erfitt father:nom own-pret-3sg difficult:nt með að leyna stolt-i sin-u with to hide pride-dat POR.ref.3-dat ‘Father could not hide his pride [lit. had problems with hiding his pride].’

The presence of það in sentences like (B135) proves that our above hypothesis is not completely improbable. (B135)

[Rósir 38] Sindri hef-ur það fín-t Sindri:nom have-3sg it fine-nt ‘Sindri is doing fine [lit. has it fine].’

Here, the predicative adjective agrees in gender with the pronoun það ‘it’ and thus bears the neuter affix -t. We assume that the pronoun can be left out and that the neuter form of the adjective remains unaffected by the deletion of það. The two examples (B134.3)–(B134.4) form a kind of minimal pair because both hafa and eiga occur in combination with erfitt. We have no uncontroversial semantically-based explanation for this variation. Nevertheless, there is a structural difference between the two sentences. In (B134.3), as is very often the case in Icelandic, there is no overt subject NP in the nominative. The experiencer is inflected for dative (honum ‘him’). In (B134.4) however, the experiencer – pabbi – is identical to the canonical subject on the morphosyntactic level. In the latter case, the properties of the subject NP are such that they closely resemble those of a potential possessor who may be able to exert control over the possessee. In the impersonal construction documented in (B134.3) the experiencer has no relevant features in common with a typical possessor. What is more, the unexpressed það ‘it’ does not have possessor qualities either (because the semantically almost empty það is conceptually too remote from the prototypical possessor). Owing to this absence of a suitable candidate for the status of possessor, eiga is ruled out as a verb of having because of its association with ownership. Hafa on the other hand allows for more abstract relationships and is thus the better choice for the impersonal construction. The two remaining possessees of the mixed class are ævintýraland ‘Land of ­Adventure’ and dýr ‘animal’ (cf. [B136]), both of which might be better re-located to other classes: abstract concepts and/or concrete objects, respectively.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B136)

Relocatable items

(B136.1)

[Mei 64] þér skulið hafa yðar ævintýraland you.hon should:2pl have you.hon:gen land_of_adventures í fríði fyrir okkur in peace:dat for we:acc ‘You should enjoy [= have] your Land of Adventures in peace unmolested by us.’

(B136.2)

[Enn 11] það vær-i miklu erfiðara að hafa dýr it be.conj-3sg much difficult:comp to have animal í borg-um en úti í sveit-inn-i in town-dat but out in country-def-dat ‘It would be much more difficult to have animals in town than it would be in the country.’

It is clear why hafa is used in these examples and not eiga – no matter how closely the possessees resemble the prototypical cases of eiga. In both sentences, the decision of whether or not the possessor has legal or other right to the possessee is irrelevant. In (B136.1) the owner of a toy shop conveniently called “Land of Adventures” has been exposed to a number of pranks of the two heroes of the story who decide to leave the poor man alone. With them being gone, he may enjoy the “Land of Adventures” in peace. The focus is on this temporal relationship of possessor and possessee and not on the ownership relation. In (B136.2), a simple fact is stated: in urban agglomerations, it is difficult to keep animals, whereas this is perfectly feasible in the countryside. Again, it is absolutely unimportant whether or not the animals belong to the person who looks after them or in whose house they are kept. The focus is on the direct relation of the keeper of the animals and the animals themselves. The identity of the owner of the animals may be different from the one of the keeper. Hafa and eiga are characterised by two largely independent domains. There are classes of possessees which only allow for combination with either the one or the other verb of having. These possessees belong to certain semantic classes. However, what appears to be a relatively extended zone of overlap of the two domains again reflects a division of labour: the choice of the appropriate verb of having helps in depicting the possessive situation in different ways. Eiga is used where static/permanent, institutionalised but also more intimate relations are involved; hafa may be employed with the same set of possessees if temporariness and other less intimate forms of possession apply. Since all this looks suspiciously like a basic dichotomy of the alienable vs. inalienable pattern, one might ask how the third construction type of predicative possession fits into the system. The discussion of the observable facts connected with vera með will also allow us to draw conclusions as to the alienability-based nature of the system.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Incidentally, the type and token frequency for definite possessees is again the same with vera með. There are four types (= 14.8%) and four tokens (= 12.5%). Since vera með has a comparatively low overall frequency the share of definite possessees is about twice as high as with hafa and eiga, respectively. Nevertheless, definite possessees are clearly a rarity – and that is what we expect: typical verbs of having combine with indefinite possessees! Definite possessees are prototypically associated with belong-­constructions (Heine 1997: 30). Apart from this similarity between the three ­construction types as to their susceptibility to definiteness marking on the possessee, there are also interesting differences which make vera með stand out. The most striking aspect of vera með is certainly the fact that only three classes of possessees can be identified – and this time, there is no semantically heterogeneous category of the usual varied type. What this also means is that, for vera með, there is no numerically strong group of structurally idiosyncratic and lexicalised cases. The token frequency of these three classes is almost evenly distributed and the differences in the area of type frequency are not too drastic either. The review of the possessees of vera með starts with a familiar category, namely body-part terms. vera með – body-part terms (9 types/11 tokens): hár ‘hair’ (2), læri ‘thigh’ (2), nef ‘nose’ (1), tönn ‘tooth’ (1), rass ‘arse’ (1), tippi ‘penis’ (1), vör ‘lip’ (1), glóðarauga ‘black eye’ (1), langatöng ‘middle finger’ (1); (B137)

[Mei 36] annar var með sprungn-a vör other be.pret with split-acc lip hinn með heljarmikið glóðarauga that with hellishly_big black_eye:acc ‘One had his lip split open, the other had a really big black eye.’

In (B137) the corporeal results of a fight between kids are reported. The copula of the vera með-construction is absent from the second predication because of the equi-­ relation to the earlier instance of var in the previous predication. Only hafa is a smallscale competitor of vera með when it comes to possessing body parts. Two of the three types of body-part terms combining with hafa have doublets with vera með. In (B138) we present these doublets, to which (B127) has to be added. (B138)

vera með vs. hafa

(B138.1)

tönn/vera með [Jón 82] svo er hún með tenn-ur so be.3sg she with tooth-acc.pl sem hún get-ur tekið út úr sér rel she can-3sg take:part out from ref.3.dat ‘Thus she has teeth which she can take out of her mouth.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B138.2)

tönn/hafa [Mei 108] Lovísa haf-ð-i pó all-ar tenn-ur-n-ar Lovísa:nom have-pret-3sg though all-acc.pl tooth-acc.pl-def-acc.pl uppi í sér up in ref.3.dat ‘However, Lovísa had all her teeth in her mouth.’

(B138.3)

nef/vera með [Mei 108] Soffía var næstum með sitt nef Soffía:nom be.pret almost with POR.ref.3: nt nose á skerm-i-n-um af æsing-i on screen-dat-def-dat of excitement-dat ‘Soffía had her nose almost on the screen because of her excitement.’

In (B138.1)–(B138.2), the teeth are artificial ones – and thus they perhaps constitute a borderline case as to the status of a body part. However, we do not have any further evidence supporting the idea that this ontological problem motivates the variation of the two predicative constructions. The two possessive situations depicted in these sentences differ in one respect: in (B138.1) the possessive relation is stated as such, whereas it is further specified in (B138.2) by way of identifying the location of the possessee at a given point in time. However, for (B138.3) and (B127) this pattern is turned upside down. Vera með is used in a description of a situation where the current location of the nose is important whereas (B127) describes a permanent possessive ­relation. In order to decide this issue, we have to scrutinise the other classes of possessees which combine with vera með. There is a class of possessees which are almost the exclusive monopoly of vera með, namely illnesses. vera með – illnesses (7 types/10 tokens): bóla ‘pustule’ (2), veiki ‘illness’ (2), holdsveiki ‘leprosy’ (2), hiti ‘heat; fever’ (1), unglingaveiki ‘youngsters’ disease’ (1), ­lungnabólga ‘pneumonia’ (1), hósti ‘cough’ (1); (B139)

[Mei 74] hún er vist með lungnabólg-u she be.3sg surely with pneumonia-acc ‘She surely has got pneumonia.’

There are no cases of illnesses where eiga functions as the verb of having. Hafa however, is attested twice with a pertinent possessee, viz. ofnæmi ‘allergy’ as in (B140). (B140)

hafa [Mei 74–75] hún hef-ur ofnæmi fyrir meðul-um she have-3sg allergy for medicine-dat.pl ‘She has an allergy for medicine.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Contrast this example with the following: (B141)

vera með [Jón 70] hann var með hit-a he be.pret with heat-acc ‘He had a fever.’

The difference between the two kinds of physical ailments is one of permanent/chronic vs. temporal/ephemeral. In (B140) an allergy is diagnosed which implies that the person suffering from this illness will possibly continue to be allergic for her entire life. This is of course different with a fever: in (B141) the mother had noticed that one of her sons had a high temperature at a certain point in time. Chances are that the fever will be gone within a foreseeable period of time. This temporary nature of the illness also predominates in the remaining of the above cases in which vera með is used, although it is not always clear whether an interpretation as a chronic illness is ruled out completely. A look at the third class of possessees combining with vera með corroborates the above impression, namely that the time factor is important for the choice of vera með. vera með – concrete objects (9 types/9 tokens): vatnsbyssa ‘water-gun’ (1), skál ‘bowl’ (1), flagg ‘flag’ (1), straujárn ‘flat iron’ (1), skólataska ‘satchel’ (1), tjara ‘tar’ (1), stjarna ‘star’ (1), letur ‘letter, character’ (1), steinn ‘stone’ (1); Example (B142) clearly describes a momentary state of affairs. The boy who the two heroes of the story observe through the window has his satchel on his back exactly in the moment he is sighted. Whether or not he owns the satchel is not at issue. Likewise, it remains unclear whether the situation continues over a certain stretch of time or is simply punctual. (B142)

[Mei 42–43] þeir sá-u gegnum glugg-a-nn they see.pret-3pl through window-acc-def að hann var með skólatösk-u-n-a á bak-i-n-u to he be.pret with school_bag-acc-def-acc on back-dat-def-dat ‘They saw through the window that he had his school-bag on his back.’

By combining with possessees which denote concrete objects, vera með intrudes into the domain of eiga. However, eiga is employed for predicating possessive relations of a permanent kind, whereas all the instances of vera með + concrete object pass as examples of temporary (and often physical) possession. Vera með is used when the possessor happens to have the possessee on him at a given point in time. Since our small corpus of children’s books does not yield any minimal pairs of eiga and vera með, we extend our empirical basis especially for the purpose of determining more precisely the functional domain of the vera með-construction. Occasionally, additional



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

examples of eiga and hafa will be taken into account in order to set the three construction-types apart functionally. This extra-study devoted to vera með is important too for language comparison as similar constructions are attested to, for instance, in Maltese (see section 4.1.2) and Portuguese (see section 5.3). Moreover, the functions of comitative/instrumental relators within the realm of possession will be focussed on more generally in section 5.1.1.2 below.

4.2.2.2  More about vera með We have looked at nine additional books with a total length of about 1,200 pages of modern Icelandic fiction with one of the books being a translation of an English original. The texts address a readership whose age profile ranges from school-children to adults, i.e., there is a wider spectrum of genres involved – not just children’s books. In this additional corpus, we have found 285 sentences which contain the vera með–­construction which yields a ratio of one example on every fourth page. Since a verb of having may govern several coordinated or enumerated possessees at the same time, the number of possessees (= tokens) exceeds the number of sentences: in terms of token frequency, there are altogether 297 tokens and 197 types of possessees associating with vera með (= slightly more than one per sample sentence). These numbers suggest that the vera með-construction in fact cannot be considered a marginal phenomenon although it may not be always as frequently used as hafa or eiga. A preliminary check of one of our additional sources, Einar Már Guðmundson’s Riddarar hringstigans, yields the following token frequency hierarchy: eiga prevails with 61 tokens followed by vera með (36 tokens) and hafa (20 tokens), i.e., vera með is not always last in line. Determining the statistical weight of the three construction types however, is a task to be carried out later in separate study. In what follows, we give a full account of the relevant data. Owing to the fact that more than one possessee can be involved, some sentences have to be repeated in each of the small lists we provide. In these cases, the possessee under scrutiny is underlined. For easy reference, each sentence is given a number. The examples are presented in an order which is based on the semantics of the possessee. In analogy to our above practice, we take body-part terms as our point of departure. For these and the other classes of possessees, it is often necessary that we state the ontological truth and elaborate on the particulars of many examples – both context-free and contextdependent – in order to prepare the ground for the final comparison of the functional domain of the three predicative constructions. Some of the points we make will surely seem self-evident. However, we consider it important for our purpose to make some things explicit which otherwise could be overlooked in the final account. (a) Body-parts and related concepts (43 types/81 tokens) We present the various body-part terms according to the distinction of permanent vs. temporary corporeal units. Thus, we open the catalogue with those body parts which

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

biologically form part of a healthy human’s anatomy and are inalienable in the sense that the human being cannot dispose of them without putting his life at risk. Afterwards, we will also consider disposable bodily features, such as hair that may grow on a human’s body but is not essential for survival. In the lists of examples, we subsume various related concepts for the sake of simplicity. These related concepts may either be represented by compounds which contain the relevant item as a constituent or by a suitable partial synonym of the major lexical representative of the possessee. Where possessees in a given sentence are pronominal we have recovered the co-referential possessee from the context. External body parts such as the limbs (extremities) of the human body are of course attested as possessees of vera með. However, with ten tokens, hönd ‘hand’ and fótur ‘foot’ cannot be considered prominent items, nor are they exceptional, as the examples in (B143)–(B144) suggest.24 (B143) 1  [Bestu 6]

hönd ‘hand’ (3 types/8 tokens) hann er með annan fótinn ofan á boltanum og báðar hendur á mjöðmum! ‘He has one foot on the ball and both hands on his waist’

2  [Nátt 199] hann var með hendur saman fyrir framan sig ‘He had his hands together in front of him’ 3  [Nátt 220] en hann var með hendurnar járnaðar aftur á rassi ‘But he had his hands again handcuffed on his backside’ 4  [Morð 58] hann var með hendur í vösum ‘He had his hands in his pockets’ 5  [Nátt 222] hann var með hendur í úlpuvösum ‘He had his hands in the coat pockets’ 6  [Morð 134] hún var með fullar hendur af Barbídúkkum ‘She had her hands full with Barbie Dolls’ 7  [Morð 213] ég var með listamannshendur, móðurhendur ‘I had the hands of an artist, hands of a mother’ (B144) 8  [Bestu 6]

fótur ‘foot’ (1 type/2 tokens): hann er með annan fótinn ofan á boltanum og báðar hendur á mjöðmum! ‘He has one foot on the ball and both hands on his waist’

9  [Bestu 84] hann var með báða fæturna ofan í djúpum forarpolli ‘He stood with both feet in a deep puddle’

Except for one example (= no. 7 in [B143]), these sentences do not convey the largely superfluous information that someone has hands and/or feet. This is something that is presupposed and thus does not need to be asserted. Stating that someone indeed has hands and/or feet makes sense if and only if there is something special about these limbs that is not automatically included in the general presupposition about limbs of the



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

human body. All the examples add some information which tells us ­something either about the momentary situation in which the limbs are involved or about special characteristics which set an individual pair of hands apart from the average one. For the feet, our examples provide information as to their actual whereabouts – ­information which is conveyed by an adverbial PP (on a ball in no. 7, in a puddle in no. 8). The same pattern is employed five times for the hands which are akimbo in no. 1, handcuffed in front or on the back of a person (no. 2–3) and stuck in one’s pockets in no. 4–5. In the example no. 6 of hönd, it is again the momentary state of affairs which is important: the hands are full of dolls – an ephemeral state. Being temporally restricted and the current state do not apply to the last example of hönd, though. Even in this case however, it is not the mere existence of hands on a body that is stated, but rather the fact that these hands have certain properties, namely those of being typical hands of an artist and a mother – and thus presumably unsuited for purposes other than painting pictures and caring for children. Unsurprisingly, the same pattern recurs with the other body parts. In (B145) the presence of skin itself on one’s body is presupposed: the skin is only mentioned as a possessee because it has certain properties which are not necessarily associated with húð. Bad or light skin are individualising features which discriminate one human being from the other. Furthermore, skin may not always remain bad (or light, for that matter). (B145)

húð ‘skin’ (1 type/2 tokens):

10  [Morð 239] hún var með lítil augu og slæma húð ‘She had small eyes and bad skin’ 11  [Morð 134] hún var með ljósa húð, freknur og stelpulegt andlit ‘She had light skin, freckles and a girlish face’

Similar observation can be made as to andlit ‘face’. Consider the examples in (B146). (B146)

andlit ‘face’ and related concepts (3 types/6 tokens):

12  [Rósir 208]

stúlkan var með andlitið upp við andlit hans ‘The girl had her face next to his’

13  [Morð 11]

hann var með slapandi andlit ‘He had a bulgy face’

14  [Morð 134] hún var með ljósa húð, freknur og stelpulegt andlit ‘She had light skin, freckles and a girlish face’ 15  [Morð 51]

Robert er […] með fínlega andlitsdrætti ‘Robert has fine facial features’

16  [Morð 149] Jake var […] með grásprengt hár og ótrúlega fíngerða andlitsdrætti ‘Jake had hair with grey spots and unbelievably fine facial features’ 17  [Morð 166] jafnvel þótt hún væri handjárnuð og ómáluð var hún með drottningarlegan hrokasvip ‘Even though she wore handcuffs and no make-up she had the arrogant look of a queen on her face’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Since everybody else also has a face, this must not be mentioned explicitly. However, if the face has some remarkable features or finds itself in a certain momentary state, these facts may justify the explicit mention. Indeed, andlit is always additionally characterised: in no. 12 by stating where exactly the girl’s face is located relative to someone else’s at a given point in time, twice by adjectival attributes qualifying the face as particularly swollen (no. 13) or relatively youngish for the woman’s age (no. 14). The related concept andlitsdrættir ‘facial features’ shows up twice (no. 15–16) and in both cases it is accompanied by an attribute characterising the facial features as fine. Without this attribute, the simple statement that someone has facial features would not have been informative in any way. In the final example (no.17) of this group, the noun svipur ‘(facial) expression, look’ is part of a qualifying compound hrokasvipur ‘arrogant look’ additionally qualified as queenly by an adjectival attribute. This special kind of expression come as a surprise as the person – being the prime suspect in a murder investigation – is taken into custody by the police and one would expect her to show some signs of desperation or defeat. From the face itself we now proceed to the parts of the human face. Auga ‘eye’ and nef ‘nose’ are also attested with vera með in our children’s book corpus (cf. above). Munnur ‘mouth’ is a new entry on the list. (B147)

auga ‘eye’ and related concepts (2 types/11 tokens):

18  [Háska 84]

þið eruð með svo líkt nef og falleg, blá augu ‘You have such similar noses and beautiful, blue eyes’

19  [Morð 146] þú ert með furðuleg græn augu ‘You have remarkably green eyes’ 20  [Morð 164] hún er […] með dökk augu djúpt í höfðinu ‘She has dark eyes deep in her head’ 21  [Morð 239] hún var með lítil augu og slæma húð ‘She had small eyes and bad skin’ 22  [Rósir 10]

hún var með lokuð augun ‘She had her eyes closed’

23  [Bestu 48]

hann var með opin augun ‘He had his eyes open’

24  [Nátt 197]

hún var með opin augun ‘She had her eyes open’

25  [Ridd 72]

nú er Óli með útstæð augu ‘Óli has protruding eyes now’

26  [Ridd 50]

Mamma þín er með augun full af klaufhömrum ‘Your mother has eyes full of hammers’

27  [Rósir 163]

hún var með glóðarauga ‘She had a black eye’

28  [Bestu 62]

ég er hræddur um að þú sért ekki með augun á réttum stað í höfðinu ‘I fear that you your eyes are not in the right place!’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

The first four examples (no. 18–21) of auga as a possessee are all of the by now familiar kind because the eyes are always said to have certain qualities. In these cases, the colour of the eyes (blue, green, dark) or their size (small) is mentioned – twice in combination with other adjectival or prepositional attributes (beautiful, deep-lying). Auga alone is not enough to justify the use of vera með. This also applies to the next three cases. While the colour and the size of eyes are relatively time-stable characteristics, one may open and close one’s eyes ad libitum. Stating that one’s eyes are either open or closed as in no. 22–24 thus portrays a short-lived momentary state. This is likewise true of no. 25 where Óli’s eyes are said to protrude because of the physical strain of blowing out the candles on his birthday cake. In no. 26, Óli’s mother looks at his friend with eyes that still reflect her anger: Jóhannes had hit Óli with a hammer two days ago and nevertheless now wants to be invited to his victim’s birthday party. The special look the mother is giving him is not meant to be permanently there. The same applies to the possessee glóðarauga ‘black eye’ in no. 27 which refers to a passing state of an eye as the result of a fistfight. The last example on this list contains an idiomatic expression which is used when someone does not see what he is supposed to see. Again, this expression does not put into doubt the existence of eyes, but it questions whether they are in the right place, i.e., the momentary whereabouts of the body part is focussed on. (B148)

nef ‘nose’ (1 type/3 tokens):

29  [Háska 84]

þið eruð með svo líkt nef og falleg, blá augu ‘You have such similar noses and beautiful, blue eyes’

30  [Bestu 134] bílstjórinn var með nefið ofan í Dagblaðinu ‘The driver had his nose in the Dagblad’ 31  [Krummi 85] hann var með nefið niðri í öllu ‘He had his nose down into everything’

Nef ‘nose’ meets our expectations: the body-part term is either characterised by an adjectival attribute (similar) or a PP specifies where the nose is at the moment. The latter two examples are of course mildly idiomatic as they indicate that the protagonists are completely immersed in an activity and thus do not take notice of what is going on around them. (B149)

munnur ‘mouth’ (1 type/3 tokens)

32  [Nátt 232]

hún var með alltof stóran munn ‘She had a much too large mouth’

33  [Ridd 163]

þeir báða […] þykjast hafa verið með fullan munn af nammi ‘They looked as though they had mouths full of sweets’

34  [Ridd 225]

það er einsog hann sé með munninn fullan af steinum ‘It is like he has his mouth full of stones’

The patterns repeat themselves: in no. 32, it is stated that the mouth a woman has is oversized for her relatively small face whereas in no. 33–34 the mouth is seen as a

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

container which at a given point in time is filled up with certain substances which at other times are not there. In (B150) we list all of the other limb-like body-parts whose low token frequency does not allow for individual categories. There is the possibility that some of these could be considered “related concepts” of other body parts mentioned separately. An idiomatic usage applies to the possessee klærnar ‘the claws’ in the no. 37 under (B150). Kalmann – a human being – does not literally have claws on his body. However, metaphorically, he is depicted as a greedy undertaker who is trying to get his hands on everything that appears to be economically promising to him. (B150)

Other body parts (12 types/12 tokens)

35  [Ridd 9]

ég bölva Óla fyrir að vera með hausinn fyrir ‘I curse Óli for having his head exposed’

36  [Ridd 178] við erum allir með eitt höfuð þegar myrkrið á bak við húsin kallar á okkur ‘We have only one mind [lit. head] when the darkness on the back of the houses calls for us’ 37  [Rósir 154]

Kalmann var alls staðar með klærnar ‘Kalmann had his claws everywhere’

38  [Morð 39]

samt var hann með flatan, stinnan kvið ‘However he had a flat, hard belly’

39  [Morð 215] Herra Charles C. Gatskill var […] með myndarlegan bakhluta og hár sem farið var að þynnast ‘Mr Charles C. Gatskill had a nice backside and hair which had started to grow thin’ 40  [Ridd 193]

ég sé ekki með neitt tippi ‘[that] I would not have a penis’

41  [Bestu 47]

hann var með vængi ‘He had wings’

42  [Nátt 47]

hann […] keyrir upp höndina sem er með hnefann krepptan ‘He raises his hand which forms a fist’

43  [Nátt 207]

hann var með þrútnar varir ‘He had swollen lips’

44  [Ridd 65]

Finnur er með fullorðinstennur í báðum gómum ‘Finnur has his second teeth in both jaws’

45  [Ridd 145]

Sigrún er með brjóst brjóst læri læri ‘Sigrún is all breasts and thighs’

The two words for head – haus in no. 35 and höfuð in no. 36 – are mentioned as possessed body parts only because of special circumstances: in no. 35 Óli is cursed by Jóhannes because the latter blames his victim for having exposed his head in the first



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

place only to give Jóhannes a chance to hit him with the hammer. One can imagine that Óli will hardly ever expose his head in this way after this experience. In no. 36, the use of höfuð is slightly idiomatic. The children act as one when deciding whether to go home after dark or prolong their playing somewhere invisible to their mothers. This collective one-mindedness however is restricted to this special aspect of their daily routine – outside this context the children more often than not are divided, fight with each other and act rather idiosyncratically. In no. 38–39, kvið ‘belly’ and bakhluti ‘backside’ are again provided with attributes characterising them as clearly special, as opposed to the average belly and/or bottom of a male human being. In contrast to these, no. 40 does not mention any particular property of the body part in question, but rather puts its existence into doubt. The little boy is in fear that his fellows could believe that he is not provided with a penis. Not having this limb as a supposed male human being is of course exceptional and thus worth mentioning. However, in the very next example of this heterogeneous group of possessees, there seems to be an exception: in no. 41, the existence of wings is stated without any additional information. This is motivated however by the fact that the presence of the wings on the body is already exceptional. In his dreams, a boy imagines himself having wings and being able to fly. Human beings of course do not count wings among their natural anatomic endowment and thus the simple statement is absolutely in order. This would have been different for a bird as birds prototypically have wings whether or not they are able to fly. As to no. 42–43, the body parts are again depicted in a certain momentary state: the hand forms a fist because of the anger of the person and not because this is what a hand usually does; the lips are swollen because of a fight and not because of a biological predisposition. In both cases, the state the body parts are in will change within a relatively short span of time. Note that no. 42 is the first example of a non-human possessor: the hand is said to “be with a fist” not the person to whose body the hand belongs. For further examples of this and similar kinds, cf. below. In no. 44, teeth are introduced as possessees. Teeth are different from limbs in so far as •  •  •  • 

they are on the borderline between internal and external (= visible) body parts, they develop relatively late after birth, they come in two consecutive sets according to age, they may be lost again.

In a way, teeth have a lot in common with hair (see below) except for the fact that teeth are not normally subject to the control of the possessor. Since the story from which no. 44 is taken is about children aged 4 to 8 chances are that being equipped with teeth is not taken as the normal case by the protagonists. Be that as it may, sentence no. 44 states a surprising fact anyway as it tells us about a young boy who is about five years old who already has a full set of second teeth. This is of course a mild biological ­sensation and thus deserves being mentioned especially in a story that is

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

written from the point of view of the kids in whose world having the teeth adults are supposed to have is a mark of social prestige. Another mark of prestige is mentioned in no. 45 where the macho judgement of the male population of the street about the physical qualities of the adolescent girl Sigrún is reported. Sigrún is said to boast of exceptionally large breasts and remarkable thighs. That she has any of these is not at issue – but that she has breasts and thighs of this desirable size and volume justifies the construction. Furthermore, the male community is so crazy about Sigrún’s body that the ­speakers even resort to full reduplication of lexemes – a technique which is otherwise largely disfavoured in Icelandic.25 We now leave the domain of limbs and enter the territory of hair. Among the possessees of vera með, there are two representatives of human bodily hair, namely hár itself (= hair growing on the back of one’s head) and skegg ‘beard’ (our cover-term for facial hair such as beards, whiskers, moustaches etc.). In line with age and fashion, both hairy possessees may come in different shapes and colours. Neither kind of hair is a corporeal must. Hair might be lost naturally or by shaving. (B151)

hár ‘hair’ and related concepts (4 types/13 tokens):

46  [Lalli 18]

hún var með dökkt, sítt hár  ‘She had dark, long hair’

47  [Bestu 63]

hann er með þetta síða hár  ‘He wears his hair long’

48  [Morð 149] Jake var […] með grásprengt hár og ótrúlega fíngerða andlitsdrætti ‘Jake had hair with grey spots and unbelievably fine facial features’ 49  [Morð 215] Herra Charles C. Gatskill var […] með myndarlegan bakhluta og hár sem farið var að þynnast ‘Mr Charles C. Gatskill had a nice backside and hair which had started to grow thin’ 50  [Morð 245] símastúlkan var […] með líflaust, slitið, brúnt hár og stóran fæðingarblett á vinstri kinninni ‘The phone-girl had lifeless, worn-down hair and a large birthmark on her left chin.’ 51 [Morð 219] hann var […] með rautt, hrokkið hár og yfirskegg

‘He had red, curly hair and a moustache’

52  [Morð 34]

en hefði ég verið með hreint hár  ‘But if I had clean hair…’

53  [Morð 57]

hún er aldrei með óhreint hár   ‘She never has dirty hair’

54  [Rósir 214]

hann var með hárið sleikt aftur 

55  [Háska 69]

hann var auðvitað með hárkollu og falskt skegg ‘He had of course false hair and a false beard’

56  [Nátt 181]

nú var hún með eldrauða hárkollu  ‘Now she wore a fiery red wig’

57  [Ridd 149]

hann er nú með sveip frammá ennið ‘He now has a curl on his forehead’

58  [Nátt 207]

hann var með há kollvik  ‘He had a widely receding hairline’

‘He wore his hair gelled back’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

General observations already explain the first six examples (= no. 46–51) of hár because its length, colour, volume or appearance is explicitly mentioned. These are aspects which may not be permanent, but they are certainly valid for more than just a short timespan. The next three examples (no. 52–54) however clearly highlight the momentary state of the hair. In two cases, cleanliness is at issue – if one’s hair happens to be dirty, one may simply wash it to change this state and thus extension over time is most probably rather limited. This is perhaps also true of the fashionable use of gel in one’s hair. Tomorrow’s fashion might turn out to be different and dictate a completely different hair-style. In the examples no. 55–56, hár is only indirectly involved because the person wears a wig. This was done on purpose by a thief who wanted to hide his identity in no. 55. In no. 56, a woman wears the wig to impress her admirers with her new outward appearance. Therefore, it cannot be supposed that the wig (and the false beard, too) continues to be used by the same person outside the special occasion of the robbery or social meeting. This disposable nature of wigs and similar fake items makes them similar to clothes (see [B158] below). In no. 57, the orderly hair-style of a youngster is disarranged by an attack from the kids he had molested before. The formerly combed back hair is ruffled in such a way that one curl now covers his forehead. This is of course again a momentary state of affairs – and as the further development of the story shows the earlier orderly state is soon re-established. In no. 58 the receding hairline of a character is under scrutiny. That there is a receding hairline at all is perhaps already a distinctive feature in the description of a person’s looks – all the more so if the receding hairline is remarkably há ‘high’. One of the instances of skegg has been explained already (namely no. 59; cf. [B151] no. 55): the beard was fake and only worn for the occasion. This is additionally made clear by the use of the attribute falskt ‘false’. In the second example (= no. 60) under (B152), yfirskegg ‘moustache’ is further characterised as being of the kind one would associate with puberty. (B152)

skegg ‘beard’ and related concepts (3 types/4 tokens):

59  [Háska 69]

hann var auðvitað með hárkollu og falskt skegg ‘He had of course false hair and a false beard’

60  [Háska 17]

hann var með petta ræktanlega yfirskegg ‘He had this underdeveloped moustache’

61  [Lalli 14]

Moni var með myndarlegt mjólkurskegg ‘Moni had a picturesque milk-beard’

The last two examples, no. 60–61, are especially interesting: Moni is an under-age boy and thus is not supposed to have a beard already. Accordingly, what is described is not a beard in the proper sense of facial hair, but rather the residuals of the milk Moni had just drank. The white liquid surrounds his mouth and thus resembles a beard. A milkbeard is something one does not have continuously. It would have been enough thus

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

to state that Moni had a mjólkurskeggur, but the temporary milk-beard is additionally characterised as especially nice. In the last example however, yfirskeggur ‘moustache’ is a bare noun without any attributes (the adjectives in the sentence exclusively modify the first mentioned possessee hár). This bare-noun status is fully in line with what we have exposed so far: the possession of facial hair is restricted to adult males and, what is more, adult males are absolutely free in their choice whether to grow a beard or go beardless. Seen from this angle, it makes perfect sense that yfirskeggur is not accompanied by any attributes because the noun itself already conveys new information which cannot be presupposed. In (B153) we document a variety of other bodily features, all of which have to do with secondary phenomena involving the human skin or visible surface of the human body (and are therefore distantly related to húð ‘skin’ as a possessee, cf. [B145] above). Some of these phenomena are clearly of a temporary nature, and others may be hard to get rid of. Some develop because of biological processes which are not under the control of the human being experiencing them, others are the product of voluntary human action. What is nevertheless common to all of them is the fact that they have not been there for long and do not belong to the required parts of a human body. Several of the examples are connected to undesirable things and point to a state of neglect or unhealthiness which connect the concepts involved to the class of illnesses (cf. [B155] below). (B153)

External/visible temporary bodily features (12 types/17 tokens)

(B153.1)

Tattoos

62  [Rósir 35]

hún var með húðflúr á rassinum ‘She had a tattoo on her buttocks’

63  [Rósir 35]

ég er líka með svoleiðis en ekki á rassinum ‘I also have something like this [= a tattoo] but not on my buttocks’

64  [Morð 45]

auk þess var hún með húðflúr á rassinum ‘Besides she had a tattoo on her buttocks’

65  [Rósir 35]

líka af því ég er með það á… ‘Also because I have it [= tattoo] on…’

66  [Morð 45]

konur mentaðar í Smith-háskólanum eru ekki með húðflúr ‘Woman educated at Smith High do not have any tattoos’

(B153.2)

Bruises, pimples, blackheads and sundry phenomena

67  [Morð 131] Pepper var með tvo stóra marbletti, annan á lærinu og hinn á öxlinni, og skurð á enninu ‘Pepper had two large bruises, one on her thigh and the other on her shoulder, and a cut on her forehead’ 68  [Morð 202] ég mundi eftir marblettunum sem Pepper var með ‘I remembered the bruises Pepper had’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

69  [Lalli 10] og þótt það hljómi ótrúlega voru þau bædi með ljóta bólu á nefinu ‘And although it may sound unbelievable they both had an ugly pimple on their noses’ 70  [Ridd 159]

hann er líka með fílapensla á rassinum ‘He also has blackheads on his buttocks.’

71  [Morð 245] símastúlkan var […] með líflaust, slitið, brúnt hár og stóran fæðingarblett á vinstri kinninni ‘The phone-girl had lifeless, worn-down hair and a large birthmark on her left chin’ 72  [Morð 134] hún var með ljósa húð, freknur og stelpulegt andlit ‘She had light skin, freckles and a girlish face’ 73  [Nátt 89]

hann var með blánkandi olívugræna skellu yfir öðru auganu ‘He had a shiny olive-green spot above one eye’

74  [Morð 23]

hann var […] með dökka bauga undir augunum ‘He had dark lines under his eyes’

75  [Ridd 171]

mér finnst einsog við séum allir með göt á hausnum ‘I have the impression that we all have holes in our heads’

76  [Ridd 171]

þú ert með kúlu á hausnum eftir klaufhamar ‘You have a bump on the head because of the jack hammer’

77  [Ridd 54]

ég gæti þess að vera með lygaramerki á tánum ‘Thus I could have the lier’s sign on the toes’

78  [Ridd 128]

undir peysunni er Óli með bumbu á maganum ‘Under the sweater Óli has a drum-like protrusion on his stomach’

Tattoos are prominent in this list, (the first five sentences in [B153.1] are devoted to discussing tattoos on female bodies). As far as we understand our sources, the húðflúr ‘tattoo’ is always meant as a permanent one, never as one of the fashionable temporary tattoos. Tattooing your body means adding some ornament to it that was not there before. A human being is needed to execute the tattooing. In (B153.2) a variety of phenomena are lumped together. For no. 67–68, a human being (namely the attacker) is also responsible for the wounds on his victim. The bruises (marblettur) and cuts (skurður) on the body were not there before the attack took place. In contrast to the permanent tattoos, these wounds are likely to disappear after a certain time (although the victim is actually dead). Whether a physician is needed to accelerate the healing process depends upon the gravity of the injuries, but cuts and bruises would probably heal without any medical support. The same can be said of a bóla ‘pimple’ in no. 69 and fílapensill ‘blackhead’ in no. 70. Their genesis is not controlled by the person on whose skin the pimple or blackhead develops. One may try to do something about pimples and blackheads in order to make them disappear, but success is uncertain. Anyway, pimples and blackheads are ephemeral phenomena which come and go. This

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

is different with fæðingarblettur ‘birthmark’ (no. 71), freknur ‘freckles’ (no. 72) and skella ‘spot’ (no.73) which involve the natural pigmentation of one’s skin and and its texture. Birthmarks are suitably baptised (in English and in Icelandic) because they are there on the human body right from the start of one’s life cycle. A (beauty-)surgeon is required if one wants to dispose of birthmarks. Likewise, freckles do not usually disappear on their own account but external help is needed to let them fade at least a little. Exposure to sunlight may lead to a temporary increase of the number of freckles and their colour. There is a high probability that once you have got freckles they will stay for the rest of your life. However, whether they develop at all and when is largely an individual story. A spot in one’s face can be of very different kinds – temporary, permanent, externally induced, etc. People survive and live happily without tattoos, pimples, birthmarks, spots or freckles. The same is true of the temporary facial signs of one’s being overworked or a night-owl (no. 74): dark semi-circular shadows under one’s eyes are usually there for only a short period after a sleepless night or other activities which consume one’s energy and nerves. Normally, nobody wants to produce a baugur ‘line’ below one’s eyes nor can he dispose of it by an act of will. One has to wait until the lines disappear by themselves. In no. 75–76, injuries of the human skull are at issue. From the context, we gather that these injuries are supposed to be inflicted by an external ­actor. Holes in and bumps on one’s head come about by accident or violence and are thus not part of the biological make-up of the skull. Whether they heal and close up again is largely a matter of the seriousness of the injury and thus not under the control of the unfortunate person. No. 77 is about an imagined mark liars are said to develop on their toes, i.e., only certain persons fall victim to this supposedly divine punishment. In no. 78 Óli tries to imitate a pregnancy by hiding something bulky under his sweater. This has the effect of making him look like he has something sticking out from his stomach. This effect only continues for a short while as the boy carries the pregnancy through within five minutes giving birth to an imagined baby by letting the object drop from under his sweater and thus the protrusion is gone again. Since the parameters of time-stability and control are not fulfilled in the same way, the group in (B153) appears to be rather heterogeneous. Some of the possessees are clearly ephemeral, others more permanent, some involve the workings of a ­human ­actor, others come into being by biological processes, etc. This internal diversity notwithstanding, the concepts share a common denominator, namely their being superfluous and superficial alterations of the human skin and the bodily surface. In this way, they are tightly associated with the human body – and unsurprisingly treated on a par not only with disposable body-parts but also with inalienable limbs. As it seems, ­everything with a close metonymical connection to the body belongs to the same ­macro-class of possessees. However, as we are about to leave the sphere of proper body parts, the question arises whether this associative link also holds true for the other classes of possessees of vera með. (B153) and some of the previous short-lists suggest



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

that control by the possessor is not decisive. Thus, we expect to find both kinds of “power relations” outside the realm of body parts, namely possessees which are subject to the control by the possessor side by side with possessees which are not controlled. In order to give structure to our exposition, we will continue our discussion with those concepts which normally are beyond the control of the possessor. Afterwards, we will present those concepts which allow for possessor-based control. (b) Physico-mental states and related concepts (45 types/67 tokens) Physico-mental states still display a close tie to the human body because the states are experienced in or on one’s body. The site of a given feeling/sensation on the ­anatomic map of the human body is relatively easy to determine – for members of a given cultural community, that is, because the exact allocation may differ from one cosmological background to the other. (B154) contains a list of expressions of feelings and bodily sensations. Some of these expressions are of a rather descriptive nature. (B154)

Feelings/sensations (7 types/11 tokens)

(B154.1)

Identifiable body-parts

79  [Morð 180] ég var með óbragð í munninum ‘I had an aftertaste in my mouth’ 80  [Morð 66]

ég var með hjartslátt ‘I was panting’

81  [Gati 103]

hann var með hjartslátt eftir hlaupin ‘He was panting after the run’

82  [Rósir 258]

þegar Bergþóra kom út frá Janus var hún með tárin í augunum ‘When Bergþóra came out of Jánus’s room she had tears in her eyes’

83  [Háska 119] Björk var með alla vöðva spennta ‘All of Björk’s muscles were tense’ (B154.2)

Imagined phenomena

84  [Gati 12]

ég var með kökk í hálsinum ‘I had a lump in my throat’

85  [Morð 188] ég var með kökk í hálsinum ‘I had a lump in my throat’ 86  [Morð 65]

Jim virtist vera með kökk í hálsinum ‘Jim developed a lump in the throat’

87  [Lalli 25]

strákurinn var með grátstafinn í kverkunum ‘The boy was about to cry’

88  [Morð 121] ég var með grátstafinn í kverkunum ‘I was about to cry’ 89  [Háska 103] hann var með hnút í maganum ‘He felt a knot in his stomach’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The first group of examples (= [B154.1]) comprises physically ascertainable phenomena all of which are verbally positioned somewhere in the human body. Someone has a bad taste (óbragð) in her mouth (no. 79). Twice (no. 80–81), the heart is depicted as beating faster (hjartsláttur) either because of some physical exercise or because the person whose heart is beating faster has been under emotional stress. Tears (tár) well from a lady’s eyes in no. 82 because of the sad story she had just heard. All of Björk’s muscles (vöðvi) are tense in no. 83 because she is under strain as the situation she is in is approaching a climax. In all cases, the phenomena are of a passing nature, momentary experiences. The feelings/sensations are expressed somewhat indirectly as they are not precisely labelled lexically; hjartsláttur is only an exception to this pattern when it is used in connection with physical exercise. In connection with suspense, hjartsláttur as a possessee also conveys the additional meaning component of fear, stress, concern, etc. Note that the basic meaning of hjartsláttur is ‘heartbeat’ i.e., it denotes a biological process that is necessary to keep the human being alive. Put differently, the pumping function of the heart should be presupposed and thus is not worth explicit mentioning. Nevertheless when hjartsláttur is used it does not refer to the normal kind of regular heartbeat, but rather to the accelerated version which attests to excitement and the like. Similarly, óbragð signals discontent with a given result, tár stands for sadness and the tense muscles are again a symbol of suspense. It is not necessary that all muscles are indeed held under tension, nor does the discontented person taste something unpleasant in her mouth. The last six examples in (B154.2) follow a pattern which sets them apart from the remaining members of this group and those mentioned in (B153) above. For these divergent cases, metonymy is important: with a view to capturing the feeling one experiences, presumably in some internal and therefore invisible body-part, images are used which are based on objects in the real world. In fact, there is no knot (hnútur) in one’s stomach nor is there a lump (kökkur) or a stick (stafur) in one’s throat. Rather, these entities known from experience are used as a simile to describe the body-internal processes: this is how it must feel when you have something like a stick in your throat, etc. Thus, vera með can be used rather freely with imagined possessees, too. In none of these cases does control by the possessor apply (who would put a stick in his own throat?), and in all of them extension over time is limited. The feelings and sensations are punctual phenomena. The next class of possessees in (B155) are illnesses for which we have already presented a relatively extended list based on our children’s books corpus. Illnesses are of course unpleasant bodily experiences which are normally not controllable by the experiencer. Ofnæmi ‘allergy’ and lungnabolga ‘pneumonia’ are two of the concepts we already encountered before (cf. [B140], where hafa is used in combination with ofnæmi, and accompanying discussion).



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B155)

Illnesses (11 types/21 tokens)

(B155.1)

Aids

90  [Rósir 148]

ég er með aids

‘I have Aids’

91  [Rósir 148]

ég er með aids

‘I have Aids’

92  [Rósir 148]

ert þú með aids?

‘Do you have Aids?’

93  [Rósir 148]

þú ert ekki með aids

‘You do not have Aids’

94  [Rósir 149]

þú ert ekki með aids

‘You do not have Aids’

95  [Rósir 149]

þú getur ekki verið með aids

‘You cannot have Aids’

96  [Rósir 149]

ertu virkilega með aids?

‘Do you really have Aids?’

97  [Rósir 169]

ég er ekki með aids

‘I do not have Aids’

98  [Rósir 250]

ég væri með aids

‘I would have Aids’

99  [Rósir 166]

hún var með alnæmi

‘She had Aids’

100  [Rósir 169] stúlkan Birta var með alnæmi

‘The girl Birta had Aids’

101  [Rósir 232] hún væri með alnæmi

‘She would have Aids’

(B155.2)

Other illnesses

102  [Lalli 81]

hann er með ofnæmi fyrir dagsbirtunni ‘He has a daylight allergy’

103  [Gati 51]

kannski var hún með lungnabólgu

‘She perhaps had pneumonia’

104  [Rósir 63]

Jón hafi verið með kynsjúkdóm

‘Jón had a venereal disease’

105  [Rósir 63]

hann væri með sýfilis

‘He had syphilis’

106  [Morð 7]

auk þess var Kimberley dóttir hennar með kvef



‘Besides her daughter Kimberley had a cold’

107  [Nátt 240]

hann er nefnilega með heilaskemmdir

108  [Ridd 22]

þangað stelast strákar þótt þeir séu með fjörutíu stiga hita og skarlatssótt

‘He is brain-damaged’

‘Boys sneak over there although they have a forty degree fever or scarlet fever’ 109  [Ridd 131] dóttir mín er alltaf með höfuðverk

‘My daughter always has a headache’

Twelve of the above sentences (= [B155.1]) involve Aids – either in the international form Aids or in the proper Icelandic form alnæmi. This high token frequency leaves no doubt as to the best choice when it comes to predicating possession of this illness: vera með is without competitors. The remaining types in (B155.2) are various kinds of illnesses from venereal diseases to pneumonia down to a simple headache. Aids, brain damage and syphilis are of the more persistent kind of illness, whereas there is a cure for pneumonia and the average cold. Meaning: some of the illnesses are surely temporary, whereas others may become chronic and/or incurable. Independent of this time factor, they all come about sometime during the life-cycle of a human being and thus

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

do not belong to the natural biological package of the members of our species. Illnesses of the above kind often affect the entire human being and thus are not specified as to their exact location in the body. Brain damage and headache are of course associated with the head, pneumonia with the lungs, etc. The change from illnesses to the next class of possessees may seem abrupt as we enter the realm of abstract concepts. (B156) involves cognitive activities, the world of thoughts – including a small set of concepts which we feel are related to thinking in one way or the other. Owing to the fact that the cognitive activities are mental phenomena at the same time, it is justified to subsume (B156) under the general heading of physico-mental states. (B156)

Attitudes/thoughts (6 types/14 tokens)

(B156.1)

Thoughts

110  [Lalli 17]

Davíð var með svipuð áhugamál ‘David had similar interests’

111  [Lalli 23]

Lalli talaði við sjálfan sig án þess að vera beint með hugann við það



‘Lalli spoke to himself without having had any idea he was doing this’

112  [Lalli 88]

Moni […] var enn með hugann við hugsanlega frægð Lalla í



Bandaríkjunum



‘Moni was still thinking about Lalli’s potential for fame in the USA’

113  [Lalli 98]

hann var með hugann við annað



‘He had his mind on something else’

114  [Morð 20]

ég var enn með hugann við lagið



‘I still thought about the situation’

115  [Lalli 53]

ég er með eitt splunkunýtt ráð



‘I have a brand new idea’

116  [Krummi 140] þú varst með þá hugmynd með hverfisteininn ‘You had the idea with the whetstone’ 117  [Nátt 113]

ég er með stórkostlega hugmynd  ‘I have a fantastic idea’

(B156.2)

being concerned

118  [Rósir 169]

nú ertu með áhyggjur af mér  ‘Now you are concerned about me’

119  [Morð 210]

vertu ekki með áhyggjur.  ‘Don’t be concerned’

120  [Nátt 71] ég […] var með áhyggjur af því að aka drengum án þess að neinn væri til þess að hindra ad spýtan hossaðist ‘I was concerned about driving the boy without anybody being around to prevent the splinter of wood from moving’ 121  [Rósir 169]

ég er alltaf með áhyggjur af þér



‘I am always concerned about you’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

122  [Morð 118] en allan tímann […] var ég með áhyggjur

‘But all the time I was concerned’

123  [Gati 68]

gamalt folk var alltaf með óþarfa áhyggjur



‘Old folks were always unnecessarily concerned’

Interests, thoughts, ideas, plans and concerns are phenomena which are at least partially under the control of the person in whose minds they develop. One may change one’s mind every so often and concerns may disappear provided there is evidence of their being unsubstantiated. In the above examples, most of the mental activities are spontaneous and punctual – with no extended period of existence. This is of course different for those three cases where it is explicitly stated that someone is always concerned about someone else. The next class of possessees leads us away from physico-mental states in the narrow sense of the term. The cases subsumed under (B157) cover a relatively wide range of phenomena which display behavioural and social features. We admit that there might be better ways to classify these concepts but the more abstract they become the more difficult it is to draw suitable borderlines between potential classes. Moodiness, bad conscience and the feeling of guilt are perhaps concepts which connect (B156) to (B157) and thus could also be moved to the previous class. (B157)

Conscience/behaviour/social interaction (21 types/21 tokens)

(B157.1)

Conscience/state of mind

124  [Gati 58]

þau væru með einhverjar kenjar



‘They would be moody’

125  [Morð 77] ég var með sektarkennd yfir að þurfa að taka Önnu með mér

‘I felt guilty for daring to take Anna with me’

126  [Morð 139] ég var með slæma samvisku þegar ég lét vatnið renna

‘I had a guilty conscience when I let the water run’

(B157.2)

Momentary behaviour

127  [Lalli 67]

ef þið lofið að vera ekki með einhvern fíflaskap er það í góðu lagi



‘If you promise that you are not planing anything foolish it is alright’

128  [Bestu 160] hann var enn með heiftarlega orðasennu í eyrunum

‘He still had the verbal fight in his ears’

129  [Rósir 172] peir eru með uppsteyt

‘The are making a noise’

130  [Ridd 130] og þú Óli [ert] búinn að vera með gauragang niðri í kjallari í allan dag

‘And you Óli have finished making noise in the cellar all day long’

131  [Ridd 131] þið megið ekki vera með þennan hávaða

‘You should not make such a noise!’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

132  [Morð 142] en Michael var samt ekki með neinn asa ‘But Michael was not in a hurry at all’ (B157.3)

Influence exerted by momentary behaviour

133  [Nátt 129]

þú ert með einhvern kjafthátt ‘You are loquacious’

134  [Morð 46] mér kom ekki til hugar að vera með hnýsni ‘I did not think of being curious’ 135  [Morð 59] þar að auki veistu ekkert fyrir víst og það er ósmekklegt og fyrir neðan þína virðingu að vera með söguburð ‘In addition, you do not know anything for certain and it is tactless and it is beneath your dignity to spread gossip’ 136  [Morð 179] Lawson var aftur farinn að vera með dylgjur ‘Lawson had again begun to make allegations’ 137  [Morð 121] mér þykir leitt að vera með nöldur en þú verður að gera upp hug þinn fljótlega ‘I am sorry to be a nuisance but you have to make up your mind quickly’ 138  [Rósir 199] hann […] hafði verið með einskonar hótanir ‘He had something to threaten (them) with’ 139  [Nátt 208]

hvaða andskotans rétt hafiði til að vera með ógnanir við friðsamt fólk ‘What bloody right do you have to frighten peaceful people?’

140  [Nátt 220]

[hann] er með kjaft og mótþróa ‘He has a big lip and is stubborn’

(B157.4)

Social standing

141  [Morð 182] Jake er með nokkuð góða fjarvistarsönnun ‘Jake has a really good alibi’ 142  [Morð 146] hann er með óflekkað mannorð ‘He has a spotless reputation’ 143  [Rósir 173] ég veit ekki hvort hann er með einhver tök á Fíknó ‘I do not know whether he had someone in his hands at the Drugs Department’

The following observations can be made as to the items mentioned in (B157.1). On the one hand, moods (kenjar) affect a person’s body although one cannot easily determine where the mood is located. On the other hand, the social behaviour is influenced too. Being moody often implies an unpredictable comportment which renders social interaction for one’s partners sometimes rather difficult. Moreover, it lies in the nature of moods that they are not permanent, but temporary as they change in more or less extended intervals. Much in the same vein, a feeling of guilt (sektarkennd) and a guilty conscience (samviska) are actually felt by a person and thus are associated with



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

one’s body. At the same time, they are socially-induced psychic phenomena which ­determine how someone interacts with others. Neither of the two phenomena are necessarily chronic. More often than not, they are punctual reactions connected to one’s memory. Both can be overcome in the course of time. As the examples suggest, the feelings etc. are experienced at a given point in time when the experiencer is actually busy executing some (unrelated) manual work. This temporal nature also counts for the bulk of the other concepts mentioned in (B157). Moreover, the temporal extension is further narrowed down to the momentary situation described. In (B157.2) no. 12, for instance, fíflaskap ‘foolishness’ (lit. fool’s humour) refers to the plans the protagonists are making at that very moment. The dreaded foolishness is by no means meant to form a permanent characteristic trait of the persons addressed. In the next example no. 128, the hero is greatly affected by the vehement verbal fight (orðasenna) he was a witness to. The verbal exchange is still ringing in his ears at the very moment described. The memory of this experience is likely to fade sooner or later as other new experiences will come in. The three sentences no. 129–131 are about noisiness: The people making noise (uppsteytur, gauaragangur, hávaða) are being noisy at this particular point in time and their noisiness is not necessarily a habit. The same applies to the time factor when the character Michael is said not to be in a hurry (asi) in no. 132. His momentary lack of interest in getting things done quickly is not a typical trait of his but describes his unexpected behaviour in a given situation. In (B157.3) the ­actions of the possessor are socially evaluated. The possessor behaves in a certain way to influence others •  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 

by being loquacious (kjaftháttur ‘loquacity’), by being curious and inquisitive (hnýsni ‘curiosity’), by passing on gossip (söguburður ‘gossip’, dylgjur ‘allegation’), by purposefully getting on someone’s nerves in order to get the victim to comply with the possessor’s wishes (nöldur ‘nagging’), by threatening others (hótun ‘threat’), by frightening harmless people (ógnun ‘threat’), by acting presumptuously (kjaftur ‘mouth’ [thus a candidate for (B149) above]) by being refractory (mótþrói ‘defiance’).

In none of the cases are we facing permanent behavioural patterns of the ­protagonists: curiosity, gossiping, nagging, etc. are strategies employed to reach a certain goal (mentioned in the context) and are not representative of the persons’ everyday social comportment. In (B157.4), the cases concern the social reputation of the possessor. In no. 141, the alibi (fjarvistarsönnun) is of immediate relevance to the business at hand, it is connected to well-defined time and space co-ordinates. It lasts for the time it is needed by the potential suspect and will become obsolete as soon as the case is closed or it is replaced by an even better alibi. One’s reputation (mannorð) is at stake in the penultimate

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

example (= no. 142). To gain a reputation, a person often has to work hard over long periods of time (if we exclude “inheritance” from a well-respected prior generation). Once built up, a reputation may persist – however, as it is subject to social control by others, it may change independently of such factors as merit, fame, success, etc. Meaning: the person has a certain reputation at a certain point in time, but he might not have it in the future nor was it necessarily there in the past. The final example, no. 143, is perhaps a misplaced concept. Tak ‘grip’ is meant metaphorically insinuating that the prime suspect of the murder investigation is so influential that he even controls people working for the Icelandic Drugs Squad. According to Ellertsson (1993: 49), hafa tök á means ‘to have an opportunity to’. Thus, the example under scrutiny may also be translated as ‘I do not know whether he has options at the Drugs Department’. The competition of vera með and hafa (and eiga) will be discussed below. For the time being, it suffices to repeat that all the examples in (B157) involve concepts whose existence over time is rather limited. As a matter of fact, this temporal restriction is valid for all concepts mentioned under the title of physico-mental states. (c) Concrete objects (including animate beings) (97 types/137 tokens) At this point, we turn our attention to concrete objects as possessees of vera með. We will return to more abstract ones in the sub-section (d) below. Concrete objects form the largest macro-class of possessees of vera með (it is twice as large as (a) and (b), respectively, which in turn happen to be almost identical in type frequency strength). Among concrete objects, what is associated most closely to the human body? The clothes one wears. Our idea of clothes is such that it also covers peripheral concepts such as jewellery and other less prototypical items one can have as removable ornaments on the body. In (B158) we provide 30 cases of possessed clothes. In English, the best translation of vera með in these cases is ‘to wear’ and not ‘to have’. (B158)

Clothes (24 types/30 tokens)

(B158.1)

Head protection gear

144  [Bestu 78] var það hatturinn sem hún var með á höfðinu sem gerði hana svona ómótstæðilega? ‘Was it the hat she wore on her head which made her so irresistible?’ 145  [Rósir 35]

hann var með gráleitan Battersby-hatt að þessu sinni ‘He wore the grey-coloured Battersby-hat for this occasion’

146  [Ridd 129] það er hún sem er með egghvíta sundhettu á höfðinu ‘It is she who wears an egg-coloured bathing cap on her head’ 147  [Ridd 205] hún er með egghvíta sundhettu ‘She wears an egg-coloured bathing cap’ 148  [Nátt 137]

þeir voru með lambhúshettur og gat fyrir augun. ‘They wore lambskin hoods with slits for the eyes’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

149  [Nátt 138]

hinir [voru] með öfugsnúar lambhúshettur ‘The others wore lambskin hoods turned inside out’

150  [Nátt 155]

Hólmar Ólafur var með ljósgráa lambhúshettu. ‘Hólmar Ólafur wore a light grey lambskin hood’

151  [Nátt 138]

hann var með veiðimannahettu í felulitum ‘He wore a hunter’s cap in camouflage colours’

152  [Ridd 57]

á hausnum er ég með hvítan hjálm ‘I wear a white helmet on my head’

(B158.2) 153  [Rósir 7]

Ribbons, shawls etc. hann var með silkiklút um hálsinn ‘He had a silken scarf around his neck’

154  [Morð 236] það var ekki hálsbindi sem festist í rúmstólpanum heldur guli og svarti silkiklúturinn þinn sem þú varst alltaf með ‘It was not a tie that got stuck on the bedpost but your gold and black silk scarf which you always wore’ 155  [Bestu 95] hún var […] með rauðan borða í hárinu ‘She wore a red ribbon in her hair’ 156  [Morð 129] Hertogafrúin var með gula slaufu efst á kollinum ‘The Duchess had a golden bow on the top of her head’ 157  [Nátt 96]

hún var með rautt ennisband úr silki yfir starandi augunum dimmu ‘She wore a red silken headband over the deep staring eyes’

158  [Ridd 220] við erum báðir með nöguð belti sem lafa ‘We both wear worn-down belts which are too loose’ (B158.3)

Eye protection gear

159  [Rósir 13] meinarðu eins og kellingarnar eru með í bíómyndum? [augnleppur] ‘Do you mean [eye protection cloths] like the women wear in the movies?’ 160  [Rósir 13]

eins og kellingarnar eru með í bíómyndum? [augnleppur] ‘[Eye protection cloths] like the ones the women have in the movies?’

161  [Ridd 63]

hann er með sjóræningjagrímu fyrir öðru auganu



‘He wears a pirate-style patch over one eye’

(B158.4)

Jewellery

162  [Bestu 66] gat hún verið með þetta á ballinu við svarta kjólinn, þennan stutta? [eyrnalokkur] ‘Could she wear these [earrings] at the ball together with her black skirt, the short one?’ 163  [Bestu 67] get ég verið með þetta? [eyrnalokkur]

‘Can I wear these [earrings]?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

164  [Ridd 78] hins vegar er frændi þinn í lögunni með gyllta stjörnu í skyrtunni undir jakkanum ‘On the other hand, your relative at the police wears a golden star on the shirt under his jacket’ 165  [Rósir 199] hann var með gullhringa á báðum baugfingrum ‘He wore gold rings on both ring fingers’ 166  [Lalli 111] Moni […] greip um verðlaunapeninginn sem var með um hálsinn ‘Moni gripped the prize-medal he was wearing around his neck’ (B158.5)

Outerwear

167  [Gati 91]

þú ert með þessa leðurhanska ‘You wear this leather glove’

168  [Nátt 211]

hún […] var með hvíta hanzka ‘She wore white gloves’

169  [Gati 20]

hann var með smekk ‘He wore a bib’

170  [Ridd 71]

í allan dag hefur Birna fengið ad vera með svuntu inni í eldhúsi ‘All day long Birna had to be in the kitchen wearing her apron’

171  [Ridd 57] þegar ég lendi fyrir framan búgarðinn er ég með sígarettustubb í öðru munnvikinu og loðhringi yfrir eyrun ‘When I land in front of the estate I have a fag in one corner of my mouth and wear fur ear muffs’ 172  [Gati 64]

af hverju ertu með buxurnar á hælunum ‘Why do you wear trousers which reach down to your heels?’

173  [Bestu 161] annað var hann ekki með [peysa] ‘He only wore a sweater [lit. he was not with anything else]’

The preferred English translation is indicative of the momentary character of the ­relation of possessor and possessee. The described situations are not about legal ownership or potential control. What is described is the dress or attire of a person on a given occasion – independent of ownership. Even though a certain dress is worn frequently as insinuated in no. 154, this does not mean that the relation is one of permanence. People do not usually wear egg-coloured bathing caps on their head on a permanent basis. Accordingly, no. 146–147 are about a woman who is disturbed by children when she is about to take a shower and does not want to wet her hair. In no. 144–145, it is more or less directly stated that the hat is worn on a special occasion. The hoods and hunter’s caps mentioned in no. 148–151 are devices used by criminals to hide their identity during a robbery. Outside the illegal act, the same persons would not go on wearing these items. In no. 152, a boy imagines himself being a medieval hero wearing a helmet – a situation restricted in time to the length of the dream. In (B158.2) and (B158.3) items are mentioned which more or less function as occasional



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

ornaments to the human body. Scarves and eye protection devices are put on only when the situation requires their employment. Clothes are always disposable items. And so too is the jewellery in (B158.4). In no. 163–164, it is clear that the woman putting on the earrings is doing this for the special occasion of a ball. Similar things can be said of no. 167–171 in (B158.5): gloves, bibs, aprons and ear muffs are only put on temporarily although the time one has to wear them may turn out to be rather longish as in no. 170. The final two examples no. 172–173 also comply to this pattern. In no. 172, the boy is observed by an elder who – be it for the first time or not – finds it objectionable that the boy’s trousers are too long. This is the picture of a given point in time. No. 173 catches another boy who is about to do a runner from home and therefore has to dress quickly and without much thinking in the morning. Unlike what the sentence seems to be saying, the boy is fully dressed. What is remarkable though is the fact that he considers a sweater to be enough protection against the Icelandic weather which would normally require at least a coat to wear over the sweater. Be that as it may, the boy is wearing the sweater at the reported moment in time. We slowly move away from the proper bodily sphere. The next classes of ­possessees we scrutinise are those which comprise items which a human being may carry in his hands or his pockets. In (B159), we encounter the first instances (in our additional corpus) of paradigmatic variation of the three predicative possessive constructions. These cases are marked by an asterisk behind the example number, and the competing construction is indicated in curly brackets. These cases will be discussed jointly at the end of this section. Even before we start that discussion one thing is clear: the fact that the paradigmatic interaction of the three constructions makes itself felt only from here on is tantamount to an almost absolute monopoly of vera með for the domain covered by the examples from (B143) to (B158). (B159)

mynd ‘picture’ and related concepts (5 types/11 tokens)

174  [Rósir 36]

ertu nokkuð með mynd af henni? ‘Do you happen to have a picture of her?’

175  [Rósir 47]

ég er með mynd af henni ‘I have a picture of her’

176  [Rósir 204] ég er með aðra mynd af þessum kalli ‘I have another picture of this guy’ 177  [Rósir 208] myndin sem ég skildi eftir í kassanum, ertu með hana? ‘The picture I put back into the box, do you have it?’ 178  [Rósir 208] já, ég er með hana [mynd] ‘Yes, I have it [= the picture]’ 179  [Rósir 208] ég er með aðra eiginlega nákvæmlega eins [mynd] ‘I have another more authentic one [= picture]’ 180*  [Rósir 216] {eiga 215} var Herbert með þessa mynd? ‘Did Herbert have this picture?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

181  [Rósir 79]

hann var með andlitsmyndina af stúlkunni Birtu í brjóstvasanum ‘He had a head shot of of the girl Birta in his breast pocket’

182  [Morð 46] ég er með dálítið handa þér [ljósmynd] ‘I have something [= a photo] for you’ 183  [Morð 211] ég var með vatnslitamynd eftir mig í aftursætinu ‘I had a water-colour painting I painted myself on the back seat’ 184*  [Bestu 155] {eiga} átti hann allt þetta safn […] eða var hann með það á leigu? [vídeómyndir] ‘Did he own this collection [of videos] or had he just rented it?’

The examples no. 174–182 are about photos used in two different murder investigations for the purpose of identifying either the victim or one of the suspects. One photo is also a piece of evidence which had been used to blackmail people. Except for no. 180, which we will discuss below, the sentences exemplify cases of physical possession. The possessor carries the photo on his body (as in no. 181 where the photo is located in the possessor’s breast pocket) independent of the fact that he is not the owner nor the photographer who took the picture. In no. 183, the picture turns into a water-colour painting by the possessor herself. She does not carry the photo on her body, but is about to transport it by car to a gallery. The painting is in her reach as it is just behind her in the back seat of her car, i.e., she can easily claim physical possession of it. The painting is under her control. Physical possession is not a prominent issue for no. 184 though. A video-tape collection is most probably too large to be carried along by the possessor. Its usual place is on shelf somewhere in the possessor’s flat. Only in this sense is the possessee within the metaphorical reach of the possessor: the videos are there in a place that already belongs to the possessor one way or the other. Physical possession potentially applies when the possessor happens to be in the same spatial region as the possessee. The possessee however, remains in the possessor’s possession no matter whether the possessor is present or absent. Thus, in the final example under (B159), the interesting question is whether the person owns the collection of video tapes or only has temporarily access to it because he rented it from somewhere. No. 184 is one of those examples we will discuss in more detail below. The leitmotif of (B160) is the term lykill ‘key’. An object which is typically somewhere in one’s pockets, bags or hands. This is the situation depicted in the final three examples no. 194–196 where people are carrying keys (or key-like objects) in their hands or are asked whether they have more keys on them. (B160)

lykill ‘key’ and related concepts (3 types/12 tokens)

185  [Gati 102] 186  [Morð 70]

hann var með lykilinn ‘He had the key’ veistu hverjir eru með lykil? ‘Do you know who has a key?’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

187  [Morð 70] er hún með lykil?  ‘Does she have a key?’ 188  [Morð 70] hún var með lykil  ‘She had a key’ 189  [Morð 166] ég er með lykla  ‘I have keys’ 190  [Morð 176] ertu með lykil að húsinu?  ‘Do you have a key to the house?’ 191  [Morð 177] og þú ert enn með hann? [lykil]  ‘And do you still have it [= the key]?’ 192  [Morð 203] þú varst með lykil  ‘You had a key’ 193  [Morð 238] Chris var með lykil síðan Pepper og Robert voru á Hawaii ‘Chris had a key since Pepper and Robert were in Hawaii’ 194  [Nátt 183]

heldurðu að þú sért ekki með fleiri lykla? ‘Don’t you think that you have more keys?’

195  [Rósir 103] hann var með felgulykil úr bílnum ‘He had the wrench from the car’ 196  [Ridd 226] ég er með geymslulykilinn í annarri hendinni ‘I have the key to the garbage-room in one hand’

For no. 185–193, however, the situations is quite different. The police and a heroine doing some private investigation are looking for a certain key to the back door of the house of a murder victim. Several people in the neighbourhood happen to have (had) such keys. However, they do not always have the key to their neighbour’s back door on them when they go about their business. The key is somewhere in their homes and is only to be taken out if need be (for instance, if the neighbours are abroad and someone has to take care of their flowers). Thus, vera með does not strictly signal physical possession, but rather potential easy access and location within the property of the possessor. As to ownership, all these keys distributed among the neighbours belonged to the family of the murder victim. In (B161), we continue our review of concrete objects as possessees of vera með with weapons. Weapons such as guns and knives are objects which one has to have ready if they are to serve the purpose of defence, attack, hunting, etc. Thus, they are often depicted as being in one’s hands or carried on one’s body. (B161)

Weapons (6 types/10 tokens)

197  [Gati 10]

ég var ennþá með hnífinn í hendinni ‘I still had the knife in my hand’

198  [Morð 158] hann var ekki með hníf ‘He did not have a knife’ 199  [Nátt 137]

þeir voru með fjaðrahníf við hálsinn á mér ‘They pointed a penknife at my throat’

200  [Morð 99] ertu með byssu? ‘Do you have a gun?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

201  [Morð 100] og aðeins raunverulegur lögreglumaður var með byssu ‘And only a real policemen has a gun’ 202  [Morð 240] þú ert með byssu, er það ekki? ‘You have a gun, don’t you?’ 203*  [Gati 131]

{eiga/hafa} þeir voru þá ekki með hana núna [byssa] ‘But they did not have it [= the gun] on them now’

204  [Krummi 15] hann hlýtur að vera með tvíhleypu eða fjölskotabyssu. ‘He must have a rifle or a shotgun’ 206  [Nátt 206]

mér syndist hann vera með haglabyssu ‘It seems to me that he has a shotgun’

As a matter of fact, in all cases subsumed under (B161), the weapons are in someone’s physical possession or their being out of reach is noted. Therefore, in some of the sentences the PP ‘on him/you’ could be added, for instance in no. 198 and no. 200–202. The vera með-construction could also be replaced by a translation equivalent of English to carry for instances in no. 200–206. Examples no. 197 and no. 199 explicitly mention where the knife is at the time of the reported situation. These examples, as well as the bulk of the others on this list, again suggest that questions of ownership are unimportant. What triggers the use of vera með however, is the fact that someone is using the weapons or has access to them at that very moment. Physical possession is clearly the decisive notion in this context. Bags of various kinds are normally carried in one’s hands. In (B162) this is made explicit only in no. 219. In no. 221, the bag is in a shopping carrier and in no. 223, it can be assumed that the baggage (= “things”) is transported in a car by the helpful driver. For the remaining cases, it is most likely that the bag is carried by the possessor (or the negation of this prototypical situation applies). (B162)

poki ‘bag’ and related concepts (4 types/7 tokens)

217  [Gati 21]

hann heyrir skrjáfa í plastpokunum sem mamma hans er með ‘He hears rustling in the plasticine porter mother is carrying’

218  [Gati 62]

ég er bara með lítinn poka  ‘I only have a little bag’

219  [Bestu 157] varstu ekki með poka í höndunum þegar þú komst hingað inn? ‘Didn’t you have a bag in you hands when you come in here?’ 220  [Bestu 157] hann hefði ekki verið með neinn poka ‘He hadn’t come with any bag’ 221  [Bestu 162] hann […] vísaði honum um bakdyr á konuna í gatinu sem var með pokann frá Kaupfélaginu á Eyri í vörslu sinni ‘Behind the back door, he showed him a woman on the street who had the shopping bag from the Kaupfélag in Eyr in her carrier’ 222  [Háska 134] ég var ekki með mína eigin tösku ‘I did not have my own bag’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

223  [Bestu 9] ég skutlaði honum niður að Hólmi – og öllu hafurtaskinu sem þau voru með ‘I drove him down to Hólmur – and all the things they had brought along’

Independent of the question where exactly the bag is located, we may state that ­physical possession at the time of the reported situation is what is conveyed by the vera meðconstruction in (B162). Only once (= no. 222) does ownership enter the scene. However, ownership is not encoded by vera með but rather by the attributive eigin ‘own’. In (B163) we present a short list of dolls and puppets with which children usually play. These children’s games involve taking the toys into their hands, etc. (B163)

Dolls/puppets (3 types/4 tokens)

224  [Bestu 137] hún var […] með kornabarn í bláum samfestingi í fanginu ‘She had a baby [= a doll] in a blue overall in her lap’ 225  [Bestu 31] hann leit upp frá kallinum sem hann var með á milli handanna ‘He looked up from the puppet he had in his hands’ 226  [Bestu 172] ég er með kallinn ‘I have the puppet.’ 227*  [Bestu 157] {hafa} Ert þú ekki með hann? [spýtukallinn] ‘Don’t you have it [= the wooden puppet]?’

In all four cases, we are facing momentary physical possession. The toy is located either on a girl’s lap or in the hands of a boy. The theme of no. 226–227 is who has the puppet under his control at that moment. The boy who legally owns the missing wooden puppet investigates its whereabouts. Those people who are supposed to have the object are not the ones who have a right to it. In (B164) we present another item that can easily be taken into one’s hands. This time it is a technical instrument, namely a phone. (B164)

sími ‘phone’ (2 types/4 tokens)

228  [Háska 54] svo eru þau með bílasíma  ‘Thus they have a carphone’ 229  [Gati 92]

síðast en ekki síst er ég með síma hérna á öxlinni á mér ‘Last but not least, I have a phone here on my shoulder’

230  [Rósir 11]

ertu með síma?  ‘Do you have a (cellular) phone?’

231  [Rósir 11]

ég held ég sé með minn. [síma] ‘I think that I have mine [= cellular phone]’

No. 230–231 document a short verbal exchange of two people who have just stumbled over the corpse of a naked girl in a graveyard at night-time and want to phone the police. The one asks the other whether he has a cellular phone on him, to which the addressee answers positively. There can be no doubt that physical possession applies. This is perhaps different with no. 228 where a gang of criminals is believed to use

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

a car equipped with a carphone. No. 229 is special because it can also be read as a part-whole relation. A robot describes itself. One of the remarkable gimmicks of this ­machine-man is the built-in phone on the shoulder. As the phone physically forms part of the robot’s body, it is not disposable and thus cannot count as a full-blown example of physical possession. Likewise, since it is always there, momentary access to it is irrelevant as a criterion. There is a long list of objects the possessor has under his momentary physical control. In these cases, it is very often explicitly stated where exactly the possessee is located. More often than not the location happens to be either directly on the possessor’s body or somewhere close, guaranteeing easy access. In (B165) we present the full list of those cases which involve explicitly allocated objects. A considerable number of those possessees we have mentioned already also fit into this category. (B165)

Located objects (19 types/19 tokens)

(B165.1)

In one’s hands

232  [Háska 100]

og í þetta sinn var hann með luktina í hendinni ‘And this time he had the light in his hand’

233  [Háska 97]

hún var með grjóti í hendi ‘She had a stone in one hand’

234  [Gati 76]

hún var með rauðan blikkassa í höndunum ‘She had a red tin-box in her hands’

235  [Bestu 69]

þau væru með litla islenska bréffána í höndunum ‘They had little Icelandic paper flags in their hands’

236  [Rósir 99]

Herbert sýndist maðurinn vera með eitthvað í annarri hendinni en sá ekki greinilega hvað það var

‘It seemed to Herbert that the man had something in one hand but he did not see clearly what it was’ 237  [Ridd 90]

hún er með ljósgráa slöngu um hálsinn og ryksugu í annarri hendinni ‘She has a light grey hose around her neck and a duster in one hand’

238  [Nátt 56] einhenti maðurinn var með fullt glas og bar það að borði með lófan yfir pví og fingurna einsog kló um það ‘The one-armed man had a full glass and carried it to a table with his palm above it and his fingers like a claw around it’ 239  [Nátt 90]

hann var með koníakflösku í klófinu ‘He had a cognac bottle in his claw’

240*  [Krummi 129] {hafa} Hann var með þessa skinnpjötlu í klónum ‘He had this skincloth in his claws.’ 241  [Nátt 138]

hann var með strigapoka á armkríka ‘He had a linen sack on his forearm’



(B165.2)

Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

On one’s body

242  [Ridd 57] þegar ég lendi fyrir framan búgarðinn er ég með sígarettustubb í öðru munnvikinu og loðhringi yfrir eyrun ‘When I land in front of the estate I have a fag in one corner of my mouth and wear fur ear muffs’ 243  [Háska 20] hann var með heyrnartólin af vasadiskóinu í eyrunum ‘He had the earphones of the pocket CD-player in his ears’ 244  [Lalli 42]

Moni […] var alltaf með körfubolta á heilanum ‘Moni had always basketball on his mind’

245  [Bestu 41] hann […] tók fast utan um blómin sem hann var með fyrir aftan bak ‘He gripped the flower hard which he had behind his back’ 246  [Ridd 26]

hann er með lyftingagræjur í vöðvunum ‘He has weights in the muscles’

(B165.3)

Within one’s reach

247  [Ridd 63]

í rassvasanum er hann með fimm hasarblöð ‘He has five comics in his back pocket’

248  [Morð 109] hún […] beindi síðan athyglinni að vagni sem hún var með við hlið sér ‘She then turned her attention to the pram she had at her side’ 249  [Bestu 182] hann væri ekki örugglega með varadekkið í skottinu ‘Surely, he would not have a roof rack in the boot’

The largest group of possessees are the ones which are described as being in someone’s hands (= [B165.1]). Clearly, these portable objects are not meant to remain where they are at this very moment, but for the purpose of putting them to a certain service the possessor has to take them into his hands, as is the case with the duster in no. 237 and the bottle of cognac in no. 239, for instance. No matter how tidy the housewife happens to be, she will surely not carry the duster along all day. The same is true of a potential alcoholic who would probably dispose of the cognac bottle as soon as it is empty. The objects carried in hand have not been there before nor will they continue to be there after. The actual situation is highlighted with no further information about the legal aspects of ownership and other potential possessive relations. The examples in (B165.2)–(B165.3) are not much different from the previous ones as they focus on a momentary relation between the possessor and the possessee – the only difference being that the objects are no longer in the possessor’s hands, but either elsewhere on his body (including one’s mind) or within his reach. In all cases the objects could be removed from the present location. Whether or not the possessor owns them is not at issue. In a number of cases, the English translation could perhaps include the component of incidental possession by adding the verb to happen to. It is self-evident that the possessor exerts physical possession over the possessee (an exception is of course no. 244 where the possessee is an idea/interest allocated in the protagonist’s mind).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

This explanation can also be extended to those cases which involve not located or only implicitly located possessees. (B166) presents a list which contains those items which we could not subsume under any of the previous headings. (B166)

Unlocated concrete objects (18 types/20 tokens)

(B166.1)

Tools/instruments

250  [Nátt 220] ertu ekki með járn sjálfur?  ‘Don’t you yourself have handcuffs?’ 251  [Gati 145] hann var með færið sitt  ‘He had his fishing-line’ 252  [Nátt 122] það var loftskeytamaðurinn sem var með kíkinn þegar þýzkarinn byrjaði að skjóta ‘It was the radio operator who had the telescope when the German [ship] started to fire’ 253  [Rósir 243] þeir voru með vasaljós  ‘They had a pocket torchlight’ 254  [Rósir 51]

[ amatörar] eru ekki með neinar græjur eins og þessar ‘Amateurs do not have machines like these’

255  [Bestu 9]

hann var ekki með varadekk  ‘He did not have a roof rack’

256  [Nátt 138] hann er með gjaldmælinn á  ‘He has the taximeter on’ (B166.2)

Belongings

257  [Háska 135] af hverju voru þessir menn með hálsmenið? ‘Why did these men have the necklace?’ 258  [Morð 68] hann var ekki með dýra skartið hennar ‘He hadn’t got her expensive jewels’ 259  [Lalli 99] Skyldu þeir vera með húsgögn, sjónvarp og sturtu og svoleiðis? ‘Would they have furniture, TV set and a shower and stuff?’ 260  [Ridd 15] ég er hérna með blöðrur  ‘Here I have balloons’ 261  [Bestu 41] hann er með dálitið sem hann ætlar að gefa þér ‘He has something he wants to give to you’ 262  [Gati 72] ég er með bók  ‘I have a book’ 263  [Háska 21] hún hafði þegar lokið við allar bækurnar sem hún var með að láni frá bókasafninu ‘She had finished all the books she had borrowed from the library’ 264  [Nátt 122] það var hann Jói sem var með lifrarkörfuna. ‘It was Jói who had the liver-sausage’ 265  [Háska 100] þú ert með peninga  ‘You have money’ 266  [Háska 100] en ég er með neina peninga  ‘But I don’t have any money’ 267  [Nátt 189] og ertu með allar hurðir opnar og ólæstar? ‘And do you have all doors open and unlocked?

The qualities are not very different from the ones in (B165). There are tools and other portable objects with the addition of furniture and indoor facilities as well as items



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

associated with nutrition. No. 250–253, no. 260–264 and no. 267 show the relation of the possessor and the possessee as the background of another event that is about to happen at the same time. In no. 252, a member of the crew of an Icelandic trawler was on the look-out with the telescope exactly the minute the enemy’s man-o’-war began to fire. In no. 262 the boy declines the offer of some reading matter by his host because he already has a book on his bedside table. In no. 262, it is made explicit that the books the protagonist had read do not belong to her. No. 256 and no. 267 are particularly clear as they involve a possessee in a momentary state, namely the taximeter which happens to be on, and the doors of the house which happen to be unlocked when the police come looking. The other examples are slightly different. In no. 257–258, the thieves do not wear the jewellery. The question is whether they have physical control over it. They have it in no. 257 after a successful robbery. They do not have it in no. 258 because the precious objects simply were not at the place the thieves tried to rob. For no. 254–255 and no. 259, 265–266 the intended reading is not entirely clear. The examples do not exclude permanent possession although this is surely not the prominent reading. In these cases, vera með does not encode ownership, but it does not rule out the possibility that the possessor might become owner of the possessee. With (B167) we reach the first class of possessees in which the transferral of possession is relatively prominent. Someone has something under his physical control but intends to hand it over to someone else. (B167)

Papers/files (3 types/6 tokens)

268*  [Rósir 197] {hafa} ég er með petta allt og ég læt þig hafa það með glöðu geði. [pap-píra] ‘I have all this [= papers] and I would let you have it for good’ 269  [Rósir 196] ég er með fleiri pappíra sem ég ætla að senda ykkur ‘I have a number of documents which I want to send to you’ 270*  [Rósir 204] {hafa} ég er með pappíra sem ég ætla að láta þig hafa í kvöld ‘I have documents which I want to let you have tonight’ 271  [Rósir 208] ég er með þá [pappíra] ‘I have them [= documents]’ 272  [Rósir 206] ég er með þau á mér [skjöl] ‘I have them [= files] on me’ 273  [Rósir 221] hann var með pappírsbunkann með sér sem Janus hafði látið hann fá ‘He had the pile of papers with him which Janus had provided him’

Janus has privately collected evidence against Kalman and is now considering passing everything over to the police (no. 268–272). In no. 273, the situation depicted highlights the time after Janus has passed on the material; now the policeman happens to have the papers under his physical control. In all cases, vera með is employed to characterise the relation between possessor and possessee as momentary. This is especially

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

evident for the first five instances when Janus has no intention of keeping the material in his possession. Likewise, in no. 273, the policeman carrying the collected evidence is not the owner of the material. He is only temporarily working on the case and seen at the moment when he transports the material to some place. In (B168) the notorious throw-away car rented out by the local garage to almost anybody in the neighbourhood is discussed. For the police investigations, it is important to know who drove the car on a particular day. The low quality of the car is adequately expressed by the two slangy terms drusla ‘slut’ and skrjóð ‘junk-car’. (B168)

bíll ‘car’ and related concepts (3 types/5 tokens)

274  [Morð 228] svo virðist sem allir í Hnotuhæðum hafi verið með þennan bíl einhverntíma ‘Thus it must have been the case that everyone in the Hnotuhæð has had this car for some time’ 275  [Morð 231] ég vissi hver var með bílinn á þessum tíma ‘I knew who had the car at that time’ 276*  [Mord 227] {eiga} Átt þú hann? – Ég er með hann á leigu, aðeins í nokkra daga von ég [bíll] ‘Do you own it [= car]? – I have rented it, only for a couple of days, I hope’ 277  [Morð 228] eins og er ek ég druslunni sem þið voruð með ‘Just like I drive the junk you have had’ 278  [Morð 228] marglita skrjóðnum sem Jim var með fyrir nokkrum vikum þegar bíllinn hans var í viðgerð ‘The multicoloured junk which Jim had for several weeks when his car was being repaired’

Nobody actually owns the car because it belongs to the garage. Vera með signals that the possessive relation was always of a rather short duration. In no. 278 it is explicitly stated that Jim used the car for a couple of weeks only, in no. 276 the hope is expressed that the protagonist will need the car only for a few days. In no. 274–275, the use of tími ‘time’ underlines the fact that the car circulated among the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and no permanent possessive relationship was ever established. If we discount the idiomatic case [Bestu 75] hann væri með lausa skrúfu ‘He had got a screw loose’ which describes a not necessarily momentary physico-mental state via metaphorisation of a possessive relationship of a human possessor and a concrete object treated as forming part of his brain, there is only one group left, namely animate possessees. In (B169) we encounter human possessees, pseudo-human ones (elves) and animals (kitten). (B169)

Animate possessees (6 types/8 tokens)

276 [Lalli 23] hann var með kennarann á heilanum ‘He had the teacher on his mind’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

277 [Lalli 101] hann var með álfana á heilanum  ‘He has the elves on his mind’ 278 [Gati 107] kannski væri hún með kettlinga í sér  ‘Perhaps she had kittens in her’ 279* [Rósir 47] {eiga} við erum bara með útlenskar stelpur hérna ‘We only have foreign girls here’ 280 [Bestu 156] m  aður er með milljón manns á bakinu ‘A man has a million men behind his back’ 281 [Morð 109] hún sleppti lausu stærra barni sem hún var með ‘She let go of the older child she had with her’ 282 [Morð 190] það eru nú liðin þónokkur ár síðan þú varst með fimm ára barn ‘It has already been some years since you had dealings with a five-year old child.’ 283 [Morð 190] ég er ekki nema ári eldri en Pepper og henni virtist láta vel að vera með barn ‘I am no more than a year older than Pepper and she pondering the idea of having a child’

No. 280 and no. 283 are idiomatic expressions. Especially the latter one is lexicalised to express the concept of pregnancy (as in English to be with child). Pregnancy itself, of course, covers a relatively prolonged period of time but is not a permanent state as it is bounded by conception and giving birth. Control by the possessor is limited even in times of birth control etc. No. 278 involves a pregnant cat. However, in no. 280–281, the possessor is accompanied by children who are under her control (otherwise the dative would replace the accusative in order to mark the referent of the NP as acting on his own account). The children are not necessarily the adult woman’s, but happen to be under her supervision at that moment. No. 276–277 are of the same type as no. 244: the possessees are not actually possessed but they haunt the possessor’s mind, in a manner of speaking, and thus they are largely beyond his control. Nothing is said about the duration of the possessor’s preoccupation with the possessee. However, those possessees which keep the possessor’s mind busy are prominent at the moment described by the relevant examples. No. 279 is especially enlightening because the girls are lap dancers in a seedy bar somewhere in down town Reykjavik. The owner of the bar verbally treats them as part of the technical equipment of his club. Vera með signals that he has foreign girls right now working for him. He does not own them as they normally have tourist visas for only a very short span of time and thus cannot ask for long term employment. What most of the examples in (c) have in common is the momentary aspect of the possessive relation. At the time captured by the description of a given situation there is a certain relation and it remains an open question whether or not the relation has more than just a punctual existence. Before we cast a look at those cases where vera með is in paradigmatic variation with hafa and/or eiga, we will briefly treat the remaining cases which do not form a semantically coherent class.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(d) Others (12 types/12 tokens) With a view to avoiding over differentiation, we content ourselves with two equally heterogeneous groups of possessees. In (B170) we assemble what we call abstract possessees. (B170)

Abstract possessees (6 types/6 tokens)

284  [Rósir 197] svo er ég með upplýsingar  ‘Then I have some information’ 285  [Rósir 197] ég er með dreifikerfið  ‘I have [= know about] the sales’ 286  [Rósir 197] ég er með nokkur nöfn á lögreglumönnum sem Herbert virðist hafa í vasanum ‘I have the names of some policemen whom Herbert must have had in his hands’ 287  [Bestu 111] hún væri með skilaboð til hans ‘She would have a message for him’ 288  [Bestu 150] þó var hann með allt þetta úrval á stóru spjaldi fyrir framan sig ‘However he had all these options on a huge menu in front of him’ 289  [Nátt 139] þeir eru með þetta á hverju kvöldi einsog kvöldskóla ‘They have this [= an educational program on the radio] each evening like an evening school’ 290  [Rósir 111] hún var með petta á heilanum ‘She had this [= the story] on her mind’

The concepts are not 100% abstract because they still have some substance of their own which comes in the shape of information – either written or oral. In no. 284–287, someone has important pieces of information (names of corrupt policemen, statistics of drug sales etc.) which he is about to deliver to the addressee without specifying the communication channel via which the information transfer would take place. In no. 288, the information consists of written words on a menu in a restaurant. In no. 289, the information is broadcasted, whereas in the final example the thoughts are again haunting the girl’s mind. The quality of the possessee is largely unimportant to the choice of vera með. Vera með is used because ownership is not at issue and the relation between possessor and possessee is momentary. The more abstract the possessees become the less physical the control exerted by the possessor can be. There are six cases left for which we have not found a better allocation. (B171) is very heterogeneous and thus does not justify being called a class. This list contains two instances of events as possessees (bjórkvöld ‘beer evening’ and partí ‘party’ in no. 292–293). No. 291 resembles no. 267 above and is most likely an idiomatic expression. Note that it lacks a prototypical subject and thus is devoid of a potential possessor (the interrogative hver ‘where’ cannot be considered a “good” candidate for the role of possessor). No. 294 is more in line with the examples in (B166.2) although running a company is perhaps not precisely the same as having a liver sausage. Likewise, no. 296 might better be placed in (B150) because it contains a relatively colloquial expression for a body part.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B171)

All the rest (6 types/6 tokens)

291  [Rósir 34]

hver er með opið?

‘Where are the shops open?’

292  [Rósir 96]

hann var með þýskt bjórkvöld

‘He had a German beer-evening’

293  [Nátt 96]

ég viss að karlinn væri með partí

‘I knew that the man had a party’

294  [Bestu 35] hann er með fyrirtæki 295  [Morð 89]

þeir voru með fljótaskrift

‘He has a firm’ ‘They were written in a quick hand’

296  [Ridd 138] hann er ennþá með ristarhöggið í rassinum þegar hann kemur till okkar ‘He still has the sign of the punch he got on his bottom when he comes to us’

Independent of all these minor problems of finding the right place for the final half dozen examples, it is clear that many of the relations involved are again of a momentary nature. In no. 291 the question is whether or not any shop is open at this moment. In no. 292–293, the festivities are special events with a foreseeable end. In no. 294–295, the facts are viewed from a purely synchronic perspective, meaning: the father of the boy has a firm at the time of the utterance. As a matter of fact, the further context reveals that the boy does not exactly know what function his father has in “his” firm. No. 296 is a bit different because the body part is supposed to be there permanently. However, the somewhat rustic way of putting things is perhaps meant to stress the point that the person will be the same as he is at this moment. In sum, metaphorical language is notoriously difficult to categorise.26 However, in (d) there is only a very tiny minority of “difficult” cases. The vast majority of our examples (= about 95% of all types and tokens) lend themselves to relatively easy categorisation. In (B172) we schematically summarise the above findings whereby we simplify a variety of problematic issues. (B172)

The domain of vera með control low/momentary control low/ permanent physico-mental states

behaviour

body parts

abstract objects clothes



concrete objects

control high/momentary

We introduce two parameters, namely control on the part of the possessor and permanence of the relation. With these two parameters, we are able to distinguish three

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

sub-areas of the domain of vera með. On the left-hand side, body parts form a class of their own because they usually combine a low degree of control by the possessor with a relatively stable time relation of possessor and possessee. However, as the examples in (a) above amply document, vera með is most often employed if the body part displays certain possibly temporary properties which may even be under the control of the possessor. That is the reason why the two lines cut across the box which contains body parts. Moving from left to right in (B172), the concepts become, on the one hand, more abstract and on the other less embodied. In the lower half of the figure, the possessees retain a higher degree of concreteness. At the same time, they are in a momentary relation to a possessor who normally is in control of the possessee. This is not the case with those concepts which appear in the upper half of the figure. There, control is low or even non-existent, while the relation between possessor and possessee is clearly of a temporary kind. Thus, there is no common denominator for all the sub-areas of the functional domain of vera með, but instead various combinations of two essential features. If we discount body parts, momentariness is clearly the dominant criterion. If we want to take body parts into account too, then reduced control and limited duration/momentariness seem to be of similar importance. With a view to delimiting the domain of vera með more clearly, it is necessary to re-consider those cases where it is in opposition with at least one of the other two predicative possessive constructions. In the above lists, there are exactly nine sentences for which we can establish paradigmatic variation between vera með on the one hand, and eiga and/or hafa on the other. All of these cases belong to the sub-area (c) concrete objects. Vera með and eiga are in opposition to each other four times, and in another four times the opposition is between vera með and hafa. In addition, there is one case where the entire paradigm of vera með, eiga and hafa is involved. In (B173) we look at the pair vera með and eiga. (B173)

vera með vs. eiga

(B173.1)

eiga [Rósir 215] hver á þessa mynd? who own this:acc picture ‘Whose picture is this?’

(B173.2)

vera með (= no. 180 [Rósir 216]) Herbert með þessa mynd? var be.pret Herbert with this:acc picture ‘Did Herbert have this picture?’

(B173.3)

vera með vs. eiga (= no. 184 [Bestu 155]) hann all-t þetta safn […] át-t-i own-pret-3sg he all-nt this:acc collection eða var hann með það á leig-u? or be.pret he with it on loan-dat ‘Did he own this collection [of videos] or had he just rented it?’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B173.4)

vera með vs. eiga (= no. 276 [Morð 227]) þú hann? át-t own-3sg you him Ég er með hann á leig-u I be with him on loan-dat aðeins í nokkra daga von ég only in some:acc.pl day:acc.pl hope I ‘Do you own it [= car]? – I have rented it, only for a couple of days, I hope.’

(B173.5)

eiga [Rósir 46] ég er að leita að stelp-u. I be to look_for to girl-dat við eigum full-t af þeim we own:1pl full-nt of they:dat ‘I am looking for a girl. – We have lots of them.’

(B173.6)

vera með (= no. 279 [Rósir 47]) við erum bara með útlenskar stelpur hérna we be:1pl only with foreign:acc.pl girl:acc.pl here ‘We only have foreign girls here.’

In the first pair of sentences (B173.1)–(B173.2), a person confronted with a picture showing herself engaged in sexual activities, first reacts by questioning to whom the picture belongs. Thus, she inquires about the legal owner of the incriminating photo. When this question turns out to not have a definite answer, she focusses on the person who had control of the picture at a given point in time. Ownership associates with the use of eiga, whereas physical control or momentary access triggers vera með. In the next two examples (B173.3)–(B173.4), eiga and vera með occur within the same complex sentence and in a short verbal exchange, respectively. In both cases, eiga is used as the opener: does the possessor legally own the possessee? Again in both cases, the alternative is that the possessor has rented the possessee and thus only has temporary control over it. In the latter case, the use of vera með in combination with the more explicit á leigu ‘on loan’ is appropriate. The last pair of sentences (B173.5)–(B173.6) are again part of a dialogue. A police officer enters a bar where he expects to find a witness who presumably works as a dancer. Thus, he tells the bartender that he is looking for a girl – an opening which the addressee misunderstands. He tells the policeman that there are lots of girls on offer. In this connection, the bartender uses the verb eiga in combination with a human possessee. As soon as it has become clear that the policeman is not a customer, the bartender describes the relationship in different terms: now vera með is used. The employment of this construction is additionally motivated by the fact that the policeman wants to know whether there are any Icelanders on the team of

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

dancers at the moment to which he responds negatively. Thus, vera með highlights the momentary situation. As to the previous use of eiga, one may speculate that it is meant in an achronic way: the bar always employs girls as dancers, at the moment, however, there are only foreigners working there. (B174) is comprised of those cases where vera með and hafa alternate. (B174)

vera með vs. hafa

(B174.1)

hafa [Bestu 157] hvar ætla-ð-i pabbi hans annars where want-pret-3sg father he:gen other:gen að hafa fótboltakall-inn to have football_puppet-def sem hann var að gefa honum? rel he be.pret to give he:dat ‘Where else would his father have the football puppet he wanted to give to him?’

(B174.2)

vera með (= no. 227 [Bestu 157]) þú ekki með hann? ert be:2sg you neg with him ‘Don’t you have it [= the wooden puppet]?’

(B174.3)

hafa [Krummi 129] þegar hann kom til baka when he come back haf-ð-i hann með samvafð-a skinnpjötl-u have-pret-3sg he with rolled_upp-acc skincloth-acc og fær-ð-i han-a strák-u-n-um and hand-pret-3sg she-acc boy-dat-def-dat.pl ‘When he returned, he had a rolled-up skincloth with him and brought it to the boys.’

(B174.4)

vera með (= no. 240 [Krummi 129]) hann var með þessa skinnpjötl-u í klónum he be.pret with this:acc skincloth-acc in claw:dat.pl ‘He had this skincloth in his claws.’

(B174.5)

vera með vs. hafa (= no. 268 [Rósir 197]) ég er með þetta all-t og I be with this:acc all-nt and ég læt þig hafa það með glöðu geði I let.conj you.acc have it with glad:dat mind:dat ‘I have all this [= papers] and I would gladly let you have it.’

(B174.6)

vera með vs. hafa (= no. 270 [Rósir 204]) ég er með pappír-a I be with paper-acc.pl



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

sem ég ætla að láta rel I want to let þig hafa í kvöld you.acc have in evening ‘I have documents which I want to let you have tonight.’

In contradistinction to eiga, the verb hafa does not invoke the notion of ownership. In (B174.1) the boy speculates about where exactly his father would hide the puppet he had promised to give to him. The father has momentary control over the puppet as he is supposed to carry it with him in a bag. In the boy’s perspective, the father is not the owner of the puppet because the toy is meant as a present for the boy. In (B174.2) the boy expresses his disappointment about the fact that his father has not brought along the puppet. In the latter case, the relation between possessor and possessee is strictly momentary: the boy expects his father to have the puppet right there, right then. In (B174.1) the boy is reasoning in a more general vein about possible hiding places for the puppet and thus the aspect of currentness is backgrounded. Hafa can be used when momentariness is not at issue. Vera með has to be used when momentariness is important. The sentences (B174.3)–(B174.4) reflect a similar distinction. A raven functions as a messenger of a magic being who wants to communicate with the two boys to whom the raven belongs. The raven comes back from the magic being carrying a skincloth. In the final part of the sentence, it is revealed that the skincloth is meant for the two boys and that the raven is just an interloper. For this situation, hafa með ‘to have with’ is used and not just hafa alone. In (B174.4), it is further specified where the skincloth is at a given point in time, namely in the claws of the raven. For this situation, vera með is used. Hafa (með) is a legitimate option as long as the exact location of the possessee is left unmentioned. If however the whereabouts are made explicit, vera með becomes the preferred solution. As it seems, hafa is more general, less specific semantically whereas vera með is more specialised. The sentences (B174.5)– (B174.6) instantiate two almost identical situations. Janus informs the police about his findings and tells them that he has important pieces of evidence (= documents) on his hands. These documents are not his own as he had to threaten Herbert into delivering them to him. Furthermore, Janus does not intend to keep the material in his possession but wants to pass it over to the police. Since he has the material right now under his control, Janus uses vera með. After the material is transferred to the police, people there may have it and use it for whatever purpose they think suitable. For this situation, Janus employs the verb hafa. Hafa makes it clear that the police do not own the papers either. Owing to the fact that the police will keep the material for as long as the investigations last vera með is not an option. All the more so since the transfer of the material has not yet taken place and therefore physical possession does not apply. In (B175), we present a sentence triplet which covers all three competing predicative possessive constructions in combination with similar possessees.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B175)

vera með vs. eiga vs. hafa

(B175.1)

hafa [Gati 131] ef maður hef-ð-i nú alvöru-haglabyss-u if man have.conj-pret-3sg now serious-shotgun-acc ‘If one only had a real shotgun right now!’

(B175.2)

vera með (= no. 203 [Gati 131]) þeir voru þá ekki með hana núna they be.pret:3pl then neg with she:acc now ‘But they did not have it [= the gun] on them now.’

(B175.3)

eiga [Gati 131] eng-a byss-u? áttu own:2sg no-acc gun-acc ‘Don’t you have a gun?’

In (B175.1) one of the boys expresses the unfulfilled wish to have a real shotgun. This is meant as a general statement revealing the boys secret dreams. Ownership or momentary physical control are not highlighted at all. In (B175.2) however, momentary possession is important. They need the gun at this very moment, but fail to have it within their reach. While the shotgun in the previous sentence is an imagined one, the gun in (B175.2) is fully referential as the boys are missing a particular gun. In (B175.3) the discussion shifts to ownership. In (B175.2) ownership was not at stake. In the last sentence however, the present situation is backgrounded (“the need of gun”) and the question of whether someone owns a gun at all becomes more important. In Table (B176) we summarise our findings about the system controlling the distribution of the three predicative possessive constructions in modern Icelandic. For obvious reasons, we have simplified matters in order to emphasise the differences. For the same reason, we have skipped all the minor exceptions. (B176) Domains

construction

possessee

eiga

hafa

vera með

human body part clothes objects illnesses physico-mental states abstract concepts

kin ¬ own own ¬ ¬ permanent

non-kin (¬) have access to have access to (chronic) general/unspecific general/unspecific

supervised all wear/carry carry momentary momentary momentary



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Before we check these patterns against the ones we have encountered in the realm of attributive possession, we will conclude this section by pointing out that in addition to the construction vera með + accusative, there are also instances of vera með + dative. The preposition tends to govern the dative if the possessor is inanimate and thus the relation has the character of a part-whole relation. (B177) contains two pertinent examples. (B177)

Dative

(B177.1)

[Gati 91] hinn fót-ur-inn var með hjól-i undir other:nom foot-nom-def be.pret with wheel-dat under ‘Under the other foot there was a wheel.’

(B177.2)

[Ridd 37] rauðislökkviliðsbíll-inn í hill-u-nn-i fyrir ofan red fire_brigade_car:nom-def in shelf-dat-def-dat for above er með slöng-u be with hose-dat ‘The red fire truck on the upper shelf has a hose.’

We have not found many examples of this pattern. There also seems to be some variation as to case government with inanimate possessors. This is largely in line with what happens in attributive construction with an attributive PP headed by með: dative and accusative compete (Kress 1982; Stolz, Stroh & Urdze 2006).

4.2.3  Attributive vs. predicative possession in Icelandic As the previous sections show, Icelandic attributive and predicative possession are each further differentiated into several categories. The resulting distinctions however, are not absolutely in line with each other and thus fail to map onto one another in a one-to-one fashion. In lieu of a straightforward relation of equivalence, what one encounters is an intricate network of relations. This absence of identity is caused by the susceptibility of predicative possession to the time factor which requires that permanent and momentary kinds of possession are formally kept apart. This timebased dichotomy is not directly reflected by the distinctions we identified for attributive possession. In attributive possession, the categories are relatively strictly based on the properties of the possessee (independent of their [not] being changeable over time). Thus, pronominal possession (cf. [B97]) is basically organised on a distinction of alienable vs. inalienable possessees with the latter being sub-divided into body-parts (and others) vs. kinship (and others). For adnominal genitive constructions, bodypart terms can easily be singled out as a distinct category. However, the evidence for further parallels with pronominal possession is not as convincing. According to the

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

statistical data presented in section 4.2.1.2, syntactic and pragmatic factors seem to be responsible for the use of different word orders in noun-noun combinations. There is a trend towards a binary partition, namely body-part possessees vs. all other concepts. In predicative possession, kinship terms regularly form part of the domain of eiga to which legally owned concrete objects also belong. It would not be correct to term all of these inalienable because the legally owned objects are such that they could be sold. Ownership can thus be transferred – something that is excluded from the prototype of kinship relations, viz. blood relationships. Hafa is used when the possessor has (ideally) no control over the possessee which tends to be abstract; the possessee may be human however, if no kinship relation is to be expressed. Both eiga and hafa cut across the distinctions made in the realm of pronominal possession because both verbs combine classes of possessees which cannot take the same construction with a pronominal possessor. In the case of eiga, even the boundaries between alienable and inalienable possessive relations are crossed. Similar observations hold true for vera með. On the one hand, vera með is responsible for largely the same class of possessees which require a PP with á/í in attributive possession, namely body-parts (cf. [B172]). On the other hand, this predicative possessive construction is also used for physico-mental states, controlled animate beings and alienable possessees (concrete objects) as long as the possessive relation is viewed as a temporary one. Again, alienable and inalienable possessees are found with the same possessive construction. The time factor clearly overrules the basic distinction of alienable vs. inalienable. If we disregard proprial possession and other additional distinctions, the following picture emerges (B178). The table simplifies the situation in various aspects.27 We nevertheless consider it a faithful representation of more than just the general lines of the possessive system of modern Icelandic. The double asterisk ** indicates that the time criterion is irrelevant for a given construction type. Grey shading highlights those attributive constructions where definiteness marking on the possessee is blocked. (B178) Synopsis of possessive distinctions in Icelandic

possessive categories



alienable



concrete concepts

inalienable body-part

pronominal genitive predicative time

N[+definite] pro PP N[¬definite] N[genitive] PP eiga vera með legal temporary **

kin

physico-mental

abstract

states

concepts

N[¬definite] pro N[¬definite] N[genitive] eiga vera með hafa permanent temporary permanent

**



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

It is interesting to see that the divisions on the level of attributive possession and those identified for predicative possession reflect completely different principles in one and the same language. These striking differences notwithstanding, there is one constant pattern: body-part terms and kinship terms never share the same possessive construction type whereas all other categories seem to be compatible with each other on at least one of the morphosyntactic levels. In this way, body-part terms stand out especially because there are dedicated construction types for them in attributive possession, whereas kinship relations always share possessive expressions with other possessees. In the next section (4.2.4), we glimpse at other North Germanic languages and their possessive systems in order to determine whether the Icelandic situation is unique or follows a more wide-spread pattern typical of the North Germanic phylum.

4.2.4   Sundry North-Germanic languages Unsurprisingly, in the North Germanic phylum, there is no language which displays a possessive system which is identical to the one described for modern Icelandic. This is what we expect in language comparison because absolute identity is logically excluded. However, if we adopt a less strict reading of the term identity and treat it as an expression for a “high degree of similarity”, the situation does not change much. The Icelandic pattern, with several non-identical distinctions in attribution and predication, stands out among its sister languages. In none of the other North Germanic languages do we find similarly elaborate systems on both morphosyntactic levels. This however does not mean that phenomena of split possession are foreign to the other members of the North Germanic phylum. As a matter of fact, split possession can be observed throughout the phylum – though with different degrees of optionality. The major difference between Icelandic and its next of kin is that the latter restrict split-possession phenomena mostly to attributive possession whereas predicative possession tends to neutralise these distinctions. Faroese is the closest relative of Icelandic and the two insular Scandinavian languages have many structural traits in common. Pronominal possession of Faroese has been described in detail by Stolz & Gorsemann (2001). In the recent reference grammar of Faroese, possession is dealt with in various places (Thráinsson et al. 2004). In neither of these studies is predicative possession given any prominence. This lack of information induces us to start with some remarks about predicative possession in Faroese. Like Icelandic, Faroese employs more than one verb of having – but in contrast to Icelandic, Faroese uses just two, cf. (B179). (B179)

Verbs of having

(B179.1)

Faroese eiga ‘own’ [HP I Faroese, 6]

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

…at hon átti eina systur …that she own:past:3sg indef:acc sister ‘[…] that she had a sister.’ (B179.2)

Icelandic eiga ‘own’ [HP I Icelandic, 5] …hún ætti enga systur …she own.conj:past:3sg no:acc sister ‘[…] she would not have a sister.’

(B179.3)

Faroese hava ‘have’ [LPP Faroese 11] eg hevði hvørki maskinmeistara ella ferðafólk við mær I have:past:1sg neither mechanic or passenger with I:dat ‘I had neither a mechanic nor passengers with me.’

(B179.4)

Icelandic hafa ‘have’ [LPP Icelandic 9] ég hafði hvorki með mér vélamann né farþega I have:past:1sg neither with I:dat mechanic nor passenger ‘I had neither a mechanic nor passengers with me.’

(B179.5)

Faroese hava ‘have’ [HP I Faroese, 5] konan […] hevði næstan tvær ferðir so langan háls woman:def have:past:3sg almost two time:pl so long:acc neck sum onnur than other ‘His wife had a neck twice as long as usual.’

(B179.6)

Icelandic vera með ‘be with’ [HP I Icelandic, 5] Frú Dursley var […] með háls sem var Mrs Dursley be.past.3sg […] with neck rel be.past.3sg næstum tvöfalt lengri en áven julegu fólki almost double long:comp than on normal:dat people:dat ‘Mrs. Dursley had a neck that was almost twice as long as with normal people.’

There is no Faroese equivalent to the Icelandic vera með-construction. All cases of vera með are covered by Faroese hava which also translates to Icelandic hafa and seems to intrude into the domain of eiga [ɑ͜ɪɡɑ] (= the Faroese cognate of Icelandic eiga [ɛ͜ɪɡɑ]). Where Icelandic employs eiga, we often enough find hava to be used in Faroese, as in (B180). (B180)

eiga vs. hava

(B180.1)

hava [HP I Faroese, 5] tey hjá Dursley høvdu alt tey kundu ynskja sær they at Dursley have:past:pl all they can:past:pl wish ref.3.dat ‘The Dursleys had everything they could wish for.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B180.2)

eiga [HP I Icelandic, 5] Dursleyhjónin […] áttu alt sem hugurinn Dursley_couple:det own:past:3pl all rel thought:det girntist long_for:past:med ‘The Dursleys had everything they longed for.’

Faroese eiga is clearly less frequently employed than Icelandic eiga. There is a tendency to replace eiga by hava wherever the possession of concrete objects is intended, although Faroese eiga is always available when legal ownership is to be expressed (Poulsen et al. 1998: 217 and 422–424). Kinship terms seem not to be affected by the on-going extension of the functional domain of hava. In Table (B181) we try to capture the general differences between the two insular Scandinavian languages in terms of the extent of the function domain of their verbs of having. Grey shading marks the domains for the two cognate verbs hafa/hava. (B181) Icelandic vs. Faroese predicative possession verbs of having

Icelandic eiga eiga

hafa

vera með

hava Faroese

In contradistinction to Icelandic, where body part terms as possessees obligatorily require a special verb of having (which however, is not restricted to combinations with body-part terms), Faroese treats only kinship terms in a special way. This also implies that body parts and kin relations again go separate ways. In addition, the time factor which is essential for the workings of predicative possession in Icelandic is largely unimportant for Faroese. For attributive constructions, the situation is described as follows by Thráinsson et al. (2004: 63): [The] prepositional usage is quite similar to that of Old Norse and modern Icelandic. What is different, however, is the fact that the adnominal (or ‘possessive’) genitive is very unnatural in most of these cases in modern Faroese.

Before we look more closely at the PPs invoked by the above quote, the Faroese genitive constructions call for inspection. The inflectional genitive on nouns has been on the retreat for a long time (Henriksen 1998), whereas it survives on the possessive forms of the pronouns of 3rd singular (all genders) and all persons of the plural (Stolz & Gorsemann 2001: 572). According to Thráinsson et al. (2004: 176), the old genitive survives mostly in fixed expressions with a preposition governing the genitive.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The genitive is almost never used for possessive purposes. However, there are several ­substitutes for the erstwhile genitive – not all of which are tolerated in high-style ­written Faroese where the genitive seems to be slightly better off than in the spoken register. These substitutes are not attested in Icelandic, at least not in the same form. First of all, Faroese has developed a secondary genitive in -sa, labelled “phrasal ­possessive” by Thráinsson et al. (2004: 64–65). This clitic-like marker is restricted to possessors which are represented by proper nouns and nouns used in a similar way (with the ­exception of toponyms) (Staksberg 1996). The possessor must bear the feature [+human]. The order “possessor precedes possessee” is absolutely compulsory and can never be inverted (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 249–250). Furthermore, there is another construction type which follows the opposite linearisation pattern, namely “possessee precedes possessor”. The possessor is a proper noun or kinship term, the NP representing the possessor is inflected for accusative. The possessee also belongs to the class of kinship terms – a fact that is not explicitly mentioned by Thráinsson et al. (2004: 63), cf. (B182). (B182)

High animacy contexts

(B182.1)

Phrasal possessive (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 64) mamm-u-sa bilur mum-?-poss car:nom ‘Mum’s car’

(B182.2)

Accusative pro genitive (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 63) mamma gent-u-n-a mum:nom girl-acc-def-acc ‘the girl’s mother’

We put a question mark in (B181.1) because the precise nature of the internal inflection is still unclear. According to Thráinsson et al. (2004: 64–65), nouns of the weak declension classes have a “non-nominative” form in combination with the phrasal possessive. However, strong nouns tend to add -sa to the regular nominative form. Thus, it probably makes more sense to interpret the segment to the left of -sa as part of a (special) stem. This analysis is weakened by the fact that under co­ordination, only the final constituent takes -sa while all other conjuncts are inflected for an oblique case if they are weak nouns (Beint-u og Ró-a-sa bók ‘Beinta and Rói’s book’ ­[Thráinsson et al. 2004: 64]). Note that for weak nouns all oblique cases of the singular are syncretistic and in the absence of any convincing examples of plural nouns hosting the clitic -sa it cannot be decided which case (accusative, dative, ­genitive) “underlies” the construction.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Independent of the still open question of the exact morphological status of the hosts of -sa, we have two highly specialised constructions which give prominence to human participants – all other relations being expressed by PPs. Icelandic and Faroese are contrasted again in (B183). We indicate the case/strategy to mark the possessor and also specify the semantic properties of possessor and possessee in the construction types which occur in Faroese. Grey shading is used to distinguish the Icelandic part from the Faroese.28 (B183)  Icelandic vs. Faroese genitive constructions

Icelandic



genitive



proprial

bare genitive

genitive constructions

accusative

Phrasal possessive

PP complement

possessor possessee relation

[+human] [+human] kinship

[+human] [αhuman] possession

[¬human] [αhuman] other



Faroese

We already know that Icelandic makes wide use of the proprial possessive ­construction (see section 4.2.1.1 above). Delsing (1993: 159) argues that Faroese does not have a similar construction. For a possible historical link between the secondary genitive in -sa and the proprial possessive construction and/or the so-called resumptive possessive construction (Poulsen 2002), cf. section 5.1.2.1. As shown in (B183), one may consider the proprial possessive the Icelandic equivalent to the two Faroese constructions used with human possessors. No matter how we relate the Icelandic and Faroese constructions to each other, one thing is clear; for the observed possession splits, the properties of the possessor are often more important than the ones of the ­possessee. [+ Human] is the crucial criterion which qualifies possessor NPs for special ­morphosyntactic ­treatment. As to the possessive relations marked by prepositions, Thráinsson et al. (2004: 63; see quote above) depict Faroese as sufficiently similar to Icelandic. However, this similarity is again not to be understood as identity. Icelandic makes use of essentially two prepositions, á and í, while Faroese displays a paradigm of three prepositions, two of which are cognates of the Icelandic ones (namely á and í). In addition, there is Faroese hjá ‘at’ whose Icelandic equivalent hjá predominantly functions as spatial relator. For Delsing (1993: 156–157), Faroese hjá is what he calls the “standard preposition” i.e., the generalised prepositional marker of possessive relations of a given

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

language (= of in English, van in Dutch, etc.). Likewise, Thráinsson et al. (2004: 251) emphasise that hjá is used most frequently. However, frequency alone is no indicator of qualitative distinctions that may occur in a language. Stolz & Gorsemann (2001) show that the Faroese system is more elaborate and that hjá is not a “standard preposition” in the above sense. The sentences in (B184) show where Icelandic and Faroese converge and where they opt for different solutions. Since í is the least frequent relator of possessive relations in both languages, the examples (B184.3)–(B184.4) had to be sought in a different parallel text, viz. the by now already familiar children’s book Jón Oddur og Jón Bjarni by Guðrún Helgadóttir and its translation into Faroese by Martin Næs. (B184)

Prepositional phrases

(B184.1)

Faroese á [HP I Faroese, 90] rottan lá framvegis og svav rat:nom:def lie.past still and sleep.past í fanginum á Ron in lap:dat:def:dat on Ron ‘The rat still lay sleeping in Ron’s lap.’

(B184.2)

Icelandic á [HP I Icelandic, 91] rottan lá enn dottandi rat:nom:def lie.past still sleep:part í kjöltunni á Ron in lap:dat:def:dat on Ron ‘The rat still lay sleeping in Ron’s lap.’

(B184.3)

Faroese í [Faroese Jón, 100] hon græt sum vildi hjartað í henni bresta she cry:past like want:past:3sg heart:def.nt in she:dat burst ‘She cried like her heart was going to burst.’

(B184.4)

Icelandic í [Jón, 68] hún grét eins og hjartað í henni she cry:past one:gen and heart:def.nt in she:dat ætlaði að springa want:past:3sg to burst ‘She cried like her heart was going to burst.’

(B184.5)

Faroese hjá [HP I Faroese, 86] eg havi fingið tær gomlu skikkjurnar hjá Bill I have:1sg get:part def.pl old:pl clothe:pl:def:pl at Bill gamla gandastavin hjá Charlie og old:acc wand:def at Charlie and



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

ta gomlu rottuna hjá Percy def old:acc rat:acc:def:acc at Percy ‘I have got Bill’s old clothes, Charlie’s old wand and Percy’s old rat.’ (B184.6)

Icelandic proprial possessive [HP I Icelandic, 88] ég fékk gömlu skikkjuna han-s Bill-s I get:past old:acc.pl clothe:acc:def:acc.pl he-gen Bill-gen gamla sprottann han-s Charlie-s og old:acc wand:acc:def he-gen Charlie-gen and gömlu rottuna han-s Percy-s old:acc rat:acc:def:acc he-gen Percy-gen ‘I have got Bill’s old clothes, Charlie’s old wand and Percy’s old rat.’

In contrast to the Icelandic PPs, the Faroese ones are not accessible to possessor raising (Zakaris Hansen p.c.). In general, possessor raising does not seem to be particularly common in Faroese. In addition to the above prepositions á, í and hjá which make up well over 95% of all possessive PPs, there are two more prepositions which are often referred to as markers of possession, namely till ‘to’ and at ‘to’ (besides av ‘of ’ the Faroese cognate of Icelandic af which have much the same functional range highlighting partitive relations, cf. above). They are both restricted to combinations with human nouns and mostly encode kinship relations (B185). (B185)

Further Faroese kinship relators

(B185.1)

at ‘to’ (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 160) omma at Marjuni mother to Marjun:dat ‘Marjun’s mother’

(B185.2)

till ‘to’ (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 252) mamma til Kjartan mum to Kjartan ‘Kjartan’s mum’

It is telling that the authors of the reference grammar had to refer back to Lockwood (1977: 105) who even specifies that for at ‘to’ to be employed as a possessive relator the possessee must be “the elder person”, i.e., age comes in as a criterion for the use of relators! As a matter of fact, both at and till have been found to be of low frequency and practically never used with a pronominal possessor (Stolz & Gorsemann 2001: 596 note 16). Thus they can be considered marginal phenomena. Nevertheless, their functional specifications support the idea that kinship is the most prominent category in the possessive system of Faroese. Accordingly, Thráinsson et al. (2004: 123) modify their assumption that the preposition hjá “is in

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

most ­instances the default way of ­expressing possession” to the extent that kinship terms are exempt from this rule. There is another important difference between Faroese and Icelandic. The ­latter distinguishes between overtly definite and indefinite possessees in constructions with post-nominal pronominal possessors (though this distinction is far less strict in N-N combinations, cf. [B178]). The absence of a definiteness marker on the possessee is the rule for inalienable concepts other than body parts, whereas the presence of the suffixed article is compulsory for alienably possessed items. ­However, in Faroese, possessees in this construction type are always formally indefinite – no matter what semantic properties they display. The order Possessor > Possessee is clearly related to pragmatic factors (and syntactic weight) in Faroese (Stolz & Gorsemann 2001: 589; Thráinsson et al. 2004: 122–123). We summarise our findings about pronominal possession in the two island varieties of North Germanic in Table (B186). In the cells, we only mention the most typical property. The grey shaded cell is empty. (B186)  Pronominal possession

construction type language

N[+definite] pro

N[¬definite] pro

pro N

Icelandic concrete kin/inalienable emphatic Faroese kin emphatic

PP body part (á/í) body part (á/í) concrete (hjá) kin (till/at)

What the above teaches us is that two closely related languages use possessive systems which differ a lot in their details, although their overall make-up is still rather similar. In spite of the differences, Faroese and Icelandic converge as to their susceptibility to split possession on the level of attribution and predication. The systems are not identical – nevertheless they clearly show that possession is a dimension which covers a whole paradigm of distinctions both formally and functionally. The question arises as to whether or not the same applies to the Mainland Scandinavian languages, too. First of all, there is a big difference separating insular and Mainland Scandinavian languages from each other: the latter only have one generalised verb of having, namely the cognates of hafa/hava ‘to have’. In (B187)–(B189), we document this ­neutralisation of potential categories with two sentences for each of the Mainland Scandinavian languages, one for ordinary possession of concrete objects and one for kinship relations, cf. (B179)–(B180) above.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B187)

Norwegian [HP I Norwegian, 9]

(B187.1)

Concrete objects Dumlingene hadde alt de kunne ønske seg Dursley:pl:def have:past all they can:subj wish ref.3 ‘They Dursleys had everything they could wish for.’

(B187.2)

Kinship hun ikke hadde noen søster she neg have:past some sister ‘She did not have any sister.’

(B188)

Swedish [HP I Swedish, 11]

(B188.1)

Concrete objects Mr och mrs Dursley hade allt de kunde önska sig Mr and Mrs Dursley have:past all they can:past wish ref.3 ‘Mr and Mrs Dursley had everything they could wish for.’

(B188.2)

Kinship hon inte hade någon syster she neg have:past some sister ‘She did not have any sister.’

(B189)

Danish [HP I Danish, 5]

(B189.1)

Concrete objects Hr. og fru Dursley […] havde alt hvad de kunne ønske sig Mr and Mrs. Dursley have:past all what they can:subj wish ref.3 ‘Mr and Mrs Dursley had everything they could wish for.’

(B189.2)

Kinship hun slet ikke havde nogen søster she simply neg have:past some sister ‘She did not have any sister.’

For attributive possession however, the situation is more diverse. Genitive constructions compete with PPs, linear orders differ in a meaningful way, definiteness plays a role, etc. The diversity is reminiscent of what we found out about Faroese and Icelandic. To start, consider prepositionally encoded possessive relations. Delsing (1993: 150–151) observes that some of the North Germanic varieties have a generalised “standard preposition” while others lack such a category. To his mind, Norwegian til ‘to’ is an example of a standard preposition corresponding functionally to English of, whereas Swedish and Danish have no default choice in this area. Interestingly, Thráinsson et al. (2004: 252 note 26), who repeatedly contrast Faroese

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

with other North Germanic languages, claim that Norwegian til is used similarly to Faroese till i.e., to encode family relationships. A sentence like (B190) corroborates Delsing’s generalisation as the two nouns connected to each other by til cannot be considered kinship terms (the firm Grunnings “owns” the parking facilities on their grounds). (B190)

Norwegian [HP I Norwegian, 11] litt senere kjørte herr Dumling inn på little late:comp drive:past Mr Dursley in on parkeringsplassen til Knerk parking_lot:def to Grunnings ‘Shortly afterwards Mr Dursley drove onto the parking space of Grunnings.’

With a view to determining the variation among the Mainland Scandinavian languages, we have looked at all instances of possessive PPs headed by til in the Norwegian translation of the first volume of the Harry Potter series. These instances are contrasted with their equivalents in the Swedish and Danish translations in Table (B191). In the leftmost column, we indicate the page number for each attested Norwegian case. Translations are only given once in the Norwegian column as long as there are no significant differences between the three languages. If identical constructions occur more than once in Norwegian, only the first attestation is accompanied by a translation. Grey shading is used to indicate that there is no equivalent construction qualifying as possessive. The examples appear in a loose order starting with body parts via animate possessees to abstract concepts. (B191) Norwegian til and its equivalents in mainland Scandinavia HP I

Norwegian

Swedish

Danish

  16

øyene til katten ‘the cat’s eyes’

ögonen på katten

kattens øjne

  22

øyene til Humlesnurr ‘Dumbledore’s eyes’

Dumbledores ögon

142

fjesene til Malfang … ‘Malfoy’s … face’

Malfoy’s … ansikten

146

fjeset til Malfang

Malfoys … ansikte

Malfoys … fjæs

156

fjeset til Malfang

Malfoys ansikte

Malfoys … ansigt

145

fjeset til Harry ‘Harry’s face’

Harrys ansiktsuttryck ‘Harry’s facial expression’

Harrys ansigtsudtryk

158

fjeset til Harry

Harrys ansikte

Harrys ansigt

  42

fjeset til onkelen ‘the uncle’s face’

morbroderns ansikte

onkels ansigt



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

105

fjeset til Ronny ‘Ronny’s face’

133

skjeggfjeset til Gygrid Hagrids … håriga ansikte Hagrids vildmandsfjæs ‘Hagrid’s bearded face’ ‘Hagrid’s wild face’

  55

ansiktet til Gygrid ‘Hagrid’s face’

Hagrids ansikte

Hagrids … ansigt

  98

ansiktet til en man ‘a man’s face’

ansiktet på en man

en mands ansigt

171 194   81   95 130

ansiktet til Slur ‘Snape’s face’ ansiktene til de andre menneskene ‘the faces of the other people’ pannen til Harry ‘Harry’s forehead’ pannen til Harry hånden til Hermine ‘Hermione’s hand’

Snapes ansikte

Snapes ansigt

131 176

Rons ansigte

ansiktena på de andra människorna Harrys panna

Harrys pande

Harrys panna Hermiones hand

Harrys pande Hermiones … hånd

hånden til Hermine

Hermiones … hand

Hermiones … fagter

hodet til Harry ‘Harry’s head’

hans huvud

hans hoved

223

hodet til Harry

huvudet på Harry

hovedet på Harry

269

hodet til Harry

Harrys huvud

Harrys hoved

  29

armene til folk ‘people’s arms’

249

armene til Nilus ‘Neville’s arms’

Nevilles armar

Nevilles arme

122

føttene til Harry ‘Harry’s feet’

Harrys ben

Harrys ben

259

føttene til Harry

Harrys fötter

Harrys fødder

  32

ryggen til Harry ‘Harry’s back’

183

ryggen til Malfang ‘Malfoy’s back’

Malfoys rygg

201

beina til Nilus ‘Neville’s bones’

hans ben

hans ben

264

beinet til Slur ‘Snape’s leg’

Snapes ben

Snapes ben

130

leppene til Slur ‘Snape’s lips’

Snapes läppar

Snapes læber (Continued)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

HP I

Norwegian

Swedish

Danish

  69 202 216 106 205 206 133 103 213   94

skulderen til Harry ‘Harry’s shoulders’ munnen til Nilus Nevilles läppar ‘Neville’s mouth’ ‘Neville’s lips’ munnvikene til Malfang Malfoys … leende ‘the corners of Malfoy’s ‘Malfoy’s smile’ mouth’ magen til Harry Harrys mage ‘Harry’s stomach’ hjertet til Harry Harrys hjärta ‘Harry’s heart’ nervene til Ronny Rons nerver ‘Ron’s nerves’ fregnene til Ronny Rons fräknar ‘Ron’s freckles’ barten til Skorpus Scabbers morrhår ‘Scabber’s moustache’ skjegget til Gygrid Hagrids skägg ‘Hagrid’s beard’ stemmen til den lille jenta den lilla flickans röst ‘the voice of the little girl’

139 224

stemmen til Nilus ‘Neville’s voice’ blikket til Nilus ‘Neville’s look’

Nevilles röst

Nevilles … stemme

Nevilles blick

Nevilles blik

121   47 114   9

smilene til de andre lærerne ‘the smiles of the other teachers’ snorkingen til Dudleif ‘Dudley’s snoring’ tvillingbrødrene til Ronny ‘Ron’s twin brothers’ søsteren til fru Dumling ‘Mrs Dursley’s sister’

de andra lärarnas leenden de andre læreres smil

106

Harrys skulder

Harrys hjerte Rons nerver Rons fregnede ansigt ‘Ron’s freckled face’

Hagrids … skæg den lille piges stemme

Dudleys snarkningar

Dudleys snorken

Rons tvillingbröder

Rons brødre

Mrs Dursleys syster

fru Dursleys søster

faren til Malfang ‘Malfoy’s father’

Malfoys pappa

Malfoys far

277

skolekameratene til foreldra dine ‘the schoolmates of your parents’

dina föräldrars … skolkamrater

  30

gjengen til Dudleif ‘Dudley’s gang’

Dudleys gäng

  34

gjengen til Dudleif

Dudleys gäng

Dudleys bande



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

  35

gjengen til Dudleif

136

gjengen til Malfang ‘Malfoy’s gang’

102

Dudleys gäng

Dudleys bande

padden til Nilus ‘Neville’s toad’

Nevilles padda

Nevilles tudse

160

padden til Nilus

Nevilles padda

Nevilles tudse

280

padden til Nilus

Nevilles padda

Nevilles tudse

120

padden til meg ‘my toad’

min tudse

208

beistet til Gygrid ‘Hagrid’s beast’

Hagrids … odjur

Hagrids uhyre

  39

skoene til onkel Wiktor ‘uncle Vernon’s shoes’

morbror Vernons … skor

Onkel Vernons … sko

132 skoene til folk skorna på folk ‘people’s shoes’ 110

kappen til Nilus ‘Neville’s coat’

Nevilles mantel

275 kappen til faren din din pappas mantel ‘the coat of your father’

elevernes sko ‘the shoes of the pupils’ Nevilles … kappe din fars usynlighedskappe ‘your father’s invisibility cloak’

182

kuttebrystet til Malfang ‘Malfoy’s clothes’

Malfoys klädnad ‘Malfoy’s clothes’

Malfoys kappe ‘Malfoy’s coat’

  75

uniform til deg ‘your uniform’

din skoluniform

din skoleuniform

110

parykken til en lærer ‘the wig of a teacher’

sin lärares hår ‘the hair of his teacher’

klasselærerens paryk

166

buksa til trollet ‘the trousers of the troll’

trollets byxor

troldens bukser

175 178

armbåndsuret til en av Wiltersene ‘the wrist-watch of one of the Weasleys’ jakkeslaget til Gygrid ‘the sleeves of Hagrid’s jacket’

en av … Weasleys guldsarmbandsur

Weasleybrødrenes armbåndsure

Hagrids jacka ‘Hagrid’s jacket’

Hagrids jakke

229

ermet til Harry ‘Harry’s sleeves’

Harrys ærme

133

halsbåndet til en … villsvinhund ‘the collar of a hunting dog’

halsbåndet på en … jakthund

halsbandet på en … jakthund

(Continued)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

HP I

Norwegian

Swedish

  60   76   31   33

bøker … til deg dina böcker ‘your books’ bøker til meg ‘my books’ bilen til onkel Wiktor morbror Vernons bil ‘uncle Vernon’s car’ bilen til onkel Wiktor morbror Vernons bil

dine bøger

157 156 109 179 182

sengeteppet til Harry Harrys överkast ‘Harry’s bed-cover’ forglemeien til Nilus Nevilles Minnsallt ‘Neville’s remember-all’ huset til Dumlingene Dursleys hus ‘the house of the Dursleys’ hytta til Gygrid Hagrids … stuga ‘Hagrid’s hut’ hytta til Gygrid

Harrys sengetæppe

218

hytta til Gygrid

Hagrids stuga

229

hytta til Gygrid

Hagrids stuga

  40

rommet til Dudleif Dudleys … sovrum ‘Dudley’s room’

Dudleys … soveværelse

212

døra til skogvokterhytta ‘the door of the warden’s hut’

døren til nøglebærerens lille hus

  11

parkeringsplassen til Knerk Grunnings bilparkering ‘the parking-lot of Grunnings’

Grunnings parkeringsplads

  28

datamaskinen til Dudleif ‘Dudley’s computer’

Dudleys dator

Dudleys computer

  74

hvelvet til herr Harry Potter ‘the vault of Mr Harry Potter’

Harry Potters bankfack

hr. Harry Potters boks

  97

navnet til han-du-veit ‘You-know-who’s name’

du-vet-vems namn

139

håndgrepet til hver enkelt ‘everybody’s grip’

deras grep

deres greb

173

talen til Oliver ‘Oilver’s tales’

Olivers tal

Olivers taler

181

timene til professor Slur ‘Professor Snape’s classes’

professor Snapes lektioner

  95 204

påfunna til Fred og Frank Freds og Georges skämt ‘inventions of Fred and George’ tankene til folk andras tankar ‘peoples thoughts’

dörren til skogvaktarstugan

Danish

mine bøger Onkel Vernons bil Onkel Vernons bil

Nevilles erindringskugle Dursleys hus sin hytte Hagrids hytte Hagrids hus

278

Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 



kjempeskjakkspillet til McGonagalls … McSnurp schackspel ‘McGonagall’s chess game’

McGonagalls … skakbrikker ‘McGonagall’s pawns’

According to Delsing (1993: 155), the use of possessive til is excluded from combinations with pronominal complements and thus the rare cases like bøker til meg ‘my books’ and four other instances may call for a different interpretation (they might turn out to be ambiguous as to a recipient reading of the pronominally encoded participant [Fiva 1987: 78]). What strikes the eye immediately is the fact that for the 92 attestations of possessive til in Norwegian, there is exactly one case each of functionally similar til in Swedish and Danish. Swedish makes use of some kind of possessive construction in 83 cases, and the figures for Danish are down to 74 possessive constructions. Norwegian til is employed with a wide range of possessees: body parts, body parts by extension, kinship, social relations, animate beings, clothes, concrete objects and abstract concepts. In the majority of cases, Norwegian til corresponds to a genitive construction in Swedish and Danish, where the frequency of the clitic genitive is 73 and 63, respectively. In a minority of cases, the possessor is encoded by a possessive pronoun in Swedish and Danish; in Norwegian, til may have a noun or a pronoun as its complement. In addition, the preposition på is used as a possessive relator six times in Swedish and twice in Danish. Whenever the possessive relation is expressed prepositionally in Danish, Swedish also uses a preposition. På occurs in some of those examples which involve body parts or clothes as possessees. While it cannot be denied that Norwegian til is widely used, the generalisation of this preposition as a possessive marker has not advanced enough to oust all other options (although til seems to be always available as a neutralising standard preposition, cf. below). På is also frequently used in Norwegian. In Table (B192), we survey all instances of possessive på in the same sample text and compare it to the possessive expressions in the two other Mainland Scandinavian languages. (B192)  Norwegian på and its equivalents in mainland Scandinavia HP I

Norwegian

Swedish

  29

hodet på ham huvudet på honom ‘his head’

  30

hodet på ham

  76

hodet på ham

172

hodet på ham

189

hodet på ham

Danish hovedet på Harry ‘Harry’s head’

huvudet på honom huvudet på honom

hovedet på ham (Continued)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

HP I

Norwegian

Swedish

Danish

152 158 161   15   91 106 123

hodet på dem ‘their head’ hodet på dem hodet på dem hodet på den ‘his head’ hodet på … mengden ‘the heads of the crowd’ hodet på elevene ‘the heads of the pupils’ hodet på Nilus ‘Neville’s head’

deras huvuden huvudet på dem huvudet på den

deres hoveder deres hoveder hovedet på den

126

hodet på folk ‘people’s heads’

165

hodet på sin eier sin ägares huvud ‘its owner’s head’

173

hodene på mengden ‘the heads of the crowd’

197

hodet på Harry ‘Harry’s head’

  42

øyene på ham ‘his eyes’

ögonen på honom

116

øyene på ham

ögonen på honom

  75

øyene på Harry ‘Harry’s eyes’

Harrys ögon

120

øyene på Harry

Harrys ögon

114

øyene på henne ‘her eyes’

ögonen på henne

  16 151

øyene på katten ‘the cat’s eyes’ øyene på et monstrum ‘the eyes of a monster’

136

øya på Malfang ‘Malfoy’s eye’

138   38   49

hånden på ham handen på honom ‘his hand’ hendene på ham handen på honom ‘his hands’ hendene på onkel Wiktor händarna på morbror ‘Uncle Vernon’s hands’ Vernon

huvudet på folk ‘people’s heads’ huvudet på eleverna Nevilles huvud

hovedet på Neville

huvudet på en ‘one’s head’

hovedet på folk sin ejermands pandeskal

øjnene af ham

Harrys øjne

hendes øjne

ögonen på en … hund ‘the eyes of a dog’ ögonen på Malfoy Nevilles hånd ‘Neville’s hand’ hånden på ham



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

217

øret på Harry ‘Harry’s ear’

Harrys öra

250

øret på Harry

ørat på Harry

221

øret på Malfang ‘Malfoy’s ear’

Malfoys … øre

116

øret på ham ‘his ear’

hans öra

hans øre

120

ansiktene på dem ‘their faces’

deras ansikten

deres ansigter

  42

fanget på onkel Wiktor ‘Uncle Vernon’s lap’

129

fanget på dem



‘their laps’

155

fanget på Harry ‘Harry’s lap’

126

føttene på dem ‘their feet’

165

nesa på det näsan på det ‘its nose’

troldens ene næsebor ‘one of the troll’s nostrils’

167

nesa på det ‘its nose’

näsan på trollet ‘the troll’s nose’

næsen på den

165

ryggen på det ‘its back’

252

ryggen på dyret ‘the back of the animal’

ryggen på hunden ‘the back of the dog’

hundens ryg

165

halsen på trollet trollets hals ‘the neck of the troll’

troldens ryg ‘the back of the troll’

268

halsen på ham ‘his neck’

Harrys hals ‘Harry’s neck’

hans hals

159

skallen på meg ‘my skull’

skallen på mig

skallen på mig

245

armene på henne ‘her arms’

famnen på henne ‘her open arms’

Harrys øre

skødet på onkel Vernon

knät på dem skødet på ham eller hende ‘their knees’ ‘his or her lap’

ens fötter ‘one’s feet’

  78 to av husene på skolen ‘two of the houses of the school’

to af skolens kollegier

103 førstesida på Aftenprofeten ‘the front page of the Evening Prophet’ (Continued)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

HP I

Norwegian

Swedish

159 speideren på det det andra lagets sökare andre laget ‘the seekers of the other team’ 195 kaptein på rumpeldunklaget ‘captain of the Quidditch team’ 215 arten på egga ‘the type of the egg’ 228 navnene på alle månene namnen på dess månar ‘the names of all the moons’ ‘the names of its moons’

Danish

anfører af Quiddich-holdet

With altogether 50 tokens på is clearly more rarely used than til in Norwegian, but it cannot be considered an exception. With 24 cases, combinations with pronominal complements are common, but by no means the only contexts in which på is employed. Pronouns account for slightly less than 50% of all instances, while common and proper nouns cover the other half. Of these 50 cases, 36 have possessive counterparts in Swedish and just 27 equivalents in Danish. Two thirds of the Swedish examples (= 24 cases) contain på, and Danish has ten instances of the same preposition. Thus, the degree of convergence among the Mainland Scandinavian languages is significantly higher in the case of på than with til. Moreover, Norwegian and Swedish are more similar to each other in their use of på than either of them resembles Danish – a language which rather often uses constructions other than the proper possessive ones. Only slightly more than a tenth of the Norwegian examples of possessive på do not belong to the realm of body-part possession. Interestingly, the dissimilarity between Norwegian and its sister languages is highest in this somewhat exceptional area: of the six examples which are outside the group of corporeal possessees, four have no possessive equivalents in Swedish and Danish. On the other hand, there are eight cases where all three languages employ the preposition på in the same construction. Except for one single case, the occurrence of på in Danish implies its occurrence in Swedish too. This fact suggests that the prototypical domain in which på is used in all of the languages is the one associated with body parts. However, body parts are also frequently attested as possessees in constructions with Norwegian til. The two prepositions compete with each other. The 44 Norwegian instances of på employed for body-parts cover twelve possessee types. These compete with 35 instances and 15 types of “primary” body-parts combining with til. Of these types, seven combine with both prepositions – sometimes with drastically different frequencies, namely hod ‘head’ (16 tokens with på/3 tokens with til), øye ‘eye’ (8/2), hånd ‘hand’ (3/2), ansikt ‘face’ (1/4), arm ‘arm’ (1/1), fot ‘foot’ (1/2) and ryg



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

‘back’ (2/2). Thus, hod ‘head’ and øye ‘eye’ are overwhelmingly combined with på, while for ansikt ‘face’, til clearly outnumbers på. In all other cases, the distribution of possessees over prepositions is more even. Five possessees are attested only in combination with på (= øre ‘ear’, fang ‘open arms; lap’, nes ‘nose’, hals ‘neck’ and skal ‘skull’), whereas eight exclusively occur with til (= fjes ‘face’, panne ‘forehead’, bein ‘bone; leg’, leppe ‘lip’, skulder ‘shoulder’, munn ‘mouth’, mage ‘stomach’ and hjerte ‘heart’). The importance of til is additionally underlined by the fact that “secondary” body parts (or body parts by extension) combine with til alone. There is thus a pronounced tendency towards generalising til to the detriment of på for which only a small niche is still reserved and this niche consists of more or less fixed combinations with a small set of body-part terms. It is likely that these terms can also enter constructions with til as the head of the possessive PP. The situation is complicated by the fact that til is gaining ground not only in the competition with other prepositional relators of possession, but PPs with til have to compete with prepositionless attributive constructions as well – and so does på. Consider example (B193). (B193)

Norwegian hod [HP I Norwegian, 235] da ble hodet hans gjennomboret av en smerte then remain.past head:def.nt he:gen pierce:part of indef.u pain ‘Then a pain went through his head.’

The passages in Swedish and Danish contain similar constructions i.e., they use a possessive pronoun in lieu of a PP, namely Swedish hans huvud and Danish hans hoved. The pronominally possessed noun hod allows for three possessive constructions, two involving the above prepositions and one with the regular possessive pronoun. Similarly, we repeatedly find expressions like ryggen hans ‘his back’, skuldrene hans ‘his shoulders, leppene dine ‘your lips’, fjeset hans ‘his face’, føttene dens ‘its feet’, nesa hans ‘his nose’, etc. scattered all over the sample text. These alternative possessive constructions are by no means restricted to body-parts as possessees. There are various instances of huset sitt ‘his house’, faren min ‘my father’, blikket hans ‘his expression’, timen hennes ‘her lesson’, Dudleifs gjeng ‘Dudley’s gang’, navnet hans ‘his name’, etc. The neutralising effect of til is thus paralleled by the two attributive possessive constructions. The distribution patterns of the nominal genitive and the possessive pronouns do not seem to obey any purely semantic rules. The so-called s-genitive on nouns/NPs is considered a typical “Danish” feature in literary and spoken southern Norwegian (Delsing 1993: 155). The absence of til in the above examples is not surprising as it should be excluded from combinations with pronouns, however på is not subject to a similar restriction and thus it must be motivated at least partly by factors other than syntactic ones. We do not

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

have a ready explanation for the absence of på in the above cases. På replaces til with pronominal complements preferably (perhaps even only) if the possessee is a body part; elsewhere the substitute for til is a prepositionless construction with a ­possessive pronoun. Since the remaining possessive constructions of Norwegian are not sensitive to the semantics of the possessee, the alienability-like possession split is restricted to a rather small section of the lexicon (body parts) and remains largely optional. Positional differences between post-nominal and pre-nominal possessive pronouns can be explained in terms of pragmatic structure (B194.1)–(B194.2) (whether syntactic weight of the possessee NP has a say in the choice of the linearisations is still unclear). The use of the suffixed definite article is compulsory with post-nominal possessive pronouns but blocked when the possessive pronoun occurs pre-nominally for the purpose of emphasis. Resumptive possessive pronouns can be used with any kind of possessor and possessee, (B194.3), although this device is clearly disfavoured in literary Norwegian, while the proprial possessive construction is considered a dialectal feature of northern Norway (B194.4) (Delsing 1993: 154–155). (B194)

Further possessive constructions in Norwegian

(B194.1)

Post-nominal possessive pronoun [HP I Norwegian, 194] og jeg vil se hele familien din and I want see whole family:def.u your:u ‘And I want to see your entire family.’

(B194.2)

Pre-nominal possessive pronoun/contrastive focus [HP I Norwegian, 101] ingen i min familie er det minste magiske nobody in my:u family be.pres det.nt little:sup magic ‘Nobody in my family is magic at all.’

(B194.3)

Resumptive possessive construction (Poulsen 2002: 52) rosene og vinen die har blodet sin farge rose:def.pl and wine:def.u they have:pres blood:def.nt ref.u colour ‘Roses and wine – they have the colour of blood.’

(B194.4)

Proprial possessive construction (Fiva 1987: 88) bilen hans Per car:def.u he:gen Peter ‘Peter’s car’

In sum, Norwegian displays only a rather rudimentary system of semantically based possessive categories. Furthermore, the potential distinctions are only optional. Body parts constitute the one class of possessees which displays a certain autonomy as



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

­ pposed to the bulk of other possessees (including kinship terms). However, the use o of på is never obligatory although it does not seem to be a statistically insignificant quantity. Delsing (1993: 151, note 6) mentions that Swedish makes use of a small inventory of prepositions which are employed for different possessive categories. På and till are again explicitly mentioned – the former being said to encode part-whole relations and the latter serving the purpose of marking kinship relations. While it is true that we find the two preposition used in this way very often, their functional domains seem to extend beyond the limits mentioned above. Consider (B195)–(B196). (B195)

till

(B195.1)

N-N construction (Montan & Rosenqvist 1992: 72) Kalle är far till Per Kalle be.pres father to Peter ‘Kalle is Peter’s father.’

(B195.2)

Pronominal possessor (Montan & Rosenqvist 1992: 86) en kusin till mig bor i London a.u cousin to I.obl live.pres in London ‘A cousin of mine lives in London.’

(B195.3)

No kinship relation (Montan & Rosenqvist 1992: 86) skriv upp telefonnumret till skolan write up phone_number:def.nt to school:def.u ‘Write down the phone-number of the school!’

(B196)

på (Montan & Rosenqvist 1992: 85) priset på gitarren har att göra med price:def.nt on guitar:def.u have:pres to do:inf with kvaliteten på träet och storleken på instrument quality:def.u on wood:def.nt and size:def.u on instrument ‘The price of the guitar depends on the quality of the wood and the size of the instrument.’

Till may obviously be used for relations other than typical kinship relations. Note also that Swedish till differs from its Norwegian cognate in that it can freely take a pronominal complement, as in (B195.2). As to på, price, quality and size are surely not prototypical parts of a whole but associated properties (one external – price – and two internal). Standard Swedish and Danish resemble each other in all areas of possession. The information one can get on this particular subject for Swedish in ­Holmes (1994) is practically the same as for Danish (Allan; Holmes & Lundskær-

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Nielsen 2000). Both languages use cognate prepositions for much the same purposes. Accordingly, Delsing (1993: 152–153) felt entitled to deal with both languages in one and the same chapter. There is no positional variation in attributive possession. Outside the prepositional constructions, nominal and pronominal possessors are always on the left of the possessee (and the possessee is never overtly marked for ­definiteness). The inflectional genitive is still relatively widely used. There is neither a proprial possessive construction nor a resumptive possessive construction (Delsing 1993: 159). These observations only hold true for the standard varieties of both languages. Regional Danish and Swedish however, show a much richer inventory of constructions including those which are disfavoured by the standard varieties (Poulsen 2002: 58; Delsing & Egerland 2002: 110–111). When we say that Danish and Swedish behave according to the same pattern, this is perhaps inaccurate as to the frequency with which certain constructions are employed. Tables (B191)–(B192) are suggestive of a statistical disproportion: Swedish seems to prefer prepositional constructions more often than Danish. However, in the absence of a full-blown frequency count, this hypothesis must remain speculative. In Swedish and Danish, therefore, body parts and kinship terms (always in combination with other possessees) receive a distinct morphosyntactic treatment. Disregarding the general possibility of substituting the inflectional genitive or a possessive pronoun for the preposition, the following distribution of possessive PPs is attested in the three major Mainland Scandinavian languages, cf. (B197). Grey shading marks the domains of the cognates of till, bold face highlights på. (B197) Domains of prepositional possessive constructions

language

body parts

kinship

other

Norwegian Swedish Danish

på/til på på

til till til

no (or other) PP no (or other) PP

Norwegian is clearly on its way out of a formerly, perhaps more alienability-oriented system towards a generalised system without additional possessive distinctions. Danish and Swedish however keep up a tripartite distinction with separate expressions for body parts and kinship terms as possessees. Norwegian is thus the only North Germanic language where body parts and kinship terms tend to be treated as one when construing them as being possessed. However, this is still only a tendency because på is still alive. In contradistinction to the two insular varieties of Scandinavian, the Mainland Scandinavian languages follow sets of rules which are less rigorously applied. Marking special possessive relations explicitly is an option for Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, whereas it is an obligation for Faroese and Icelandic.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

4.3  Celtic phylum The Celtic languages form two distinct groups with regard to their possessive systems. The larger one is comprised of the two Goidelic languages Irish and Scots Gaelic and the Brythonic language Welsh. What these three have in common is the absence of a verb of having. Breton however, the Brythonic sister of Welsh, is different as it has developed a verbal equivalent of English to have – presumably under the age-long influence of French. The introduction of a proper verb of having (by reanalysis of a dative schema) into the grammatical system of Breton is all the more important for our topic, as this newcomer does not supersede an older construction but rather adds a new distinction to a pre-existing inventory. Even without this addition, all possessive systems in the Celtic phylum attest to possession splits. As with North Germanic languages, possession has not been a favourite issue in the extant descriptive literature on Celtic languages. Occasionally, there are some pertinent sideways remarks for instance in Press (1986), Hewitt (1988), Faverau (1997) and Lamb (2003). However, a systematic description of the possessive systems of individual Celtic languages is still lacking, not to mention pan-Celtic comparative studies of this phenomenon. Owing to the absence of any special linguistic investigation dedicated to possession in the phylum in general, or of an individual Celtic language in particular, we have to rely heavily upon our own interpretation of the data which we draw from a variety of sources of various kinds. For the extinct languages Cornish (Brythonic) and Manx (Goidelic), we do not have sufficient and reliable data to include them in our study. Following the pattern of the previous sections, we start the presentation and analysis of Celtic facts with a description of attributive possession (pronominal possession [section 4.3.1.1] and genitive constructions [section 4.3.1.2]) before taking stock of the phenomena observed in the realm of predicative possession (section 4.3.2). Since our Celtic corpus is much smaller than the ones we employed in the previous case studies, we treat all four Celtic languages at one go. Section 4.3.4 offers the synopsis of the Celtic possessive systems.

4.3.1  Attributive possession 4.3.1.1  Pronominal possession For all Celtic languages, paradigms of possessive pronouns (often termed “dependent pronouns”) are postulated. These pronouns are also employed for a variety of non-possessive functions (mostly complements of verbal nouns) which, for obvious reasons, are not discussed in this book. It should not go unmentioned however that constructions of this kind exist, such as the Welsh gwn ei ddyfod ‘I know that it has come (lit. I know his coming)’ and yr oedd yn fy ngweld ‘he has seen me (lit. he was in my seeing)’ (Williams 1980: 116–117) with first actants (agent in the case of intransitive

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

dyfod ‘come’ and patient for transitive gweld ‘see’) represented by possessor pronouns are similar to the nominalisations which usually come in last the place of the inventories of typical inalienable possessees (cf. [A21]). Table (B198) surveys the standard sets of possessive pronouns for all that languages will be compared. The forms of the possessive pronouns are subject to variation, the whole range of which cannot be adequately represented in the chart. In formal Welsh, two classes of possessive pronouns are distinguished, namely prefixed and infixed orders, of which the latter is being replaced by the former in spoken and less formal written Welsh (Williams 1980: 46–51). The order of languages is from Goidelic to Brythonic i.e., from Scots Gaelic in the north via Irish and Welsh to Breton in the south. The languages will be discussed in this same order in each of the sub-sections below, although we do not apply this order too strictly. (B198)

Possessive pronouns in Celtic possessor Scots Gaelic Irish 1st sg 2nd sg 3rd sg.m 3rd sg.f 1st pl 2nd pl 3rd pl

Welsh prefixed infixed

m(o)L

m(o)L

f(yN)

aL a ar ur an

aL aH árN (bh)urN aN

eiL eiH ein*H eich eu*H

d(o)L

d(o)L

d(yL)

‘m ‘thL ‘iL ‘wH ‘n*H ‘ch ‘u*H

Breton m(a)/v(aH) d(aL) eL he(c’h)H hoS*H ho(c’h)P oH

The letters L (= lenition), H (= spirantisation), N (= nasalisation), and P (= provection) specify the type of mutation the possessed noun undergoes when modified by a possessive pronoun. Bracketed parts contain segmental material which may be absent in certain phonological contexts. The asterisks accompanying H indicates that the spirantisation rule is restricted either to one initial consonant (= Breton voiceless velar plosive /k/) or involves the prothetic /h/ added to originally vowel-initial words in Welsh. Capital S in the 1st person plural in Breton represents the class of allophonic sonorants (= /n/, /l/ and /r/) which depend on the quality of the initial consonant of the immediately following word. The indices of the mutations will be given in the transmorphemisations (immediately preceding the lexical morpheme of the possessee) in all relevant contexts below (and only there). Again, the mutations caused by possessive pronouns vary according to social and regional parameters. The above list is thus a simplification of the much more variegated facts. For all languages in Table (B198), the order is possessor > possessee in pronominal possession. Typical examples are given in (B199). (B199)

Pronominal possessive constructions

(B199.1)

Scots Gaelic (Lamb 2003: 69) bu bhrèaga a gnùis be beautiful her visage ‘Her visage was beautiful.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B199.2)

Irish [LPP Irish I, 17] seo mar a bhí mo phictiúr uimhir a dó this like rel be my picture number num two ‘My picture number two looked like this.’

(B199.3)

Welsh [LPP Welsh I, 17] tebyg i hyn oedd fy narlun rhif 2 like to this be.past.3 my Npicture number two ‘My picture number two looked like this.’

(B199.4)

Breton [LPP Breton I, 17] evel-se e oa va zresadenn niverenn daou like-this rel be.3sg.past my Hpicture number two ‘My picture number two looked like this.’

In addition to these pragmatically neutral constructions, the two Brythonic languages have special circumpositional constructions which serve the purpose of putting the possessor into focus. This is achieved in Welsh by adding a so-called simple auxiliary or affixed pronoun to the right of the possessee (Williams 1980: 48). This post-nominal pronoun may carry contrastive/emphatic stress (which is impossible for the other elements of the possessive construction) (Thomas 1992: 306). In Breton, there are three options: (a) a similar practice to the one in Welsh, (b) the use of the post-nominal inflected preposition da ‘to’ or (c) a combination of the two previous options, cf. (B200). Single underlining in the translations marks possessor focus. (B200)

Emphatic constructions in Brythonic

(B200.1)

Welsh [LPP Welsh III, 8–9] awyren yw hi fy awyren i plane be.3sg she my plane emph.1sg ‘It is a plane, my plane!’

(B200.2)

Breton (Ternes 1992: 404) NP

analysis

translation

va zi va zi-me va zi d-in va zi d-in-me

my house my house-emph.1sg my house to-1sg my house to-1sg-emph.1sg

‘my house’ ‘my house’ ‘my house’ ‘my house’

In Welsh however, the 1st person singular possessor has a special status because the prefixed possessive pronoun fy ‘my’ can be dropped altogether (Williams 1980: 175). The possessor is then expressed either solely by the nasal mutation of the initial consonant of the possessee noun (mrawd [< brawd ‘brother’] ‘my brother’), or by the mutated consonant in combination with the post-nominal auxiliary pronoun (mrawd i). In (B200), the possessed noun has the not mutated lexical form dafad ‘sheep’.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B201)

Welsh [LPP Welsh III, 33] I ble rwyt ti am fynd â to where be.2sg you on going with ‘Where are you going with my sheep?’

nafad i Nsheep emph.1sg

According to Thomas (1992: 306–307), the absence of the post-nominal element is a typical feature of literary Welsh, whereas in the spoken register, the post-nominal element can be deleted only if possessor and sentence subject are co-referential. In the Goidelic languages, the effect of highlighting the possessor is achieved by the use of the so-called emphatic suffixes/particles. These focus morphemes are added to the last word forming part of the possessee NP (B202). Note that despite the position of the focus marker, the highlighted participant is the possessor and not the possessee! Irish and Scots Gaelic are characterised by similar behaviour in this respect – however, there is again variation as to the shape and morpheme status of the focus markers. For the sake of brevity, we will only mention the Irish paradigm provided by Ó Dochartaigh (1992) which strongly resembles the one given for Scots Gaelic in Calder (1980: 164). (B202)

Irish (Ó Dochartaigh 1992: 66) NP mo chat-sa do mhadadh bocht-sa a chóta-san a brog bheag-sa ár gcuidne ará-in bhur mbád-sa a n-athair mór-san

analysis Lcat-emph.1sg

my your Ldog poor-emph.2sg his Lcoat-emph.3sg.m her shoe Lsmall-emph.3sg.f our Nshare bread-emph.1pl your Nboat-emph.2pl their Nfather big-emph.3pl

translation ‘my cat’ ‘your poor cat’ ‘his coat’ ‘her small shoe’ ‘our share of bread’ ‘your boat’ ‘their grandfather’

All these strategies are exclusively possessor-oriented. The Welsh 1st person singular shows a tendency towards a possessor-based split with a formal correlate. The occasional omission of 3rd person prefixed possessive pronouns is also reported for older written Scots Gaelic (Calder 1980: 166–167). However, this and the other pragmatic distinctions mentioned above have nothing to do with alienability unless it can be shown that the omission of the possessive pronoun of the 1st singular in Welsh is possible only with possessees of certain semantic classes (say, kinship terms or the like). We do not have sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis. The distinction of alienable and inalienable possession enters the scene in a different context. Irish has a kind of partitive possessive construction in which the noun cuid ‘portion, share, part’ functions as the formal possessee upon which a noun in the plural (or a singulare tantum) – the semantic possessee – depends (B203). (B203)

Irish (Ó Siadhail 1989: 49) tá mo chuid leabhartha féin anseo exi my Lpart book:pl own here ‘My own books are here.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

This partitive construction however, is restricted to those possessive relations which are considered alienable. Inalienable relations allow for a direct combination of possessive pronoun and pluralised possessee, as in mo chos-a {my} {Lfoot}-{pl} ‘my feet’ (cois ‘foot’) whereas alienable plural possessees require the partitive construction (Ó Siadhail 1989: 49). Expectedly, inalienable concepts are mainly body-parts and kinship relations to which a short list of other concepts has to be added (see below). In Goidelic, the distinction of alienable and inalienable possessees is formally relevant, although several authors concur as to the imminent disintegration of the system in Scots Gaelic (Calder 1980: 290; MacAulay 1992: 200; Lamb 2003: 33). Byrne (2004: 71) however depicts the situation in a different way, presumably because of his normative ideas. Where inalienable (and preferably definite) possessees are generally compatible with a possessive pronoun in Scots Gaelic, alienable possessees often require the possessor to be the pronominal complement of a preposition independent of definiteness. There are several prepositions which may be used in alienable possessive constructions: aig ‘at, on’, le ‘with’ and do ‘to’ all of which also have a variety of non-possessive functions. MacAulay (1992: 200) mentions a bhean agam ‘my wife’ (lit. ‘the wife at me’), taigh leam ‘a house of mine’ (lit. ‘a house with me’) and bràthair dhomh ‘a brother of mine’ (lit. ‘a brother to me’). As in Maltese and some of the North Germanic languages, the contracted marital relationship (husband/wife) is a borderline case, cf. (B204.2) where we find the construction used with inalienable possessees. The class of inalienable possessees is comprised of several semantic sub-classes to which clothes and things one carries along belong. (B204)

Scots Gaelic

(B204.1)

Alienable (Mackinnon 1975: 29) an e seo an taigh ag-ad-sa interr he this det house at-2sg-emph.2sg ‘Is this your house?’

(B204.2)

Inalienable: kinship (Lamb 2003: 31) thuit a’ chlach air cas mo fall:past det stone on foot my ‘The stone fell on my wife’s foot.’

mhnà Lwife:gen

(B204.3)

Inalienable: body part (Mackinnon 1975: 174) eòin bhig tha do sgiath briste bird.voc small be your wing broken ‘Little bird, your wing is broken.’

(B204.4)

Inalienable: clothes (Mackinnon 1975: 173) thig a steach a Dhòmhnaill agus cuir dhiot do chòta come inside voc LDonald and put off:2sg your Lcoat ‘Come in, Donald, and take off your coat.’

More generally, the few data we have access to already attest to a relatively lax application of the above rules. For East Sutherland Gaelic, Dorian (1978: 97–98) accordingly observes that

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

[t]he possessives are restricted in use to certain semantic domains. They are used primarily with inalienables (e.g., body parts, kinship terms) and with items worn or carried on the person (e.g., clothing, the contents of the pockets). Elsewhere they are so rare that a thoughtful informant […] doubted the existence of a Gaelic word for ‘our’. […] Particularly in the plural, however, and particularly for younger speakers, there is a tendency to use circumlocutions with the preposition aig /ig/ ‘at’. This preposition is universally used for possessive constructions where the noun modified does not fall within the semantic domains specified above […]. Even within the domains where possessives (or at least first and second person singular possessives) are common, the construction with /ig/ competes.

This scenario combines three tendencies: •  firstly, the reduction of semantic domains in which possessive pronouns can be used; •  secondly, the reduction of possessor categories which allow for possessive pronouns; •  thirdly, the on-going ousting of the possessive pronouns by the PPs.

Nevertheless, in Scots Gaelic, the erstwhile more stable system has not yet been lost completely, as examples like (B205) demonstrate. (B205)

Scots Gaelic (Lamb 2003: 76) sgioblaich an seòmar ag-ad agus nigh d’ aodach tidy:imp det room at-2sg and wash:imp your clothe:pl cuideachd also ‘Tidy your room and wash your clothes too!’

In this utterance, we find two possessive relations with identical possessors in the 2nd person singular. Their adjacency notwithstanding, the two imperative clauses allow for two differently construed possessive phrases. The word for ‘room’ (seòmar) belongs to the alienable concepts and accordingly requires the possessor to be pronominally expressed within a PP, whereas the possessee aodach ‘clothes’ qualifies as something treated like an inalienable concept (cf. the above quote from Dorian 1978) which explains why the proper possessive pronoun is used. This co-existence of the two constructions in one and the same utterance is suggestive of a certain vitality of the old system – no matter how far its disintegration has already advanced in modern spoken Scots Gaelic. A number of structural reasons may be held responsible for this rapidly progressing process of replacement. In Irish, for instance, the use of possessive pronouns is excluded from constructions which involve a demonstrative – in these cases the reduced variant of the inflected prepositions ag ‘at, on’ or le ‘with’ have to be used in combination with the emphatic suffixes (B206).



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B206)

Irish

(B206.1)

Demonstrative + pronominal possessor I (Ó Siadhail 1989: 83) tá an teach sin ‘am-sa go deas be det book this at:1sg-emph.1sg very nice ‘This book of mine is very nice.’

(B206.2)

Demonstrative + pronominal possessor II [LPP Irish I, 10] thaispéain mé an sárshaothar seo liom show:past.hab I det masterpiece this with:1sg do na daoine móra to det.pl people.pl big:pl ‘I showed this masterpiece of mine to the grown-ups.’

Another factor which might be held responsible for the decline of the old Scots Gaelic possession split is multiply embedded possessive constructions. In (B207), there is a possessor chain consisting of a lexical possessor (dorn ‘fist’) which is the possessee of the pronominal possessor encoded in the PP. (B207)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 98) dé tha ceàrr air [cùlPUM2 [an dùirnPUM1/POR2 [ag-adPOR1]]] what be wrong on back det fist.gen at-2sg ‘What is wrong with the back of your hand?’

The grammatically possible NP do dhuirn ‘of your fist’ with the possessive pronoun is less viable in the given syntactic context because the construction is potentially too heavy. The same applies to those cases where the noun representing the possessee is modified especially by pre-nominal elements such as ordinal numerals (B208). (B208)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 161) seo Calum an ceathramh mac ag-am this Calum det fourth son at-1sg ‘This is Calum, my fourth son.’

The common bond between (B207)–(B208) is the fact that the slot to the left of the possessee is already occupied, and thus a potential landing site of the possessive pronoun is blocked. This explanation however cannot account for usual construction like bràthair m’athar ‘my uncle (lit. my father’s brother)’ or fuaim a gutha ‘the sound of her voice’ in which the possessive pronouns mo ‘my’ and a ‘her’ are intercalated between two nouns. Nevertheless, the use of possessive pronouns is less likely to occur the heavier the possessee is syntactically. What occurs relatively often in the Scots Gaelic material is the preference for the possessive PP in those contexts where the possessee noun is itself the complement of a PP (B209). (B209)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 62)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B209.1)

Possessive pronoun gheàrr mi m’ òrdag cut I my thumb ‘I cut my thumb.’

(B209.2)

PP tha gearradh [air an òrdaig [ag-am]PP]PP be cut on det thumb:gen at-1sg ‘There is a cut on my thumb.’

In the absence of any statistical data, we cannot claim that this pattern is more frequent than others. However, the phenomenon supports the hypothesis that syntactic weight has a say in the choice of the possessive construction. Definiteness too is at least partially responsible for the formal distinctions we encounter in Scots Gaelic and Irish. Indefinite possessees go together with a prepositionally encoded possessor. However, there are several PPs which compete with each other. As far as we understand the system, le ‘with’ is used predominantly with alienable possessees whereas do ‘to’ is employed with kinship terms especially (air ‘on’ is also used in possessive contexts but does not seem to occur in attribution [Byrne 2004: 72], see section 4.3.2). All in all, the extant descriptions of Irish are less explicit about possession splits. The use of le ‘with’ as prepositional head in the possessive construction is portrayed as triggered by the indefiniteness of the possessee (leabhar liom-sa {book} {with:1sg}-{emph.1sg} ‘a book of mine’ vs. mo leabhar {my} {book} ‘my book’ [Dillon & Ó Cróinín 1980: 84]). This is exactly what is postulated for Scots Gaelic in MacAulay (1992). However, the use of le in both languages can be contrasted with the use of aig/ag. The use of le generally implies that the possessee forms part of a more extended set of similar items, i.e., Irish leabhar liomsa ‘a book of mine’ is appropriate if the possessor owns more than one book. The preposition aig/ag does not necessarily invite this reading, i.e., it is neutral as to the number of potential possessees. The use of Scots Gaelic do is restricted to indefinite possessees representing kinship relations. Table (B210) summarises these findings for Scots Gaelic. Grey shading indicates the absence of formal expressions for a given combination of features. (B210) Parameters for the use of attributive constructions with pronominal possessor in Scots Gaelic definiteness

pronoun

PP do

definite inalienable indefinite kin

ag

le

POR heavy ±alienable, single ±alienable, single

POR heavy ±alienable, set ±alienable, set



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

For Irish, the descriptive grammars are relatively uninformative as to possible possession splits. Except for the remarks on alienability-based distinctions in the partitive possessive construction and the exclusion of possessive pronouns from constructions which involve a demonstrative, the general impression is that there are no semantically motivated possessive categories. One could understand the extant descriptions in the following way: there are no restrictions on the use of the possessive pronoun – and the PPs are largely confined to constructions with syntactically heavy possessees. However, this is not the whole story. First of all, the use of ag for the purpose of encoding possessive relations is extremely common. In the first nine chapters of the Irish version of the first Harry Potter novel, we counted 62 instances of ag introducing a pronominal possessor (for the combination of ag with lexical possessor see section 4.3.1.2). Like many other prepositions (in all members of the Celtic phylum), Irish ag has a paradigm of so-called pronominal forms, i.e., the preposition is inflected for person (and the person is the pronominal complement of the preposition). Table (B211) surveys the various paradigmatic forms of the inflected preposition. (B211)

Pronominal forms of Irish ag

neutral

focus

person

long

short

1st sg 2nd sg 3rd sg.m 3rd sg.f 1st pl 2nd pl 3rd pl

agam ‘am agat ‘ad aige aice againn ‘ainn agaibh acu

long

short

agamsa ‘amsa agatsa ‘adsa aigesan aicese againne ‘ainne agaibhse acusan

While syntactic weight is indeed an important factor which facilitates the use of the PP in lieu of the possessive pronoun, there are other criteria which have a say in the choice of construction. Only 17 of the 96 cases found in the 262 pages of the Irish Harry Potter involve a demonstrative accompanying the possessee. Thus, for 82% of the attestations, there must be a different reason for the use of the PP. We provide a full list of those 67 uncontroversial cases which are interesting for the issue at hand in Table (B212). Possessees and pronominal forms of ag are highlighted by boldface. The examples appear in the following order: kinship, body parts, clothes and things to wear on one’s body, house and home (including furniture), ordinary concrete objects, abstract concepts. The page numbers refer to the Irish translation of Harry Potter book I.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B212)

Ag + pronominal possessor in Irish page Irish

translation

1 an spreasán beag d’fhear céile aici 41 ón mbúiste mór ramhar de mhac agat 90 ag na deartháireacha móra agat 119 an dá leathchúpla de dheartháireacha agat 258 deartháir liom … an deartháir is óige agam 7 chaolaigh na súile aige 22 na súile bioracha aici 22 na súile aici 70 na súile geala aisteacha úd aige 233 na súile beaga mailíseacha aige 100 thar na súile aici 234 leis na cloigne móra aige 142 nach mbrisfeadh sí an tsrón aige 200 as na polláirí aige 10 ar an ngualainn aici 12 idir na lámha móra groí aige 19 agus an aghaidh mhór chorcra aige 124 an aghaidh bhán aige 50 ar an tóin mhór ramhar aige 92 sna leicne bána aige 223 ar chúl an mhuiníl acu 92 crochta as an méar aige 97 faoin gcluais chlé aige 147 na cluasa fada aige 122 bhodhraigh sí na cluasa acu 117 na sciatháin agus na cosa aige 132 an sciathán agat 119 na fiacla acu 136 as na fiacla buí aige 199 na fiacla beaga bioracha aige 147 gach lorga aige chomh ramhar le stoc crainn 217 na cosa fada caola aige 235 ar chaol na gcos aici 155 os cionn na nglún aige 236 ag fáscadh an chléibh aige 218 an colm aige

her good-for-nothing husband your fat stuffing of a son of your older brothers your two twin brothers A brother of mine … my younger brother his eyes narrowed her sharp eyes her eyes his strange white eyes his small malignant eyes over her eyes with his little heads that she wouldn’t break his nose in his nostrils on her shoulders between his large strong hands and his very pink face his pale face on his big fat bottom over his pale cheeks on the back of their necks hanging from his finger under his left ear his long ears she deafened their ears his arms and legs your arm their teeth from his yellow teeth his little pointed teeth every shin of him as thick as a tree trunk his long slender legs on her slender feet over his kneecaps of the tightness of his chest his scar



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits  2 an carbhat ba neamhfheiceálaí aige 11 amharc sciobtha ar an gclóca aige 17 ar an gcloigeann mór ramhar aige 12 faoi na buataisí leathair aige 20 ar na spéaclaí aige 126 agus na spéaclaí aici 128 thar bharr na spéaclaí aici 15 isteach sa seomra suí acu 113 sa seomra aige 31 sa chéad seomra leapa aige 46 tháinig sé chuig an teach agaibh 107 imirt don teach agat féin 109 go dtí suanlios is acusan 231 an suanlios dorcha acu féin 140 faoin leaba aige 174 thar cholbha na leapa aige féin 113 thar bharr na deisce aige 103 sa rang aici 145 as an tslat aici féin 167 ar bhior na slaite aige 162 ar cheann de na scuaba acu féin 34 isteach sa mhála spóirt aige 256 ar an gcarn de bhocsaí milseán aige 17 thar bharr an nuachtáin aige 118 ar chúl an choire acu féin 22 an ghlóir Uachtar ard aige 171 sa chéad bhronntanas eile aige 92 go bhfuil greann san ainm agam 230 i scrúdú is aigesean 115 aoin gcéad seachtain agat 162 filleadh ar an seanchleas aige

his most boring tie a quick look at his watch on his very big watch under his leather boots on his spectacles and her spectacles over the rim of her spectacles into their sitting room in his room his first bedroom he looked for your house play for your own house to their dormitories (= sleeping houses) their own dark dormitories under his bed over the side of his own bed over the rim of his desk in her class from her own cane to the point of his cane behind the sticks of their own brooms into his sports bag on the pile of his sweet boxes over the rim of his newspaper behind his own cauldron his knickerbocker glory to his second gift you think my name is funny to his examination about your first week he returned to his old trick

These examples are telling because they attest to a pronounced tendency. Except for the seven cases marked boldface (where the possessee NP is either the subject or the direct object of a clause), all constructions in Table (B212) involve possessee NPs which are either complements of PPs or part of a possessor chain or are syntactically heavy because of the co-presence of attributes (be they proper attributes or compound-like structures). For many of the possessees listed in (B212), there are examples of combinations with the proper possessive pronoun in the same text. However, these cases are overwhelmingly simple or light NPs like [HP Irish I, 166] Ron agus a dheartháireacha

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

{Ron} {and} {his} {Lbrother:pl} ‘Ron and his brothers’. Thus, a higher degree of syntactic complexity indeed favours the use of ag. Semantically, we find several classes of possessees ranging from kinship to body parts and concrete objects to abstract concepts. Superficially, the distribution of ag does not seem to obey any semantic motivation. However, there are areas in which ag is given preference over other possessive relators. Ag is preferred if the attributes accompanying the possessee have a transient or pejorative/negative character. In Table (B212), single underlining marks proper pejorative expressions, double underlining identifies those cases in which negative properties are attributed and dotted underlining shows emphatic style. 13 instances can be accounted for in this way. Whether or not this list could be extended to also cover those cases which describe augmentative-like/excessive-like attributes (= very big, very fat, etc.) cannot be decided on our relatively small empirical basis. In addition, the preposition is employed to distinguish temporary possession from permanent possession (= the newspaper one is reading without “owning” it, the cauldron with which one is working without “owning” it, etc.). Permanence is associated more readily with the possessive pronoun, transience goes along with the use of the PP. Especially telling is the example deartháir liom … an deartháir is óige agam ‘a brother of mine … my younger brother’ where two prepositional possessives occur: the first one, involving the preposition le ‘with’, is used to convey the information that there is not only one brother; the second one, involving the preposition ag ‘at’, individualises the possessee as there is only one younger brother. Accordingly, the kinship term combines with the definite article which is inadmissible in the preceding construction. Like in the insular North Germanic languages (see previous sections), the rules for the appropriate use of the Irish possessive constructions combine semantic, syntactic and pragmatic aspects in a rather intricate network of criteria. Interestingly, only two out of 67 cases in Table (B211) contain focus markers. Pejorative/negative/emphatic connotations for instance, are often conveyed by constructions which involve the possessive ag. However, pejorative/nega­tive/emphatic constructions tend to be syntactically complex and thus it cannot be decided whether the use of ag is triggered by the stylistic-pragmatic factor alone, or by the fact that the construction is complex. Since the latter property is sufficient to call forth the prepositional strategy in Irish the easiest solution takes syntactic complexity as the basic condition. Syntactic complexity may then be employed (epiphenomenally) for various purposes – among which pejorative language is one of the established patterns. However, there are possessive constructions which involve ag although they are syntactically simple. For the Brythonic languages, the picture looks partly different in the realm of pronominal possession. For Breton, Ternes (1992: 403) states that possessives “are invariable with respect to the possessed object” (but see below) while the issue of potential possession splits in attribution is not even touched upon in the extant descriptions of Welsh. Where possession splits are mentioned (mostly indirectly) they are described



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

as involving predicative constructions (Williams 1980: 138). Before we look more closely at this matter, we will briefly review those instances which are in line with the idea sketched above. As a matter of fact, possessive pronouns combine with all kinds of definite possessees in both Brythonic languages. In (B213)–(B214) we provide a short selection of illustrative examples. (B213)

Welsh

(B213.1)

Kin [LPP Welsh IV, 27] faint mae ei dad e ‘n ennill how_much be.3sg his father emph.3sg.m in earn ‘How much does his father earn?’

(B213.2)

Body part [LPP Welsh XXXVI, 171] fu dim byd ond fflach o olau melyn yno be.past any thing but flash of light yellow there yn agos i ‘w figwrn in near to his lankle ‘There was nothing but a yellow falsh of light next to his ankle.’

(B213.3)

Concrete object [LPP Welsh III, 4] pan welodd e fy awyren i gyntaf when see:past.3sg he my plane emph.1sg first ‘When he saw my plane for the first time…’

(B213.4)

Abstract possessee [LPP Welsh III, 2] doedd e byth yn edrych neg:be:past.3sg he ever in look fel petai e ‘n clywed fy ngwestiynau i like if he in hear my Nquestion:pl emph.1sg ‘He never seemed to even hear my questions.’

(B214)

Breton

(B214.1)

Kin [LPP Breton IV, 27] pegement e c’houanes e dad how_much he earn his father ‘How much does his father earn?’

(B214.2)

Body part [LPP Breton XXVI, 71] ne voe nemet ul luc’hedenn velen e-kichen e neg be.past.3sg except indef flash yellow near his ufern ankle ‘There was nothing but a yellow flash next to his ankle.’

(B214.3)

Concrete object [LPP Breton III, 9] va c’harr-nij eo my plane be.pres.3sg ‘It is my plane.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B214.4)

Abstract possessee [LPP Breton VII, 26] ar priñs bihan a zirenkas adarre va soñjezonoú det prince little rel disturb again my thought:pl ‘The Little Prince disturbed my thoughts again.’

Moreover, even the syntactic complexity of the possessee NP does not seem to trigger any changes. Unfortunately, our sample text does not contain many examples of heavy possessees. The few there are however, suggest that syntactic weight is not decisive in the matter at hand. The examples in (B215) show that the possessive pronoun is also used with heavy possessees (in this case, complexity is achieved via NP apposition in the first pair of sentences; the second pair exemplifies adjectival attribution). (B215)

Heavy possessee

(B215.1)

Welsh [LPP Welsh I, 20] roedd methiant fy narluniau rhif 1 a 2 dec:be:past.3sg failure my Npicture:pl number 1 and 2 wedi fy nigalonni after my Ndiscourage ‘The failure of my pictures no. 1 and 2 had discouraged me.’

(B215.2)

Breton [LPP Breton I, 20] digalonekaet e oan bet gant c’hwitadenn va discourage conj be.1sg.pret be.part with failure my zresadenn niverenn unan ha va zresadenn niverenn daou Hpicture number one and my Hpicture number two ‘I was discouraged by the failure of my picture number one and my picture number two.’

(B215.3)

Welsh [LPP Welsh VI, 17] ond ar dy blaned fechan di but on your Lplanet Lsmall emph.2sg roedd hi ‘i ddigon i-ti symud dy stôl L dec:be:past.3sg she her enough for-you move your stool ychydig o gamau few of step:pl ‘But on your little planet, it was enough for you to move your stool a little.’

(B215.4)

Breton [LPP Breton VI, 17] hogen war da blanedenn ken bihan a-walc’h oa but on your Lplanet so small enough be.past.3sg dit sachañ da gador eus un nebeut kammedoù for:you pull your Lchair of indef bit step:pl ‘However, on your planet so small, it was enough for you to pull your chair for a few steps.’

Other examples in the translations of Le petit prince are Welsh fy narlun cyntaf {my} {Npicture} {first}/Breton va zresadenn gentañ {my} {picture} {first} ‘my first



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

picture’, Welsh fy monheddwr bach i {my} {Ngentleman} {little} {emph.1sg} ‘my little master’, Welsh ei wallt melyn {his} {Lhair} {yellow}, etc. Superficially, everything looks as if there are no systematic distinctions in Brythonic pronominal possession. However, this is not entirely true. In the Welsh Geiriadur (1987: 1991), we find sub 〈i〉 [5a], the indication that this preposition is also used in attributive possession especially when expressing possessive kinship relations. Owing to the historical dimension which is so prominent in the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, the examples given for this usage of i ‘to’ are several hundred years old and it is difficult to interpret them without additional contextual information. Moreover, the sample text (= Le Petit Prince) does not contain any pertinent example of possessive i. This absence of the construction from one of the central pieces of our corpus is however easily explained. Firstly, kinship relations are rare in Le Petit Prince – and where they occur they are definite. In definite contexts however, the use of the preposition i is excluded (although the literature we consulted remains silent on this issue). We encounter i in those constructions where the possessee is indefinite (and therefore the construction has a certain partitive-like reading). Examples with a pronominal possessor are relatively hard to come by. (B216) is one of the very few instances we were able to collect. (B216)

Welsh

(B216.1)

Sister [Ditectifs 8] petai Twm yn chwaer i fi if_it_were Tom in sister to me gallen ni siarad am ddillad a phethau can:1pl we talk about clothes and thing:pl ‘If Tom was a sister of mine, we could talk about clothes and things.’

(B216.2)

Brother [Ditectifs 33] mae Twm yn frawd i fi be.3sg Tom in Lbrother to me ‘Tom is a brother to me.’

Superficially, constructions of this kind resemble proper partitive constructions as illustrated by (B217) drawn from the same source. (B217)

Welsh [Ditectifs 9] enwau dwy ohonyn nhw yw Ali name:pl two.f from:3pl they be.3sg Ali ‘The names of two of them are Ali and Sam.’

a and

Sam Sam

In (B217) the inflected preposition o ‘from’ is used to encode a prototypical partitive relationship: the two girls whose names are introduced form part of a group of friends i.e., Ali and Sam are two individuals included in the set of friends of the speaker. The use of o thus presupposes that there is a larger entity which includes the entities in focus. This however, is not the case for i ‘to’. Admittedly, one of the possible interpretations

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

of a construction like the one in (B215) is that there are several possible referents of the possessee noun chwaer ‘sister’. However, the i-construction does not necessarily require this reading. As a matter of fact, the speaker who produces (B216.1) has only one sibling, namely her younger brother Tom. Thus, the translation of the possessive NP chwaer i fi is not necessarily ‘one of my sisters’ but rather ‘some/a sister of mine’ with the implication that it is irrelevant whether or not there are other female siblings. At the same time, a definite reading is ruled out since definiteness triggers the use of the possessive pronoun (= fy chwaer ‘my sister’). Likewise, in (B216.2), the same speaker talks about her brother Tom again explaining why she has stepped in on his behalf on a given occasion because Tom “is her brother after all”. Tom is her only brother (even her only sibling) and thus one would expect the definite possessive construction. However, in (B216.2) the construction does not directly refer to an individual (= the brother) but rather to the general relationship between siblings. In this case, brawd i fi ‘a brother to me’ is neither fully referential nor does it presuppose that there are several possible referents for the noun brawd. Therefore, the i-construction cannot be subsumed fully under partitive relations. It is the construction for indefinite kinship possession. Outside this functional domain, the preposition i has a variety of other tasks to fulfil some of which border on possession (such as [Ditectifs 38] ond rhaid i ti fynd â hi’n ôl {but} {necessity} {to} {you} {go} {with} {3sg.f} {in} {back} ‘but you must take her back’). For reasons of space, we will not investigate these cases. The possession split in Welsh pronominal possession is grammatically relevant only on the parameter of definiteness: indefinite kin possessees behave differently from other indefinite possessees (for which we have not identified a standard construction type, although it is likely that the partitive construction is used here as well). Press (1986: 98) mentions the following triplet of constructions for Breton (B218). (B218)

Breton X

possessee

Y

gloss

he {her} he {her} ur {indef}

breur- {brother}- breur {brother} breur {brother}

hi {emph.3sg.f} dezhi {of.her} dezhi {of.her}

her brother her brother a brother of hers

The first two examples illustrate cases of possessor focus. According to Press (1986: 99), the very first alternative with the suffixed pronoun is not the best choice. Stylistically, the second option is preferred. The two emphatic constructions share the pre-nominal possessive pronoun he ‘her’. This feature is absent from the third construction where the leftmost slot of the construction is occupied by the indefinite article ur, i.e., the possessee



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

is indefinite. This indefinite construction shares the use of the post-nominal PP which contains the inflected preposition da ‘to’ with the stylistically preferred emphatic construction. In addition to examples of kinship possession, Faverau (1997: 428) also includes other kinds of relations down to proper part-whole relationships like ur rod d’ar velo ‘a wheel of the bicycle’. Nevertheless, as with Welsh i-constructions, indefinite kin relations seem to be at the heart of the functional domain of Breton da-constructions. Interestingly, Press (1986: 100) also mentions the use of the possessive PP in constructions with inanimate possessees. He contrasts e-l levr dezhañ {in}-{det} {book} {to.3sg.m} ‘in his book’ – which is classified as acceptable – with *al levr dezhañ {det} {book} {to.3sg.m} ‘his book’ – which passes as “odd”. The construction is therefore fine when embedded in another PP. In an ungoverned NP however, the animacy constraint seems to be at work. We will look more closely at these Brythonic constructions in the subsequent section which is devoted to genitive constructions. To conclude this section, we summarise our insights into the nature of Brythonic pronominal possession in Table (B219). The distribution of the PPs over classes of possessees or other potential head nouns is simplified. (B219) Parameters for the use of attributive constructions with pronominal possessor in Brythonic language Welsh Breton

possessee definite possessive pronoun possessive pronoun

indefinite PUM i POR /[kin] PUM da POR/[kin]

other other

Within the Celtic phylum, Goidelic languages display a clear tendency towards possession splits, which is most pronounced (though currently changing) in Scots Gaelic. Alienability, definiteness, syntactic weight and pragmatic factors together determine which of several possessive constructions is the best option in a given context. For Irish, the picture is less clear although many traits of the Irish possessive system point in the same direction as Scots Gaelic. In contrast to the Goidelic branch, Brythonic languages are largely immune to pragmatic factors and syntactic weight when shaping their possession splits with pronominal possessors. In this area, none of the criteria from syntax and pragmatics is strong enough to require that special constructions be used. However, indefiniteness together with kinship constitutes a combination of features which triggers formal possession splits in all members of the Celtic phylum including the two Brythonic languages. These properties also recur in the genitive constructions which are the topic of the next section.

4.3.1.2  Genitive constructions In the Celtic languages, proper genitive constructions as such are less clearly governed by semantic criteria than expected on the basis of our knowledge of the previously discussed

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

languages of other phyla. Possession splits are hard to identify. Even syntactic weight appears to play less of a role than in the case of pronominal possession. Thus, one may consider genitive constructions an area where potential distinctions are largely neutralised. Brythonic and Goidelic languages differ in one respect: the members of the latter branch have preserved part of the inherited case inflections on nouns whereas neither Welsh nor Breton marks case on nouns via bound morphology. Both Scots Gaelic and Irish have relatively small paradigms in which the genitive is systematically distinguished from other inflected forms of the same noun. For Scots Gaelic, Byrne (2004: 31–32) observes that the inflectional genitive – termed possessive case by him – is the one position in the paradigm where “the noun changes most obviously”, although “[n]ot every noun changes its ending in the Possessive Case, but special forms in this case are still very common”. The term possessive case is perhaps somewhat misleading as it is also regularly used in combination with a variety of simple prepositions (e.g., chun ‘to’) and all compound prepositions (e.g., ri taobh ‘on top’) (Byrne 2004: 81–82). We therefore use the traditional label genitive here. The nouns which are exempt from formal marking of the genitive have certain phonological properties: they either end in a palatal (“slender”) consonant or in a vowel. Nouns ending in -{achd} also do not have distinct genitives (Byrne 2004: 35). Only in this last mentioned group does the inability to form the genitive morphologically seem to be semantically based as the nouns with this ending are usually abstract. The major strategy of forming the genitive is by internal modification, namely either by vowel alternation or by palatalisation (“slenderisation”) of the stem-final consonant (for palatal stem-final consonants the opposite process applies, namely depalatalisation [“deslenderisation”]. In addition, feminine nouns may take the affix -{e} (for so-called slender nouns the affix is -{a}) either with or without accompanying internal modification of the noun. Feminine nouns in -ir take the genitive -r(e)ach (i.e., there is syncope of the -i- and the nouns optionally depalatalise the stem-final rhotic and add a special suffix -{ach}). Examples are given in (B220) where boldface marks those segments of the genitive which attest to internal modification and/or affixation. (B220)

Scots Gaelic genitives nominative

genitive

gloss

cat sruthan cluas sròn fear cas athair fuil litir

cait sruthain cluaise sròine fir coise athar fala litreach

cat river ear nose man foot father blood letter



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

For the plural, the genitive coincides with the nominative singular of a given noun – with the appropriate initial mutation (for instance, aspiration for the feminine noun cas ‘foot’ → genitive plural chas). In addition, the definite article is sensitive to the genitive so its forms display systematic alternations (nan = genitive plural ‘of the’ vs. na = nominative plural). In the singular, masculine nouns in the genitive are lenited when preceded by the definite article as in [uisge]PUM [an t-sruthain]POR {water} {def} {Lriver:gen} ‘the water of the river’ where lenition manifests itself in the prothetic dental plosive which is only characteristic of sibilant-initial nouns (Byrne 2004: 22). The above example already leads us to the morphosyntax of genitive constructions. The order in which possessor and possessee occur in genitive constructions is the same for all Celtic languages independent of the syntactic composition of the construction, meaning: the possessee always precedes the possessor under the condition that both are represented by lexical NPs. The possessor also occurs to the right of the possessee when the possessor noun is governed by a preposition. Thus, linearisation does not play a role in potential possessive splits because it is invariably PUM > POR. In constructions based on the inflectional genitive (and not on prepositions) as relator, only the possessor noun may be overtly marked for definiteness. This rule is reminiscent of what we have learned about the construct state in Maltese in section 4.1.1.2 above. In (B221) we survey the genitive forms of the masculine noun cat ‘cat’ in an appropriate syntactic context. (B221)

Scots Gaelic genitive constructions (Mackinnon 1975: 91) PUM ceann ceann cinn cinn

article a’ nan

POR

gloss

cait chait chat cat

a cat’s head the cat’s head cats’ heads the heads of the cat

There are thus altogether four different forms in which the possessor noun may be realised; varying according to number, definiteness and also – indirectly – gender. Generally, the genitive construction of the above kind can be used with all classes of possessees and likewise with all kinds of possessors. However, it remains to be seen whether or not there is a pre-posed preference for certain relations to be more often encoded by constructions involving the inflectional genitive. It suffices to look at the examples provided by Mackinnon (1975: 93–95). With a view to teaching the proper use of the genitive to learners of Scots Gaelic, the author enumerates dozens of constructions in the exercises accompanying the various lessons devoted to this topic. It is interesting to see from which semantic fields the lexical nouns which participate in the constructions stem. A selection of cases (only masculine possessors) is given in (B222) – note that these cases reflects only “simple” combinations of possessor and possessee

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

and not possessor chains with embedded genitives (which are never inflected for the genitive, cf. spòg cat Sheumais {paw} {cat} {James:gen} ‘James’s cat’s paw [and not *spòg cait Sheumais with the genitive of cat (Mackinnon 1975: 92)]). (B222)

Scots Gaelic PUM

article

POR

gloss

ceann ròin a seal’s head earball an uain the lamb’s tail sgeir nan ròn the seals’ reef crò nan uan the lambs’ fold leabhar a’ bhàird the poet’s book brògan a’ bhalaich the boy’s shoes bata a’ bhodaich the old man’s walking stick bonaid an Albannaich the Scotsman’s bonnet bascaid a’ bhoireannaich the woman’s basket bascaidean bhoireannach women’s baskets each an Dòmhnullaich the McDonalds’ house gunnachan an airm the army’s guns glas an doruis the door’s lock iuchair an doruis the door’s key mullach an dùin the top of the fort greim arain a bite of bread fonn an òrain the tune of the song dath an òir the colour of gold aois an t-saoghail the age of the world tonann a’ chuain the ocean’s waves deàrrsadh an t-soluis the shining of the light iasgach nan giomach lobster-fishing

This list covers the full array of possible classes of relations. There are animate and inanimate possessees and there are animate and inanimate possessors, too. The examples include both definite and indefinite cases. Moreover, both numbers are represented in the above inventory. The relations attested in (B222) comprise body-part possession, part-whole relations, nominalisations, proper partitives, conventional combinations, clothes, artefacts, other alienable possessees, etc. Thus, there is no reason to assume that the use of the genitive is determined by semantic factors. The inflectional genitive may be termed neutral as to potential semantically-based possession splits. As with pronominal possession, there is an optional formal distinction which is relatively less strictly observed in modern Scots Gaelic. For many possessee-possessor combinations, it is possible to avoid the inflectional genitive in lieu of which a preposition is used as relator morpheme. The preposition aig ‘at’ – which we already encountered



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

in the previous section 4.3.1.1 (specifically examples [B204–209]) – is the prime candidate for the relator function in these cases (Byrne 2004: 71). In these constructions, both possessor and possessee may be overtly marked for definiteness: [an gèam]PUM [aig [a’ bhalach]POR]PP {def} {game} {at} {def} {boy} ‘the boy’s game’. In the descriptions of Scots Gaelic, the ubiquity of aig in possessive contexts is emphasised time and again. MacAulay (1992: 192) provides interesting examples of the parallel behaviour of the inflectional genitive and the preposition aig in possessor chains as in bàta mac Iain mac Sheumais mac Dhomhnaill {boat} {son} {Iain.gen} {son} {James:gen} {son} {Donald:gen} ‘the son of Iain son of James son of Donald’s boat’ where it is actually doubtful whether or not this is a genuine case of embedding or apposition. This is contrasted with am bàta aig a’ bhalach aig an nighinn aig Iain {det} {boat} {at} {det} {Lboy} {at} {det} {girl} {at} {Iain} ‘Iain’s daughter’s boy’s boat’. Given that these two possessor chains are perhaps not fully compatible, we do not dare draw any conclusions on their basis. MacAulay (1992: 199) discusses noun-phrase possessives. He does not indicate whether there are any criteria determining the choice of the inflectional genitive and the prepositional strategy. However, he observes that two prepositions are in complementary distribution, namely again aig ‘at’, which is used with definite possessees and le ‘with’ which is used with indefinite ones, cf. an cù aig a’ bhalach {det} {dog} {at} {det} {Lboy} ‘the boy’s dog’ vs. cù leis a’ bhalach {dog} {with} {det} {Lboy} ‘a dog of the boy’s’. This distribution determined by definiteness of the possessee fits in with what we observed for pronominal possession in the previous section, cf. (B210). However, the division line is much less clear in the case of genitive constructions since the exact rules for the selection of the inflectional genitive are hard to establish. The system might be regarded as currently undergoing major re-adjustments to the extent that an erstwhile more clear-cut division along the lines of the alienability-inalienability distinction is turned into one that is based on definiteness criteria (perhaps in addition to syntactic weight). In some areas, the inflectional genitive is giving way to the prepositional strategy. However, it is relatively difficult to find evidence for the generalisation of aig in the written register. This failure to detect the expected is most probably occasioned by the widely shared view that the use of the preposition is a characteristic of informal oral style and thus not qualified for being used in literary products. Note that possessor chains do not necessarily require the use of the preposition i.e., syntactically heavy constructions are not systematically avoided in literary Scots Gaelic. Irish resembles Scots Gaelic in many respects. First of all, Irish nouns also inflect for the genitive and the morphological strategies employed, as well as the word-forms their application yields, are relatively similar to the ones we documented in (B220) above. It is therefore unnecessary to recapitulate the particulars of the morphology of the Irish genitive. Suffice it to say that internal modification is a common technique as in doras ‘door’ → genitive doiris, clog ‘watch’ → genitive cloig (with definite article: an chloig), leanbh ‘child’ → genitive linbh, but suffixation also occurs, as in súil

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

‘eye’ → genitive súlach. According to Ó Dochartaigh (1992: 55), the distribution of encoding strategies over possessive relations “is not entirely clear” although she expects that the inflectional genitive is typically used “in cases of inalienable possession – parts of the body, relations, clothes” whereas the PP headed by ag ‘at’ is said to be “more common in the case of third-person forms where alienable possession or proper names are involved or in partitive meaning”. Unfortunately, the latter part of the quote can only refer to pronominal possession, although Ó Dochartaigh (1992) includes the inflectional genitive in the first part of her discussion. As a matter of fact, the Irish instances of noun-noun combinations do not differ significantly from the picture painted for Scots Gaelic above. The inflectional genitive seems to be fairly general and not subject to strict semantic restrictions. This does not automatically exclude the possibility that there are other restrictions at work – for instance the one connected to syntactic weight. Ó Siadhail (1989: 149) postulates rules for the use of the inflectional genitive which we summarise synoptically in (B223). For brevity’s sake, we skip the discussion of the simple preposition chun ‘to(wards)’ which optionally takes its complement in the genitive. Fixed expressions and mensurative constructions are also not taken into account. (B223)

Irish: rules for the use of the inflectional genitive

HEAD

noun verb-noun compound preposition

ATTRIBUTE

definite article possessive pronoun

noun noun + attribute proper noun

possessee

possessor

With the exception of proper nouns, the attributive NPs share one property, namely they are comparatively complex in so far as they contain at least two constituents: article + noun, possessive pronoun + noun, or noun + attribute (with the attribute being potentially complex itself). This dependence of the genitive upon the syntactic weight of the attributive NP comes as a surprise because when we discussed the use of the preposition ag in constructions with a pronominal possessor (cf. [B212]) the following observation was made: the higher the syntactic weight of the construction the more likely the use of the preposition is. However, in the cases presented in section 4.3.1.2, what is syntactically heavy is the NP representing the possessee. In (B223) syntactic heaviness is a property of the possessor NP. One might ask whether the rules



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

established for pronominal possession would be applicable to genitive constructions if the possessee is represented by a complex NP. Since the grammars and description we consulted keep silent about this constellation, we will again take a closer look at one of our sample texts to check the data for instances of complex possessee NPs. The number of cases found in the first volume of the Harry Potter series comprises several hundred examples and thus cannot be handled easily within the limits of this study. We therefore select the most representative cases and the most striking examples on which the subsequent discussion is based. For a start, we scrutinise the examples in (B224). (B224)

Irish genitive constructions with heavy possessee I page

Irish

16 faoin gcarn mór de bhronntanais 45 pócaí lán de sceith fhroig 36 péire seanstocaí de chuid Uncail Vernon 14 le claonadh beag dá cheann 13 brat mór de chiarsúr ballach

translation under a huge pile of gifts pockets full of frog vomit a pair of old socks of Uncle Vernon’s with a slight inclination of his head a large cloak of a spotted hand kerchief

All five examples are instances of the preposition de ‘from, of ’ used to join two NPs to each other. Again in each example, the leftmost NP is complex as it consists of two words. Superficially, this looks like evidence for the idea that syntactically heavy possessees require the possessor to be part of a PP. However, on closer inspection, it turns out that none of the above cases qualifies for the status of proper possessive construction. The first two examples are measure phrases (pile/heap of, pocketful of), the final two examples belong to different categories which are rather remote from prototypical possession although there is of course a close connection between the head and the movement in which it is involved. The example in the bottom line of Table (B224) replaces a construction with an adjectival attribute indicating the hugeness of the cloth used by Hagrid. The example highlighted by grey shading is closest to possession, as the old socks indeed belonged to Uncle Vernon (before they were given as a birthday present to Harry Potter). The possessor NP is heavy as it not only contains the complex proper noun of the possessor but also the partitive possessive particle cuid ‘share’. On the basis of (B223), we would expect the construction to require the inflectional genitive (which is possible with the partitive particle according to Ó Siadhail [1989: 49]). Is this possibility blocked because of the syntactic heaviness of the possessee NP? Perhaps not as the following examples in (B225) suggest.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B225)

Irish genitive constructions with heavy possessee II page

Irish

37 páipéir fholmha na mbrioscán 40 ar páipéir chraptha na mbrioscán 2 i ngnáth-thranglam tráchta na maidine 22 i lúba donna na nathrach 3 feachtas amaideach poiblíochta

translation the empty bags of potato crisps the crumpled bags of potato crisps the usual traffic jam of the morning the brown coil of the snakes some foolish publicity campaign

Table (B224) contains five counter-examples to our above hypothesis: the leftmost NPs are all syntactically heavy but they nevertheless combine with a noun in the genitive – independent of the presence/absence of the definite article: the last example in (B224) has an indefinite genitive NP. Admittedly, (B224) does not provide prototypical instances of possessive relations either. Rather often, genitive constructions based on the inflectional genitive can be considered lexicalised or compounds (as in an lampa sráide {def} {lamp} {street:gen} ‘the street light’ where the feminine noun sráid ‘street’ obligatorily hosts the genitive suffix -{e}) i.e., they refer to “conventionalised” relations whereas the PP-strategy is employed for those possessive relations which are not fixed in the sense of conventionalisation. The more conventionalised a noun-noun combination, the less likely it is that one of the constituents is further specified by additional modifiers. The more attributes there are in a genitive construction, the more likely it is that the two combined nouns describe a more or less unique relationship. In the two Brythonic languages, the bare genitive construction resembles the construct state described for Maltese in section 4.1.1.2. The possessee occupies the leftmost slot of the construction and is never accompanied by the definite article, whereas the possessor NP to its right may be marked overtly for definiteness. Where Trépos (1980: 77–78) speaks of apparent exceptions to this rule we are dealing with regular compounds: an traez aot {det} {salt} {sea} ‘the sea salt’. Similarly, Welsh also has binary compounds which look like ordinary genitive constructions: het (yr) plismon ‘(the)/a policeman’s hat’ vs. yr het plismon ‘the policeman’s hat’ (Thomas 1992: 296). These cases can be left out of our study. King (1996: 38–40) insists on the recursiveness of the operation which yields a Welsh genitive construction, meaning: genitive constructions may be embedded in larger genitive constructions. If so, only the final possessor NP can be marked for definiteness: cath merch rheolwr y banc {cat} {daughter} {director} {det} {bank} ‘the cat of the bank director’s daughter’. The same observation holds for Breton: doriou kastell merc’h ar roue {door:pl} {castle} {daughter} {det} {king} ‘the gates of the castle of the king’s daughter’ (Trépos 1980: 77–78). Typical examples for the simple construction type are documented in (B226–227).



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B226)

Welsh [LPP Welsh V, 23] roedd [priddPOS [y blaned]POR] yn pingo ohonyn dec:be:past.3sg soil det Lplanet in infest.VN of:3pl nhw they ‘The soil of the planet was infested with them.’

(B227)

Breton [LPP Breton V, 23] [douarPOS [ar blanedenn]POR] a oa gwastet ganto soil det planet rel be.past destroy with:3sg.m ‘The soil of the planet was infested with them.’

These sentences exemplify a kind of part-whole relationship as the soil is included in the matter that constitutes the planet. Sentences (B228–229) express a more ownership-like relation. A trivial property of the Little Prince’s planet is described. (B228)

Welsh [LPP Welsh V, 22] roedd planhigion da a phlanhigion drwg ar dec:be:past.3sg plant:pl good and Aplant:pl bad on blaned y tywysog bach fel ar bob planed arall planet det prince small like on all planet other ‘There were good plants and bad plants on the planet of the Little Prince – like on every other planet.’

(B229)

Breton [LPP Breton 22] e gwirionez war blanedenn ar priñs bihan in truth on Lplanet det Prince small e oa evel war an holl blanedennoù conj be.past like on det every Lplanet:pl geot mat ha geot fall herb.coll good and herb.coll bad ‘In reality, on the little Prince’s planet like on any other planet, there were good herbs and bad herbs.’

In our sample texts, more extended possessor chains occasionally turn up, too, as in (B230) and thus it can be assumed that the above grammarian’s speculation about the potential open-endedness of the embedding of genitive constructions has some truth to it. (B230)

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 1] cyfarwyddwr cwmni cynhyrchu driliau director company produce.VN drill:pl o’r enw Grunnings oedd Vernon Dursely of-det name Grunnings be:past.3sg Vernon Dursley ‘Vernon Dursley was director of a firm named Grunnings which produced drills.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The juxtaposition of possessee and possessor nouns has the character of a default solution as it is used for combinations of nouns without any clearly discernible semantic restriction. The above examples of possessor chains suggest that kinship relations are treated just like any other possessive relation. In order to support this idea, we enumerate a selection of pertinent examples of the Welsh genitive construction as it is used in the translation of the first book of the Harry Potter series (B231). Boldface marks the genitive construction itself. Grey shading is used to identify those constructions which are syntactically heavy. (B231)

The Welsh genitive construction in vol. 1, Harry Potter page

Welsh

9 lladd mab y Potters 37 ond llgada dy fam sy gin ti 23 criw Dudley 160 wyneb Hagrid 37 braich Harri 9 llais yr Athro McGonagal 65 plu cynffon ffenics 204 gwaed uncorn 78 llygoden fawr Percy 102 gwisgai dwrban yr Athro Quirrél 197 mantell Harri 78 hen glogynnau Bill 115 neidiodd ysgub Harri i’w law ar unwaith 136 cadair yr Athro Dumbledore 12 beic Siriws 197 gwelai Harri olau yn ffenestri caban Hagrid 159 drws yr ystafell gysgu 117 ar gefn yr ysgub 83 blaenau wisgars Crachyn 105 roedd arogl garlleg cryf lond ei ystafell 38 byd dy rieni 138 toiledau’r merched 72 be ydi rhif y platfform? 89 enwau’r pedwar tŷ

gloss to kill the son of the Potters but you have your mother’s eyes Dudley’s gang Hagrid’s face Harry’s arm Professor McGonagal’s voice feathers of a phoenix’s tail the blood of a unicorn Percy’s big rat he saw Professor Quirrel’s turban Harry’s cloak Bill’s old cloaks Harry’s broom jumped into his hand at once Professor Dumbledore’s chair Sirius’s bike Harry saw light in the windows of Hagrid’s hut the door of the dormitory on the back of the [magic] broom the tips of Scabbers’s whiskers a very strong scent of garlic filled his room the world of your parents the girls’ loo what is the number of the platform? the names of the four houses

We immediately see that the genitive construction by juxtaposition is used for kinship relations, body-part possession (including body-parts by extension), and other



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

possessees such as clothes, artefacts, part-whole relations, abstract entities/ideas, etc. There is a certain bias towards human possessors – especially those identifiable by name. However, there are also inanimate possessors. As to syntactic weight, there is only a slight majority of light constructions (14 cases) as opposed to heavy ones (ten cases). Among the latter, there are two possessors which are themselves pronominally possessed (dy mam ‘your mum’ and dy rieni ‘your parents’). In enwau’r pedwar tŷ {name:pl}-{det} {four.m} {house} ‘the names of the four houses’ the possessor is quantified by a numeral and thus part of a complex NP. In addition, there is also arogl garlleg ‘scent of garlic’ which is modified by cryf ‘strong’. This modifier however, does not have scope over its immediate neighbour to the left, namely garlleg, but either over arogl or the entire noun-noun combination. In the latter case, arogl garlleg might be considered a compound and not a possessive construction. The compound analysis also applies to ystafell gysgu {room} {sleep.VN} ‘bedroom’ which then becomes a simple or light possessor NP in drws yr ystafell gysgu ‘the door of the dormitory’. Note however that the possessor chains plu cynffon ffenics {feather.coll} {tail} {phoenix} ‘feathers of a phoenix’ tail’, ffenestri caban Hagrid {window:pl} {hut} {Hagrid} ‘the windows of Hagrid’s hut’ and blaennau wisgers Crachyn {end:pl} {whiskers} {Scabbers} ‘the tips of Scabbers’s whiskers’ include syntactically heavy possessors because of embedding! The internal possessor itself is the possessee of the rightmost possessor and thus is modified by a genitive attribute: [ffenestriPOS [cabanPOS [Hagrid]POR]POR]. Not only the possessor may be the head of another attribute: the possessee NP may also be complex as in llygoden fawr Percy {rat:sg.f} {Lbig} {Percy} ‘Percy’s big rat’ and hen glogynnau Bill {old} {Lcloak:pl} {Bill} ‘Bill’s old cloaks’. Thus, the possessor NP and the possessee NP may be heavy or light in the Welsh genitive construction. However, we have not come across convincing examples of simultaneous heaviness of both possessor and possessee in one and the same construction. Doubly heavy genitive constructions might therefore be considered disfavoured, although it cannot absolutely be ruled out that they occur every once in a while. This is reminiscent of what was said about the Goidelic branch earlier in this section. There seems to be no systematic restriction on the use of the dominant genitive construction. It is an all-purpose solution and largely avoids semantic determinants as well as those connected with syntactic complexity. As in Irish and Scots Gaelic, there are occasionally other construction types which functionally belong to the realm of possession but differ from the dominant genitive construction on the syntactic level because straight juxtaposition does not apply. The possessor NP is joined to the possessee NP via a preposition. According to King (1996: 282) the one preposition that is used in attributive possession is i ‘to’. Two examples follow in (B232)–(B233). (B232)

Welsh [LPP Welsh I, 10] yna mi dynnais i lun o there dec Lsketch:imperf.1sg I Lpicture of

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

du mewn i neidr boa er mwyn i’r Lside in to snake boa for_the_sake_of to-det bobl mewn oed gael deall Lfolk in age be_able understand.VN ‘Thus, I produced a picture of the inside of a boa snake for the adults to be able to understand.’ (B233)

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 1] roedd Mrs Potter yn chwaer i dec:be:past.3sg Mrs Potter in sister to ‘Mrs Potter was a sister of Mrs Dursley’s.’

Mrs Dursely Mrs Dursely

The preposition i ‘to’ seems to be used especially for the expression of kinship relations as the example Mab i byw yw hwn? {son} {to} {Lwho} {be.3sg} {this.m} ‘Whose son is this one?’ (Williams 1980: 138) suggests. The use of this preposition is compulsory with a number of compound prepositions which consist of grammaticalised relational nouns (such as in [HP I Welch, 63] y tu ôl i’r cownter {det} {side} {behind} {to}{det} {counter} ‘behind the counter’ and tu allan i le’r apothecari {side} {outside} {to} {Lplace}-{det} {apothecary} ‘outside the apothecary’s’. In these obligatory contexts, the possessee (= the relational noun) can be considered definite, whereas in sentences like (B232), i combines with indefinite possessees. The case is peculiar in so far as Mrs Potter is probably the only sister of Mrs Dursley and thus definiteness could be expected to apply in (B232). However, there is no definite article accompanying the noun chwaer ‘sister’. What is predicated in the sentence is only the fact that the two lady-characters are siblings without any further specification on how many other siblings there might be. Just a note on the preposition o ‘of ’. It is not only obligatorily used for partitive constructions (Thomas 1992: 297), but also, as is shown in (B232), with relations of representation/copying of an entity. Thus, llun o X ‘a picture of X’ is the obligatory way of expressing the relation between a given entity and its (photo)graphic representation. Example (B234) corroborates this finding. (B234)

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 196] cydiodd mewn map o’r blaned Iau grasp:past.3sg in map of-det Lplanet Jupiter ‘He fetched a map of the planet Jupiter.’

For Breton, Ternes (1992: 405) makes very similar observations as to the general properties of the genitive construction. What he also observes is that the possessee noun “never has an article itself, although it is fundamentally definite. As a consequence, it is not possible to translate a phrase like ‘a door of the (his) house’ into Breton by using the ‘genitive construction.” What do speakers of Breton do when they want to emphasise the indefiniteness of the possessee? While Ternes keeps silent about this



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

problem, Favereau (1997) indirectly provides an answer to the question. In contrast to the majority of the Celtic languages, Breton has a fully grammaticalised indefinite article un, ul, ur ‘a(n)’ which overtly marks a noun as being indefinite (Favereau 1997: 29–32). This article has to be used if the possessee NP is indefinite – but as the possessee NP in the genitive construction does not allow for combinations with articles, a different kind of construction has to be used, namely prepositional phrases. The preposition da ‘to’ is the most distinguished among the options available to speakers of modern Breton. It is consistently used in constructions with a lexical possessor and possessee where the possessee is preceded by the indefinite article as in (B235). (B235)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 428) indef

PUM

prep

det

POR

ur un ur

breur ael rod

d’ d’ d’

am an ar

zad Aotrou velo

‘a brother of my Dad’s’ ‘an angel of the Lord’s’ ‘a wheel of the bicycle’

In the final part of the previous section, we discussed some aspects of the use of da in constructions of pronominal possession. On the basis of our evidence, we concluded that da is used most prototypically (but by no means exclusively) for indefinite kinship relations. In (B235), there is only one such example but if we look at other descriptions of Breton, we find that the exemplification of the construction is mostly achieved via examples which describe family relations such as eur mab-bihan da Lom ar C’hloc’her {indef} {grandson} {to} {William} {det} {churchwarden} ‘a grandson of William the Churchwarden’s’ (Trepos 1980: 158). To some extent only, the preposition a ‘of ’ is a competitor of da ‘to’ in Breton as it is used for the expression of “le génitif ” according to Favereau (1997: 424). Breton a ‘of ’ is a cognate of Welsh o ‘of ’ and thus used predominantly for the partitive and ablative relations. Where it occurs in possession-like functions, the constructions often represent a kind of phrasal compounds like tud a vor {people} {of} {Lsea} ‘seamen’. The PP headed by a often attributes a quality or property to the head noun in such a way that, logically, the head-attribute relation between possessor and possessee is inverted. Be that as it may, the examples given in Favereau (1997: 424–425) are almost exclusively indefinite ones like ur vazh a zaou benn {indef} {Lstick} {of} {Ltwo} {Lhead} ‘a stick with two knobs’, whereas the only example with a definite head noun is characterised as archaic (= an dez kentañ a’r bloaz {det} {day} {first} {of}-{det} {year} ‘the first day of the year’). We take this as additional evidence for the tendency of indefiniteness to follow prepositional strategies in general and in possessive constructions in particular. Summing up what we have said so far about genitive constructions in the Celtic phylum, we notice that the usual semantic parameters of (in)alienability do not play the most important role. Definiteness seems to be the crucial criterion, although it always

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

interacts with others – predominantly with syntactic weight and to a lesser extent also the semantics of the possessee. We are less certain about pragmatic issues, though. We know from the previous section that practically all Celtic languages make use of special constructions with pronominal possessors which qualify as emphatic. In the realm of genitive constructions, the only tangible evidence for potential influence of pragmatics on the shaping of genitive constructions stems from Scots Gaelic. In Scots Gaelic, possession under emphasis preferably involves the prepositional strategy with aig ‘at’ independent of definiteness or alienability. This is the case in questions, for instance, cf. (B236). (B236)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 29) an e sin an cù aig Calum? Q he dem det dog at Calum ‘Is this Calum’s dog?

We will come back to this issue in the subsequent section. Admittedly, the pragmatic evidence is scarce. Nevertheless, we integrate pragmatic factors into our summary for all Celtic languages. The schematic rendering of these findings is provided in Table (B237).29 (B237)

Parameters for the use of genitive construction types in the Celtic languages light inalienable neutral

definite genitive

possessee indefinite prepositional heavy alienable emphatic

The table simplifies a bit. The gist of what it is supposed to convey is: Definite possessees tend to be part of a genitive construction in which either the inflectional genitive is used on the possessor noun (as in Goidelic) or juxtaposition applies (as in Brythonic). Indefinite possessees have opposed leanings because they normally occur in constructions in which the possessor is part of a PP. These two general tendencies compete with two additional ones. On the one hand, if the possessee is part of a complex NP, the prepositional strategy becomes an option even if the possessee is definite. This counter-tendency is less apparent with heavy possessors. This difference between heavy possessors and heavy possessees may be accounted for in terms of topology: the possessor is always the rightmost or final constituent of the possessive construction and thus any expansion of the NP representing the possessee is unproblematic as it does not affect the internal structure of the genitive construction. In addition, it also confirms Behagel’s law according to which the heavier constituents usually occupy slots to the right of the lighter ones. In contrast to the possessor, an extended possessee mostly implies that the head noun is no longer adjacent to the left margin of the



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

possessor NP because typical attributes like adjectives are predominantly post-nominal in the Celtic languages (except for a handful of adjectives which obligatorily precede their head-nouns). Thus, the greater distance between the two head-nouns of possessee and possessor NPs might lead to uncertainty as to where the syntactic boundaries have to be drawn. The second counter-tendency, the one more closely connected to alienability, seems to be the least powerful: inalienable concepts are better candidates for genitive constructions than for PPs, especially when they are also definite and their NP is light, whereas alienable concepts call for PPs especially when they are also indefinite and their NP is heavy. In the Celtic phylum, noun-noun constructions are thus largely dominated by the definiteness criterion whose workings we have already observed with pronominal possession in the previous section. The next section will reveal whether definiteness is also a major criterion in the realm of predicative possession.

4.3.2  Predicative possession in the Celtic phylum In the literature on Celtic languages, distinct predicative possession constructions are usually paid more attention to than for attributive constructions. This is perhaps owed to the fact that no Celtic language makes use of a proper verb of having. If we disregard the special developments that have affected Breton in such a way that a verb of having seems to be emerging (cf. below), the constructions of predicative possession reflect the following schemata according to Heine’s (1997) classification: •  Locative – usually involving the equivalents of the English prepositions at and on, •  Allative/Dative/Benefactive – usually involving the equivalents of the English prepositions to and for, •  Companion – usually involving the equivalents of the English preposition with. The main interest of Heine (1997) for instance is to determine whether the various constructions found in Irish and Welsh are representatives of having-constructions or of belonging-constructions. We take this issue as the point of departure for the ensuing discussion. Only after looking at the distinction of belonging vs. having will we venture onto the new ground of other possession splits in Celtic predicative constructions. For expository reasons, we divide the presentation of the facts into two sections, each of which focuses on one of the branches of the Celtic phylum. Goidelic comes first in 4.3.2.1 and the Brythonic languages are the topic of 4.3.2.2. However, in the Brythonic section, we will also discuss some comparative data from Goidelic.

4.3.2.1  Predicative possession in Goidelic In Goidelic, there are two widely used constructions of predicative possession. For Scots Gaelic, we find the by now familiar preposition aig ‘at’ being used in one of the two constructions. Consider the two examples in (B238).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B238)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 21–22)

(B238.1)

tha [peann]PUM be.pres pen ‘Mary has a pen.’

(B238.2)

tha [cù dubh]PUM [aig Calum]POR be.pres dog black at Calum ach tha [cat bàn]PUM [aig Seònaid]POR but be.pres cat white at Seonaid ‘Calum has a black dog, but Seonaid has a white cat.’

[aig at

Màiri]POR Mary

These sentences start with the appropriate present tense form tha of the verb bi ‘to be’. Irrespective of the invariability of tha (which is sensitive neither to person nor number), it is safe to say that the formal subject of the above sentences is always the possessee noun because it occupies the slot to the right of the “finite” verb – the slot which according to the strict VSO order of Scots Gaelic is reserved for the subject NP. Note that these possessees are always indefinite. The possessor is introduced by the preposition aig ‘at’ and occupies the position which is normal for adverbial adjuncts in Scots Gaelic syntax. If the possessee is definite however, Scots Gaelic uses a different construction in which the preposition le ‘with’ is crucial, cf. (B239). (B239)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 31–33)

(B239.1)

is [le Calum]POR [an cù sin]PUM cop with Calum det dog dem ‘This dog belongs to Calum/This is Calum’s dog.’

(B239.2)

is [le Seumas]POR [an leabhar sin]PUM cop with Seumas det book dem ‘This book belongs to James/This is James’ book.’

Not only is a different verb used – the assertive form is of the so-called copula (not to be mistaken with the verb bí ‘to be’) – but also the order of possessee-NP and possessor-NP is inverted. Now, the possessor comes first and is followed by the possessee. What remains the same is the fact that in both (B238) and (B239), it is the possessor which is specifically marked by a preposition. In (B239), the possessee-NP is the only possible subject although it does not occur in the expected position. The PPs involving the possessor noun in (B238–B239) cannot be subjects as they are overtly marked as “obliques” by the prepositions. Definiteness of the possessee therefore makes a difference – a fact which is in line with what we have observed in the previous sections where definiteness has been shown to be among the most important (though not uncontested) criteria which determine the choice of possessive constructions. According to the criteria put forward by Heine (1997), the predicative constructions with le ‘with’ are instances of belong-relations whereas those with aig ‘at’ cover have-relations. This corresponds to the traditional view of Scots Gaelic held by grammarians .



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

There are two additional phenomena which let aig stand out as something special among the competing relators. First of all, aig is used in constructions of obligation while le is excluded from this function, cf. (B240). (B240)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 24) tha aig Màiri ri dhol do’n bhùth be.pres at Mary to Lgo.VN to-det Lshop ‘Mary has to go to the shop.’

This is a typical case of “grammaticalisation” of have-constructions to express modal categories which is widely attested in the languages of Europe. It is interesting to see that it also occurs in languages which do not have a proper verb of having. We know from our discussion of Icelandic predicative possession that in this North-Germanic language it is the verb of having (namely eiga ‘to have, to own’) which comes closest to denoting ownership which is employed for modal purposes (cf. [B115.1]). Thus, there is perhaps no a priori reason why the Scots Gaelic construction with le could not be employed in a similar way. The second peculiarity of aig is connected to pragmatics and thus takes up an issue mentioned in the concluding remarks of the previous section. The short dialogue in (B241) with questions and answers is suggestive of some neutralising effect exerted by aig. (B241)

Scots Gaelic (Mackinnon 1975: 33) a Mhàiri voc LMary an ann leatsa a tha an leabhar dearg seo? Q in:3sg.m with:2sg:emph rel be.pres det book red dem chan ann be.neg in:3sg.m sin an leabhar aig Seumas dem det book at James ‘s ann gorm a tha an leabhar agamsa at:1sg:emph cop in:3sg.m blue rel be.pres det book ‘Mary, does this red book belong to you? No, that is James’ book. My book is blue.’

In the question, the belonging-construction with le is used. In the answers however, the speaker consistently uses aig although the relation is still one of belonging. We may assume that in these answers a certain amount of emphasis or focus properties are involved which trigger the use of aig independent of the definiteness of the possessees. These still somewhat unsystematic findings suggest two things: •  aig is the unmarked relator in constructions of predicative possession, •  pragmatic factors tend to trigger the unmarked construction even in cases where it normally is disfavoured because of other factors.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Epiphenomenally, this also shows that pragmatic factors might indeed be much stronger than our previous description has revealed. Unfortunately, we do not have enough uncontroversial data at hand to pursue this issue further in this study. For Scots Gaelic’s next-of-kin Irish, the situation is largely identical. In the Irish version of Harry Potter vol. I, we find a number of instances of predicative possession right on the first page of the book. The different semantics of the possessees notwithstanding, the predicative construction is always the same – meaning: it always includes a PP headed by ag ‘at’. Examples (B242–B244) are all from one and the same page. (B242)

Irish [HP I Irish, 1] bhí maicín beag be.past spoilt_child small ‘They had a little spoilt son.’

acu at:3pl

(B243)

Irish [HP I Irish, 1] bhí an saol ar a mian ag muintir Dursley be.past det world on to desire at family Dursley ach bhí rún dorcha acu chomh maith but be.past secret obscure at:3pl so good ‘The Dursleys had everything that could be desired but they had a dark secret just the same.’

(B244)

Irish [HP I Irish, 1] ba ghnách le Mrs Dursely ligean uirthi cop.past custom with Mrs Dursley play.VN on:3sg.f nach raibh aon deirfiúr aici at:3sg.f that.neg be.pres.subj one sister ‘Mrs Dursley usually pretended not to have any sister at all.’

There are two things to observe. First of all, ag is used indiscriminately with possessees from different semantic domains. Kinship relations (spoilt child, sister) receive the same treatment as abstract possessees (every desirable object, a dark secret). Moreover, we also find a construction involving le ‘with’ in (B244). However, contrary to expectation, the possessee is neither definite nor positioned to the right of the possessee. The lenited form of gnach ‘custom, habit’ occupies exactly the same slot as the indefinite possessees in the ag-constructions. The indefiniteness of the possessee in (B243) is somewhat problematic as the definite article occurs with saol ‘world’. However an saol ar a mian ag is a fixed idiomatic expression meaning ‘to be able to live as one pleases’. Thus, the expression is perhaps best considered outside the definiteness correlation. Note that the literal translation of the first clause of (B244) would run like ‘Mrs Dursley had a habit of pretending…’ where ba ghnách le Mrs Dursely is in fact



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

a construction of predicative possession. It is again the overt definiteness of the possessee that is important here. If the possessee is accompanied by the definite article in a construction involving le, then the possessee is placed on the right of this PP, as in (B245). This property corresponds to the tendency of Irish to place indefinite nouns in equative constructions next to the sentence-initial copula (Ó Siadhail 1985: 59). (B245)

Irish [HP I Irish, 29] is liomsa an litir sin! cop with:1sg:emph det letter dem ‘This letter is mine!’

If le together with the copula provide a frame into which indefinite possessees can also be inserted, this implies that le ‘with’ as a relator of possessive relations is not restricted to proper belonging-constructions, but also occurs outside this domain (or else one would be forced to re-interpret the notion of belonging.) Given that le is not tied exclusively to the belonging-relation, it thus becomes a direct competitor of ag ‘at’ especially if le also occurs in similarly structured syntactic contexts as ag – meaning: in combination with bí in lieu of the copula (cf. below). One idea that comes immediately to mind is that the choice of either le or ag depends upon the semantics of the possessee. In (B244), gnách ‘custom’ is an abstract kind of possessee. However, ag is not excluded from combinations with abstract possessees as examples (B243) and (B246–B247) demonstrate. (B246)

Irish [HP I Irish, 30] bhí radharc ag Harry ar bhróga dubha snasta at Harry on Lshoe:pl black:pl polished be.past view Uncail Vernon Uncle Vernon.gen ‘Harry had a view of Uncle Vernon’s polished black shoes.’

(B247)

Irish [HP I Irish, 52] bhí brionglóid agam at:1sg be.past dream ‘I had a dream.’

Radharc ‘vision, view’ and brionglóid ‘dream’ are just as abstract as is gnách ‘custom’. In fact, to disentangle the possessive usage of ag and the one of le, it is necessary to scrutinise more data. In (B248), for instance, both prepositions are used in one and the same question. (B248)

Irish [HP Irish I, 55] ba bhreá leat ceann agat? at:2sg cop.cond Lfine with:2sg head ‘Would you really like to have one [= a dragon]?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The question is posed after Hagrid admitted to wanting to become an amateur-breeder of dragons. The more abstract concept of an attitude is expressed by le (‘to have a good feeling’ [see below]) whereas the more concrete possessive relation, namely the one of owning a dragon, is expressed with the help of ag. Superficially, this appears to be a puzzle because Hagrid wants to own a dragon – not simply have one temporarily, meaning the dragon should belong to him. However, the use of le is ruled out for the relation of ownership because the possessee is indefinite (ceann ‘head’ is used as a proform for indefinite countable entities – including all animate beings except humans for whom there is a special counter duine ‘human being’ [Ó Siadhail 1985: 78]). Another possible parameter could be permanent vs. temporary possession. Belonging is a relation that is inherently permanent. Thus, we expect to find le in those expressions which focus on a permanent state. This would be compatible with the distribution of the verb bí ‘to be’ and the copula whose characteristics are in nuce: bí often serves the purpose of ascribing mostly temporary properties to an entity, whereas the copula is used to state the identity of two entities (Ó Siadhail 1985: 53). Bí is also employed to indicate a state of affairs at a given point in time, whereas le occurs in contexts which describe states which extend over time (cf. below). At this point, an excursus on the functional domain outside the realm of possession of not only the two verbs above, but also of the two prepositions ag and le is in order. First of all, the two prepositions display a wide range of uses. Ag, for instance, retains its spatial meaning in common constructions like the one illustrated in (B249). (B249)

Irish (Ó Sidhail 1985: 82) tá Cáit ag an ngeata be.pres Cáit at det Ndoor ‘Cáit is at the door.’

It is clear that Cáit is at the door at present and this probably is not a situation which will last for long. Le is the general relator for accompaniment and instrumental (Stolz; Stroh & Urdze 2006: 38 fn. 48). Like ag, it is a highly frequent element in Irish texts – not all of its attestations are proper instances of comitativity or instrumentality though. In (B250), we give two examples of strictly non-possessive uses to which le is put. Among other uses of le, we find the expression of simultaneous events and temporal duration (Ó Siadhail 1985: 105) all of which comprise a note of extension over time. Le is also used in equative and similar constructions to introduce the standard of comparison as in (B251). (B250)

Irish

(B250.1)

Instrumentality (Ó Siadhail 1985: 104) tá mé ag scríobh le peann be.pres I at write.VN with pen ‘I am writing with a huge pen.’

mór. big



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B250.2)

Accompaniment (Ó Siadhail 1985: 105) tá Cáit anseo le Máirtín be.pres Cáit here with Máirtín ‘Cáit is here (together) with Máirtín.’

(B251)

Irish [HP I Irish, 17] bhí an-dealramh ag Dudley le hUncail Vernon be.past very-resemblance at Dudley with Huncle Vernon ‘Dudley resembled Uncle Vernon very much.’

In all these cases, le combines with the verb bí and not with the copula. Sentence (B250.1) documents the employment of both ag and le in further nonpossessive contexts. Le heads the PP which introduces the instrument with which the action is carried out. Ag, however, is used together with the present-tense form of bí and the verb-noun to express the progressive aspect. A literal rendition of (B250.1) in English would be ‘I am at writing with a huge pen’ i.e., ag is used in a construction that denotes a process that is going on at the reported time (Ó Siadhail 1985: 76). However, le may also be used in combination with the verb-noun yielding a construction which has a general purposive meaning, cf. (B252). (B252)

Irish (Ó Siadhail 1985: 105) tá Cáit anseo le balla a phéinteáil. be.pres Cáit here with wall to Lpaint.VN ‘Cáit is here to paint a wall.’

Like in possessive contexts, the two prepositions do not have strictly distinct distribution profiles since ag and le allow for combinations with bí (however, ag seems to be excluded from combinations with the copula). If their task is to express a verbal category such as aspect or mood, both prepositions combine with bí. At this stage, we can survey the properties of ag and le in a somewhat simplified Table (B253) which only takes account of possessive relations and verbal categories. (B253)

Ag and le – functional domains

bí cop

ag le

progressive purposive

having belonging

There is a zone of overlap in the cell labelled having, making this anything but a straightforward case. What determines which of t he two prepositions is used in having-relations? Are the relations under scrutiny always bona fide instances of having? Let us assume that one possibility is to consider le the relator for permanent possessive relations, whereas ag is responsible for the encoding of temporary ones. However, this distinction needs to be revised as the data suggests. In (B254) we find two sentences from a dialogue between the gnome banker and Hagrid. The possessee is the

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

key to the vault in which Harry’s money is kept safe. The third sentence in (B254.3) is the continuation of the dialogue where a new possessee is introduced. (B254) Irish [HP Irish I, 62] (B254.1) an bhfuil a eochair leat? Q be.dep POR.3sg.m key with:2sg ‘Do you have the key with you?’ (B254.2)

tá sé agam be.pres he at:1sg ‘I have it.’

(B254.3)

agus tá litir anseo agam ón Ollamh Dumbledore and be.pres letter here at:1sg from professor Dumbledore chomh maith so good ‘And I also have a letter here from Professor Dumbledore.’



The situation is that the banker is asking Hagrid whether he happens to have the key on him. This is clearly a case of temporal possession or physical possession because Hagrid does not own the key, it in no way belongs to him, but rather to Harry. Nor is it supposed that Hagrid always carries thesss key on him. Nevertheless, (B254.1) contains le as relator. As this is also in combination with the dependent form of bí, the sentence corroborates the distribution rules implied by Table (B253). As a matter of fact, so-called confective relations (Stolz; Stroh & Urdze 2006) – that is relations of someone having something on him or in his hands (while carrying out some action or moving about) (cf. section 5.1.2.2) – are expressed regularly by le in combination with a form of bí (Ó Siadhail 1985: 104). Furthermore, (B254.2) is again surprising because the very same fact that Hagrid has the key on him is expressed this time by using ag in combination with the present-tense form of bí. This use of ag fits in with our above observation on the neutralising effects of ag: it may come in an answer to a question that contains the semantically more specific le. In (B254.3), it is again ag that is used and again temporary possession applies as Hagrid neither owns the letter nor does he habitually carry it on him. Thus, as expected, ag can be used to express temporary possession – however, so can le. This would automatically mean that le is not restricted to proper belonging-constructions, but also occurs in having-constructions. In (B255), Neville, who notoriously loses his toad, is asked whether he still has the animal with him. (B255)

Irish [HP I Irish, 95] thusa ansin an bhfuil an bhuaf leat i gcónaí? L you:emph there Q be.dep det toad with:2sg still ‘You there, do you still have the toad?’

In point of fact, the toad belongs to Neville. However this fact is irrelevant for the employment of le in the example. It is not questioned whether or not the toad actually



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

belongs to his owner. What Hagrid wants to know is whether Neville still has the toad physically under control which means that the toad should be in his hands or at least within reach. Does animacy have a say in the distribution? The toad is of course animate, but the key is not. In addition, (potentially) animate possessees also combine with ag. In (B256) Ron proudly talks about his collection of pictures of famous magicians. (B256)

Irish [HP I Irish, 87] tá tuairim is cuig chéad agam be.pres opinion up_to five Lhundred at:1sg ach níl Agrippa agam ná Ptolemy but neg.be Agrippa at:1sg nor Ptolemy ‘I have about five hundred, but I don’t have Agrippa or Ptolemy.’

The pictures are the closest we can get to human possessees in our sample text. The example therefore might not be absolutely to the point. Nevertheless, the difference between (B255) and (B256) lies in the fact that Neville has the toad under physical control at the utterance time whereas Ron most probably does not have the collected items on him (perhaps he keeps them somewhere else at a distance from his present location). At the least, the answer to the question of where the collection is at the utterance time is irrelevant for the wider context in which the utterance occurs. One might object to the idea that ag-le distinction is connected to the time parameter: actual or temporary possession can be expressed by both and ag serves as the neutraliser of distinctions, anyway. In the examples from (B254) onwards at least, the use of le seems to be triggered by the degree of physical control the possessor has over the possessee. With ag, there is no question about control because the relator has a more general function. With le, control makes more sense as a specification because in belonging-relations the possessor has de jure control over the possessee (although he may not exert physical power over it). The situation is made no less complicated by the fact that both ag and le can combine with abstract possessees (cf. above) which are usually beyond the control of the possessor. How­ever, there is a remarkable difference between the two. Consider sentences (B257)–(B258). (B257)

Irish [HP Irish I, 72] tá cuimhne agam ar gach slat be.pres memory at:1sg on every wand dár dhíol mé riamh for:1pl Lsell.VN I ever ‘I remember [= have the memory of] every wand I ever sold.’

(B258)

Irish [HP Irish I, 70] is oth liom a rá gur mise cop regret with:1sg to say.VN be.past.dep I:emph a dhíol an tslat a rinne é to Lsell det Lwand rel make.past it ‘I regret to say that it was me who sold the wand which made this.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Cuimhne ‘memory’ and oth ‘regret’ are of course both abstract possessees. However, the latter requires le and the former combines with ag. Likewise, (B257) has a form of bí, whereas (B258) includes the copula. This distribution becomes explicable in terms of the dichotomy objective vs. subjective. According to Ó Siadhail (1985: 106), a construction with copula and le when they combine with an abstract possessee represents a subjective attitude of the possessor towards something. The possessee itself is very often not a full-blown noun, but rather an adjective and thus a borderline case of a possessee. With ag however, the possessees are usually more nouny and more concrete. This makes the constructions slightly more objective. Ó Siadhail (1985: 92) provides a long list of examples of ag being used in these contexts which we reproduce in (B259). As can be seen from this catalogue, the constructions also express very strong subjective feelings such as hate, love and gratefulness. There is also one case (an ghnar ‘the hatred’) which violates the rule according to which definite possessees occur to the right of the possessor NP. (B259)

Irish verb

possessee

relator-possessor

benefactive

tá meas agam ar Cáit buíochas aithne cion ceist an ghráin tá eolas agam ar an áit seo an-tóir seans ar phosta

gloss I have respect for Cáit I am grateful to Cáit [thanks] I know Cáit [acquaintance] I like Cáit [affection] I have a question for Cáit I hate Cáit [the hatred] I know this area [knowledge] I like this area very much [over-search] I have a chance of getting a job

A possible solution for the ag-le puzzle is to dissociate the distribution from the subjective-objective distinction as both of the prepositions have their share in both areas. However, only le allows for combinations with proper adjectives (we have not found any evidence for combina­tions of adjectives with ag). Feelings and other mental states are never expressed by le + noun. It is therefore safe to assume that the distribution of ag and le is at least partly dependent upon the nouniness of the possessee. The lower the degree of nouniness, the more doubtful it is that the term possessee can be



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

justified at all. Be that as it may, le is also used in contexts which are on the outermost periphery of what are considered bona fide instances of possessive relations. Of course, the possessees obligatorily combining with ag do not always belong to the prototype either. In (B260) we list a number of pertinent cases from Ó Siadhail (1985: 82). As the glosses show, only occasionally does English express a talent or mental capacity by a construction of predicative possession making use of to have (more precisely, this is done just once with patience). Where the possessee is concrete, like the body-part noun súil ‘eye’, the construction’s meaning is a metaphor (or metonymy, for that matter). In general, these constructions ascribe certain capacities to the possessor or – to a lesser extent – mental states. (B260)

Irish verb

possessee

relator-possessor

tá Spáinnis agam caint ceol foighid ciall ceart súil a fhíos

gloss I know Spanish I speak well [speech] I know how to play an instrument [music] I have patience I am sensible [perception] I am right I hope [eye] I know [its knowledge]

With a view to systematising our observations, we survey the construction types in which the two prepositions occur in Table (B261). Grey shading highlights those functions which belong to the realm of possession. The asterisks * is used to identify the noun which represents the possessor in these constructions. (B261)

Survey of Irish possession-like construction frames function

V

localisation bí having capacities confective accompaniment mental state cop belonging V

N

prep

αhuman ag ¬human ¬det ¬animate +human* le +human adj le +human* prep N

N αhuman αhuman* +human* ¬human +human +human* det NP

N[¬human]

If it were not for the accompaniment relation of two human participants, we would have a continuous space occupied by functionally related categories. To some extent nouniness, animacy and definiteness interact. Indefiniteness also correlates rather

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

strictly with the immediate post-verbal position. This is also the position where rhematic information is expected. Thus, if the possessee is thematic, the copula is used. However, the inverse does not hold true as rhematic possessees also combine with the copula. If the possessee is either low in nouniness or thematic, than bi is used as the verb. Conversely, if bí is used the possessee can be neither thematic nor a non-noun. If the possessor is mentioned before the possessee then le is employed in the construction – albeit with two diametrically opposed functions because in one construction it marks the possessee and in the other the possessor. Where physical or legal control over a possessee is highlighted, it is always via le. However, this is not to say that le automatically expresses control: there is no control involved with mental states. All this contributes to an intricately structured system the organisation of which has no monothetic principle. We can however add that the complexity of the NPs – be it possessor or possessee – do not appear to be responsible for any splits in Irish predicative possession. For Goidelic it is thus clear that we cannot make reliable predictions on the basis of one component alone – we have to take the entire construction into account. The relators ag and le point to certain possibilities, but especially in the case of le we need further information before it can be decided for what purpose it is employed.

4.3.2.2  Predicative possession in Brythonic The Brythonic languages do not pose the same problems although their systems are intricate themselves, meaning: there are other problems to be faced. First of all, Welsh does not simply make use of two distinct prepositional strategies to distinguish having-relations from belonging-relations. Of the two lexicon entries for belong – namely perthyn and bod yn eiddo i (‘to be [the] property of ’) – the former is hard to come by in fictional texts. Where there are instances of perthyn, they usually tend not to refer to prototypical cases of possession, but are instead of a more abstract character as in [Lôn 70–1] Yr oedd llawer o’r chwarae tŷ gennym ni ein hunain yn waith dychymyg, er bod chwarae tŷ fel chwarae efo dol, yn perthyn i bob gwlad. ‘We had a lot of indoor games ourselves by imagination, because indoor games like playing with a doll belong to every country.’ The possessor is introduced by the preposition i ‘to’. The more abstract character of possession expressed by perthyn is in line with the basic semantics of this word which corresponds to English to be related (to). The second option for expressing belonging-relations is a complex syntagm itself made up of the verb bod ‘to be’ and a PP yn eiddo ‘in property’ into which another PP is embedded which is headed by i ‘to’. The preposition i ‘to’ introduces the possessor. The use of eiddo ‘property’ in its pure lexical meaning is attested in [HP I Welsh, 28] Un siwrnai i fyny’r grisiau yn unig gymerodd hi i Harri symud ei holl eiddo o’r cwpwrdd i’r ystafell hon. ‘One journey upstairs was already enough for Harry to move all his belongings from the cupboard to this room.’ This construction is attested in a passage in the Welsh translation of Le Petit Prince – a passage which is especially interesting for students of



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

possession, as the possibility of possessing entities that are physically out of reach of the possessor is discussed. We therefore quote the entire passage in (B262). This is the business man trying to explain to the Little Prince the abstract concept of legal ownership of objects and immaterial entities. (B262)

Welsh [LPP Welsh, 48] pan ddoi di o hyd i ddiamwnt when Lcome.2sg.fut you still to Ldiamond nad yw’n eiddo i neb, ti biau hi. neg.that be.3sg.pres-in property to nobody you Lown she Pan ddoi di o hyd i ynys when Lcome.2sg.fut you still to island nad yw’n eiddo i neb, ti biau hi. neg.that be.3sg.pres-in property to nobody you Lown she Os ti yw’r cyntaf i gael syniad, if you be.3sg.pres-det first to get.VN idea ti biau’r hawlfraint arno. you Lown-det copyright on:3sg.m e’n eiddo i ti Mae be.3sg.pres he-in property to you A fi biau’r sêr am nad oedd neb Lown-det star.coll because neg.that and I after nobody wedi meddwl think. VN am eu perchnogi nhw o ‘mlaen i about POR.3pl own.VN they from Nfront I ‘When you find a diamond that is nobody’s property, you own it. When you find an island that is nobody’s property, you own it. If you are the first to have an idea, you have the copyright for it. It belongs to you. And I own the stars because nobody had thought of owning them before me.’

Apart from the verb perchnogi ‘to own’ in the final part of (B262), we observe that throughout this passage, the belonging-expression bod yn eiddo i alternates with piau in its lenited form. Piau denotes ownership and is something special as will become clear quite soon. Wherever piau is used in this example, it is always combined with a sentence-initial pronoun. This syntactic position is reserved for topicalised or strongly focussed NPs, i.e., in both constructions – not only with bod yn eiddo i but also with piau – the possessor is focussed on. This is what we expect of a proper belongingconstruction (Heine 1997), but not necessarily of an owning-construction. Interestingly, it is difficult to find instances of piau without special possessor focus in our texts. There are about a dozen examples of piau used with an identifiable subject – and in all of these cases, the subject occupies the focus position. Consider (B263) which reviews the few attestations of piau in the first volume of the Harry Potter series.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B263)

Welsh

(B263.1)

[HP I Welsh, 27] fi bia hwnna I Lown that_one ‘It is mine/it belongs to me! (lit. [It is] I [who] own[s] that one)’

(B263.2)

[HP I Welsh, 58] ti pia nhw you own they ‘They [= the coins] are yours/they belong to you. (lit. [It is] you [who] own[s] them.)’

(B263.3)

[HP I Welsh, 58] Harri oedd biau’r cyfan anghredadwy Harry be.3sg.past Lown-det entirety unbelievable ‘All this [= the treasure] belonged to Harry – unbelievable! (lit. [It] was Harry [who] own[ed] the lot – unbelievable)’

(B263.4)

[HP I Welsh, 151] fi bia fo I Lown he ‘It [= the dog Fluffy] is mine/it belongs to me! (lit. [It is] I [who] own[s] it.)’

The possessor is strongly emphasised (graphically via the use of italics in the original – in our rendition via underlining). As becomes clear from the above examples, piau is morphologically invariable i.e., there are no person affixes. As a matter of fact, piau is not a proper verb at all. The most common dictionary translation of piau is ‘one who owns’. This is semantically equivalent to an English noun like owner. However, piau does not behave like a full-blown noun either because it takes a object complement and does not occur in the possessed form (one would expect something like *ei biau o = ‘his owner’). In a way, piau is a case of a pseudo-verb, a verb in statu nascendi. This unachieved state of grammaticalisation is responsible for the deviant syntax of the subject: proper verbs normally have post-verbal subjects, the pseudo-verb does not. Furthermore, the belonging-construction and the owning-construction include (somewhat) nouny elements which form a semantic opposition: in the belongingconstruction, the noun eiddo ‘property’ refers to the role of the possessee whereas in the owning-construction, the nouny pseudo-verb piau ‘one who owns’ refers to the possessor role. We have the impression that there is a tendency in Welsh to employ the owningconstruction with focussed possessor as the default expression of belonging. This is of course unsurprising as belong and own are two perspectives on the same relation (cf. section 2.3). This is corroborated indirectly by the evidence from Irish. The relevant passage from Le Petit Prince in the Irish translation (= [LPP Irish, 42]) has the following equivalents (B264).



(B264)

Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Welsh-Irish comparative data Welsh

Irish

gloss for Irish

nad yw’n eiddo i neb nad yw’n eiddo i neb ti biau hi ti biau hi ti biau’r hawlfraint arno mae e’n eiddo i ti fi biau’r sêr eu perchnogi

nach le duine ar bith é nach le duine ar bith é is leatsa í is leatsa é faigheann tú r paitinn ai is leatsa é tá seilbh agamsa ar na réaltaí a ghlacadh orthu

that belongs to nobody at all that belongs to nobody at all It belongs to you It belongs to you you get the patent over it It belongs to you I have possession of the stars to seize on them

With the exception of the expressions marked by grey shading, Irish employs possessive constructions where Welsh does the same. However, in Welsh, piau and bod yn eiddo i alternate, whereas Irish indiscriminately uses the belonging-construction with the preposition le. This may be taken as evidence for the functional equivalence of the two Welsh expressions (under the condition that piau takes a focussed possessor NP!). Irish deviates from this pattern only once, when Welsh piau corresponds to the construction bí seilbh ag POR ar PUM ‘to have possession of/to possess’. This deviation notwithstanding, wherever the Welsh construction contains a focussed possessor NP Irish employs the emphatic forms of the pronominal preposition. This practice includes the Irish equivalent (B265) of the Welsh example (B263). (B265)

Irish [HP I Irish, 29] is liomsa an litir sin cop with:1sg:emph det letter dem ‘This letter belongs to me!’

In conclusion of this overview on the belonging-constructions, we hypothesise that POR piau PUM and PUM bod yn eiddo i POR are functionally largely equivalent expressions of belonging. It may be that with the former the possessor receives an extra high degree of emphasis. According to the extant grammars of Welsh, having-constructions come in two syntactically different shapes, namely either EXI gan POR PUM or EXI PUM gyda POR – the choice being largely dependent upon the regional background of the speakers (with additional factors of style and register). Gan is preferred in the Northern variety whereas gyda (aphaeretic short form: ‘da; gydag before a vowel-initial word) is more often used in the south of Wales (King 1993: 320), cf. (B266). Gan usually triggers lenition (“soft mutation”) whereas gyda causes aspirate mutation of a following noun (King 1996: 17–18).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B266)

Welsh (King 1996: 320)

(B266.1)

Northern variety (and written register) mae gan John gar exi.pres by John Lcar ‘John has a car.’

(B266.2)

Southern variety mae car (gy)da John exi.pres car with John ‘John has a car.’

The word order of the two construction types is different as the possessor precedes the possessee in (B266.1) but follows it in (B266.2). Note that in both cases the possessee is indefinite and thus there is no apparent reason to consider (B266.1) an instance of a belonging-construction. Before we have a closer look at the competition between these two constructions in Welsh, some more general and remarks are in order. Gan ‘by’ is a preposition which has lost most of its original meaning ‘with’ (pace King 1996), gyda(g) ‘with’ is a somewhat more recent univerbation of the noun cyd ‘union’ and the preposition a ‘with’ (Stolz 1998). In predicative possession, gan and gydag may replace one another freely, whereas outside possessive constructions substitution is ruled out in most contexts. In our more ambitious or more traditionally-minded literary textual sources, gyda(g) is only used as preposition encoding accompaniment or related functions, cf. (B267). (B267)

Welsh [LPP Welsh, 20] mae chwe blynedd er pan aeth fy exi.pres six year since when go.3sg.past POR.1sg nghyfaill i Nfriend I ffwrdd a’i ddafad gydag e away and-POR.3sg.m Lsheep with he ‘It is six years ago that my friend went away and his sheep with him.’

The distribution of gan and gyda is markedly different in those genres which attempt to give a vivid picture of the spoken variety of Welsh used predominantly by the younger generations. Here the two prepositions are full-blown competitors in the realm of predicative possession. We therefore include both relators in our empirical documentation. Since gyda is a preposition without pronominal inflection, we only give the paradigm of the pronominally inflected preposition gan in (B268). There is a plethora of alternative forms – some of them regional or colloquial. The ones given in the table represent only the most commonly read and heard variants of written Welsh and spoken Welsh, respectively. In the subsequent examples drawn from actual texts, we will encounter a variety of competing forms as well. The free personal pronouns are



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

optional, especially in the written register, whereas gyda always has a free pronoun as its complement if the possessor is not represented by a lexical NP. (B268)

Welsh (King 1996: 278) gan

person 1sg 2sg 3sg.m 3sg.f 1pl 2pl 3pl

gyn i gyn ti gynno fo gynni hi gynnoch chi

gynnon ni gynnyn nhw

gen i gen ti ganddo fo ganddi hi gennych chi

Among other functions, gan is used to introduce the agent in passive constructions including the so-called impersonal or autonomous forms (King 1996: 221–222), cf. (B269). (B269)

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 91] goleuwyd pobman gan filoedd ar Lthousand:pl on light:past.impers everywhere by o ganhwyllau of Lcandle:pl ‘Every place was illuminated by many thousands of candles.’

filoedd Lthousand:pl

The structure of Welsh predicative possession constructions as introduced in (B266) above is not sensitive to the semantics of the possessee including more abstract notions such as mental states, etc. (Temporary physico-mental states are an exception to be discussed below.) Thus, we find gan being used in combinations with almost all kinds of possessees in our data base. (B270) surveys only a selection of pertinent examples from all major classes of possessees. After these examples, we will look more closely at the functional background these and additional examples display, and then have a look at predicative possession with gyda. (B270)

Welsh

(B270.1)   i.

Body-parts [HP I Welsh, 1] roedd ganddi hi bron ddwywaith dec:be.3sg.past by:3sg.f she almost Ltwice y maint arferol o wddf det size usual of neck ‘She had a neck almost twice as long as usual.’

  ii.

[LPP Welsh, 69] ond mae gen ti but exi.pres by you ‘But you have golden hair.’

wallt Lhair

lliw aur colour gold

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B270.2)   i.

  ii.

(B270.3)   i.

  ii.

Kinship [HP I Welsh, 1] roedd gan y Dursleys fab dec:be:3sg.past by det Dursleys Lson Dudley Dudley ‘The Dursleys had a little son called Dudley.’ cymerai Mrs Dursley arni pretend.3sg.imperf Mrs Dursley on:3sg.f nad oedd ganddi chwaer neg.that be.3sg.past by:3sg.f sister ‘Mrs Dursley pretended not to have a sister.’ Social relations [HP I Welsh, 23] yn yr ysgol doedd gan in det school neg:be.3sg.past by ‘In school, Harry had nobody.’ [HP I Welsh, 26] doedd ganddo ddim neg:be.3sg.past by:3sg.m neg ‘He had no friends.’

bychan o’r enw small of-det name

Harri neb Harry nobody

ffrindiau friend:pl

(B270.4)

Human possessees [HP I Welsh, 81] nid yn unig roedd Dumbledore a Morgana neg in alone dec:be.3sg.past Dumbledore and Morgana ganddo by:3sg.m ond hefyd Hengist o Woodcroft but also Hengist of Woodcroft ‘Not only did he have Dumbledore and Morgana but also Hengist of Woodcroft.’

(B270.5)

Animal [HP I Welsh 72] ac roedd ganddyn nhw dylluan and dec:be.3sg.past by:3pl they Lowl ‘And they had an owl.’

(B270.6)   i.

Clothes [Lôn 10] mae ganddi het bach wellt ddu am ei phen exi.pres by:3sg.f hat small Lstraw Lblack on POR.3sg.f Ahead ‘She wore a black straw-hat (on her head).’

  ii.

[Lôn 12] mae ganddo dopcot ddu a choler felfet amdano exi.pres by:3sg.m topcoat black with collar velvet on:3sg.m ‘He wore a black topcoat with a velvet collar.’



(B270.7)

(B270.8)

(B270.9)   i.

  ii.

Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Body-parts by extension [LPP Welsh, 19] sut lais sydd ganddo fe? how voice rel.3sg by:3sg.m he ‘How is the voice he has?’ Wounds [HP I Welsh, 12] mi fydd y graith yna ganddo fo dec Lbe.3sg.fut det Lscar dem by:3sg.m he ei oes POR.3sg.m lifetime ‘He will have this scar for all of his life.’ Food Water supply [LPP Welsh, 11] prin bod gen i ddigon o ddŵr yfed i hardly be.VN by I Lenough of Lwater drink to ‘I hardly had enough potable water for a week.’

ar hyd along

bara wythnos only week

Cake [Lôn 21] mae ganddi deisen ar blat exi.pres by:3sg.f cake on Lplate ‘She had a cake on a plate.’ (B270.10) Natural objects [LPP Welsh, 49] mae gen i flodyn exi.pres by I Lflower ‘I have a flower.’ (B270.11) Artefacts i. [HP I Welsh, 60] oes gen ti dy ysgub dy hun? Q.exi.pres by you POR.2sg broom POR.2sg self ‘Do you have your own magic broom?’ ii. [LPP Welsh, 67] mae gynnau gan ddynion exi.pres gun:pl by man:pl ‘Men have guns.’ iii. [HP Welsh, 157] darnau gwyddbwyll wedi cael eu benthyg piece:pl chess after get.VN POR.3pl borrow.VN gan Seamus Finnigan oedd gan Harri by Seamus Finnigan be.3sg.past by Harry ‘Harry had chess pawns borrowed from Seamus Finnigan.’ (B270.12) Real estate/topographic objects i. [LPP Welsh, 14] lle bach sy gen i place small rel by I ‘It is a small place that I have.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

ii.

(B270.13)

(B270.14)

(B270.15) i.

ii.

(B270.16) i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

[LPP Welsh, 34] roedd ganddo un llosgyfynydd cwsg dec:be.3sg.past by:3sg.m one volcano asleep ‘He also had one extinguished volcano.’ Wealth [HP I Welsh, 49] does gen i neg:exi.pres by I ‘I don’t have any money.’

ddim neg

hefyd too

arian money

Part-whole [HP I Welsh, 10] roedd ganddi ddeudeg bys ond dim dec:be.3sg.past by:3sg.f Ltwelve finger but neg ‘It [= the watch] had twelve fingers but no numbers.’

rhifau number:pl

Capacities [HP I Welsh, 226] does gan lawer o’r dewiniaid gorau ddim neg:exi.pres by many of-det magician:pl best neg owns o resymeg ounce of logic ‘Many of the best magicians do not know the tiniest bit of logic.’ [HP I Welsh, 119] mae gan y bachgen ddawn gynhenid Ltalent Lnatural exi.pres by det boy ‘The boy has a natural talent.’ Attitudes [HP I Welsh, 38] mae’n ddrwg gen i exi.pres-in Lbad by I ‘I am sorry.’ [HP I Welsh, 65] dda gen i dy weld di eto Lgood by I POR.2sg Lsee.VN you again ‘I am happy to see you again.’ [HP I Welsh, 17] mae’n gas ganddi’r hogyn exi.pres-in Lhateful by:3sg.f-det lad ‘She hates the lad.’ [HP I Welsh, 29] heddiw byddai’n well ganddo Lbe:3sg.cond-in well today by:3sg.m fod yn ei gwpwrdd gyda’i lythyr Lbe.VN in POR.3sg.m Lcupboard with-POR.3sg.m Lletter ‘Today he would be happy to be in his cupboard with his letter.’



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B270.17)

Plan [HP I Welsh, 30] roedd ganddo gynllun dec:be.3sg.past by:3sg.m Lplan ‘He had a plan.’

(B270.18)

Explanation [HP I Welsh, 5] does gan arbenigwyr ddim neg:exi.pres by specialist:pl neg ‘Specialists do not have any explanation.’

(B270.19)

Secret [HP I Welsh, 1] ond roedd ganddyn nhw but dec:be.3sg.past by:3pl they ‘But they also had a secret.’

esboniad explanation

hefy also

gyfrinach

Lsecret

(B270.20)

Time [HP I Welsh, 71] deng munud oedd ganddo i fynd ten minute be.3sg.past by:3sg.m to Lgo.VN ar y trên i Hogwarts on det train to Hogwarts ‘He had ten minutes to get on the train to Hogwarts.’

(B270.21)

Utterance [HP I Welsh, 90] doedd gan neb neg:be.3sg.past by nobody ‘Nobody had much to say.’

fawr i’w ddweud Lmuch to-POR.3pl Lsay.VN

The above list gives ample evidence of the all-purpose character of the constructions involving gan. Superficially, there is no huge gap in the distribution of gan over potential classes of possessees. The distinction of inalienable vs. alienable as such does not regulate the employment of gan, and neither does animate vs. inanimate, nor concrete vs. abstract. The syntactic weight of the possessees is no major obstacle to the employment of the gan-construction (cf. the rather complex possessee NP in [B270.11, iii.]). What about definiteness, then? In the majority of the examples, the possessees are indefinite and thus comply to the rules set up for typical possessees in havingconstructions (Heine 1997). However, there is one case where the possessee is overtly marked for definiteness, namely y graith ‘the scar’ in (B270.8). The definiteness of this possessee is also responsible for the deviant order of the participants: in lieu of the expected POR PUM order, we get PUM POR. This inverse order of possessor NP and possessee NP is also attested in (B270.4), (B270.11, ii.), (B270.16) and (B270.20). Everywhere else, the linearisation is as predicted – namely POR PUM. In none of the other deviant cases is the possessee overtly marked as definite. However, in (B270.4), the possessees are represented as proper nouns and as such inherently definite (Welsh personal names normally do not combine with the definite article in the singular [however they do in the plural: y Dursleys ‘the Dursleys’, etc.]). Discounting (B270.20) because it is a left-dislocation for the purpose of focus, there are two categories in which

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

an indefinite possessee precedes the possessor in the utterance. This is consistently the case with attitudes, cf. (B270.16). The attitudes are adverbialised adjectives (with adverbialisation via the preposition yn which is often left out) (King 1996: 292–293). The adverbialised adjectives are put closest to the appropriate form of the verb bod ‘to be’. Some 3rd person singular forms of the paradigm of bod are considered special existential forms, namely interrogative oes and negative does, while in the remainder of the paradigm, existential forms and the regular forms of the verb to be are identical (King 1996: 160–161). This is distantly reminiscent of the distinction of bí vs. copula in Irish and Scots Gaelic. And indeed, in combination with adjectival “possessees” Welsh gan resembles Irish le very much, not the least because the word-order rules of both languages coincide. The consistent use of the existential forms notwithstanding, outside the category of attitudes the differences prevail as definite possessees tend to come first in the Welsh construction, whereas they are put to the right of the possessor in Irish. Furthermore, where the Welsh possessor precedes the possessee the latter is usually indefinite – but definite with le in Irish. Thus, it is not possible to simply equate Irish le with Welsh gan although there is an area of overlap between the two. (B270.11, ii.) is especially intriguing because in this sentence the indefinite possessee is on the left of the possessor. This is perhaps the effect of focus as the immediately post-verbal position seems to have stronger focus than the subsequent ones to its right (the most prominent focus position being to the left of the finite verb). The two examples (B271)–(B272) show that the prescribed use of the existential verb forms is not always obeyed. (B271)

(B272)

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 51] ydi dy lythyr Q.be.3sg.pres POR.2sg Lletter ‘Do you still have your letter, Harry?’

gin by

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 57] ydi ei allwedd o Q:be.3sg.pres POR.3sg.m key he ‘Do you have his key, sir?’

ti you

o hyd still

Harri? Harry

gynnoch chi by:2pl you.pl

syr? sir

In these two questions, the interrogative form ydi ‘is’ of the regular paradigm of bod ‘to be’ is given preference over the expected existential form oes ‘is there’. This discrepancy cannot be ascribed to Hagrid’s linguistic idiosyncrasies since (B272) is uttered by a linguistically hyper-correct goblin banker. King (1996: 164) says that the decision of what verb form to chose “is simply a matter of determining whether it is an existential question or not”. Given this, the above two questions would be ruled out as instances of possessive constructions as they fail to contain the existential verb, which however, is claimed to be essential for constructions of predicative possession (King 1996: 320). This is doubtful because what other interpretation could there be for these sentences? – perhaps only the distinction of current/physical temporary possession vs.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

permanent possession. This would mean that the regular forms of bod are used for temporary possession, whereas the existential forms are either general in meaning or specialised for the expression of permanent possession. Unfortunately, from the immediate context of (B272), what Hagrid utters in (B273) is not helpful. (B273)

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 57] ac ma’ gin i lythyr and exi.pres by I Lletter Athro Dumbledore yn rhwla hefyd gan yr by det professor Dumbledore in somewhere too ‘And I have also a letter from Professor Dumbledore somewhere.’

Since mae has two readings, namely one existential ‘there is’ and one descriptive ‘is’, the distinction is also neutralised in the affirmative present tense and we need special contexts to tell the two categories formally apart. These special contexts are (King 1996: 144): •  •  •  • 

interrogative: descriptive ydy vs. existential oes answers to interrogative: descriptive ydy vs. existential oes negative: descriptive dydy … ddim vs. existential does dim negative-interrogative: identical to previous negative

We have checked the entire text of the Welsh Harry Potter translation for these four special contexts. We have counted altogether 61 cases of which 44 are instances of negated predica­tive possession; thirteen cases are expressions of predicative possession in questions; two are examples of negated predicative possession in questions and there are also two cases of direct answers to questions of the above kind. Unfortunately, almost half of these examples are still inconclusive as they instantiate those categories which allow for two interpretations (namely either non-present tense forms or subordinate non-finite constructions or relative clauses). The 31 conclusive cases yield the following distribution over categories, cf. Table (B274). (B274)

Welsh: Frequency count of special contexts verb

negative

question

answer

negative question

sum

oes ydy sum

20 1 21

3 4 7

1 1 2

1 0 1

25 6 31

The existential verb-form oes scores highest and outnumbers the competitor ydy in two out of four contexts. It is a draw in the contexts of answers to questions. However, ydy is slightly more common with positive questions. If we add up negative and positive questions, it is a draw between the two kinds of verbs. We will therefore have a closer look at this category first.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

In (B275), we list all examples for the use of existential oes in questions (including the one instance of a negative question). (B275)

Welsh: Existential oes in questions

(B275.1)

[HP I Welsh, 60] Oes gen ti dy ysgub dy hun? (= [B261k, i.]) ‘Do you have your own magic broom?’

(B275.2)

[HP I Welsh, 74] Oes gan Roni bach rwbaff ar ei drwyndwns?

(B275.3)

‘Has little Ronny something on his tip of his nose?’ [HP I Welsh, 204] Oes gen ti ddim cywilydd?

‘Aren’t you ashamed? (lit. Don’t you have any shamefulness)’ (B275.4)

[HP I Welsh, 210] ‘S gynnoch chi amsar i ga’l diod?



‘Do you have time to drink something?’

This inventory attests to a wide range of uses of the existential verb. For (B275.1), it is clear that Malfoy inquires about the permanent possession of the magic broom, whereas in (B275.2) and (B275.4) the questions focus on the actual situation: Ron has a fleck on his nose (which was not there before and which will be wiped off later) and Hagrid asks whether Harry and his companions actually have time to drink something. (B275.3) is trickier because the question could be posed either with reference to the present awkward situation or as a general doubt as to the ability of the addressee to feel ashamed at all. Thus, oes has the properties of a general expression with no semantic focus on any special category of possession. This is different with ydy however, cf. (B276). (B276) (B276.1)

Welsh: Ydy in questions (and answers): [HP I Welsh, 50] Ydi popeth gin ti?

(B276.2)

‘Do you have everything?’ [HP I Welsh, 51] Ydi dy lythyr gin ti o hyd? (= {B271])

(B276.3)

‘Do you still have your letter?’ [HP I Welsh, 57] Ydi ei allwedd o gynnoch chi, syr? - Ydi, yn rhwla. (= [B272])

(B276.4)



‘Do you have his key, sir? – Yes, somewhere.’ [HP I Welsh, 88]

Hei, chdi, ydi dy lyffant yn dal gen ti?

‘Hi, you, do you have your toad on you?’

In all of these cases, the question is always about a present state of affairs, about a perhaps only temporary situation. In (B276.1), Hagrid asks Harry whether he has packed up everything he needs for the journey they are about to undertake. No ownership or permanent possessive relation is at stake. The same applies to the remaining three cases: Hagrid wants to know whether Harry has the letter on him right now, the goblin banker needs the key to the vault at the moment of his uttering the question and



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

finally, Hagrid wants to assure himself that Neville has his toad under control at this very moment. In (B276.3), Hagrid gives a positive answer to the goblin’s question using ydy. The above distribution of the two verb forms is suggestive of the following division of labour among them. The existential oes neutralises all distinctions and can be used generally; if there is a need to highlight permanent possession or ownership, oes is the only option. Ydy on the other hand, can only be made use of in contexts which highlight current (presumably temporary physical) possession. Ydy is excluded from those contexts where oes indicates permanent possession. This distribution is corroborated by the examples in (B277). (B277)

Welsh: oes vs. ydy

(B277.1)

[HP I Welsh, 235] mae’r Maen ganddo fo! exi.pres-det stone by:3sg.m he ‘He has the [Philosopher’s] Stone!’ Maen ddim gan Quirrél. dydi’r neg:be.3sg.pres-det stone neg by Quirrel Yna gan bwy mae o? Lwho then by exi.pres he ‘Quirrel does not have the [Philosopher’s] Stone. – Then who has it?’

(B277.2)

[HP I Welsh, 128] rwan os nad oes ots gynnoch chi now if neg.that exi.pres odd by:2pl you.pl dwi’n mynd i ‘ngwely be.1sg.pres-in go.VN to Nbed nac oes, does dim ots gynnon ni. neg exi.pres neg:exi.pres neg odd by:1pl we ‘Now if you do not have anything against it, I will go to my bed. – No, we do not have anything against it.’

The two examples are each made up of a short dialogue. In (B277.1), after Harry’s fearful remark that his enemy has gotten hold of the Philosopher’s Stone, Dumbledore tries to reassure Harry that the stone is presently not in the hands of professor Quirrel. This is surely a focus on the present state of affairs – and accordingly, ydy is used in Dumbledore’s negative statement. However, in (B277.2), Hermione puts the purely rhetorical question of whether somebody objects to her leaving the room. Here she uses the existential oes and Ron’s answer has to echo this use automatically according to the Welsh rules of giving affirmative answers to direct questions (King 1996: 324–325). Oes is employed in a context where the present attitude of the addressee is of interest (even if this is just done for pretence or effect). We dare speculate that the questions about somebody’s consent in the above form are only possible with existential verb forms

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(as the rest our data base only yields examples with oes). The construction thus is idiomatised and formulaic. If however, the use of ydy is not ruled out completely, then ydy will certainly carry an emphatic note and will express the high degree of concern and interest of the one who poses the question in the present attitude of the addressee. Interestingly, in (B277.1), Harry’s question as a reaction to Dumbledore’s negative statement violates the rules for the formation of questions. In lieu of the appropriate verb form overtly marked as interrogative, Harry simply uses mae i.e., the verb form used for affirmative statements. Thus the question is probably only marked by intonation. There are two other instances of formally unmarked questions in the sample text, cf. (B278). (B278)

Welsh: mae in questions

(B278.1)

[HP I Welsh, 49]

(B278.2)

Mae gan ddewiniaid fanciau?

‘Do wizards have banks? (lit. wizards have banks?)’ [HP I Welsh, 212] Mae gynnoch chi rywbeth i’w ddweud sy’n bwysicach na’r Weinyddiaeth Hudoliaeth, Potter? ‘Do you have something to say that is more important than the Ministry of Magic, Potter? (lit. You have something to say that is more important than the Ministry of Magic, Potter?)’

What the two uses of mae in (B278) have in common with the two in (B277.1) is the fact that they are spontaneous reactions of surprise to unexpected stimuli. They are thus, in essence, highly emphatic. Since (B278.1) is a question about general possession or a permanent ownership relation, the use of mae in questions cannot be connected firmly to present states of affairs and current physical possession. There is another feature that distinguishes oes-constructions from ydy-constructions in (B275)–(B276). In the questions with existential oes, the possessor PP always comes immediately after the verb whereas in the ydy-constructions, it is the possessee NP which occupies this position. Moreover, all possessees in the ydy-constructions are definite – marked overtly either by the definite article or by the possessive pronoun. This also applies to (B277.1). The only example of a similarly definite possessee in a question with existential oes is (B275.1) where dy ysgub ‘your magic broom’ however, is not properly referential as the question is generic in nature, meaning: Malfoy does not want to know about this specific magic broom, but only asks whether or not Harry already has one. When we address the issue of word order variation in predicative possession we break it into several steps. To start, we look at the unexpected order PUM POR in possessive constructions of which there are exactly seventeen cases if we discount the much more frequent instances of “adjectival” possessees. The expected order POR PUM is the majority solution. In addition to the cases of divergent order exemplified above, we find the following cases with the possessee preceding the possessor,



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

cf. (B279). We do not take into account left dislocation and topicalisation phenomena which move a possessee NP to the leftmost position in the sentence (to the effect that it also “precedes” the possessor). (B279)

Welsh: instances of PUM-POR word order

(B279.1)

[HP I Welsh, 60]

(B279.2)

‘I have it all [= the lot] here.’ [HP I Welsh, 65]

(B279.3)

Ond ma’r darna gin i o hyd.

‘But I still have the pieces.’ [HP I Welsh, 146] ac mae’r Llyncill gan Llereurol

(B279.4)

Mae’r cwbl gen i yn fan’ma

‘And Gryffindor has the bludger.’ [HP I Welsh, 150] Mae’r Snichyn gen i!



‘I have the Snitch!’

(B279.5)

[HP I Welsh, 188] Mae’r Clogyn Anweledigrwydd gynnon ni

(B279.6)

‘We have the Invisibility Cloak.’ [HP I Welsh, 197] Mae’r cadwyni gen i yn fy swyddfa o hyd.

(B279.7)

‘I still have the chains in my office.’ [HP I Welsh, 64]

(B279.8)



Mae llygaid eich mam gynnoch chi.

‘You have your mother’s eyes.’ [HP I Welsh, 233] ac unwaith y bydd Elicsir Bywyd gen i, byddaf yn medru creu fy nghorff fy hun

‘And once that I have the Elixir of Life, I will be able to create a body of my own.’ (B279.9)

(B279.10)



[HP I Welsh, 11]

Mae o gin i, syr.

‘I have him [= the boy], sir.’ [HP I Welsh, 123] Mae wyneb gen ti.

‘You got some nerve! (lit. You have a face.)’

Except for the very last sentence (B279.10) all of the examples contain definite possessees. The first six from (B279.1) through (B279.6) are overtly marked for definiteness by the definite article. (B279.7) is referentially unique (“your mother’s eyes”) – the definite article is disallowed here because the possessee is represented by a genitive construction whose dependent genitive is itself pronominally possessed. In (B279.8), the definite article is absent because Elicsir Bywyd ‘the Elixir of Life’ is treated like a proper noun and is thus inherently definite. The possessee is a pronoun of the 3rd person singular masculine and therefore again inherently definite. The only exception to this rule governed by definiteness is an idiomatic expression. Note that the “correct” order of possessor preceding possessee would yield a somewhat unsatisfactory statement: mae gen ti wyneb ‘you have a face’ is grammatically acceptable but it sounds odd without any explanatory context as it is usually presupposed that human interactants

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

have faces. The construction with an indefinite possessee only makes sense if the face is further specified by some noteworthy characteristic, cf. [HP I Welsh, 89] Roedd ganddi wyneb chwyrn iawn. ‘She had a very stern face.’ The number of cases with a definite possessee in constructions with the “straight” order POR PUM is even smaller. There are only five examples in the Welsh version of Harry Potter I. They represent only four types, one of which is controversial, cf. (B280). (B280)

Welsh: definite possessees with POR-PUM word order

(B280.1)

[HP I Welsh, 107] fel yr Athro McGonagal, roedd gan Sneip y ddawn o gadw dosbarth yn dawel yn ddiymdrech



‘Like professor McGonagal, Snape had the talent of keeping a class quiet effortlessly.’ (B280.2)

[HP I Welsh, 222] Roedd ganddo’r ddawn o sylwi ar bethau na welai pobl eraill.

‘He had the talent to see things other people did not see.’ (B280.3)



[HP I Welsh, 119] Mae ganddo’r corff perffaith i fod yn Chwiliwr, hefyd

‘He also has the perfect body to be a Seeker.’

(B280.4)

[HP I Welsh, 245] Yncl Vernon oedd yno, â’r un wyneb piws a’r un mwstash, yn gandryll o’i go fod gan Harri’r wyneb i gario tylluan mewn cawell mewn gorsaf lawn o bobl gyffredin. ‘Uncle Vernon was there with the usual pink face and moustache, somewhat irritated that Harry had the nerve to carry an owl in a cage in a station full of ordinary people.’

(B280.5)

[HP I Welsh, 218] Mae gan Waldo Waedlyd ei resymau dros fod yn anweledig. ‘The Bloody Baron has his reasons for being invisible.’

The examples (B280.1)–(B280.4) are uncontroversial as the possessee is clearly made definite by the article. (B280.5) contains a pronominally possessed possessee rhesymau ‘reasons’. It is doubtful whether this is a fully definite possessee; we prefer to consider ei resymau ‘his rea­sons’ specific in lieu of definite (in the sense of reasons which are known to the interlocutor form the wider context of the utterance). In contrast to the cases in (B279) whose possessee NPs are relatively light, the possessees in (B280) are such that they are additionally modified by complex PP-adjuncts i.e., these possessees are syntactically heavy. This heaviness prevents them from moving into the slot to the immediate right of the sentence-initial (mostly finite) verb because moving there would either mean that the complete adjunct-PP has to move along with it and thus make the construction difficult to parse, or the movement would separate the



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

possessee head noun from the adjunct if the latter remains in situ. This again would lead to parsing problems because the possessor NP is intercalated and the internal relation of the adjunct is blurred. Thus, there are clear functional reasons for avoiding leftward movement in these cases. The syntactic weight of the possessee NP is decisive for the application of movement rules. More precisely, a definite possessee tends to take the position to the right of the verb. However, if the possessee happens to be syntactically heavy this option is blocked and the possessee does not move. Interestingly, syntactically heavy possessors may be kept in situ even though the possessee is of the lightest kind syntactically (= an indefinite noun) and thus would be movable. (B281) is an example of a rather complex possessor-NP. (B281)

[Ditectifs 61] oes gan [unrhyw un exi.pres by someone one ‘Has anyone else got a cat?’

arall ohonoch chi]POR [gath]PUM? other of:2pl you.pl Lcat

The possessor-NP consists of five words whereas the possessee is represented by one word alone. Nevertheless, the syntactically complex possessor-NP (which includes a partitive PP and an indefinite quantifier) precedes the simple possessee-NP. In this example, the possessor is indeed in focus as the previous discourse-topic is cats. The interlocutors talk about one girl having lost her cat and the psychological problems triggered by the sudden loss of a pet. Then the speaker turns to the whole group of girls and inquires about the presence of another cat-owner. Since the immediate postverbal position seems to have more focus properties than the slots further to the right, this is the proper place for the possessor-NP to be placed. There is another word-order issue which is relevant for the identification of potential distinctions in the realm of predicative possession in Welsh. For negative statements, King (1996: 144) postulates a clear-cut distribution. In Welsh, double negation is obligatory and typically consists of a verb-form overtly marked for negation and a separate free morpheme of negation which occurs post-verbally. Where exactly this second component of the negative construction is placed in the utterance is important for the present issue. There are two possibilities whose schematic make-up is given in (B282). (B282)

Welsh negative constructions

(B282.1)

V[negative] NP

(B282.2)

V[negative] NEG NP

NEG “descriptive” “existential”

There are several ways of marking the negative polarity of the verb for instance via a pre-verbal negative particle (e.g., nid), a negative pro-clitic or even prefix (e.g., d- which actually is the final consonant of the full negative particle) and/or the mutation of the verb-initial consonant. The second element of the negative construction is predominantly the negation dim or one of its allomorphs which

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

occupy either a (not necessarily adjacent) slot to the right of the first NP of the sentence (and is then an instance of a so-called descriptive construction) or it is put immediately next to the negated verb and thus precedes the first NP. In this latter case, we are dealing with a negated existential construction. According to the above criticised hypothesis that predicative possession in Welsh is strictly connected to the existential, only (B282b) could be a candidate for the expression of negated predicative possession. However, as with positive polarity (cf. [B274]–[B277]), there is ample evidence in our corpus that not only the “expected” construction is employed for possessive purposes. Surprisingly, of the twenty instances of negated predicative possession involving the existential oes (cf. [B274]), there is only one isolated example of the “expected” word order, namely the answer of Ron to Hermione’s rhetorical question (cf. [B277.2]): does dim ots gynnon ni ‘we do not mind’ (= [HP I Welsh, 128]). Everywhere else in the text, the two components of the double negation are separated from each other by either the PP indicating the possessor or a definite possessee-NP. This fact is independent of whether the verbform employed is existential or is a regular form of bod, cf. the examples in (B283). In the previous exemplification above, there are also many pertinent examples of negated predicative possession which corroborate the almost exclusive preference for discontinuous negative constructions with an intercalated NP between the two negative elements. (B283)

Welsh

(B283.1)

Existential [HP I Welsh, 176] does gen ti ddim brêns neg:exi.pres by you Lneg brains ‘You have not got any brains.’

(B283.2)

Descriptive [HP I Welsh, 223] doedd gan y darnau gwynion ddim wynebau neg:be.3sg.past by det piece:pl white:pl Lneg face:pl ‘The white chess-pawns had no faces.’

This is tantamount to saying that the “expected” construction is actually an exception. Since the deviation from the “expected” word order is so ubiquitous, it is difficult to detect any special conditions which determine the use of these deviations on the basis of the translation of Harry Potter alone. Therefore, we have to take other texts into account, too. What we find there fits the single case in our Harry-Potter version. Does dim X is used almost exclusively in the idiomatic expression does dim ots gan X ‘X does not mind’ where ots is an atypical possessee as it refers to an attitude. In five books with altogether 470 pages, we have found two dozen examples for this idiomatic phrase. The other types of does-dim-constructions we ever encountered in our extended corpus are given in (B284).



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

(B284)

Welsh

(B284.1)

[Mynd 52] does dim gwahaniaeth ‘da fi neg:exi.pres neg difference with I ‘It makes no difference to me.’

(B284.2)

[Ditectifs 18] fel arfer does dim yn waeth gan Mrs Roberts like custom neg:exi.pres neg in Lworst by Mrs Roberts na gweld rhywun yn pasio neges neg see.VN someone in pass.VN message ‘Like usual, it was not the worst for Mrs Roberts to see that nobody passed on the message.’

(B284.3)

[Ditectifs 10] does dim brawd na neg:exi.pres neg brother nor ‘Ali has neither a brother nor a sister.’

chwaer gan Ali sister by Ali

(B284.1) is again an idiomatic expression whose possessee noun gwahaniaeth ‘difference’ is atypical. The same holds true for (B284.2). The whole utterance describes an attitude of the speaker and thus there is a common functional bond between the two idioms in (B284.1)–(284.2) and does dim ots. It should not go unmentioned that especially does dim ots displays a strong tendency towards reduction. Cases like the one in (B285) are relatively frequent in our texts. (B285)

Welsh [Paent 59] ‘s-dim ots gen neg.exi.pres-neg odd by ‘I don’t mind.’

i I

The initial oes is reduced to its final consonant, which in turn becomes a pro-clitic of the immediately following dim. In this way, the two components of the double negation fuse into one phonological word. This reduction-cum-cliticisation of oes does not occur only in this expression. However, it has almost developed into the normal form the negation in this idiomatic expression. The process is blocked however with verbforms other than oes, cf. (B286). (B286)

Welsh [Paent 62] ond y tro hwn doedd dim but det turn dem neg:be.3sg.past neg ‘But this time, I did not mind.’

ots odd

gen by

i I

The situation is of course different in (B284.3). The kinship terms are prototypically inalienable possessees. They are indefinite and obey the word-order rules established by King (1993). However, indefiniteness does not necessarily trigger word-order type (B282.2) – even if a clearly identifiable existential verb form is used, cf. (B287).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B287)

Welsh

(B287.1)

[Nhŷ 16] does gyda fe ddim gobaith neg:exi-pres with he neg hope ‘He has not got any hope.’

(B287.2)

[Paent 14] does ganddi hi ddim amser. neg:exi-pres by:3sg.f she neg time ‘She does not have time.’

(B287.3)

[HP I Welsh, 49] does gen i ddim neg:exi-pres by I neg ‘I do not have any money.’

arian. money

Thus, the indefinite possessees in (B287) display the same indefiniteness as (B284.3), but do not have the same syntactic properties. Since all possessees surveyed in these examples are equally light in terms of syntactic weight, the light-heavy distinction cannot be invoked as an explanation either. Given the infrequency of constructions like (B284.3) in our corpus, one could be inclined to declare does dim X the marked case. However, when is the marked case employed? Consider (B288) which is the direct continuation of example (B284.3). (B288)

Welsh [Ditectif 10] (Does dim brawd na chwaer gan Ali,) ond mae gyda hi gi o’r enw Pepsi but exi.pres with she Ldog of-det name Pepsi ‘(Ali has neither brother nor sister) but she has a dog named Pepsi.’

In this complex sentence, the adversative clause creates a contrast to the preceding clause in which the non-existence of Ali’s siblings is stated. The contrast revolves around what Ali has and what she does not have. Therefore pragmatics is involved. The workings of pragmatic factors are also clearly discernible in the passage of text given in (B289). Boldface indicates the possessor and underlining marks the possessee. (B289)

[Ditectifs 28] (“All rhywun roi benthyg punt i fi?” gofynnodd.) dim ond pedair sy gen i na pedair puntdau ddeg. neg but four.f rel by I neg four.f pound twenty (Ymbalfalon ni yn ein pocedi.) roedd deg ceiniog gan Sara a phum deg gan Mel dec:be.3sg.past ten pence by Sara and Afifty by Mel doedd gen i ddim arian o gwbl na Sam chwaith neg:be.3sg.past by I neg money of Lall neg Sam either



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

‘(“May I borrow a pound from someone?” she asked.) “I only have four pounds, not four pounds twenty.” (We groped in our pockets.) Sara had ten pence and Mel had fifty. I had no money at all, nor had Sam.’

The girls compare the amounts of money they happen to have on them when one of the group needs to borrow a pound. The one who is in need of money makes the first statement by employing the regular focus construction with the relativiser sy (King 1996: 151). What is in focus is the exact amount of money. Thus, the sums the next two possessors can offer the first one are mentioned earlier than the possessors themselves in the continuation of the paragraph. However, this is achieved without making use of the strongest focussing strategy: in lieu of moving the possessee-NPs to the position at the leftmost margin of the sentence, they only precede the possessor-NP, leaving the leftmost slot to the finite verb. The possessee-NPs in these cases are in focus relative to the possessor. However, the focus is less strong than in the initial sentence. The third sentence attests to a shift of focus: now that the readers knows what sums the other girls could collect, the narrator contrasts herself with her friends. The focus is on the possessor this time – again only to a relatively restricted degree as the possessor-NP is not left-dislocated, it only occupies the slot to the right of the verb. In this case, the possessor has a perhaps only slightly higher degree of focus – in comparison to the possessee. Pragmatics are thus responsible for the word-order variation observed for possessor and possessee in Welsh predicative constructions. What remains to be looked into is the co-existence of the two constructions introduced in (B266). Contrary to expectation, we find many instances of ganconstructions and gyda-constructions in one and the same text. (B283.1) is already an example of a gyda-construction that occurs side by side with gan-constructions. How do we account for the competition of the two prepositions? Is there any competition at all? We know from (B266) that the order of possessor and possessee in gyda-constructions differs from the one postulated for gan-constructions. What we also know from the previous discussion is that in gan-constructions, pragmatics intervene frequently in such a way that the NPs shift places and both POR-PUM order and PUM-POR order are attested. According to (B266), gan-construction correspond to possessor focus (in the mitigated sense discussed in the previous paragraphs), whereas gyda-constructions have a light focus on the possessee. Before we look at the tenability of this pragmatically-based distinction, it is necessary to emphasise the fact that in those texts where both constructions (gan vs. gyda) are employed, we have not been able to detect any semantic basis for the distribution of the two relators. They combine with the same possessors and the same possessees no matter to which lexico-semantic field these belong. In (B290)–(B292), we give pairs of expressions of predicative possession. In each of the pairs, a gan-construction competes with a gyda-construction in combination with identical or semantically similar possessees. The two sentences forming a “minimal” pair stem from the same text.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B290)

Welsh

(B290.1)

[Ditectifs 11] mae gyda hi ddwy chwaer exi.pres with she Ltwo.f sister ‘She has two sisters.’

(B290.2)

[Ditectifs 12] mae gan Mel exi.pres by Mel ‘Mel has two brothers.’

(B291)

Welsh

(B291.1)

[Nhŷ 45] does gyda neg.exi.pres with ‘I don’t have any idea.’

ddau Ltwo.m

fi I

frawd Lbrother

ddim syniad idea

Lneg

(B291.2)

[Nhŷ 70] doedd gen i ddim syniad beth i’w wneud L L neg:be.3sg.past by I neg idea what to-POR.3pl do.VN ‘I didn’t have any idea what to do.’

(B292)

Welsh

(B292.1)

[Paent 74] mae gyda ni ddigon o amser cyn i’r post exi.pres with we Lenough of time before to-det post fynd LgoVN ‘We have enough time before going to the post-office.’

(B292.2)

[Paent 84] doedd gynnon ni ddim amser i cael neg:be.3sg.past by:1pl we Lneg time to get.VN cyfarfod dros y penwythnos meeting over det weekend ‘We did not have time to have a meeting over the weekend.’

What we see is that not only kinship relations, but also more abstract possessees like time and ideas can all be combined with either gan or gyda. The possessors may be full nouns or pronouns – their word-class membership does not affect their compatibility with both prepositions. Thus, we can cut the investigation short at this point: the co-existence of gyda and gan has no semantic background. The same holds true for potential explanations in terms of syntactic weight: gan and gyda do not display any preferences for either heavy or light possessee-NPs. Gyda is also occasionally attested in fixed expressions which otherwise require the use of gan: [Ditectifs 9] ond dw i ddim yn credu bod ots gyda nhw ‘but I don’t think that they mind.’ (cf. [B285]). We have not



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

found any evidence suggesting that the choice between gan and gyda is regulated by the distinction of permanent/general possession vs. actual physical possession. Gyda and gan are attested not only in descriptive sentences but also in negative statements and questions (we have the impression that gyda might be disfavoured in questions but this impressionistic observation needs further corroboration by additional data). As to definiteness, our current corpus does not allow us to formulate a hypothesis. The possessees in (B290)–(B292) are all indefinite – and that is generally the case with possessees in those texts where both gan and gyda occur in possessive function. Whether or not gyda is easier to combine with definite possessees than gan appears to be is a question which calls for a much larger corpus and thus is relegated to a future, followup study. The only example of a definite possessee in our present corpus of texts with possessive gan and possessive gyda is (B293). (B293)

Welsh [Nhŷ 58] mae hi gyda ni ers oesoedd. exi.pres she with we since age:pl ‘We have had it [= the kitchen] since time immemorial.’

The possessee is definite as it is represented by a personal pronoun. In this sentence gyda is used. Since we know from the above discussion that, occasionally, gan is also combined with definite possessees (cf. [B279]), it is unlikely that definiteness is a crucial factor in the distribution of the two prepositions. Furthermore, example (B293) points to another interesting fact. In contrast to the (a)-sentences in (B290)–(B292) where the PP with gyda as head occurs to the right of the finite verb, (B293) is one of the relatively rare instances in our sources in which the “expected” word order of (B266) is realised. Gyda-phrases tend to occur in exactly the same places as is “expected” of gan-phrases. There is no evidence whatsoever in our corpus that gan-constructions and gyda-constructions differ syntactically. In the three texts Ditectifs, Nhŷ and Paent, there are altogether 47 instances of possessive gyda in main clauses. Of these 47 cases, only six correspond to the word-order principles of (B266). These six cases are unsurprising because if we replace gyda with gan the word-order remains the same because the possessees are atypical: adjectives indicating feelings or attitudes. Thus, gyda and gan are free substitutes of each other. Their full equivalence is perhaps only transitory. We suspect that gyda has become acceptable as a replacement of gan in possessive constructions only relatively recently. Chances are that gyda is currently ousting gan in possessive functions (at least in spoken Welsh). The dynamic and diachronic side of this issue however, is the topic of a separate study. What our above discussion suggests is that in predicative possession, the Welsh construc­tions more often than not “misbehave” as they deviate from what is expected of proper existential constructions. They have their own characteristics which set them

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

apart. Furthermore, it does not make much sense to restrict the term possession to bona fide cases of constructions based on the existential verb-forms. There is a functionally motivated opposition between possessive construction involving existentials and those which employ regular forms of bod. In the realm of negated predicative possession, this opposition tends to restrict proper existential does dim to atypical possessees, whereas in questions, the dividing-line runs between permanent or general possession on the one hand, and current physical possession on the other. In all other contexts, definiteness, syntactic weight and pragmatic factors combine in intricate ways. Word-order phenomena are largely dependent upon one or more of these determining factors. Semantics on the other hand, do not have much of a say in this area of Welsh possession. Yet this is not the whole story of Welsh predicative possession. As in Goidelic (see [B260]), there are other constructions in Welsh which resemble the above ones structurally but convey meanings which are located on the periphery of possessive relations. What these constructions have in common with proper predicative possession is their general make up: the existential verb-forms are combined with a PP whose complement is often an experiencer which undergoes the effect of the “force” which is put into relation to the “experiencer” by prepositions. The prepositions most often used in this context are ar ‘on’ and i ‘to’. King (1996: 235–236) says that the constructions with ar serve the purpose of expressing “[t]emporary states of mind or body”, especially those which are “unpleasant or unwelcome” or “illnesses and diseases”. (B294)

Welsh (King 1996: 273)

(B294.1)

mae’r ddannoedd exi.pres-det Ltoothache ‘I have got toothache.’

(B294.2)

oes ofn arnat ti? Q.exi.pres fear on:2sg you ‘Are you afraid?’

arna i on:1sg I

Examples of this construction abound in our sources. We make do with mentioning just a handful of examples randomly taken from our Welsh primary sources, cf. (B295). (B295)

Welsh

(B295.1)

[LPP Welsh, 77] mae syched arna exi.pres thirst on:1sg ‘Me too, I am thirsty.’

(B295.2)

minnau I:emph

hefyd too

[LPP Welsh, 36] doedd arno fe ddim eisiau i’r tywysog bach neg:be.3sg.past on:3sg.m he Lneg wish to-det prince small



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

ei weld e’n llefain POR.3sg.m Lsee.VN he-in cry.VN ‘It [= the flower] did not want the little Prince to see it crying.’ (B295.3)

[Lôn 81] cyn gadael teulu Pantcelyn mae arnaf chwant before leave.VN family Pantcelyn exi.pres on:1sg desire adrodd stori am f ’ewythr Harri relate.VN story about POR.1sg-uncle Harry ‘Before I leave the Pantcelyn family, I want to tell a story about my uncle Harry.’

(B295.4)

[HP I Welsh, 55] nid bod angen hynny arnoch chi, nagoes, Potter? neg be.VN need that on:2pl you.pl neg.exi.pres Potter ‘Not that you have need for that, have you, Potter?’

This is the only semantically motivated split in Welsh predicative possession. Temporary mental and physical states are singled out for special morphosyntactic treatment. As the above examples suggest, the physico-mental states do not need to be negative ones (Notions like desire, wish, need are perhaps neutral as to their connotations and it is the context in which they are used that determines whether or not they are interpreted as negative.). Nevertheless, the unpleasant states may be statistically more frequent in texts. To decide this issue, a frequency count is called for – again a task we relegate to future studies. Moreover, as King (1996: 236) observes, there is an additional specification, namely certain names for “bodily aches and pains incorporating tost ill, sore”. These are said to require gyda ‘with’ as relator whereas cur ‘pain’ takes gan (in Northern Welsh). As our own primary sources suggest, the predicative construction with gan (and presumably also those with gyda) may be also used with expressions of bodily pain, cf. (B296). (B296)

Welsh

(B296.1)

[Chwarae 39] roedd ganddo gur dec:be.3sg.past by:3sg.m Lpain ‘He had a terrible headache.’

(B296.2)

pen ofnadwy head terrible

[Paent 12] roedd gen i boen yn dec:be.3sg.past by I Lpain in ‘I had a pain in the back of my head.’

fy mhen-ôl POR.1sg Nhead-back

This is perhaps indicative of a tendency to generalise the gan/gyda-constructions as they already cover most of the range of possible possessive relations in modern Welsh. However, our evidence is much too sparse to allow any conclusions at this point of our investigation.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Welsh differs from the two Goidelic languages in so far as it employs two different prepositions, one of which is the general relator in having-constructions and the other is specialised for the encoding of physico-mental states. In Irish and Scots Gaelic, the same relator ag/aig is used for both purposes. Thus, Welsh has at least one formally distinct possessive category which its Goidelic relatives lack. This additional distinction makes the possessive system of Welsh more complex, of course. Five parameters interact in the shaping of this system, namely the semantics of the possessee (general vs. temporary physicomental states), the time dimension (temporary physical vs. permanent possession), the syntactic weight (heavy vs. light possessee NPs), definiteness (definite vs. indefinite possessees) and last but not least, pragmatics (focus vs. non-focus). We try to capture the multilateral relations between these factors in diagram (B297) which is again a simplification as many detail cannot be adequately represented in a two-dimensional space. (B297)

The Welsh system of predicative possession (an approximation) temporary semantics general physico-mental states

gan/gyda

ar



permanent

temporary



V[existential]

V[to be]

pragmatics definiteness weight

possessee focus PUM-POR definite possessee PUM-POR light possessee NP PUM-POR

possessee non-focus POR-PUM indefinite possessee POR-PUM heavy possessee NP POR-PUM

The table depicts the system as organised along the line of options. The hierarchically highest ranking one is the choice between gan/gyda and ar depending on the semantics of the possessee. Temporary physico-mental states are treated differently from the bulk of possessive relations. The semantic component of temporary situation also plays a role on the next rank on which the choice of oes vs. ydy is regulated. No matter which one of these two options applies the order of possessor and possessee is subject to readjustments, on all lower ranking positions. We see pragmatics as the strongest of the three remaining criteria followed by definiteness and syntactic weight. Possessee NPs precede possessor NPs if they are focused and/or definite and/or light. Conversely, non-focused and/or indefinite and/or heavy possessee NPs usually come later in the utterance. To what extent these parameters also influence word-order in the expression of physico-mental states could not yet be precisely established. However, in future studies, we expect to find that the above rules also apply to constructions based on ar. The final paragraphs of this sub-section are devoted to Breton. As mentioned in the introductory part to this section, Breton displays certain properties which suggest



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

that a having-verb is currently being created by re-interpreting the extant construction. This construction itself consists of a so-called pronominal infix (object) and a form of the verb bout ‘to be’ or bezañ ‘to be’ (Ternes 1992: 424). Favereau (1997: 213) observes that “le fait que ces formes soient composées d’un infixe, pronom objet de personne, qui provoque des mutations (parfois assez diverses) explique une certaine efflorescence, qui n’en est que la simple résultante quasi mécanique (au sens purement phonétique)”. It is this variation of forms together with the frequent use of a distinct infinitive (= verb-noun) kaout ‘to have’ (originally kavout ‘to find’) in lieu of bout ‘to be’/bezañ ‘to be’ which make the verbal core of the predicative possession stand out. The paradigm is not automatically predictable from what we know about the paradigm of bout ‘to be’/bezañ ‘to be’ itself. In at least the spoken varieties of Breton, the development of the various paradigmatic forms has progressed in such a way that they are no longer recognisable as “periphrastic” constructions. Univerbation, mutation and sound change have contributed their share to the creation of a having-verb. Table (B298) is meant only to give a first idea of how much variation there is. Favereau (1997: 218) rightfully distinguishes a literary conjugation from a popular one. The popular conjugation might be considered that of a new independent verb. Therefore, we gloss the verbal part of the Breton having-construction as ‘have’ in the transmorphemisations. (B298)

Breton: Present tense paradigms

norm

Haut-Vannetais

1sg 2sg 3sg.m 3sg.f 1pl 2pl 3pl

‘m eus ‘c’h eus en deus he deus hon eus hoc’h eus o deus

‘m bout a’ pout en dout he dout hor bout hou pout o dout

dialectal

am beus ‘z peus en neus he neus hom eump ho peus neus

‘feus neus meump peut neuzint

The difference between Breton and the three other Celtic languages is obvious. Where Scots Gaelic, Irish and Welsh have recourse to PPs to express the possessor, Breton opts for the simple object pronouns. Breton is therefore a representative of those languages which use the so-called dative schema for their expressions of predicative possession, whereas Goidelic and Welsh employ the companion schema and the locative schema for the same purpose (Heine 1997). However, a closer look at the distribution of the above construction in Breton reveals that it has a number of competitors which look familiar to us because of what we have learned about Celtic possession so far. Favereau (1997: 218–219) distinguishes various possessive relations each of which is expressed by a different construction. Consider his first example in (B299).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B299)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 218) un tok nevez ‘m eus (mes er gêr emañ ganin) indef hat new 1sg have (but in town be.3sg.pres with:1sg ‘I have a new hat (but it is presently at my home).’

The primary function of the emerging having-verb in Breton is to indicate legal ownership. Thus ‘m eus ‘I have’ in (B299) refers to the fact that the speaker owns a new hat, but does not have it on or near him at the time of speaking. Where ownership is not at issue, but the possessive relation is one of current physical possession, Breton offers a different construction, namely bezañ gant/bout get ‘to be with’ which is a cognate of the Welsh gan-construction described above. The possessor is introduced by a preposition which is otherwise employed for relations of accompaniment, instrumentality and passive agent (Stolz; Stroh & Urdze 2006: 277), cf. (B300). (B300)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 218) ma zok nevez zo be POR.1sg Shat new ‘I have my new hat (on).’

ganin with:1sg

In (B300), the use of the PP ganin ‘with me’ indicates that the speaker is wearing the hat or has it under his physical control at the moment of speaking. We therefore have a formalised distinction of permanent possession vs. current/temporary physical possession. Favereau (1997: 220) goes on to describe that ‘m eus ‘I have’ cannot be equated with the belonging-construction because this requires another distinct prepositional strategy, cf. (B301). (B301)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 219) an tok zo ganit zo din det hat be.3sg with:2sg be.3sg to:1sg ‘That hat you are wearing is mine.’

The preposition da ‘to’ and its functional range has already been discussed in section 4.3.1.1. Minimal pairs of having vs. belonging usually look like (B302). (B302)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 219)

(B302.1)

having un ti ‘m indef house 1sg ‘I have a house.’

(B302.2)

eus have

belonging an ti zo din det house be.3sg to:1sg ‘The house belongs to me.’

The difference in definiteness of the possessees in (B302) corresponds to what we expect from a having-belonging opposition. However, in addition to the expression



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

of belonging, da ‘to’ is also employed for the expression of temporary physico-mental states, cf. (B303). (B303)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 219) tomm eo din cold be.3sg to:1sg ‘I am cold.’

In this function, da ‘to’ competes with gant ‘with’ which seems to be more often employed when the possessee is an illness as in (B304). (B304)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 219)

(B304.1)

terzhienn zo gantañ fever be.3sg with:3sg.m ‘He has a fever.’

(B304.2)

ar grip zo det flu be.3sg ‘He has the flu.’

gantañ with:3sg.m

As with physico-mental states in Welsh, there is also the option of expressing these relations with ‘m eus ‘I have’, etc. In emphatic contexts, da ‘to’ may also be employed, for instance, to denote body-part possession, cf. (B305). (B305)

Breton (Favereau 1997: 219)

(B305.1)

Neutral daoulagad glas neus blue 3sg.m:have du:eye ‘He has blue eyes.’

(B305.2)

Emphatic daoulagad glas zo dean! blue be.3sg to:3sg.m du:eye ‘What blue eyes he has got!’

Once again, the data are suggestive of a complex system in which semantics and pragmatics are decisive factors. Breton has a tendency to put the finite verb in the second slot. The slot to the left of the finite verb is then occupied by those elements which are in focus. This is often the sentence subject, but not necessarily (Favereau 1997: 317–327). In all examples from (B299)–(B305), it is the possessee that occupies this focus position. Definiteness does not seem to matter, nor does syntactic weight. Indeed, possessee-initial constructions abound in our sources, cf. (B306) a full-blown focus-construction. (B306)

Breton [Marh 66] [eur botegad avalou]PUM a oa ganti indef basket apple:pl rel be.3sg with:3sg.f ‘She had/carried a basket of apples.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

However, the position of the possessee-NP is by no means fixed. Heavy possessees, such as coordinated ones may be placed to the right of the possessor-NP as in (B307). (B307)

Breton [LPP Breton, 11] hag o vezañ ma ne oa ganin and part Lbe that neg be.3sg.imperf with:1sg [na mekanikour na treizhidi]PUM neg mechanic neg passenger ‘And because I had with me neither a mechanic nor a passenger…’

The above sketch of Breton predicative possession can be summarised in the form of a table. (B308) tries to make the most of the information we have been able to gather. (B308)

The Breton system of predicative possession (an approximation) pragmatics semantics weight

neutral permanent ‘m eus concrete abstract

temporary

emphatic

gant da da objects illnesses physico-mental general physico-mental states states POR – PUM

Clearly, for some areas, we still need further data to provide a more detailed description of the Breton system. These open questions notwithstanding, (B308) is indicative of a system in which similar factors as those in Welsh and the two Goidelic languages are at work. However, each of the four Celtic languages displays an individual realisation of the interaction of the same set of factors.

4.3.3  Attributive vs. predicative possession in the Celtic phylum Given the individual behaviour of the Celtic languages, it is hard to summarise our above findings in a simple diagram. Attributive and predictive possession show a considerable degree of overlap as to the distinctions which are categorically made on each level. However, there are also differences which disallow a simple one-to-one mapping of one component of the system onto the other. In spite of the difficulties a pluridimensional and multilingual comparison poses, we dare to draw the following conclusions. There is a leitmotif which characterises all of the segments of the possessive systems and which recurs in all Celtic languages, namely that there is always at least a binary split into two categories of possession, occasionally even more than just two. These splits however, do not fully coincide with each other and thus there is variation not only between the individual languages, but also between attributive and predicative possession. The two most cited categories of inalienable possession – kinship and body-parts – play different roles in different languages and on different levels. In the Celtic phylum, kin is reserved a special status, whereas body-parts have only some residual niches in the



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

possessive systems in Goidelic, most notably in conservative varieties of Scots Gaelic pronominal possession. For kinship terminology to receive a visibly distinct treatment in possessive constructions they must fulfil one criterion, namely being indefinite. Definite kinship terms behave formally like all other inalienable possessee in Scots Gaelic or like definite possessees in general in the other Celtic languages. However, indefinite possessees require a special relator: do in Goidelic, i in Welsh and da in Breton. These prepositions contrast with other prepositions like ag/aig and le in Goidelic, gan and ar in Welsh and gant in Breton which are used for relations other than kin. These “other relations” are themselves subject to further distinctions. On the semantics parameter, the distinction of physico-mental states as opposed to other classes of possessees is a recurrent theme, at least for Irish, Welsh and Breton. Temporary physico-mental states require a specific relator which is not identical with the ones used for the bulk of other possessees. In Irish, the relator is le which corresponds to Welsh ar and Breton da. Breton goes even further as it employs gant for illnesses which elsewhere in the Celtic languages seem to receive the same relator as other physico-mental states. The Breton case is also telling because gant is at the same time also the relator which encodes actual physical possession. The distinction of permanent vs. temporary possession is well established in the two Brythonic languages, although it is somewhat covert in Welsh (as it is only identifiable with verb-forms that are not syncretistic). Since Irish le is also used to mark confective relations, one could claim that the distribution is almost identical to the one attested in Breton. We summarise these observations synoptically in (B309). (B309)

Synopsis of attributive and predicative possession in the Celtic phylum criteria definite indefinite +control ¬control

inalienable N-N

kin W. i, B. da, Ir. do, sg do temporary illness mental state

alienable N-N W. gan/gyda, B. ‘m eus, Ir. ag, sg aig W. gan, B. gant, Ir. le, sg le W. ar, B. gant, Ir. le, sg le W. ar, B. da, Ir, le, sg le

The table is again a simplification. However, it provides a suitable overview of those distinctions which are more firmly rooted in semantics. We notice however that alienable and inalienable alone are not sufficient criteria to explain the distribution of the coding strategies. Only in combination with at least one other criterion (definiteness, temporary) does the alienability correlation determine the system. We have to add that the parameter [±control] is also important: physico-mental states – not the least illnesses – are not under the control of the possessor. In Welsh, these categories correlate with the distribution of the preposition ar ‘on’, whereas in Breton the division-line cuts across the categories characterised by absence of control on the part of the possessor.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

In Irish, [±control] is irrelevant for the employment of the prepositions – and it can be assumed that the same holds true for Scots Gaelic, too. It is intriguing to see that especially the system as it represented by Welsh is reminiscent of those distinctions which we have established for Icelandic in sections 4.2.1.–4.2.3. Whether or not this resemblance can be explained by convergence or by accident is a topic we reserve for a special separate study devoted to the areal linguistics of possession in the European Northwest. In (B309), we have not made mention of pragmatics and syntactic weight as additional factors which determine the shape a possessive construction may take. Generally, pragmatics and syntactic weight are strong enough to overrule the basic semantically oriented distinctions. In the majority of cases, word-order is directly affected by pragmatics or syntactic weight, i.e., NPs which are focused on move leftwards, whereas NPs which are heavy move to the right. Rightwards “movement” especially may also trigger the use of prepositional strategies. These are observations which apply to all members of the Celtic phylum. They are mainly responsible for the fact that the systematicity of the possessive systems of these languages does not immediately strike the eye of the observer. However, if we strip the data of their pragmatic component and the influence exerted by syntactic weight, a picture like the one painted in (B309) reveals itself.

4.4  The common core of split possession It is time now to sum up what we have found out about split possession in the previous sections. We have compared a variety of European languages which are diverse enough to counter the claim that the evidence drawn from them is biased in one way or another. First of all, the languages are genetically unrelated (Afroasiatic Maltese as opposed to the members of the Indo-European macrophylum) or only distantly related (Germanic and Celtic phyla). Thus, the existence of possession splits in all of the above case studies cannot be considered the heritage of a common ancestor. Moreover, the typological properties of the languages are not identical. The NorthGermanic languages for instance, are predominantly dependent-marking, whereas both Celtic languages and Maltese also have a relatively strong, though minor, component of head-marking structures. Some of the languages are case languages, namely the insular North Germanic languages and the members of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic phylum, whereas Maltese, the Brythonic languages and the mainland North Germanic languages do not have morphological case. As to word-order, the North Germanic languages are V2–languages, the Celtic languages are VSO-languages (with some tendency in Breton towards SVO) and Maltese is nowadays a representative of the SVO-type. Maltese is a typical pro-drop language, as opposed to North Germanic where subject pronouns are practically obligatory in the absence of a lexical subject.



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

Celtic languages are somewhere in between these two extremes because conservative varieties are still largely pro-drop, but progressive varieties have lost this feature almost completely. Admittedly, the languages share a number of other typological features, for instance: all of them have accusative alignment and all of them are gender languages (though of different types: Icelandic and Faroese = M/F/N. mainland North Germanic = U/N, Celtic and Maltese M/F). However, there is no compelling reason to believe that these structural properties determine whether or not a language allows for possession splits to apply. It is important to note that it is even irrelevant for this issue whether or not a language has a proper having-verb: Goidelic, Welsh and Maltese lack a full-blown verb of this kind, whereas North Germanic and perhaps also Breton have one. This difference does not affect in any way the options the languages have to split their possession systems formally. Areality is a trickier aspect. Maltese and the IndoEuropean languages discussed above are clearly geographically distanced from each other and thus there is no reason to ascribe the presence of possession splits to contact between the languages. This is different with Celtic and North Germanic, though. The members of the two phyla have experienced a rather extended period of intensive contact between 800 and 1500. There is thus the possibility that at least some of the presently attested possession splits were shaped during this span of time. Fortunately, both phyla have a long and venerable literary tradition that reaches far back in time. We will therefore look at the earlier stages of Celtic and North Germanic languages in a separate study in order to establish whether the possession splits in the two phyla are the product of language contact or have developed independently. For the time being, in our synchronically oriented investigation, we consider the North Germanic and Celtic evidence as historically unrelated. What the languages discussed in sections 4.1–4.3 have in common is the pervasive nature of their possession splits. In all of the languages to which we have devoted case-studies above (Maltese, Icelandic and all Celtic languages), possession splits occur in pronominal possession, in genitive constructions and in predicative possession. We admit that some of the formal distinctions are not always readily identifiable, some tend to be covert. Furthermore, not all of the distinctions are properly compulsory. However, they are nevertheless frequently observed and thus, they are there to be used by the speakers who know how to handle them adequately. What makes the European possession splits especially difficult to “recognise” is their sensitivity to factors such as pragmatics and syntactic weight. In the previous discussion, we had ample opportunity to detect evidence of the interference from these factors with the more semantically determined parameters of possession splits. Being subject to pragmatic and weight factors is no valid argument for denying the observed possession splits their qualification as grammatical splits. Their formal expression is not something random or stylistic. The use of the constructions is rule-governed albeit these rules consist of an, at times, rather intricate collaboration of several parameters.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Of course, we are dealing with individual languages and this means that the systems we observe cannot be fully identical. This is hardly ever (or more precisely, never) the case when we compare two or more languages. However, typologists and universals researchers do not expect identity – what they need as proof of the similarity of languages and systems is the identification of common principles on which certain structures are built. With possession splits in our sample languages, there is absolutely no problem in finding these common traits. In Table (B310), we put the recurrent features of three of our sample languages (those which we have studied in more detail) in an order which facilitates comparison. The ordering principles are patterned after Heine’s (1997: 10) list of typical inalienable concept classes (with some slight amendments). With a view to highlighting the shared features, we skip a good many details of the individual languages. Skipping the details is a simplification, but this does not mean that we ascribe no importance to the not commonly shared aspects of split possession. Some of them will be taken up again with reference to other languages in section 5. What adds to the simplification reflected by the table is the fact that we do not account for pragmatics and aspects of syntactic weight as factors which interfere with the morphosyntax of possession splits. As the documentation in the previous sections shows, these factors have an influence on all of the languages. However, pragmatics and syntactic weight need something more basic to operate on and this more basic level is semantics. We restrict our recapitulation to the semantic side of the possession splits (this is also what Heine’s [1997] list presupposes). (B310)

The common patterns of split possession in Maltese, Icelandic and Welsh possessee

Maltese

kinship roles 1/P 2/P  body-parts 1/P 2/P  relational spatial  concepts  part-whole 2/P physico-mental states  nominalisations  individual concepts 1/P 2/P  other

Icelandic

Welsh

5/P 6/P 8/P 3/T 5/P 7/P 9/P

11/I 12/I

4/T

9/T – 10/P

3/T 3–4/T

7–10/P – 9/T 9/T

pro gen pred pro gen pred attr attr level

13/T

pro gen pred attr

The Arabic numbers are variables for the constructions used in individual languages: In Maltese, 1 = the possessor suffix, 2 = the construct state, 3 = the biconstruction, 4 = the fuq-construction; in Icelandic, 5 = indefinite possessor noun + post-nominal possessive pronoun, 6 = indefinite possessor noun + possessor noun



Chapter 4.  Grammatical possession splits 

marked for genitive, 7 = PPs with í/á, 8 = eiga, 9 = vera með, 10 = hafa; in Welsh, 11 = indefinite possessee + i + pronominal possessor, 12 = indefinite possessee + i + possessor noun, 13 = ar-construction. The abbreviation I stands for indefinite, T for temporary and P for permanent. In the cells with grey shading different coding strategies are employed which mainly coincide with the ones used in the individual languages for alienable possession in general. What strikes the eye immediately is the ubiquitous distinction of temporary and permanent possession. In each of the sample languages, there is at least one context where the temporal dimension of possessive relations affects morphosyntax. This distinction spills over to alienable possessees (subsumed under the category labelled other in [B310]), in a manner of speaking. It is also clear from the table that relational spatial concepts and nominalisations do not trigger possession splits in the sample languages. Expectedly (from a universal perspective), kinship roles and body-parts have the biggest share in the possession splits. However, physico-mental states are also strong because each of the languages is sensitive to them in predicative possession. Individual concepts are often part of possession splits, but they are too vaguely defined to form a full-blown and distinct class of possessees. There is an urgent need to investigate this heterogeneous class more closely in order to find whether or not it is the unordered waste paper category it appears to be. When we say that kinship roles and body-parts are frequent triggers of possession splits, this is not meant to blur the differences there are among our sample languages. Body-parts are an important class for Maltese and Icelandic. In Welsh, however, body-parts are treated on a par with alienable possessees. Only kinship roles are prominent concepts in all of the languages – and even then to different degrees. The possession splits, their distribution, the coding strategies and their organisation in functional paradigms suggest that head-marking principles invoked by Nichols (1992: 121–122) cannot be considered responsible for the shaping of the systems we have discussed above. It is also clear that possession splits must by no means be confined to the narrow field of proper alienability correlations. In (B310), temporarypermanent distinctions are intricately interwoven with the alienability correlation and diffuse far beyond the limits of this correlation. We will not comment further on the above table and its contents as it is only meant to summarise our previous insights and to provide a guide line for the subsequent section 5 in which we study possession splits in assorted European languages whose systems are not entirely pervaded by the above principles. We are going to check additional data – this time not in the form of in-depths case-studies of individual languages. The cross-check of the data takes the above matrix (B310) as its occasional reference point in order to find out whether the above patterns are accidental or if they recur in other European languages as well.

chapter 5

Further evidence of possession splits in Europe In the following sub-sections, we present a selection of pertinent examples of European languages whose possessive systems, in contrast to the ones discussed in section 4, are less affected by possession splits. Therefore, we only focus on those segments of their grammar where possession splits actually apply. This allows us to discuss several languages in one go. In doing so, we do not claim to provide an exhaustive phenomenology of possession splits covering the entire European continent. Our examples are nevertheless representative. The presentation of the facts follows the order introduced for the case-studies in section 4 i.e., we start with phenomena in pronominal possession (section 5.1.1), continue with genitive constructions (section 5.1.2) and come to the close of our overview with a sub-section on predicative possession (5.2). In section 5.3, we will draw conclusions on the basis of the data discussed and thus prepare the ground for the theoretical and typological evaluation of our findings in section 6. When we present the data, we take special notice of all those phenomena which are new in terms of the general picture implied by (B310), meaning: if splits occur which are patterned on distinctions different from the permanent-temporary distinction so prominently featured in the above case-studies, we will emphasise this fact.

5.1  Attributive possession 5.1.1  Pronominal possession and avoidance strategies This section is sub-divided into two parts. The first (section 5.1.1.1) looks at the use that is made of possessive pronouns and their pronominal equivalents in a number of European languages from various phyla and regions. The most recent survey of pronominal possession in Europe (and the Mediterranean area) is Manzelli (2007) who observes affinities between inalienable possession and emphatic possession in many of his sample languages. To counterbalance the strong emphasis Northwest European languages in the two previous case-studies on, we now adduce evidence from languages spoken elsewhere in Europe, particularly from those situated in the South East. It is shown that there is interaction of pronominal possessors and definiteness markers such that often only one of the two is legitimate in an NP (Haspelmath 1999b). Section 5.1.1.2 takes up this issue and looks specifically into the possible ways of avoiding explicit possessor encoding via the use of definite articles and their functional equivalents.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

5.1.1.1  Proper pronominal possession In Haspelmath’s (1999b: 233) insightful study of article-possessor complementarity, there is a footnote in which he observes that “[i]n Italian, the article is dropped with possessive pro­nouns in a small class of nouns, kinship terms”. One example of this restriction is given (Haspelmath 1999b: 236) without further comment, namely mia madre ‘my mother’ as opposed to ungrammatical *la mia madre (lit. ‘the my mother’). Other possessees – still according to what Haspelmath (1999b) implies – usually combine with both the definite article and the possessive pronoun simultaneously. Thus, there is a possession split which largely confirms the tendency captured in (B310) according to which kinship terms are outstanding candidates for triggering possession splits. As an appetiser of things to come, we provide a cross-check of Haspelmath’s hypothesis against the data we have collected from our sample texts. Sentences (B311)–(B312) circumscribe the possession split in modern Italian. (B311)

Italian [HP I Italian, 106] mio padre mi ha detto POR.1sg:m father me have.3sg say:part che tutti i Weasley hanno capelli rossi that all:m.pl det Weasley have:3pl hair:m.pl red:m.pl ‘My father has told me that all the Weasleys have red hair.’

(B312)

Italian [HP I Italian, 161] il mio compito è volare intorno agli det.m POR.1sg.m task be.3sg fly:inf around to:det.m.pl anelli e impedire agli avversari di segnare ring:pl and hinder:inf to:det.m.pl opponent:pl of score:inf ‘My task is to fly around the rings and prevent the opponents from scoring.’

As we see, a kinship term – padre ‘father’ – is directly combined with a pre-nominal possessive pronoun (which is actually a possessive adjective as it agrees morphologically with the head noun in gender and number) in (B311). The possessive construction contains two elements. In (B312), however, the construction has one additional slot to the left of the possessive pronoun – and this is where the definite article is placed. The possessee in this case is an abstract noun (compito ‘task’). These cases reflect a pattern that is recurrent in our sample texts, namely that kinship terms do without the definite article when possessed, whereas other possessees require the definite article in addition to the possessive pronoun. However, this observation does not apply in every case. First of all, there are kinship terms which occur with possessive pronoun plus a definite article. On the other hand, there are also possessees other than kinship terms which do not take the definite article under possession. On top of that, there is a third construction type with post-nominal possessive pronouns. Cordin (1988) has a whole range of additional phenomena many of which are not attested in our corpus because they are typical of certain registers (such as bureaucratic Italian etc.).



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

In what follows, we survey those constructions which occur in our corpus and correlate them to our findings in the previous sections. Table (B313) contains the frequency count for possessed kinship terms without accompanying definite article from the first volume of the Harry-Potter series. There are fourteen terms (= types) with a total text frequency of 67. Padre ‘father’ and madre ‘mother’ account for slightly more than two thirds of all attested cases. Grey shading is used to indicate zero frequency. Why the one instance of pronominally possessed amica ‘girl-friend’ is bracketed will be explained in some detail below. (B313)

Italian kinship terms in article-less possessive constructions

possessee

types padre madre fratello nonna moglie sorella zia zio cugino figlio mamma nipote nonno (amica) sum

possessor

tokens

1sg

2sg

3sg

1pl

2pl

27 10 6 11 9 1 18 3 5 1 5 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) 25 2 0 67 17 22

3pl

(1) (1)

There is already a discernible pattern: possessors in the plural are only very rarely attested (with only three out of 67 cases), although the text contains enough episodes in which combinations with a plural possessor would make sense. The rarity of plural participants is even stronger for the possessees as they are possessed exclusively in the singular. This is not particularly surprising with padre and madre, but this is not the case with expressions denoting siblings, friends, etc. as they may come in greater numbers. And indeed, there are numerous instances of pluralised kinship terms under possession alongside those relations which include possessors in the plurals and combinations of both. Consider (B314): this example includes the kinship term zio ‘uncle’ in the masculine plural zii ‘uncles (and aunts)’. (B314)

Italian [HP I Italian, 17] sono venuto a portare Harry dai suoi zii be.1sg come:part to carry:inf Harry at:det.m.pl POR.3sg:PUM.m.pl uncle:pl ‘I have come to take Harry to his uncles.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

While the two singular forms of the possessee, zio ‘uncle’ and zia ‘aunt’, are used with the possessive pronoun alone i.e., without the definite article, the plural requires the presence of the definite article. Cordin (1988: 623) states that the use of the bare possessive pronoun is restricted to kinship terms in the singular, but even here one occasionally comes across apparent exceptions, as in (B315). (B315)

Italian [HP I Italian, 121] il mio prozio Algie ha cercato per anni det.m POR.1sg:PUM.m great_uncle Algie have.3sg try:part for year:pl di cogliermi alla sprovista of catch:inf:1sg.O to:det.f surprise ‘My great-uncle Algie has tried for years to catch me unawares.’

Why should prozio ‘great-uncle’ be treated differently from zio ‘uncle’ and zia ‘aunt’? There are two reasons for this. Firstly, Renzi (1988: 410) observes that a kinship term in the singu­lar which is followed by the personal name of the relative may or may not take the definite article. As (B315) suggests, this usage may also apply in possessive constructions with a possessive pronoun. It is the presence of the definite article that needs to be explained. We may assume therefore that it is triggered by the higher degree of syntactic weight of the possessee as the presence of the personal name renders the construction heavy. However, this is not the only reason – and it is not a compulsory at that. What seems to be a much stronger trigger of the definite article in possessive constructions is the morphological complexity of the kinship term. The term prozio ‘great-uncle’ is missing from Renzi’s (1988: 413) list of Italian kinship terms which do not combine with the definite article under possession if they are in the singular. This list is reproduced in (B316). (B316)

Italian kinship terms without definite article in possessive constructions padre ‘father’, papà ‘daddy’, babbo ‘daddy’; madre ‘mother’, mamma ‘mum’; figlio ‘son’, figlia ‘daughter’; fratello ‘brother’, sorella ‘sister’; marito ‘husband’, moglie ‘wife’; zio ‘uncle’, zia ‘aunt’; nipote ‘grand-child; nephew’; nonno ‘grandfather’, nonna ‘grandmother’; genero ‘son-in-law’, nuora ‘daughter-in-law’; cugino ‘[male] cousin’, cugina ‘[female] cousin’; cognato ‘brother-in-law’, cognata ‘sister-in-law’; suocero ‘father-in-law’, suocera ‘mother-in-law’; patrigno ‘stepfather’, matrigna ‘stepmother’

With the exception of amica ‘girl-friend’ (cf. below), all the terms listed in (B313) are included in (B316) and thus conform to what is predicted by the grammarians of Italian. The terms in (B316) are all morphologically simple in the sense that no derivational morphology is employed to form these terms. As a matter of fact, prozio ‘great-uncle’ is derived by prefixation from zio ‘uncle’. Similarly, nipote ‘grand-child, nephew’ is used without the article, whereas pronipote ‘great-grandchild’ is used with it, cf. (B317).



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B317)

Italian

(B317.1)

[HP I Italian, 9] non era neanche tanto sicuro che suo neg be.imperf.3sg neg:also much sure:m that POR.3sg:PUM.m chiamasse proprio Harry nipote si nephew ref.3 call:conj.imperf.3sg exactly Harry ‘I wasn’t even sure that his nephew was indeed called Harry.’

(B317.2)

[HP II Italian, 178] e ora tutta la scuola penserà and now all:f det.f school think:fut.3sg che tu sei il suo pro-pro-pro-pronipote that you be:2sg det POR.3sg:PUM.m great-great-great-grandson ‘And now the entire school will think that you are his great-great-greatgrandson.’

Derived kinship terms usually require the definite article under pronominal possession. This rule also applies to all diminutives, augmentatives, etc. Renzi (1988: 413) states that mio cugino ‘my cousin’ is fine, whereas *mio cuginetto ‘my little cousin’ is disallowed – the latter has to be rephrased as il mio cuginetto. This restriction on the morphological complexity of the kinship terms has the side-effect that (B316) contains only primary kin notions which cover a range of three generations (from grand-parents down to grand-children) in time and the immediate in-law relations. Thus, (B316) reflects the make-up of the slightly extended nuclear family. However, what about the possessees in (B318)? (B318)

Italian [HP I Italian, 200] mi piacerebbe molto conoscere 1sg.O please:cond.3sg much know.inf tua mamma il tuo papà e la det.m POR.2sg:PUM.m daddy and det.f POR.2sg:PUM.f mum ‘I’d like to know your daddy and your mum very much.’

The possessees papà ‘daddy’ and mamma ‘mum’ are on Renzi’s inventory in (B316) and mamma occurs also in (B313). The case included in (B313) is different from all other occurrences of the possessee mamma in our sample text: there are four additional attestations of pronominally possessed mamma (and five instances of pronominally possessed papà) – and in all of these cases the possessor is a second person singular. The possessive pronoun tua ‘your’ (or tuo ‘your’ for papà) is always accompanied by the definite article la ‘the’ (or il ‘the’). In contrast to these cases, mamma in (B319) does not have the definite article. (B319)

Italian [HP I Italian, 191] credo di sapere da chi viene quello […])

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

da mia mamma from POR.1sg:PUM.f mum ‘(I think I know from whom this comes […]) From my mum!’

The difference between (B319) without definite article and (B318) with definite article is the possessor person. Terms like mamma and papà are considered relatively intimate and the use of these terms (outside of possessive contexts) without the article is the privilege of those who are either part of the family or the close social sphere of the person to which the kinship term refers or to whom the discourse is directed. Outsiders use the definite article (Renzi 1988: 412–413). Thus Ron, who is not a member of Harry’s family, has to use the definite article in (B318), but in (B319) Ron talks about his own mother and thus the article is dispensed with. If the possessee is in the plural, we never get possessive constructions without the definite article. Accordingly, the eight instances of pronominally possessed fratelli ‘brothers’ in Harry Potter I always have the definite article: i miei/tuoi/suoi fratelli ‘my/ your/his brothers’. Fratello ‘brother’ in the singular usually blocks the definite article, as the five tokens in (B313) suggest. There is however one deviation from this pattern, cf. (B320). (B320)

Italian [HP I Italian, 290] è mio fratello sapete? be.3sg POR1.sg:PUM.m brother know:2pl il mio fratello più piccolo det.m POR.1sg:PUM.m brother more small:m ‘He is my brother, you know? My youngest brother!’

This fragment from Percy’s excited speech about his brother’s achievements contains a minimal pair. The simple possessee noun fratello ‘brother’ combines with the possessive pronoun alone, whereas the definite article is obligatory if the possessee noun is further modified by attributes (as the superlative in [B320]) (Renzi 1988: 414). Thus, a heavy possessee-NP may call for the possessive construction to be accompanied by the definite article independent of the fact that the possessee noun itself is a kinship term in the singular. As in (B315), syntactic weight overrules semantics. That this is an option and not a compulsory rule can be assumed on the basis of occasional finds such as, [HP II Italian, 107] Lo dice pure tua sorella piccola ‘That’s exactly what your little sister says.’ Only as an aside, we mention that gemello/gemella ‘twin-brother/twin-sister’ is always used with the definite article under possession in Harry Potter I: [HP I Italian, 85] la sua gemella ‘her twin-sister’ (= the magic wand which contains a feather of the same phoenix as the wand bought by Harry Potter) and [HP I Italian, 90] il suo gemello ‘his twin-brother’. Under possession, two kinship terms are always used with the definite article. The first of these is the quasi-plurale tantum genitori ‘parents’. There are twenty instances



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

of pronominally possessed genitori and in all of these cases the definite article masculine plural i ‘the’ is involved: i miei/tuoi/suoi genitori ‘my/your/his parents’. This is of course fully in line with the above rule according to which pluralised kinship terms as possessees always require the definite article. Genitori is formally marked for plural. This is different with one other kinship term that never occurs without the definite article when pronominally possessed, namely famiglia ‘family’. Famiglia is a feminine noun in the singular (which can be pluralised to famiglie ‘families’). Nevertheless, for the fifteen occurrences of this noun under possession with a pronominal possessor, the definite article is always present: la mia/tua/sua/nostra/ vostra famiglia ‘my/your/his/our/your(pl) family’. Of course, famiglia ‘family’ is semantically a collective noun and this time semantics are stronger than morphological coding: the collective content of the possessee overrules the formal singular marking and requires the presence of the definite article. Famiglia is treated on a par with genitori i.e., as an inherent plural. In (B313), there is one possessee which does not occur in Renzi’s list (B316), namely the noun amico ‘friend’/amica ‘girl-friend’. It is perhaps absent from (B316) because it is not a proper kinship term as it refers to a social relationship – albeit a rather close one – which is located outside of blood relationships and those created by law. Superficially, in our sample text, amico/amica seems to behave very much like we would expect from proper kinship terms. There are twelve attestations of it in Harry Potter I and only one lacks the definite article. Since this isolated example is special in itself, we will postpone its discussion and look first at those cases where the definite article is involved. Five of these are unproblematic because the possessee is in the plural (amici ‘friends’) including the diminutive amichetti ‘little friends’ – diminutives of kinship terms cannot take the possessive pronoun alone and always require the definite article (Renzi 1988: 413–414). Of the remaining instances, five are patterned like (B316) i.e., the friend is additionally identified by name, cf. (B321). Numbers refer to pages in [HP I Italian]. (B321)

Italian   26 274 203 165 282

la tua amica Yvonne la sua amica Granger il tuo amico Ron alla sua amica Lavanda il suo amico, Nicolas Flamel

your friend Yvonne your friend Granger your friend Ron to her friend Lavander your friend, Nicolas Flamel

The possessee is syntactically heavy because of the presence of the personal name of the friend. It is this weight factor that triggers the use of the definite article – against the semantics of the possessee. This leaves us with two more instances of pronominally possessed amico/amica. One of these two cases involves the indefinite article, as in (B322).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B322)

Italian [HP I Italian, 25] i genitori portavano lui e det.m.pl parent:pl carry:imperf:3pl he and un suo amico fuori indef.m POR.3sg.m:PUM.m friend outside ‘The parents took him and a friend of his on an outing.’

This combination is unsurprising as the absence of any article could lead to a wrong reading: suo amico ‘his friend’ would be interpreted as definite (even in the absence of the definite article!). However, the context in which (B322) occurs is such that the narrator reports on a recurrent event which happens every year on Dudley’s birthday. Un suo amico is in fact a variable, it does not refer to a particular friend. Indefinite possessees will occupy our minds a little more later. The last example of amica as a pronominally possessed noun violates the rules put forward by Renzi (1988). Consider our example (B323). (B323)

Italian [HP I Italian, 172] Hermione Granger divenne loro amica Hermione Granger become:past.3sg POR.3pl friend:f ‘Hermione Granger became their girl-friend.’

Here we find the possessive pronoun loro ‘their’, although Renzi (1988: 413) specifically mentions that loro can never be used without an accompanying article. If it were not for this example, both Renzi’s list (B316) and his above rule would be fine. (B323) is the only example of the possessee amica under pronominal possession without accompanying article and at the same time also the only example of loro used in possession without an article. The supposed problem is easily explained. (B323) is a representative of predicative construction with copula-like verbs such as divenire/ diventare ‘to become’. The predicate noun in constructions of this type often does not take any article (Renzi 1988: 416–419). Thus, neither *una loro amica ‘a girl-friend of theirs’ nor *la loro amica ‘their girl-friend’ are good candidates (B323). This rule is so strong that it even blocks the use of the definite article in (B322) – taken from the second volume of the Harry-Potter series. (B324)

Italian [HP II Italian, 90] (Si era fermato proprio dietro Colin, scortato, come sempre quando era a Hogwarts) da quei due teppisti di grossa stazza by dem:pl.m two thug:pl of big:f volume che erano suoi amici Tiger e Goyle rel be:imperf:3pl POR.3sg:pl.m friend:pl Tiger and Goyle ‘(He stood directly behind Colin and was accompanied – as always when he was at Hogwarts) by the two huge thugs that were his friends Crabbe and Goyle.’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

In this sentence, the possessee is in the plural and the possessee-NP is heavy because the personal names are mentioned. Nevertheless, the definite article is absent from the construction as suoi amici Tiger e Goyle ‘his friends Crabbe and Goyle’ is part of a complex essive sentence, namely the predicate noun. This time, syntax dictates what the possessive construction must look like. Following this logic, the isolated example of loro being used as a possessive pronoun without the definite article in (B323) is not an exception to Renzi’s kinship-term list (B316) but rather a false friend: in different syntactic contexts, loro amica would not be admissible – the definite article would have to be there too. Thus, we can delete amico/amica from the inventory in (B313). In Table (B325), we indicate the distribution of construction types over classes of possessees. X corresponds to the absence of the definite article, whereas Y indicates its presence in the possessive construction. Grey shading alternates with cells without shading in order to show where possession splits apply. (B325)

Possession splits in Italian pronominal possession possessee mamma papà kin sg/light other

possessor 1sg

1pl

2sg

2pl

3sg

3pl

X X X Y

X X X Y

Y Y X Y

Y Y X Y

Y Y X Y

Y Y Y Y

There is a semantically-based distinction on the highest level: a probably closed set of kinship terms invites the use of construction X, whereas other possessees require construction Y. In addition to this semantic criterion, there are further criteria which determine which construction is to be used. First of all, the degree of social closeness with which the kinship terms are associated is decisive in determining which possessor persons take the definite article or not. Mamma and papà have X predominantly with a 1st person singular/plural possessor whereas other possessors opt for Y. Moreover, the possessee has to be singular in order to license the use of X, otherwise Y has to be employed. The same holds true for syntactic weight: light possessee-NPs with a kinship term in the singular are the best candidates for the application of X, their heavy counterparts trigger Y. If plural, heaviness and/or non-kin relations are involved, Y normally applies. Interestingly, Y is also used independent of all other criteria if the possessor is a 3rd person plural. There are perhaps various factors which are responsible for this peculiarity. On the one hand, loro is the only real pronoun among the possessive pronouns as it does not agree morphologically with the possessee-noun. Loro itself is morphologically invariable and a multi-purpose element because it not only functions as a possessor morpheme but also as subject and object pronoun of the 3rd person plural. The use of articles together with loro is the only formal means of

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

signalling that it is used in possessive functions. Viewed from a functional perspective, the obligatory combination of article + loro can be explained by the need to distinguish the various uses of loro in order to avoid misunderstanding or to facilitate parsing. On the other hand, the distribution profile in (B325) suggests that, for construction X to apply, a high degree of individuation is necessary. This is obligatory for the possessee. In terms of empathy, possessees with a 3rd person plural possessor are most distant conceptually from a 1st person possessor and thus perhaps the least individuated of all possible possessors in the paradigm. As the previous discussion demonstrates, the semantic criteria exposed above can be easily overruled by other criteria – especially syntactic weight and the prerequisites of syntactic well-formedness. In our sample text, there are also frequent attestations of possessive con­structions without a definite article which seem to contradict the principles of (B325). This is the case with vocatives (Renzi 1988: 414–415) as in [HP I Italian, 11] mia cara ‘my dear’, etc. The absence of the definite article is caused be the inherent definiteness of vocative expressions. Italian vocatives normally do not allow for definite articles independent of possession. In addition to the vocatives, there are many instances of PPs in which a pronominally possessed noun occurs without definite article. A particularly striking case is [HP I Italian, 291] con loro grande sorpresa ‘much to their surprise’ where the notorious loro occurs without the expected definite article (the possessee-NP is heavy because of the pre-nominal adjective). However, according to the rules of Italian PP-syntax, adverbial PPs of manner usually lack the definite article if the head-noun is abstract. This is especially the case with PPs governed by con ‘with’ but also applies with di ‘of ’, senza ‘without’, etc. (Renzi 1988: 423–425). So far, we have looked at constructions with the predominant or “normal” order POR PUM. However, this is not the only admissible linearisation of the participants. Instances of the inverse order PUM POR are in the minority. Nevertheless, with 53 tokens in Harry Potter I, they cannot be considered negligible. What makes these cases even more interesting is the fact that there are those which involve the definite article alongside others which do not allow the use of the definite article. Cordin (1988: 624–625) distinguishes several contexts in which the possessive pronoun is regularly or preferably placed after the possessee. There are again vocatives where the possessive pronoun is often put in post-nominal position as in [HP I Italian, 25] dolcezza mia ‘my sweety’. The absence of the article is what we expect from a vocative expression. The postnominal position of the possessive pronoun fits the emphatic character of the vocative. The same position is chosen if the possessor is in focus as in (B326.1)–(B326.2). (B326)

Italian

(B326.1)

[HP I Italian, 77] e tu ce l’hai un manico di scopa tuo? and you there 3sg.m.O-have:2sg indef.m handle of broom POR.2sg:m ‘And you, do you have a magic broom of your own?’



(B326.2)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

[HP I Italian, 40] va’ nel ripostiglio cioè volevo dire in camera tua! go.imp in:det cupboard i.e., want:imperf:1sg say:inf in room POR.2sg:f ‘Go into the cupboard, that is, I wanted to say to your room!’

The PP in camera POR ‘in X’s room’ is so frequent in our main source text that it might be considered one of those fixed expression which obligatorily require a possessive pronoun to occur in post-nominal position (Cordin 1988: 625). Likewise, the construction in vita POR ‘in X’s life’ account for 14 of the above mentioned 53 instances of post-nominal possessives in Harry Potter. This high frequency however, does not automatically mean that the possessee vita ‘life’ can only combine with a post-nominal possessive, cf. (B327). (B327)

Italian

(B327.1)

[HP I Italian, 44] in vita sua non aveva mai passato in life POR.3sg:f neg have:imperf:3sg ever pass:part una giornata brutta come quella indef.f day bad:f like dem:f ‘In his life, he had never experienced a day as bad as this one.’

(B327.2)

[HP I Italian, 85] questa era stato il più bel compleanno dem:f be:imperf.3sg be:part det more nice birthday della sua vita of:det.f POR.3sg:f life ‘This was the best birthday of his life.’

In a variety of cases, alternative possessive constructions with one and the same possessee noun reflect the polysemy of the noun and disambiguate two or more possible readings, i.e., da parte sua ‘on his part’ vs. dalla sua parte ‘from his side’ where the abstract meaning comes from the post-nominal position of the possessive, whereas the more concrete (spatial) meaning uses the pre-nominal possessive pronoun with the definite article. Another minimal pair of this kind is casa sua ‘his home(stead)’ vs. la sua casa ‘his house (which he owns but does not live in)’. Haspelmath (1999b: 228) only accounts for the concrete reading of house. If we discount the lexicalised cases, we can add one more parameter to the list of criteria which are crucial for the shaping of Italian pronominal possession, namely pragmatics. If contrastive focus or special emphasis falls upon the possessor, the possessive pronoun winds up in the post-nominal position independent of semantics and definiteness. As all instances of post-nominal possessors we have collected from Harry Potter I are syntactically light and the same applies to the examples given in Cordin (1988), we assume that heavy possessee-NPs disfavour post-nominal possessive

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

pronouns, to say the least. This is independent of the presence/absence of definite articles. With indefinite articles, we have found two examples which are on the border of being heavy, namely [HP I Italian, 79] (= B326a) un manico di scopa tuo ‘a magic broom of your own’ and [HP I Italian, 279] un corpo tutto mio ‘a body which is entirely my own’. All cases of post-nominal possessive pronouns without accompanying article are syntactically light. The role the definite article plays in the Italian system of possession will be addressed again in section 5.1.1.2. (B325) reflects a possession split which is based on empathy i.e., the properties of the possessor persons are measured according to the degree of correspondence to the prototypical possessor – EGO. The 3rd person plural is furthest away from the prototype as it is plural and does not represent a speech-act participant. Possessors in the 3rd person plural are immune to the distinctions of possessee-categories: kinship and other possessee-classes are treated alike. This Italian solution is by no means unique in Europe. There are at least two other languages whose rules of pronominal possession are built on principles which resemble the ones discussed above. These languages are Albanian and Georgian. Albanian is spoken on the opposite shore of the Adriatic Sea and has a long history of intensive contact with Italian. Thus, one might get the idea that the Albanian system of pronominal possession was influenced by Italian such that it has converged with the system of the prestigious partner in contact. However, the similarity of the two systems is of a relatively abstract nature as the subsequent paragraphs will demonstrate. For Georgian (cf. below), direct Italianisation of the possessive system is an even more unlikely possibility. In their grammar of Albanian, Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 284–292) devote a chapter to the intricate system of possessive pronouns and their uses. The so-called normal construction with a pronominally possessed noun has the linearisation PUM POR. In addition, there is a so-called marked order POR PUM. The neutral order is the one that is not sensitive to the semantics of the possessee, while the marked order applies only to a limited set of semantically-defined possessees. Moreover, there are also restrictions as to which possessor persons are allowed with the marked order. Before we look more closely at the marked order and its semantic background, we will survey the normal construction in (B328). Possessive pronouns usually agree with their head noun in gender, number and case. In the table, we only include the forms of the nominative (there are additional distinct case-forms for genitive, dative, accusative and ablative). We also skip the occasional neuter gender paradigms as they are considered rare or exceptional in the modern standard (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 288). Thus, there is a cross-classification of two genders (masculine vs. feminine) and two numbers (singular vs. plural) for the possessee which is represented by the variable X in the table. Grey shading indicates where syncretism applies in the same column. This phenomenon is especially pronounced with 3rd person possessors and with plural possessees.



(B328)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Albanian (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 286–288) PUM





1st

POR

2nd

3rd



m

sg pl

m f m f

sg

pl

sg

pl

X im X ime X e mi X e mia

X ynë X jonë X tanë X tona

X yt X jote X e tu X e tua

X juaj X juaj X e tuaj X e tuaja

f

m/f

sg X i tij X e tij X e tij X e tij

X i saj X e saj X e saj X e saj

pl X i tyre X e tyre X e tyre X e tyre

There are numerous alternative forms and regional variants of the above paradigm which suggest that the system has not yet become fully stable. Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 288–289) provide a long list of stylistic, dialectal and anachronistic forms. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that example (B329.1) has tonat ‘our’ in lieu of the expected tona ‘our’. This alternative form of the possessive pronoun is part of a possessive construction which reflects the normal order. This normal order contrasts with im atë ‘my father’ in (B329.2). Both examples stem from a short monologue by Draco Malfoy in Harry Potter I. (B329)

Albanian [HP I Albanian, 67]

(B329.1)

nuk e kuptoj pse ne të vitit të parë neg O.3sg understand:1sg why we of year:gen.def of first nuk mund të këmi fshesa tonat. neg can sub have:1pl.conj broom:acc.pl POR.1pl:PUM.acc.pl.f ‘I do not understand why we of the first year cannot have our brooms.’

(B329.2)

im atë është duke më blerë librat POR.1sg father be.3sg ger 1sg.o buy:part book:acc.pl.def ‘My father is buying the books for me.’

In (B329.1), the possessive pronoun precedes the possessee-noun. This inverse order is only possible with a lexico-semantically well-defined set of words, namely kinship terms. In contrast to Italian (B316), this seems to be an open list of kinship terminology as Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 289) explicitly characterise their inventory as a selection of items which allow for pre-nominal possessive pronouns, cf. (B330). Nevertheless, the items they mention are practically co-extensive with the Italian ones in (B316). (B330)

Albanian atë ‘father’, (ë)më ‘mother’, bijë ‘daughter’, bir ‘son’, dhëndhër ‘son-in-law’, emtë ‘aunt’, ungj ‘uncle’, gjysh ‘grand-father’, gjyshe ‘grand-mother’, kunat ‘brother-in-law’, kunatë ‘sister-in-law’, vëlla ‘brother’, motër ‘sister’, mbesë ‘niece; grand-daughter’, nip ‘nephew; grand-son’, kushëri ‘male cousin’, kushërirë ‘female cousin’, njerk ‘stepfather’, njerkë ‘stepmother’, shoq ‘husband’, shoqe ‘wife’; zot ‘lord, owner’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

With the exception of zot ‘sir, Lord, owner’, every item in (B330) has an equivalent in (B316) and vice versa. In our sample texts, we have encountered a variety of kinship terms – again simplicia – which are not included in (B330) and accordingly do not combine with a pre-nominal possessive pronoun. Two of these are included in (B331). (B331)

Albanian [HP I Albanian, 85] (të tmerrshëm… por jo te gjithë.) veç tezja xhaxhai dhe kushuriri im except aunt:def.f uncle:def.m and cousin:def.m POR.1sg ‘(Terrible… but not all) except my aunt, my [paternal] uncle and my cousin.’

Teze ‘aunt’ and xhaxha ‘(paternal) uncle’ are absent from (B330). Moreover, kushëri ‘(male) cousin’ is one of those kinship terms which allows for the marked order POR PUM but the order is not realised in (B331). This is absolutely in line with Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 289) who state that there are huge differences between the items in (B330) as to how frequently they are used with the marked order. Some items are said to be equally frequent with pre-nominal and post-nominal possessive pronouns (e.g., ime gjyshe vs. gjyshja ime ‘my grand-mother’), some are overwhelmingly used with POR-PUM order (e.g., im atë vs. ati im ‘my father’) or even exclusively (e.g., im shoq vs. ?shoqu im ‘my husband’), whereas in a third group, pre-nominal possessives are rarely used, if at all (e.g., mëma ime vs. *ime mëmë ‘my mother’ – in this case, pre-nominal position of the possessive pronoun requires a different term for ‘mother’, for instance [ë]më > ime më ‘my mother’). Thus, there is a – perhaps only fuzzy – dividing line running through the semantic field of kinship terminology. What makes the Albanian system even more peculiar is the fact that the restrictions regulating the use of the marked order POR PUM do not only react to the semantics of the possessee, but they are also sensitive to possessor person. As a matter of fact, only possessive pronouns of the 1st and 2nd persons in the singular can be used pre-nominally – 3rd person possessors behave differently. If the kinship term pronominally possessed by a 3rd person or zot ‘sir, Lord, owner’ or is among what Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 290) call “alte[] Verwandtschaftsnamen” (= old kinship terms), no possessive pronoun is used at all. In its stead, the pre-nominal definite article is used. For all other possessees with a 3rd person possessor, only the normal order PUM POR is admissible. In (B332) three examples illustrate these differences. (B332)

Albanian

(B332.1)

possessee: old kin term, possessor 2nd sg [HP I Albanian, 247] por astaj yt atë bëri diçka but then POR.2sg father do:3sg.aor something që Pitoni nuk ia fali kurrë rel Snape neg 3sg.dat.3sg.acc forgive:3sg.aor never ‘But then your father did something that Snape could never forgive him for.’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B332.2)

possessee: new kin term, possessor: 3rd sg [HP I Albanian, 10] nuk ishte dhe aq i sigurtë neg be:3sg.imperf too much det.m sure që nipi i tij quhej vërtet Harri that nephew:def.m def.m POR.3sg.m name:def:3sg really Harry ‘He was not even sure that his nephew was called Harry.’

(B332.3)

possessee: old kin term, possessor 3rd sg [HP I Albanian, 23] kur u futën në kuzhinë Dadli me t’ ëmën when ref press:3pl in kitchen Dudley with det.acc.f-mother:acc.def Harri po fërgonte vezët Harry prog roast:3sg.imperf egg:acc.pl.def ‘When Dudley and his mother pushed into the kitchen, Harry was cooking the eggs.’

The paradigms for pronominal possession with “old” kinship terms are given in (B333) following Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 289–291) who again mention numerous alternative forms, some of which also occur in our primary sources. The possessees are vëlla ‘brother’ and motër ‘sister’. Boldface marks the occurrence of the definiteness marker on the possessee. This is a feature exclusive to combinations with a 3rd person possessor. As above, the table only contains nominative forms (there are distinct forms for the other cases as well). (B333)

Albanian

PUM

POR



1sg

2sg

3

sg pl

im X (vëlla) ime X (motër) tim X (vëllezër) time X (motra)

yt X (vëlla) jot X (motër) tët X (vëllezër) tët X (motra)

i X (vëllai) e X (motra) të X (vëllezërit) të X (motrat)

m f m f

Note that the pre-nominal possessive pronouns of the 2nd person are formally different from the ones used post-nominally (cf. [B328]): jot contrasts with jote, tët with tu and tua. According to Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 290), normative grammarians discourage the use of the forms highlighted by grey shading in Table (B333). Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 289) also point out that one of the Albanian terms for ‘mother’ is restricted to combinations with the pre-nominal possessive of the 1st person singular, namely më as in ime më ‘my mother’ vs. jot ëmë ‘your mother’. Another peculiarity is the special umlaut-form of atë ‘father’ in the genitive-dative-ablative tim eti ‘of my father’. This umlaut a > e also occurs if the possessor is a 3rd person as in t’et ‘of his father’. However, there is no other singular paradigm in Albanian which displays this umlaut pattern. These differences, together with the obligatory use of the definiteness

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

markers in two out of three construction types in the normal and marked-order paradigms, suggest that we are dealing with formally distinct categories and not only with a simple inversion of elements of one and the same syntagm. This all results in a distribution profile of the various constructions for pronominal possession which overlaps only partially with the one given for Italian in (B325). In (B334) we summarise our above observations. (B334)

Possession splits in Albanian pronominal possession PUM

POR



1sg

2sg

3

1pl

2pl

mother (më) kin/old kin/new other

X X/Y X/Y Y

X/Y X/Y X/Y Y

Z/Y Z/Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y

There are three constructions: Y is the general one which may be used with any kind of pos­sessee and any kind of possessor (barring certain lexical preferences to the contrary). Y involves the post-nominal possessive pronoun. For X to be possible, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely; (a) the possessor has to be a speech-act participant in the singular and (b) the possessee must be a kinship term. X requires the possessive pronoun to be placed in pre-nominal position. The third construction is Z which avoids any possessive pronoun and employs the definite article instead. It is only admissible if the possessor is a 3rd person and the possessee belongs to the set of old kinship terms. Interestingly, in this construction, there is no morpheme which refers to the possessor as the pre-posed definite article agrees in number, case and gender with the possessed noun. In sum, pronominal possession in Albanian displays a strong sensitivity to the properties of the possessor person. This sensitivity is stronger than in Italian. The system itself is the outcome of the interaction of possessee semantics (kin vs. other) and possessor properties (speech-act participants in the singular). There is an additional split which singles out 3rd person possessors together with old kinship terms. Italian and Albanian differ not only as to the order of possessor and possessee employed as marked order. The distribution of the marked order over possessor categories is much more restricted in Albanian and the frequency with which it occurs differs dramatically from kin term to kin term. Italian and Albanian have similar rules as to the use of the definiteness markers with possessees: absence of overt definiteness marking is only possible with kinship terms. In contradistinction to Italian, the Albanian data fail to suggest any particular influence of pragmatics and syntactic weight on the distribution of normal and marked word order in constructions with pronominal possessor. Perhaps, it is still premature to draw conclusions on this



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

issue because our primary sources make use of the marked order much too rarely to allow for comparing contexts which differ as to their pragmatic structure and/or their syntactic weight. Albanian minimal pairs are absent from Harry Potter I. Georgian too has a system of pronominal possession in which properties of the possessee and of the possessor join to give shape to the possessive constructions. Georgian differs from Italian and Albanian as it does not have a proper definite article or definiteness marker. Georgian is much stricter than Italian grammatically because the possession split is absolute, meaning pragmatic factors do not determine the speakers’ choice nor does syntactic weight. Given this inflexibility, Georgian is probably the most rigorous representative of a European language with a grammatical possession split in the realm of pronominal possession. There is a set of free prenominal possessive pronouns which is in complementary distribution with possessor suffixes (Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1998). Superficially, the distribution seems to be that kinship terms take suffixes whereas everywhere else the pre-nominal possessive pronouns are used. In (B335) a non-kin term is pronominally possessed by the 1st person singular. (B335)

Georgian (Khizanishvili 2006: 46) es čem-i kud-mokle bačia aris this POR.1sg-nom tail-short.nom rabbit.nom be:3sg ‘This is my short-tailed rabbit.’

The pre-nominal possessive pronoun čemi ‘my’ contrasts with the possessor suffix -šeni ‘your’ in (B336) where it is used twice with kinship terms. (B336)

Georgian [HP I Georgian, 189] rogor minda deda-šen-i da mama-šen-i vnaxo how want:1sg mother-POR.2sg-nom and father-POR.2sg-nom see ‘I want to see your mother and your father.’

However, as in Italian and Albanian, the morphologically privileged treatment of kinship terms does not cover the entire kinship terminology of Georgian. (B337) contains three kinship terms, but only one of these is the host of a possessor suffix, whereas the other two are preceded by possessive pronouns. (B337)

Georgian [HP I Georgian, 93] ara albat qvela ara neg probably all neg magram deida-čem-i mis-i kmar-i da but aunt-POR.1sg-nom POR.3sg-nom husband-nom and čem-i deidašvil-i zalian cudebi arian. POR.1sg-nom cousin-nom very bad:pl:nom be:3pl ‘No, probably not all, but my aunt, her husband and my cousin are very bad.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

This example illustrates the principle according to which only ascending kinship relations (Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1998) trigger possessor suffixation – and they do so obligatorily (Khizanishvili 2006: 12). Thus, the suffix -čemi ‘my’ is a must on a noun like deida ‘(maternal) aunt’, whereas kmari ‘husband’ and deidašvili ‘(maternal) cousin’ require pre-nominal pronouns as they refer to relations on the same level or of the descending kind. Distinctions according to the dimension ascending vs. descending play no systematic role in the systems described for Italian and Albanian, although the kin terms which show the strongest propensity to combine with pre-nominal possessives in Albanian are usually of the ascending kind. The Georgian system has another restriction which is reminiscent of what we have learned about Italian and Albanian pronominal possessors. (B338) is taken from an Internet source because our primary text contains no convincing examples of the restriction. (B338)

Georgian [www.patriarchate.ge/su/352/8text.htm] aamgvarad ixsna cmida nikolozma in_this_way save:aor saint Nikolaus:erg sami kalculi da mat-i mama three:nom virgin:nom and POR.3pl-nom father sašineli gansacdelisgan. terrible:nom danger:gen:from ‘That’s how St. Nikolaus saved the three virgins and their father from a terrible danger.’

Mama ‘father’ is of course a kinship term of the ascending kind. The possessors are the three virgins mentioned earlier in the same sentence. However, their possessive relationship with the noun referring to their father cannot be expressed by a possessor suffix. For a possessor in the 3rd person plural, suffixation is blocked and thus the free possessive pronoun has to be used. Since all of the sources we consulted only provided examples of kinship terms in the singular which take a suffixed possessor marker, we had the suspicion that plurality of the possessee is a zone of uncertainty for grammarians and maybe even for the average native speaker. Our informant (Tamar Khizanishvili p.c.) confirms that, for her, the use of possessor suffixes with pluralised kinship terms of the ascending line is impossible. In lieu of *deida-eb-i-šen-i {maternal aunt}-{pl}-{nom}-{POR.2sg}-{nom} ‘your aunts’, only šen-i deida-eb-i {POR.2sg}-{nom}# {maternal aunt}-{pl}-{nom} with the pre-nominal possessive pronoun is permissible. This restriction based on number is a new finding in the research on Georgian possession. With this fresh addition, we present Table (B339) which sketches the distribution of possession splits in Georgian pronominal possession. As in the other summarising tables in this section, grey shading additionally highlights the distribution of the construction which is mostly used outside the area of the marked construction.



(B339)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Possession splits in Georgian pronominal possession PUM kin/ascending/sg kin/descending/pl other

POR 1sg

1pl

2sg

2pl

3sg

3pl

X Y Y

X Y Y

X Y Y

X Y Y

X Y Y

Y Y Y

X is the indicator of possessor suffixation and Y represents the construction with pre-nominal possessive pronoun. The Georgian system is characterised by a semantically motivated possession split which combines properties of the possessee and the possessor. In all of the above cases, we have seen that properties of the possessor are also responsible for possession splits – but always in combination with properties of the possessee. Finnish however, is a language whose possession split is exclusively based on the possessor. The formal expression of the possessor person is twofold in Finnish: the obligatory part consists of a paradigm of possessor suffixes attached to the possessee noun. The NP whose head noun is the possessee may also be preceded by the genitive form of the pronoun referring to the possessor, cf. (B340). The possessee is talo ‘house’ in the singular. Possessor affixes usually follow all other case and number affixes of an inflected possessee noun. This causes a variety of morphophonological changes on the morpheme boundary which do not concern us here. Boldface marks those elements which are obligatorily present in the possessive constructions (but cf. below). (B340)

Finnish person

pronoun

PUM

1sg 2sg 1pl 2pl 3sg 3pl

(minun) talo (sinun) (meidän) (teidän) hänen heidän

suffix -ni -si -mme -nne -nsa/-nsä/-Vn

This system is by no means sensitive to the semantics of the possessee, meaning kinship terms, body parts, concrete objects, abstract objects, etc. are possessed in the same way. What does however make a formal difference is the possessor person. The genitive of the possessor pronouns must be present in the 3rd persons, whereas it is not obligatory with the 1st and 2nd persons. There is thus a split according to the distinction of speech-act participants vs. non-speech-act participants. (B341) contains a minimal pair of a 3rd person singular possessor vs. a 1st person singular possessor of the possessee noun nimi ‘name’.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B341)

Finnish

(B341.1)

[HP I Finnish, 13] mikä hän-en nime-nsä olikaan? what 3sg-gen name-POR.3 be:3sg.imperf:at_all ‘What was his name?’

(B341.2)

[HP I Finnish, 79] Diggle on nime-ni Diggle be.3sg name-POR.1sg ‘Diggle is my name.’

In (B341.1), the possessor is a 3rd person and thus requires the full version of the possessive construction, whereas (B341.2) includes a 1st person possessor and thus the possessor suffix is sufficient. The presence/absence of the pronoun in the genitive is syntactically determined. For the speech-act participants as possessors, the genitive is even more optional if the possessor also has another major syntactic function in the same sentence for which there is a distinct and overt marker (for instance, subject [Karlsson 1978: 108]). This condition is met in the second clause of (B342) but not in the initial temporal clause. (B342)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 133] kun luen nime-nne te panette hatun pää-hä-nne when read:1sg name-POR.2pl you.pl put:2pl hat:gen head-ill-POR.2pl ‘When I read out your name, you put the hat on your head.’

The subject pronoun te ‘you (plural)’ – optional in the pro-drop language Finnish – helps explain why the genitive teidän ‘your (plural) does not occur in addition to päähänne ‘onto your head’. However, nimenne ‘your name’ precedes the subject of the main clause and thus it remains doubtful whether the absence of teidän can again be explained by the te-subject. In (B343), it is a matter of debate whether the absence of minun ‘of me’ is caused by the sentence subject minä ‘I’ or by the presence of the genitive oman ‘one’s own’ which could be understood as an emphatic replacement for minun. (B343)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 21] minä uskoisin vaikka oma-n elämä-ni Hagridin I trust:cond:1sg even own-gen life.gen-POR.1sg Hagrid:gen käsiin hand:pl:ill ‘I would trust Hagrid with my life [lit. I would even trust my own life into Hagrid’s hands].’

However, the absence of the genitive is not necessarily connected to the subject function of the same possessor. There is ample evidence for other constructions in which the possessor fulfils functions other than subject, cf. (B344).



(B344)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 108] Ron sinulla on jotain nenä-ssä-si Ron you:ade be.3sg something:gen nose-ine-POR.2sg ‘Ron, you have something on your nose!’

The adessive form of the personal pronoun of the 2nd person singular sinulla ‘at you’ is not a proper subject from the point of view of morphology: we would expect a nominative or a partitive in this function. Finnish however, has a variety of properties which instantiate non-canonical marking of arguments (Sands & Campbell 2001). The possessor in predicative possession, as in (B344) for instance, usually occupies the leftmost position and thus behaves partly like a prototypical subject (cf. below). However, it cannot control subject-verb agreement. As a matter of fact, the genitive may also be absent if no other overt indices (except contextual ones) help identify the possessor as in (B345). (B345)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 94] sanoin että isä-si suosi sitä say:imperf:1sg that father-POR.2sg favour:imperf.3sg it:part ‘I said that your father chose it.’

(B345) is especially intriguing because the bulk of the examples of genitives being used for possessors representing speech-act participants are in fact those in which the possessee itself is the subject, cf. (B346) uttered by the same character to whom we owe (B345). (B346)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 94] sinu-n isä-si puolestaan suosi you-gen father-POR.2sg favour:imperf.3sg side:ela:POR.3 mahonkisauvaa. mahogany_wand:part ‘Your father chose a wand made of mahogany.’

Since the presence/absence of the genitive with possessors of the 1st/2nd persons of both numbers cannot be explained exclusively by syntactic factors, there must be other parameters which are decisive. Pragmatics and syntactic weight come to mind first. Many of the examples with genitives of possessors which are speech-act participants are indeed somewhat emphatic or under focus – though by far not all of them. In (B347), we provide two examples of pragmatically marked usage of the genitive. (B347)

Finnish

(B347.1)

[HP I Finnish, 104–105] miten voit olevasi meidä-n äiti-mme? how can:2sg be:part:2sg we-gen mother-POR.1pl ‘How can you be our mother?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B347.2)

[HP I Finnish, 44] anna tänne minu-n kirjee-ni! give.imp hither I-gen letter-POR.1sg ‘Give me my letter!’

The genitive is present in two contexts where emotionality is high. In (B347.1), one of the twin-brothers pretends that their mother does not know the one from the other. In (B347.2), Harry wants to get back his letter which was taken from him by his uncle. The possessor person is emphasised in both cases to indicate that the relation to the possessee is a personal one of a specific kind. Contrastive focus is also frequently involved when a genitive is used with speech-act participants as possessors, cf. (B348). (B348)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 123] he palasivat ensimmäisten joukossa meidä-n puole-ll-emme they return:imperf:3pl first:pl crowd:ine we-gen side-all-POR.1pl ‘They were the first in the crowd to return to our side.’

This is a clear case of contrast between “our side” and (implicit) “their side”. This contrast requires the use of the pre-posed genitive. Genitives are employed under focus because the word-initial stress site of Finnish does not allow speakers to highlight possessor suffixes prosodically. The separate genitive word-form however is a fully acceptable landing site for emphatic stress. However, not every instance of a pronoun in the genitive in a possessive construction is automatically a case of emphasis or focus. Pragmatics can explain at least some of the cases, and syntactic weight seems to be at best a much less important factor. Heavy possessee NPs are attested with and without the additional genitive, cf. (B349). (B349)

Finnish

(B349.1)

[HP I Finnish, 130] se on minu-n vanha tupa-ni it be.3sg I-gen old college-POR.1sg ‘It is my old college.’

(B349.2)

[HP I Finnish, 151] tahdon kuulla kaiken ensimmäisestä viiko-sta-si week-ela-POR.2sg want:1sg hear:inf all:gen first:ela ‘I want to hear everything about your first week.’

Of the dozen heavy possessees pronominally possessed by speech-act participants we have found in the Finnish version of Harry Potter I, there is not a single case of a pronominal genitive that could not be explained by other factors, namely syntactic function or pragmatics. Therefore, syntactic weight can be ruled out as a major determinant in the system of pronominal possession.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

The high frequency of minun, sinun, meidän and teidän in our primary source is also an effect of the translator’s faithful rendition of spoken Finnish, which deviates considerably from the written standard. The latter is clearly dominant in the narrative passages of the text – however, this is exactly the part where speech-act participants fail to show up. The colloquial character of the dialogues is clearly discernible from the occasional lack of possessor suffixes on the possessee noun veli ‘brother’ as in [HP I Finnish, 156] sun Charlie-veljelle ‘to your brother Charlie’ (in lieu of: sinun Charlie-veljellesi) and [HP I Finnish, 111] ja tässä on Ron, meidän veli ‘and this is Ron, our brother’ (in lieu of: meidän veljemme). In the narrative part of the story, the possessor suffixes are used “correctly” on this possessee noun, e.g., [HP I Finnish, 213] Ron ja hänen veljensä ‘Ron and his brothers’. The twin-brothers Fred and George often violate the rules of normative grammar. Consider [HP I Finnish, 221] where George uses correct nimeäsi ‘your name’ alongside “ungrammatical” meidän nimet ‘our names’ (in lieu of meidän nimemme). This dropping of the possessor suffixes is a typical trait of spoken Finnish (especially of the variety spoken in the capital city Helsinki). Interestingly, only the suffixes of the speech-act participants are affected by this tendency (Karlsson 1978: 238). In a way, the obligatory use of the pronominal genitives compensates for the loss of the possessor suffixes. For possessors in the 3rd person singular and plural, the rules for the presence/ absence of the genitives hänen/heidän are stricter than the ones for the speech-act participants. The use of the genitive is avoided only if the possessor is identical with the sentence subject. In all other cases, the genitive must be present (Karlsson 1978: 108–109). In (B350) we present a selection of contexts relevant to the presence/ absence of the pronominal genitive of the 3rd person possessor in Finnish. (B350)

Finnish

(B350.1)

[HP I Finnish, 9] Herra Dursley istui aina selin ikkunaan ydeksännessä Mr Dursley sit:imperf.3sg always back:gen window:ill nine:ord:ine kerroksessa sijaitsevassa työhuonee-ssa-an floor:ine be_placed:part:ine office-ine-POR.3 ‘Mr. Dursley was always sitting with his back to the window in his office on the ninth floor.’

(B350.2)

[HP I Finnish, 208] tapahtuiko siinä jotain silloin happen:3sg.imperf:Q there something then kun Flint esti hän-en etenemise-nsä? when Flint block:3sg.imperf he-gen progress.gen-POR.3 ‘Did something happen when Flint blocked his [= Harry’s] way?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B350.3)

[HP I Finnish, 188] Neville oli yrittänyt tavoitta hän-en katsetta-an Neville be:3sg.imperf try:part get:inf he-gen sight-POR.3 ‘Neville had tried to catch his [= Harry’s] eye.’

(B350.4)

[HP I Finnish, 181–2] Crabbe ja Goyle estivät he-idän pääsy-nsä yläkertaan Crabbe and Goyle block:imperf:3pl they-gen access-POR.3 upper_floor:ill ‘Crabbe and Goyle blocked their [= Harry and Ron’s] access to the upper floor.’

(B350.5)

[HP I Finnish, 215] minä tieden että olen lukenut hän-en nime-nsä jostain I know:1sg that be:1sg read:part he-gen name.gen-POR.3 somewhere ‘I know that I have read his name somewhere.’

In (B350.1) the subject of the sentence and the possessor of the office are identical and thus the pronominal genitive is absent. Karlsson (1978: 106–107) compares this Finnish construction with the Swedish possessive construction in which the possessive pronoun sin/sitt/sina is compulsory if the possessor also functions as the sentence subject. If this criterion is not met, Swedish uses the genitive forms of the personal pronouns and Finnish does the same, as can be seen in (B350.2). Here the proper noun Flint represents the sentence subject whereas the possessor is a different participant. The same applies the sentence (B350.3) where the subject is Neville but the possessor is someone else – and again in (B350.4) where the plural subject is not identical to the plural possessor. This non-identity of subject and possessor triggers the use of the pronominal genitive. The parameter of subject-possessor identity (or reflexivity) is briefly treated in section 5.1.1.2.1 below. The pronoun is also necessary if the subject and the possessor differ in number, although there is partial identity between the two groups of referents. (B350.5) shows hänen being used with a speech-act participant as subject. Our above findings are summarised in Table (B351). In contrast to all previous tables of this kind, there are no specifications necessary as to the semantics of the possessee. Everything hinges on possessor person and syntactic role plus some pragmatics. Definiteness and number of the participants are irrelevant for the choice of construction. (B351)

Possession splits in Finnish pronominal possession POR

PUM

1sg

1pl

2sg

2pl

3sg

3pl

+ subject other other

other + subject other

X/Y X/Y X/Y

X/Y X/Y X/Y

X/Y X/Y X/Y

X/Y X/Y X/Y

X Y Y

X Y Y

Grey shading marks those cases where the construction X (= no pronominal genitive) is excluded. Y (= pronominal genitive) is an alternative with speech-act participants



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

if certain pragmatic factors apply. The alternation between X and Y is not feasible for 3rd person possessors: they either take X or Y according to the syntactic role and the identity of subject and possessor. This close tie between syntactic function and the use of possessive affixes is even more pronounced in Saami. According to Nickel (1990: 108–109), the main function of the possessor affixes is to mark co-reference with the grammatical or logical subject of the sentence, sometimes also with the direct object, cf. mun lean áhčistan ožžon skeaŋkka ‘I received a present from my father’ where the possessor suffix –n on the case-inflected noun áhči-sta-n {father}-{loc}-{POR.1sg} ‘from my father’ is coreferential with the subject pronoun mun ‘I’. In this and all other cases, the syntactic functions of subject and object have to be fulfilled by pronouns (lexical NPs do not require the co-presence of possessor affixes). This is the extent of the functions of the possessive suffixes of the 3rd persons. However, there are also other options for the 1st and 2nd persons to be employed, namely with kinship terms and those terms which refer to close social relations. These may be used without co-reference to a pronoun in subject or object function as in oappásteame ii gullo mihkigge ‘we two do not hear anything from our sister (lit. one does not hear from our sister)’ where oappá-st-eame {sister}-{loc}-{POR.1du} ‘from our sister’ is independent of the co-occurrence of other elements which refer to the same possessor person (e.g., the subject pronoun moai ‘we two’). There is thus a difference in the range of functions of those suffixes which refer to speech-act participants as opposed to those of the 3rd person. The possession split is similar to the one observed in Finnish. In Mari – a distant relative of Finnish and more remotely also of Saami – the situation is outwardly much different, but there is evidence for the workings of similar principles. First of all, Mari does not obligatorily employ genitive forms of the pronouns in the possessive constructions (Alhoniemi 1993: 74–75). The main functional weight rests on the possessor affixes which have a variety of functions going beyond the realm of proper possession (Alhoniemi 1993: 75). What is important for our topic is the co-existence of two sets of possessor affixes in both literary varieties of Mari. There are the unmarked possessor affixes 1sg -em, 2sg -et, 3sg -š, 1pl -na, 2pl -ta, 3pl -št with a number of morphophonologically conditioned allomorphs. They may be used on any possible possessee, as in kepk-em ‘my cap’ and kepk-et ‘your cap’. However, there are some kinship terms for which Alhoniemi (1993: 72–73) shows that they optionally take a special set of possessor affixes. Unfortunately, the author does not mention how many and which kinship terms have this property. His examples are erγe ‘son’ and čüčü ‘uncle’. With these nouns, the possessor affixes for the 1st and 2nd persons singular deviate from the usual paradigm: in the 1st person, only the short allomorph -m (in lieu of full -em) is used, whereas in the 2nd person singular there is a distinct suffix -č (in lieu of -et) yielding erγ6-m ‘my son’ vs. erγ6-č ‘your son’ and čüčü-m ‘my uncle’ vs. čüčü-č ‘your uncle’. Thus, the speech-act participants in the singular have options

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

different from the ones for their counter-parts in the plural and the non-speech-act participants. In contrast to Finnish, both Saami and Mari display a system in which not only the possessor person is relevant for the shaping of the possessive construction but also the semantics of the possessee. Again, the possession split is dependent on the kin vs. non-kin distinction. This is also a recurrent theme in the remaining paragraphs of this section. Albanian is a prominent member of the Balkan Sprachbund. As we have seen above, Albanian has an intricate possession split sensitive to possessor and possessee properties in the realm of kinship terminology. Since Albanian shares so many features with its neighbours, one is inclined to ask whether possession splits are more common in the Balkans. This question as such has not been raised by students of Balkan linguistics. In the extant catalogues of typical Balkanisms, other properties of the languages under scrutiny are given much more attention. However, the issue is indirectly addressed when Balkan linguists discuss the use of genitive-dative forms of pronouns in possessive constructions (Hinrichs 1999). As a matter of fact, we find evidence for possession splits with a clear semantic footing not only in the South Slavic languages Macedonian and Bulgarian, but also in the Balkan Romance languages Aromunian and Rumanian. Modern Greek however, does not participate in this potential isogloss of split possession (Stavros Skopeteas p.c.).30 We discuss the evidence from the Balkan in abridged form in order to make summary statements at the end of the discussion. For Bulgarian, Radeva (2003: 281–285) describes the rules which determine when the so-called long and short forms of the possessive pronouns are used. The long forms normally occur in pre-nominal position whereas the short forms are placed postnominally. The use of the short forms requires the possessee to be overtly marked for definiteness while the long forms may combine with indefinite possessees or carry the definiteness marker themselves (as the suffixed “article” is second-position clitic in the NP). The use of the long forms is not subject to specific conditions. This is different with the short forms. Beside the general rule that short forms trigger the definiteness marker on the possessee, there is also a restricted set of items which ignore this rule. These apparent exceptions are kinship terms. (B352) contains three examples of pronominal possession taken from the Bulgarian version of Harry Potter I. (B352)

Bulgarian

(B352.1)

[HP I Bulgarian, 48] kakvo znači tova če očakvat moja-ta sova? what mean this that expect POR.1sg:f-def.f owl ‘What do they mean “expecting my owl”?’

(B352.2)

[HP I Bulgarian, 66] nosite li ključ-a mu săr? carry.2pl Q key-def POR.3sg.m sir ‘Do you have his key, sir?’



(B352.3)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

[HP I Bulgarian, 261] brat mi razbraxte li naj-malki-jat mi brat! brother POR.1sg see:past.2pl Q sup-small-def.m POR.1sg brother ‘My brother, have you seen, my youngest brother!’

In (B352.1), the possessive pronoun is in the long form and thus occurs in pre-nominal position and hosts the definiteness marker – which agrees in number and gender with the head noun (as does the possessive pronoun itself). The head-noun refers to a concrete object. This is also the case with the possessee in (B352.2), but this time a short form of the possessive pronoun is used. Short forms do not agree morphologically with their heads. Mu ‘his’ follows the head noun which, in turn, is marked overtly for definiteness. However, in (B352.3) the possessee is a kinship term brat ‘brother’. In this sentence, the possessee is mentioned twice – and in both cases the short possessive mi ‘my’ is used. In the first combination brat mi ‘my brother’ there is no definiteness marker as the possessee is a kin term. However, immediately after this first occurrence, brat is again the possessee – only this time as part of a complex NP whose adjectival attribute occupies the left-most position in the NP. In this case, the second-position clitic mi ‘my’ follows the adjective and precedes the head-noun. This inversion of the order PUM POR to POR PUM is also responsible for the presence of the definite article (which is also a second-position clitic) suffixed to the NP-initial adjective. Thus, the syntactic weight of the construction seems to count among the factors which determine the shape of the possessive construction. The semantic distinction of kin vs. non-kin relations is basic. However, Radeva (2003: 284) observes that the use of the definite article is compulsory even for pro­nominally possessed kin terms if these happen to be in the plural (Haspelmath 1999b), cf. (B353). (B353)

Bulgarian [HP I Bulgarian, 123] polovinata si život săm prekaral da padja half:f:def.f POR.3ref life.def.m be.1sg experienced subord keep brat-ja-ta ti bliznaci ot gorata brother-pl-def.pl POR.2sg enter from forest:f:def:f ‘Half of my life I used to keep your brothers from entering the forest.’

The possessee noun is the plural of brat ‘brother’ which is pronominally possessed by the post-nominal short form ti ‘your. In contrast to (B352.3), however, the plural bratja ‘brothers’ requires the additional definiteness marker -ta. (B354) presents the Bulgarian system of pronominal possession in the shape of a table. (B354)

Possession splits in Bulgarian pronominal possession

POR

PUM

1sg

1pl

2sg

2pl

3sg

3pl

kin/sg kin/pl other

X/Z Y/Z Y/Z

X/Z Y/Z Y/Z

X/Z Y/Z Y/Z

X/Z Y/Z Y/Z

X/Z Y/Z Y/Z

X/Z Y/Z Y/Z

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The construction X (= post-nominal short form with indefinite possessee) occurs only with kinship terms in the singular, and with Y (= post-nominal short form with definite possessee) everywhere else. Both of these constructions can be replaced by Z (= pre-nominal long form with definite/indefinite possessee) which neutralises the distinction on which the possession split is based. In Bulgarian, the possessor person does not seem to influence the choice of construction. We assume that similar regulations hold for Macedonian – Bulgarian’s next-door neighbour and next of kin. According to Foulon-Hristova (1998: 83), the use of the post-nominal short forms of the pronouns “expriment un rapport d’affection et de possession pratiquement réservé aux noms de famille”. This refers to the constructions without an overt definiteness marker, whereas other combinations of possessee and pronominal short form always involve a definiteness marker, cf. (B355). The page numbers refer to [HP I Macedonian]. (B355)

Macedonian 31 tvojata nova učilišna uniforma 99 mojot dom 92 tvoite braќa 93 imeto mi 85 ova e brat ni Ron 86 tetka mi, tetin mi i bratučed mi

‘your new school uniform’ ‘my house’ ‘your brothers’ ‘my name’ ‘that is our brother Ron’ ‘my aunt, my uncle and my cousin’

This list of examples shows a distribution of possessive constructions similar to the one reported for Bulgarian. We thus assume that Table (B354) could also be used to cover both Bulgarian and Macedonian (discounting some minor details). The evidence from Balkan Romance resembles the South Slavic data. There are post-nominal possessive pronouns in Rumanian and Aromunian. Normally, these combine with a possessee noun which is also overtly marked for definiteness by the suffixed article or functionally similar devices. However, in a restricted number of cases, the definite article may be dispensed with. In the absence of the normally intercalated definiteness marker, possessee noun and possessive pronoun tend to coalesce. This univerbation is only attested with kinship terms (Iordan & Robu 1978: 420). This usage seems to be declining at least in the literary language. In our primary source text, there are only two examples of the univerbated construction, one of which is (B356). (B356)

Rumanian [HP I Rumanian, 49] cum să nu ştim how subord neg know:1sg dacă soră-mea era cine era? when sister-POR.1sg:f be.imperf.3sg who be.imperf.3sg ‘How should I not have known when my sister was who she was?’

The other example is bunică-sa ‘his grandmother’ [HP I Rumanian, 128]. Elsewhere in the same book, kinship terms are pronominally possessed in the same way as any other kind of possessee, cf. (B357).



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B357)

Rumanian

(B357.1)

[HP I Rumanian, 7] în biro-ul său la etajul nouă domnul Dursley in office-def.m POR.3sg:PUM.m on floor:def.m nine Mr Dursley se aşeză cu spatele la fereastră ref.3 sit:3sg with back:def on window ‘In his office on the ninth floor, Mr Dursely sat with his back to the window.’

(B357.2)

[HP I Rumanian, 10] eh Petunia dragă ai mai auzit ceva eh Petunia dear have.2sg again hear:part something despre sor-a ta about sister-def.f POR.2sg:PUM.f ‘Eh, Petunia, dear, have you heard something about your sister again?’

In (B357.1) the possessee is a concrete object – in (B357.2) a kin relation. Nevertheless, in both cases, the possessee is overtly marked for definiteness and head noun and possessive pronoun are treated as two distinct words. However, Iordan & Robu (1978: 420) enumerate several more examples of kinship terms which are said to have a certain predilection for the univerbated construction. At the same time, their examples tată-meu ‘my father’, tată-sau ‘his father’, soră-ta ‘your sister’, maică-sa ‘his aunt’, etc. show that the construction occurs with a variety of possessors – but apparently not with all, as we have not found a single example with a plural possessor nor with a possessee in the plural. The idea that plurality of possessor and/or possessee blocks the univerbated possessive construction is corroborated by the facts reported for Aromunian. Goŀąb (1984: 80) argues that only singular possessors (all three persons) allow for coalescence with possessee nouns. These nouns must belong to a presumably closed set of kinship terms which, in turn, are always in the plural, too. In a way, the Rumanian (and Aromunian) solution looks like a mixture of Italian and Albanian principles, cf. (B358). (B358)

Possession splits in Rumanian pronominal possession

POR

PUM

1sg

1sg

2sg

2pl

3pl

3pl

kin/sg kin/pl other

X/Y Y Y

X/Y Y Y

X/Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

The Rumanian system is largely patterned in familiar ways. It is the result of the interaction of the semantics of the possessee and properties of the possessor. The problems posed by plural number are also known from various other languages above.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The next sketch of pronominal possession is devoted to the situation in East Armenian. The system has two major ingredients, namely the possessive pronoun and the so-called pro­nominal article (aka possessive article). The enclitic pronominal article comes in three varieties: {s} for the 1st person singular possessor, {d} for the 2nd person singular possessor and {n} ~ {6} as the so-called general definite article (Tumanyan 1963). These enclitics are hosted by the possessee noun. The ones for the 1st and 2nd persons in the singular are in complementary distribution with the appropriate pre-nominal possessive pronouns from the paradigm: im ‘my’, k’o ‘your’, nra ‘his, her’ (emphatic ir), mer ‘our’, jer ‘your (plural)’, nranc ‘their’ (emphatic irenc) (Kozintseva 1995: 13). Note that there are no distinct pronominal articles for the plural persons (cf. below). In these cases, the pre-nominal possessive pronoun has to be used together with the general definite article. Pronominal articles indicate possession and definiteness simultaneously. Tumanyan (1963) specifies further that the pronominal article is used with kinship terms and body-part terms (including the concepts soul and thought). Moreover, clothes are treated like body-parts and thus may carry the pronominal article, too. Pronominal articles are also used with verbal nouns to encode their agent arguments. However, the pronominal articles are also found on other possessees which fall outside the above domain. In these cases, the pronominal article may have deictic functions or establish a close relationship between possessor and possessee (im girk’-+ ‘my book [that I have bought]’ vs. girk’-s ‘my book [that I have written]). In addition, the alternation between pronominal article and pre-nominal possessive is pragmatically relevant. In a minimal pair like eγbayr-s ‘my brother’ vs. im eγbayr-n ‘my brother’ the latter can be used for the purpose of contrastive focus. We give a tentative survey of the East Armenian possession split in Table (B359). This table needs further elaboration and is preliminary as we have not been able to confirm our hypothesis that plural possessees generally do not allow the use of the pronominal article. (B359)

Possession splits in East Armenian pronominal possession

POR

PUM

1sg

2sg

3sg

1pl

2pl

3pl

kin body-parts clothes verbal nouns other/affective other/neutral

X/Y X/Y X/Y X/Y X/Y Y

X/Y X/Y X/Y X/Y X/Y Y

X/Y X/Y X/Y X/Y X/Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Construction X (= pronominal article) is restricted to typically inalienable possessee classes plus all relations which are affectively connoted. Construction Y (= pre-nominal possessive) is more generally used and diffuses into the territory of X if certain pragmatic



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

needs call for an element that is suited to bear stress. There is again a combination of the semantics of the possessee and properties of the possessor. Plural number – as so often before – is an obstacle to the employment of the marked construction. In West Armenian (Sakayan 2000: 52–53), the system has been restructured in such a way that nowadays there are also suffixed pronominal articles for the plural possessors. These are clearly secondary formations: 1pl -ernis ‘our’, 2pl -ernit ‘your (pl)’, 3pl -ernin ‘their’ are still morphologically transparent and may be analysed as the nominal plural suffix -er- followed by the pronominal affix of the 3rd person -n- which has the function of a general definiteness marker to which the pronominal affixes -s, -t and -n have been added. Sakayan (2000: 52) specifies however, that forms like dun-ernis ‘our house’ should be avoided as they are considered colloquial. She recommends the use of mer dun-+ ‘our house’ instead which is a construction with pre-nominal possessive pronoun plus suffixed definiteness marker. Interestingly, Sakayan (2000: 52) also remarks that in West Armenian, the co-occurrence restriction on pre-nominal possessive pronouns and pronominal articles has not only been given up, but constructions like im dun-+s ‘my house’ with two morphemes indicating the possessor are presently the norm. This may be taken as evidence for the disintegration of the erstwhile system of possession splits which however, is still alive in East Armenian. Basque is normally not mentioned when possession splits are at issue. However, Hualde & Urbina (2003: 144) argue that “[w)ith kinship terms and names denoting a member of one’s immediate family, it is possible to use gure ‘our’ rather than nere ‘my’: gure amona ‘our grandmother’, gure Jon ‘our Jon’. In the past, this usage was normal and was almost categorial with aita ‘father’: an older Basque usually says gure aita than nere aita. However, such use of gure is markedly less prominent among younger Basques today.” We understand this quote in the following way: gure is used even when the speaker is the only person who has the intended family relation (e.g., as an only child). In this way, Basque displays a possession split which is restricted to exactly one position of the paradigm of possessor persons, namely the 1st person singular (the most emphatic of all possessors). This possessor together with the semantics of the possessee (kin terms) trigger a special morpho-syntactic phenomenon: the use of the “wrong” pronoun – wrong in terms of number. Whether or not the possessee may also be in the plural remains a question we cannot answer on the basis of the available information. The above sketches of pronominal possession in a variety of languages show that there are indeed some common bonds between the systems, although they usually do not coincide in all details. With a view to identifying the shared properties, we will plot the results of the various systems onto each other. In doing so we focus on semantics of the possessee and the possessor. Pragmatics and syntactic weight are not taken account of as we have not been able to confirm our hypothesis empirically for all of the above languages. In (B360), we specify the number of occasions in which certain possessees are combined with certain possessors in our above sample languages.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The count refers to the use of marked or specific constructions as opposed to more general ones. Bold-face highlights the minimal frequency of 1, whereas underlining serves to identify those cases where all twelve languages (Albanian, [East] Armenian, Aromunian, Basque, Bulgarian, Finnish, Georgian, Italian, Macedonian, Mari, Rumanian, Saami) allow for a given combination. (B360)

Frequency of combinations

PUM

semantics

POR

number

speech-act

non-speech-act sum

coarse fine sg pl

sg pl 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

kin

specific other

12 9

1 1

12 9

11 9

5 3



sum A

21

2

21

20

2 2 1

1 1 1

2 2 1

5

3

26

5

other body-parts clothes other

sum B

total

sg 3rd

pl 3rd 

5 3

7 4

3 2

44 30

8

8

11

5

74

2 2 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 0

0 0 0

7 7 4

5

5

3

3

2

0

18

26

25

11

11

13

5

92

The table suggests that there is a pattern which is based on the preferences for certain combinations of possessees and possessors. Other combinations are clearly disfavoured. The latter include absolute no-no cases such as the use of marked possessive constructions for non-kin terms possessed by non-speech-act participants in the plural. Non-speech-act participants as possessors are generally disfavoured in marked possessive constructions and the same can be said of possessees in the plural. More generally, plurality of either possessor or possessee makes it less probable that a marked possessive construction is employed. Even with speech-act participants, possessors in the plural are outnumbered by those in the singular by a ratio of 2.27-to-1 (for non-speech-act participants, the ratio of singular possessors to plural possessors is 2.6-to-1). With possessees, the figures are yet more impressive as singular possessees occur in five times as many languages as plural ones. If we look at the intermediate sums A and B in Table (B360), we recognise immediately the disproportion between kin terms and other possessees. Specific possessive constructions occur four times as often with kin terms as possessees than with non-kin terms. Within the class of kin terms, there is also a less dramatic difference between the category of specific kin terms, on the one hand, and the group labelled other. Specific kin terms are those which, language-internally, are singled out from the entire lexicon of kinship terminology.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

The members of this sub-class may differ considerably from one language to the other (Albanian privileges old kin terms, Georgian only ascending relations, etc.). Nevertheless, they share the property of being treated differently from the rest in terms of the morphosyntax of the possessive constructions. In this specific sub-class, we also find the only cases where all twelve languages converge in employing a marked construction. However, this only applies to speech-act participants in the singular. In this way, we may identify the prototypical constellation which qualifies for expression by a marked possessive construction, namely the combination of a possessee of the sub-class of specific kinship terms and a speech-act participant in the singular as possessor. Typically, equivalents of English my mother and/or your father belong to the prototype (whereas their cousins would hardly get a chance to be treated on a par with the prototypical cases). Diagram (B361) is a still somewhat impressionistic rendering of the continuum of marked possessive constructions. (B361)

Marked possessive constructions with pronominal possessors POR

+

+

+

speech-act participant

¬

+

singular

¬

prototype

periphery

s i P k

n

U i

g

M n

u 1 a r

¬

¬

periphery

This orientation towards the possessor persons which rank highest on the empathy scale is of course not a surprise (Lehmann 1998), nor is the privileged status of kinship terms and the general preference for participants in the singular. However, the interaction of these factors is an important fact which explains why European possession splits are less easily recognisable as variants of the alienability correlation. In Table (B362), we schematise the distribution of marked possessive constructions over possessor and possessee categories for the twelve object languages in this section.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

This is meant to provide the basis for the formulation of a variety of implications. The X indicates which category participates in a marked possessive construction. Grey shading renders empty cells more visible. Where there are several marked constructions in one and the same language they are not differentiated in the table. (B362)

Distribution of marked possessive constructions per language

POR



PUM

speech-act

other

sg

pl

kin

3rd

specific other



sg

language

1st

Albanian Armenian Aromunian Basque Bulgarian Finnish Georgian Italian Macedonian Mari Rumanian Saami

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

sum

12

12

9

pl

sg

2nd 1st 2nd 3rd

12

5

5

7

3

X X

pl

other

X

X

X

2

1

X X X X

On the basis of (B362), we are able to formulate the following implications: •  2nd person ⊃ 1st person If in a language a marked possessive construction is associated with a possessor in the 2nd person then a possessor in the 1st person is allowed in a marked construction. •  non-speech-act participant ⊃ speech-act participant If in a language a marked possessive construction allows for pronominal possessors representing non-speech-act participants then speech-act participants are always also allowed as possessors in marked possessive constructions. •  plural possessor ⊃ singular possessor If in a language a marked possessive construction allows for pluralised pronominal possessors than singular pronominal possessors of the same person(s) are always also allowed in marked possessive constructions. •  plural possessee ⊃ singular possessee If in a language a marked possessive construction allows for pluralised possessees than singular possessees are always also allowed in marked possessive constructions.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

•  non-kin possessee ⊃ kin possessee If in a language a marked possessive construction allows for non-kin terms as possessees than kinship terms are always also allowed as possessees in marked possessive constructions. •  peripheral kin possessee ⊃ specific kin possessee If in a language a marked possessive construction allows for peripheral kinship terms to function as possessees than specific kinship terms are always also allowed as possessees in marked possessive constructions. The two implications based on number distinctions may be unified into a common implication: •  plural possessive participant ⊃ singular possessive participant If in a language a marked possessive construction allows for participants in the plural than singular participants are always also allowed in marked possessive constructions. The implication plural ⊃ singular especially is something typologists and universal researchers expect to apply as it corresponds to the markedness relations established in Greenberg’s time. In this sense they are trivial. Nevertheless, the implications help understand that the possession splits in our sample languages are by no means arbitrary. They follow an internal logic as well as a universal one. To conclude this section, we allocate the twelve languages on a continuum which covers the area between the two poles of possessor-orientation and possesseeorientation, cf. (B363). The two extremes are easily defined: 100% possessee-orientation implies that all possessors may combine with a specific class of possessees i.e., the properties of the possessee dictate what construction type applies. At the opposite end of the continuum, 100% possessor-orientation, it is exactly the other way around: all classes of possessees may combine with a specific sub-set of possessors i.e., the properties of the possessor determine the possessive construction. Bulgarian and Macedonian are good exemplars of possessee-oriented languages as their marked possessive constructions have no restrictions on the possessor person – only the semantics and number of the possessee are decisive factors. Finnish on the other hand, combines all kinds of possessees with a restricted number of possessors in the marked constructions. Thus, Finnish is the only fully possessor-oriented language in the sample. The remaining nine languages find their place in the space between the two extremes. They cluster around the turning-point where properties of both participants of the possessive constructions have an equal share in the determination of the shape of the possessive construction. The more possessor persons are allowed, the closer the languages are placed to the pole of possessee-orientation. The fewer possessor persons are allowed, the closer we get to the possessor-orientation extreme. Parallel to

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

this differentiation, the increase of admissible possessee classes is characteristic of a higher degree of possessor-orientation, whereas the more restrictions hold true for the possessee the higher the degree of possessee-orientation. (B363)

The continuum of possessor-possessee orientation



PUM-oriented pole all possessors, but only specific possessees Bulgarian

Macedonian

Italian

Georgian

Albanian

specific possessors, specific possessees

Aromunian Rumanian Armenian Mari

Basque

Saami Finnish

only specific possessors, but all possessees POR-oriented pole

Our previous case studies focused on languages which largely lack evidence of systematic possessor-orientation. Maltese, Icelandic and Welsh display systems of pronominal possession whose place on the continuum (B363) is side by side with the two South Slavic languages Bulgarian and Macedonian. All other languages show different degrees of possessor-orientation. With the exception of Finnish, these languages always combine elements of possessor-orientation with elements of possessee-orientation. This is tantamount to a complexity of possessive systems which goes beyond the binary split into alienable and inalienable possession. In the next sub-sections, we will see whether this complexity of split possession reveals itself in other areas of grammar.

5.1.1.2  Further issues connected to pronominal possession In this section, we briefly address a variety of phenomena which are rather diverse but nevertheless functionally connected to pronominal possession as revealed in the previous section. Of course, these additional phenomena all reflect possession splits of some kind. Since they pose a number of problems whose detailed discussion would lead us far beyond the thematic boundaries of this study, we will make do with an overview and reserve a more thorough treatment for a different occasion. We do not discuss the pragmatic aspects of pronominal word-order. For Romance languages, Lausberg (1972: 161) has shown convincingly that alternative post-nominal



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

position of the possessive pronoun is normally associated with emphasis and/or focus (in those languages which allow for variable word-order): e.g., Catalan la meva amiga ‘my girlfriend’ vs. l’amiga meva ‘my girlfriend’. This corresponds nicely to what we have observed, for instance, in Icelandic and other North Germanic languages in section 4.2. Likewise, post-nominal position of the possessive pronoun is common in indefinite possessive phrases (where the indefinite article precedes the possessee), as in Catalan una amiga meva ‘a girlfriend of mine’ (Brumme 1997: 79). For reasons of space, we will not elaborate on these otherwise interesting issues.

5.1.1.2.1  Possessor-subject identity.  When we discussed pronominal possession in Finnish (cf. [B350]), we observed that there is a restriction regulating the absence of the genitive forms of the possessor pronoun of the 3rd persons. According to this restriction, the genitive is generally absent from the construction if the possessor is identical to the sentence subject. If no such possessor-subject identity applies, the genitival forms of the pronouns are obligatory. We have also seen that possessor-subject identity plays a role with 1st and 2nd person possessors although the rules are less strict in these cases and many more factors interact. Moreover, for non-3rd person possessors, identity of the possessor with overt participants other than the subject tend to have a similar effect on the absence/presence of the genitival forms of the pronouns. In point of fact, this pattern and variations thereof recur in a wide variety of European languages. If subject and possessor are identical in one and the same sentence, a construction is used which differs from the one employed if subject and possessor are not co-referential. This is of course a kind of possession split which reflects the syntactic properties of the possessor. The properties are also “semantic” in so far as the person to whom the possessor morpheme refers is identical to or different from the one whose morphological expression (pronoun, verbal morphology, lexical NP) functions as the sentence subject. It is a known fact that subjects tend to associate with actor-like macro-roles and thus are also very often human. However, this is only a tendency and displays a high degree of cross-linguistic variation. Even for individual languages, this tendency may be very weak. Beyond this rather indirect connection between agentivity, animacy and subjecthood, it is practically impossible to find properly semantic grounds for this possession split. We therefore refrain from an extensive discussion of the facts. The languages of Europe differ as to what degree possessor-subject identity influences the choice of pronominal forms. Only as an aside, we will mention that possessor-subject reflexivity only affects the expression of possession, if at all, and never the form the subject of the sentence takes. This is nicely explained by the higher hierarchical rank occupied by the subject to which the possessor is then subordinated. There is a huge area where this reflexive relation fails to have any effect on the shape of the possessive construction. This area without grammatical sensitivity to

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

possessor-subject identity covers the British Isles and most of continental western, central and southern Europe. In the North and the East, however, the situation is markedly different, cf. (B364) and (B365). (B364)

German

(B364.1)

[LPP German, 7] ich habe den großen Leuten mein I have:1sg det:dat.pl big:pl people POR.1sg.acc Meisterwerk gezeigt masterpiece part:show ‘I showed my masterpiece to the grown-ups.’

(B364.2)

[LPP German, 8] meine Zeichnung stellte aber keinen Hut dar POR.1sg:f drawing represent:imperf.3sg however no:acc hat (represent) ‘However, my drawing did not show a hat.’

(B365)

Latvian

(B365.1)

[LPP Latvian, 8] es parādīju savu mākslas darbu pieaugušajiem I show:past:1sg POR.X:acc art:gen work:acc grow_up:PP:dat.pl ‘I showed my work of art to the grown-ups.’

(B365.2)

[LPP Latvian, 8] manā zīmējumā nebija attēlota cepure POR.1sg:loc drawing:loc neg:be.past:3 depict:part.pass:f hat ‘No hat was shown in my drawing.’

(B364)–(B365) contain pairs of sentences in which the same possessor person is involved. In (B364.1) and (B365.1), the possessor is co-referential with the sentence subject, whereas in (B364.2) and (B365.2), there is no such reflexive relation. In German (B364.1)–(B364.2), the possessive pronoun is the same for both contexts, namely mein ‘my’ inflected for the appropri­ate agreement categories. In contrast to the German solution, Latvian employs two distinct possessive pronouns. Where there is possessor-subject identity, the pronoun savs (equally inflected according to the inflectional categories of the head noun) is used. Where possessor-subject identity does not apply, the appropriate possessive pronoun of the possessor person is used, in this case mans ‘my’ which agrees in case, gender and number with its head noun. Those languages in our sample (based on the translations of Le petit Prince) which display a morphosyntax of possessive construction which is sensitive to possessorsubject identity are listed in (B366). All other European languages tend to behave like German i.e., their possessive constructions are immune to possessor-subject identity. In the table, grey shading indicates the absence of the feature. X marks that a given



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

possessor person is sensitive to possessor-subject identity. Parentheses indicate that this sensitivity is optional. If possessor-subject identity does not apply in these languages, the appropriate possessive pronouns of the 1st or 2nd persons have to be employed. For a 3rd person possessor, there are usually two options to choose from, namely reflexive possessive pronouns if possessor-subject identity applies (e.g., Polish swój/swoja/swoje ‘his/her/its/their’) and the non-reflexive possessive pronoun referring to a 3rd person possessor which is not identical with the sentence subject (or syntactically closest participant) (e.g., Polish jego/jej/ich ‘his/her/its/their’). (B366)

Languages with grammatically relevant possessor-subject identity

possessor-subject identity



speech-act participants

language Belarusian Croatian Czech Polish Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Sorbian Ukrainian Estonian Latvian Lithuanian Saami Finnish Bulgarian Macedonian Albanian Lovari Basque Georgian Danish Faroese Icelandic Norwegian Swedish

1sg

2sg

1pl

non-speech-act

1sg

3sg

3pl

type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type I X X X X type II (X) (X) (X) (X) type II (X) (X) (X) (X) type II (X) (X) (X) (X) type II (X) (X) (X) (X) type II (X) (X) (X) (X) type III type III type III type III type III type III type III

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

We have found evidence for the phenomenon of sensitivity to possessor-subject identity in 26 languages of Europe (without having checked everywhere thoroughly). The Kurdish data are controversial and may reflect an internal split: with Zazaki

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(Paul 1998: 67–69) following the pattern of type I and Kurmanci diverging from it. Since the situation requires further study, we do not include Kurdish in the above table. The geography of the feature of sensitivity to possessor-subject identity is such that it yields an isogloss which runs along the northern outskirts of the continent starting from Icelandic in the extreme north-western corner to Finnish in the Northeast. From there, the isogloss turns at a right angle to reach the southern Balkans and the Caucasian region. Basque forms an isolate in the Southwest. Sensitivity to possessor-subject identity is attested in North Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Aryan (= Romanes spoken on the Balkans), Balto-Finnic, Basque and Caucasian. With the exception of Basque, the languages which share this feature form an uninterrupted area of considerable size within Europe. They form a chain of neighbourhood relations. More precisely, Europe is split into two equally sizeable sub-areas, simplifying: the West (unaffected by the phenomenon) and the Northeast (with grammatically relevant possessor-subject identity). Within the latter area (plus Basque), there are three sub-groups: • type I: languages whose full paradigm of possessor persons is sensitive to possessorsubject identity, • type II: languages which are characterised by obligatory distinctions of possessors of the 3rd persons according to whether or not they are co-referential with the sentence subject whereas 1st and 2nd person possessors only optionally display sensitivity to possessor-subject identity, • type III: languages for which only possessors of the 3rd persons are involved in the distinction. A fourth type would then be comprised of all those languages which lack the feature of possessor-subject identity. Interestingly, Latin – in its classical period – behaved like a representative of type III. However, the distinction of two different possessors of the 3rd persons – one identical with the subject triggering the reflexive possessive pronoun suus ‘his’, one different from the subject (= eius ‘his’) – has not survived to the modern Romance languages (Lausberg 1972: 160). There is a genetic component in the above distribution over languages because the phenomenon as such is attested throughout the entire Slavic phylum, although the two southernmost languages Macedonian and Bulgarian do not completely conform to the picture painted by the bulk of their sister languages. Beyond genetics, type I has its stronghold in the east where it occurs in languages of diverse affiliation. Type II is attested on the southern fringes in contact with a language representing type IV (Greek). It has a clear Balkanic tinge to it as it occurs in languages of different genetic affiliation (isolate Albanian, Indo-Aryan Lovari, Slavic Macedonian and Bulgarian) located in the Balkans. The same holds true for Finnish as a representative of type II as it is sandwiched between type I (Russian/Saami) and type III (Swedish). Note however that for



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

other Slavic languages such as Russian (Tauscher & Kirschbaum 1983: 224) and Polish (Laskowski 1972: 96), the use of the non-reflexive possessive pronouns with 1st and 2nd persons is not absolutely unheard of and may be caused by the wish to emphasise the possessor. We assume that this is still a marked option in the bulk of the Slavic languages whereas it is more frequent/normal in Bulgarian and Macedonian. Again, type III has a dominant North-Germanic component to which a variety of largely unrelated languages are added. Two Romance languages have to be mentioned as lookalike cases: Portuguese allows for the alternative use of the univerbated preposition de ‘of ’ and the personal pronouns of the 3rd persons of both numbers (dele/dela/deles/ delas ‘of him/her/ it/them’) in lieu of the usual seu/sua/seus/suas ‘his/her/its/their’. The descriptive grammars depict this as a means of disambiguation whenever the possessive adjective neutralises crucial categories (Cunha & Cintra 1989: 323). However, this recommended usage is far from being systematic and it seems that both sets of expressions can be employed not only in constructions with possessor-subject identity but also those without. Similarly, Rumanian has two options for expressing pronominal possessors of the 3rd persons, namely either the pronominal adjective sau ‘his/ her/its/their’ which agrees with its head noun or the genitive-dative forms lui/ei/lor of the personal pronouns. According to the detailed discussion in Iordan & Robu (1978: 419), the two sets of pronominal forms are full synonyms and may be used both in constructions with and without possessor-subject identity. The map in (B367) shows the geographical aspects of sensitivity to possessorsubject identity in Europe. Languages whose possessive pronouns change according to possessor-subject identity are allocated within the lines. The thick line marks the extension of the entire area, type II is identified by a dotted line and type III by a thin line. In addition to the areal-typological implications of the phenomenon, Table (B366) also suggests that the distinction of speech-act participants vs. non-speech-act participants is an important dividing line. In all the languages surveyed in (B366), possessors of the 3rd persons are sensitive to possessor-subject identity. Wherever a person different from the 3rd persons is sensitive, this implies that sensitivity to possessor-subject identity also applies to the 3rd persons. Speech-act participants always behave in identical ways, meaning: there are no differences for 1st and 2nd person possessors. Similarly, number distinctions do not seem to be relevant. In a way, possessor-subject identity is reminiscent of (mostly reinforced) constructions in which the fact that the possessor is co-referential with another participant of the same sentence (preferably the subject) is emphasised by an element which translates to English own. However, the two categories are not the same. First of all, with the exception of the bracketed cases, the Xs in (B366) indicate that the use of a special pronominal form is obligatory under possessor-subject identity, whereas the use of an element that corresponds to English own is largely optional and thus more

PORT

BAS

BRET

IR

SP

W

FAR

CAT

OCC

FR

ENG

SARD MALT

IT

RHAET

DU

FRIS

ALB

SLOK

POL

SOR

SW

SAA

GR

RUM

LITH

LAT

FINN

MAC BULG

HUNG LOV SLOW CR SERB

CZ

GER

DAN

NORW

EST

UKR

BR

TURK

RUSS

GEORG

ARM

AZE

(B367)

ICE

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Possessor-subject identity isogloss



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

of a stylistic nature. Moreover, own-expressions and pronominal forms reflecting possessor-subject identity are by no means incompatible with each other, cf. (B368). (B368)

Swedish [HP I Swedish, 103] då och då super han sig full försöker göra sometimes drink:pres he ref.3 full try:pres make:inf trollkonster och slutar med att tutta eld magic:pl and end:pres with to put:inf fire på sin egen säng on POR.3sg:u own:u bed ‘Every once in a while, he gets drunk, tries to do magic and finally sets his own bed on fire.’

The Swedish possessive pronoun sin/sitt/sina ‘his, her’ is used under possessor-subject identity in the 3rd persons, whereas egen/eget/egna ‘one’s own’ emphasises exactly this identity relation. Nevertheless, both elements occur in combination and thus it is legitimate to assume that the possessive pronoun alone is not sufficient to convey the meaning of ONE’S OWN. We doubt that it is possible to use egen/eget/egna alongside hans/hennes/deras ‘his, her, their’ i.e., in combination with the pronoun used when possessor-subject identity does not apply.

5.1.1.2.2  Possessive adjective vs. proper possessive pronoun.  Another distinction in the realm of pronominal possession is the one between possessive markers which function as attributes in the NP and proper possessive pronouns i.e., elements which replace a full NP. This distinction is marginally relevant for the relation between the concepts of having and belonging. Possessive attributes presuppose a subject-predicate schema which is reminiscent of predicative possession of the having type. Thus, proper possessive pronouns are potential candidates for representing the belonging type. What is interesting in this respect is the fact that some languages formally (= morphologically) distinguish between the two possessive expressions, whereas others use the same set of expressions in both functions. Only the former group of languages would then reflect a kind of possession split as having and belonging are treated differently. Of course, this is a rather daring hypothesis which needs to be looked at more closely on a different occasion. In Stolz (2007a), the languages of Europe have been checked according to their use of predicative pronominal forms different from the ones used in attribution. In this study, we only look at those forms which may also be used as subject and/or object in a given sentence. For the time being, it suffices to determine the areal aspects of the distinction/indistinction of possessive adjectives and proper possessive pronouns. Future research has to determine whether this parameter is sufficiently relevant for a typology of possession splits at all. In (B369)–(B370) we present pairs of sentences identical in content from two languages which are representatives of the two types mentioned above.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B369)

Dutch

(B369.1)

[HP I Dutch, 79] Marcel is de zijne kwijt Marcel be.3sg det POR.3sg:pro rid ‘Marcel has got rid of his.’

(B369.2)

[HP I Dutch, 109] Harry keek naar zijn bezem Harry look.imperf after POR.3sg broom ‘Harry looked at his broomstick.’

(B370)

Swedish

(B370.1)

[HP I Swedish, 51] det där är mitt dem there be.pres POR.1sg:nt ‘This [= letter] is mine!’

(B370.2)

[HP I Swedish, 52] jag vill ha mitt brev I will have.inf POR.1sg:nt letter ‘I want to have my letter!’

The examples are taken from two genetically related languages – Dutch and Swedish which belong to the Germanic phylum. In the sentences (B369.1) and (B370.1), the lexical noun representing the possessee is missing and thus the pronominal element is, in a manner of speaking, “stranded”. (B369.2) and (B370.2) illustrate the usual attributive construction of pronominal possession. In Swedish (B370), the pronominal element is invariably mitt ‘my’ (the neuter singular form of min/mitt/mina ‘my’) independent of the presence or absence of a lexical expression of the possessee. However, the Dutch examples in (B369) show a different behaviour because zijne ‘his (one)’ and zijn ‘his’ are clearly two distinct possessive expressions. The proper possessive pronoun in Dutch is always accompanied by the definite article (van den Toorn 1977: 223–224). In Swedish, it is marginally possible to “substantivise” the possessive adjective by combining its plural form with the free definite article in order to form expressions like de mina ‘my family and next of kin’ (Holm & Nylund Lindgren 1977: 65) which seems to be the only possible function for this construction. Dutch displays a distribution of constructions similar to the one observed in English (mine vs. my) and – less clearly discernible – German (meiner vs. mein) while Swedish associates with its Scandinavian next-of-kin, showing that the Germanic phylum does not behave homogeneously. In map (B371), we survey the geographical distribution of the two above types, namely the isogloss connecting all those languages which make a formal distinction between possessive elements used in attribution and proper possessive pronouns, as opposed to those languages which lump both categories together. The map is based on the same sample as used for (B366) above.

PORT

BAS

BRET

IR

SP

W

FAR

CAT

OCC

FR

SARD

MALT

IT

RHAET

ENG DU

FRIS

ALB

SLOV

CZ

GER

DAN

POL

SAA

GR

CR

RUM

LITH

LAT

FINN

MAC BULG

SERB

HUNG LOV

SLOK

SOR

NORW SW EST

UKR

BR

TURK

KURD

RUSS

GEORG

ARM

AZE

(B371)

ICE

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Proper possessive pronoun isogloss

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The map shows a division of Europe into three sub-areas: the languages which are equipp­ed with proper possessive pronouns are located in the centre. On each side of this central area, there is an area where languages are spoken which lack proper possessive pronouns. What we term a proper possessive pronoun may come in a variety of shapes – sometimes a morphologically distinct pronominal form, sometimes a small syntagm. Typical cases are French ta/ton/tes ‘your’ vs. le tien/la tienne/les tiens ‘yours’, Spanish tu/tus ‘your’ vs. el tuyo/la tuya/los tuyos/las tuyas ‘yours’, etc. In the members of the Romance phylum, the proper possessive pronoun usually reflects the so-called accented or full form of the pronouns. However, that does not imply that everywhere we find an accented/full form we are automatically dealing with a proper possessive pronoun (Lausberg 1972: 160). Very often the proper possessive pronoun is accompanied by a definiteness marker, be it an article, an affix or a demonstrative. In Latvian for instance, the proper possessive pronoun is not only morphologically distinct from the attributive possessive, but is also marked for definiteness: tavējā ‘yours’ as opposed to tava ‘your’ – the long final –ā on the proper possessive pronoun marks definiteness (along with feminine gender and nominative case in the singular). This also happens in languages which otherwise do not have a grammaticalised determiner of the article-kind such as Czech ta tvá ‘yours’ (= {dem:f} {POR.2sg:f}). In some cases, the construction involves additional material such as prepositions as in Rumanian al tău ‘yours’ where a- is the genitive marker and -l a definiteness marker referring to the possessee whose gender and number are reflected by the definiteness marker. Map (B371) shows that genetic affiliation is a not strong enough factor to determine the presence or absence of a proper possessive pronoun because the isoglosses cut across several phyla. Proper possessive pronouns are attested in Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Armenian, Indo-Aryan and Finno-Ugric languages. However, we also find Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages among those which do not have a proper possessive pronoun. Therefore, we assume that the presence/absence of the proper possessive pronoun is an areal feature which divides Europe into three areas over which two types of languages are distributed. The central area is characterised by a different possession split, albeit one which is relatively remote from semantic motivation.

5.1.1.2.3  Possessor ascension.  The fact that possessive relations can be more indirectly expressed by promoting the possessor to the status of (indirect) object in a given sentence has been a recurrent theme in research on possession. Thanks to König & Haspelmath (1997) and Haspelmath (1999a, 2001) we are sufficiently informed about the areality of possessor ascension in the languages of Europe. So-called dative external possessors are widely diffused in a central area in Europe which reaches from Portugal in the south-western corner to Latvia in the Northeast. They are a typically



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

mainland European feature, and are absent from Celtic, English, North-Germanic, Uralo-Yukaghir (except Hungarian), Turkic, Caucasian and Armenian. This area overlaps largely with the one postulated for proper possessive pronouns (without being co-extensive), cf. (B371). Thus, there is no need for us to prove that strategies of this kind exist in Europe and where exactly they are employed. What deserves to be mentioned however, is that for some time, possessor ascension was considered the only piece of evidence for an alienability correlation in the languages of Europe. Possessors seem to be particularly prone to being raised if the possessee belongs to the core categories of inalienable concepts, especially body-parts and kinship. (B372) is a typical example from Rumanian. The Rumanian situation has been described abundantly (among others) by Timoc-Bardy (1996) and Manoliu-Manea (1996). (B372)

Rumanian [HP I Rumanian, 31] Doamna Figgs îşi rupsese piciorul Mrs Figgs ref.3 break:plq.3 leg:def ‘Mrs Figgs had broken her leg.’

Of course, Mrs Figgs is the possessor of the leg. This possessive relation however is not expressed by the usual post-nominal possessive pronoun (său ‘his, her’). The possessor is co-encoded by the reflexive pronoun. This situation is unsurprising as the lexical verb a rupe ‘to break’ is often used reflexively. However, we also find numerous cases of possessor ascension with verbs which are usually not reflexive as in (B373). (B373)

Rumanian [HP I Rumanian, 52] dar şi-a pierdut puterile but ref.3-have.3sg lose:part power:def.pl ‘But he has lost his power.’

The verb a pierde ‘to lose’ is not normally used as a reflexive. In (B373), the 3rd person possessor of the possessee puterile ‘the powers’ is not expressed by the expected possessive pronoun sale ‘his’, but instead re-surfaces in the shape of the reflexive pronoun. This is the preferred way of expressing possessive relationships in Rumanian if possessor-subject identity applies. It usually goes along with overt definiteness marking on the lexical possessee. In addition, (B373) suggests that possessor ascension may not be restricted to combinations with inalienable possesses in the strict sense of the term since puterile ‘the powers’ represents a physico-mental property and not a basic body-part term, though one easily comes across examples with alienable possesses as well, cf. (B374). (B374)

Rumanian [HP I Rumanian, 30] Iar Dudley îşi spărsese camera video but Dudley ref.3 break:plq.3 video_camera:def.f ‘But Dudley had broken his video-camera.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Again, a sparge ‘to break’ is basically not a reflexive verb. It is made reflexive in this case to allow for possessor ascension to apply. Possessor ascension applies although the possessee is not properly inalienable. This may be taken as evidence for the absence of a possession split. However, statistically, possessor ascension is without competitor if the possessee is a body-part term. Moreover, in those cases where ascension applies unexpectedly because the possessee is alienable, it is often possible to understand the possessive relation as a particular kind – either intimate or “special”. This special character of the possessive relationship may be spelled out as ownership, for instance. This is the case with (B374) because Dudley has broken the video camera which he had received previously as a birthday present. Thus, there is a special possessive relation between the possessor Dudley and the possessee video-camera. Manoliu-Manea (1996) emphasises the fact that topicality is crucial for possessor ascension to apply, meaning: if the possessee is a prominent discourse topic, the probability of possessor ascension is high even though the possessee itself may not represent an inalienable concept.

5.1.1.2.4  Definiteness marking.  The previous sub-sections have paved the way for a discussion of definiteness as a surrogate for pronominal encoding of the possessor. In his study of the co-occurrence of definite articles and possessive pronouns, Haspelmath (1999b: 235) hypothesises that “[t]he tendency to omit the definite article is also greater when the possessed noun is a kinship term. One might attribute this to the fact that kinship nouns are often treated as proper names and may therefore dispense with the definite article […] the article is omitted only when the noun is possessed, so the presence of the possessor is crucial.” For this tendency, Haspelmath advocates an economy-based explanation of the interaction of article and possessive pronouns. However, what we find in a variety of European languages is the inverse tendency: under certain conditions, the definite article (or any other device of definiteness marking) makes it possible to dispense with the possessive pronoun, which may be omitted completely or moved elsewhere (via possessor ascension). As a matter of fact, the role of definiteness marking in the realm of possession has been discussed extensively by Spanoghe (1995, 1996, 2001) for Romance languages where a certain association of definiteness and inalienability is discernible, although the author admits that it is difficult to come to a conclusion in a non-circular way (Spanoghe 2001: 237). Renzi (1988: 400–401) looks at the behaviour of the definite article with alienable and inalienable possesses in Italian. He observes that the definite article can be used with all kinds of possessees. Nevertheless, there is an important difference, namely the combinability with the possessive pronoun. According to Renzi (1988: 400), inalienably possessed nouns do not allow the co-presence of the article and the possessive pronoun, whereas alienable possesses usually require both the definite article and the possessive pronoun (Haspelmath 1999b). Furthermore, Renzi (1988: 400–401) points out that the definite article accompanying an inalienable



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

possessee can never be replaced by a demonstrative (whereas this is possible with the definite article used in combination with alienable possesses). Similar to the above examples for possessor ascension in Rumanian (cf. section 4.1.1.2.3), Renzi (1988) illustrates the behaviour of the definite article only with examples in which the possessor is still indirectly present i.e., under the guise of an object pronoun (mi fa male la testa ‘I have a headache’, lit. ‘the head hurts me’). However, this is not a pre-condition for the use of the Italian definite article without possessive pronoun, cf. (B375). (B375)

Italian

(B375.1)

[HP I Italian, 9] aveva gli stessi segni intorno agli occhi have:imperf.3sg det.m.pl same:m.pl sign:pl around at:det.m.pl eye:pl ‘It [= the cat] had the same signs around its/the eyes.’

(B375.2)

[HP I Italian, 198] lo salutava con un gesto della mano O.m greet:imperf.3sg with a gest of:det.f hand ‘She greeted him with a movement of her/the hand.’

(B375.3)

[HP I Italian, 228] il piccolino picchiò con forza la coda sul muro det little:dim hit:past.3sg with force det.f tail on:det wall ‘The dear little one [= the baby-dragon] forcefully flung its/the tail against the wall.’

In these sentences, the possessor is not specifically expressed as there is neither a possessive pronoun nor an object clitic resulting from possessor ascension. In all the cases, the possessor is identical with the sentence subject which, however, is lexically expressed only in sentence (B375.3). The “bare” article does the job of a possessive marker only if possessor-subject identity applies (if the possessor is co-referential with any other participant/grammatical role, there is at least some other means which coencodes the possessor besides the article). Moreover, the “bare” article is most often used in this function if the possessee noun is an inalienable concept. We thus have an indirect or covert strategy which reflects a possession split which is based on properties of the possessor (co-referential with the subject) and of the possessee (inalienable). If we compare these results with the pattern in (B325) we get the following picture. In Italian, prototypical inalienable possessees are treated grammatically different from alienable possessees. However, the inalienable possessees do not form a homogeneous group morphosyntactically. Kinship terms require the use of the possessive pronoun without the accompanying definite article (which otherwise is obligatory with alienable possessees). In contrast to kinship terms, body-part nouns tend to prefer the use

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

of the bare definite article. Simplifying, this distribution over construction types can be summarised schematically, as in (B376). The X marks the use of a morpheme in combination with certain classes of possessees. The zero marks incompatibility. (B376)

Possession splits in Italian – revision

inalienable

marker

body parts

definite article possessive pronoun

X 0

kinship 0 X

alienable X X

It is clear that this schema accounts for only a selection of contexts. As a matter of fact, we already know from our previous discussion of the Italian system that there is an intricate interaction of diverse factors which determine the choice of possessive construction. The alienable-inalienable distinction thus is often formally neutralised and one needs access to specific contexts in order to understand that there is a possession split of this kind in Italian. The alienability correlation is active in Italian, but not always easy to recognise. The use of definiteness markers in possessive function is not unique to Italian. It also occurs in other languages in Europe, for instance in German (where there is much more stylistically motivated variation). Of course, what happens in Italian can only happen in languages which make use of grammaticalised means of obligatory definiteness marking. Where definiteness marking is largely optional or in no way grammaticalised, we cannot expect to find articles to replace or oust possessive pronouns. What happens there? To answer this question, we provide a list of translations of (B375.1) above in 36 European languages, cf. (B377). The list is orga­nised into smaller units according to the structural properties of the construction under scrutiny. Since the sentences have largely identical content we refrain from transmorphemising them one by one. We use boldface to identify the possessee (which in this case is always a noun meaning ‘tail’), single underlining is used to mark the definiteness marker and upper case is used to highlight the eventual possessive pronoun or its equivalent. The numbers following the glossonym indicate the page of the translation of Harry Potter I on which the example can be found. (B377)

Body-part noun: variation of possessive marking

(B377.1) (a) Albanian Basque Bulgarian Catalan

Article languages pattern I: no pronoun, only definite article 199 Në ato fjalë e sipër këlyshi e rrahu fort bishtin mbas muri. 216 Kumetxeak isatsaz pareta jo zuenean 205 Bebeto vze da udrja s opaška po stenata 233 El cadellet va colpejar la paret amb la cua



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Faroese 201 German 261 Icelandic 204 Italian 228 Macedonian 203 Norwegian 220 Portuguese 199 Rumanian 204 Swedish 295 (b) Danish 237 Dutch 178 English 259 Low German 260 Irish 203 Spanish 199 Welsh 190 (c) Galego 200 Greek 272 (d) French 237 Hungarian 223

Pinkubarnið sló halan í veggin Das Baby knallte mit dem Schwanz gegen die Wand Barnið sló halanum svo fast í veggin Il piccolino picchiò con forza la coda sul muro Bebeto udri so opašot po sidot Babyen dundret halen mot veggen O bebé batia com a cauda na parede Copilaşul trozni cu coada de pereţi Babyn dunkade svansen i väggen pattern II: only pronoun, no article Babyen slog SIN hale mod væggen De baby sloeg met ZIJN staart tegen de muur The baby banged ITS tail on the wall De lütte Pööks baler mit SIEN Steert gegen de Wand Bhuail an peata beag óg A eireaball ar an mballa El cachorro golpeó la pared con SU cola Dyrnodd y babi EI chynffon ar y wal pattern III: pronoun and article O cativiño abaticou o SEU rabo contra a parece To mōró chtúpese sto pátōma tēn ourá TOU pattern IV: no pronoun, no article Et le bébé donna un grand coup de queue contre le mur A fióka farkával úgy rácsapott a falra

(B377.2) Languages without article (a) pattern V: no pronoun Croatian 189 Beba tresne repom o zid Czech 222 Drobeček právĕ mrksl ocasem do zdi Estonian 205 Pisike virutas sabaga vastu seina Georgian 214 An dros bavšvma k’udi k’edels ise miaxala Latvian 235 Bēbītis iegāza ar asti pa sienu Lithuanian 190 Mažylis tvojo uodega į sieną Polish 248 Dziecko walnęło ogonem w ścianę Russian 299 Rebenok udaril chvostom v steno Serbian 206 Beba je lupala repom po zidu Slovak 246 Bábätko treslo chvostom o stenu Ukrainian 244 Ditinka gupnula chvostom po stini (b) pattern VI: pronoun Finnish 259 Vauva hakkasi pyrstöä ÄN seinään Turkish 206 Bebek, camları titreten bir şiddetle kuyuruğun U duvara vurdu

This survey cannot satisfy the criteria of a full-blown cross-linguistic comparison as we are only looking at a single sentence. Nevertheless, even on such a small empirical basis, it is possible to postulate that the Italian solution is also acceptable in

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

the majority of other European languages which have a grammaticalised definiteness marking system. The majority is only a rather slim one with 13 out of 24 languages of this type. However, languages which only employ the possessive pronoun are clearly a minority (with only seven languages). The remaining four languages are distributed equally over two diametrically opposed types: for two languages, both the article and the possessive pronoun are required, whereas the other two languages employ neither article nor possessive pronoun. This latter pattern IV is especially interesting because it connects to the majority solution we find in those languages which do not have a grammaticalised device of definiteness marking of the article kind. Ten out of twelve languages without articles use the bare possessee noun i.e., there is no need to have recourse to the possessive pronoun in the absence of an article. Only two languages mark the possessor overtly. The statistics are given in Table (B378). (B378)

Distribution of patterns over language types pattern

language type with article

without article

sum

+ art & ¬ pro + art & + pro ¬ art & + pro ¬ art & ¬ pro

13 2 7 2

0 0 2 10

13 2 9 12

total

24

12

36

There are only two patterns where article-languages and article-less languages are represented (namely those patterns which do not involve the presence of an article). What the statistics tells us is that, for an article language, the most common choice is to employ a possessive construction in which the article participates. The exclusive use of the possessive pronoun is a much more restricted phenomenon. Interestingly, this also holds true for article-less languages whose first option is the use of the bare possessee noun. The use of the possessive pronoun is disfavoured even though no other element is there to take over its functions in our sample sentence. Since two article-languages show the same preference for bare possessee nouns, this fourth pattern is numerically almost as strong as the one which prescribes the exclusive use of the definite article. Both patterns account for a third of the cases – which leaves another third for the patterns which involve a possessive pronoun (either with or without accompanying definiteness marker). We can establish some typological preferences that are typical for the members of the two classes of languages (= with article vs. without article). However, there is also some variation including unexpected solutions, namely the highly frequent absence of any kind of possessive marker. Thus, the results in (B378) can be predicted only partially on the basis of our knowledge of the presence/absence of grammaticalised definiteness markers.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

In terms of genetic affiliation, the picture is also somewhat varied. There are some trivial aspects to the genetic question: all Germanic, Romance and Celtic languages belong to the class of article-languages whereas the vast majority of Slavic and nonIndo-European lan­guages do not employ articles. Therefore, it is unsurprising that we do not find certain patterns in the European east whereas they are well attested in the west. However, members of the various phyla do not behave homogeneously: there are Germanic languages which employ pattern I and those which opt for pattern II. Largely the same applies to Romance, etc. The geography of the various patterns is given in map (B379). The map should be read with the proviso that it reflects what happens in one single sentence. The bold line connects those languages which employ the definite article alone as possessive marker in the sample sentence. The dotted line defines the territory of those languages which are article-languages but only employ the possessive pronoun. The dot-and-stroke line indicates the isogloss of the articleless languages which are content with the bare possessee noun. Article-languages which employ neither an article nor a pronoun are marked by underlining. Italics are reserved for those languages which simultaneously make use of the article and the possessive pronoun. Abbreviated glossonyms in boldface identify the two languages which lack definite articles and use a possessor morpheme in the sentence under scrutiny. The parallel behaviour of the members of the Balkan Sprachbund is noticeable. The east and the west behave differently from each other – and in between these two sub-areas, there is a central area where the article alone may serve as the possessive marker. The minor patterns are attested in languages which are either sandwiched between two major types (French, Hungarian) or at the margins (Galego, Greek, Turkish, Finnish). Thus, there can be no doubt that the observed phenomenon is subject to areality (like so many others previously mentioned and others to be discussed below). Beyond areality, we see that in numerous European languages there are contexts where possession splits have an effect. This effect can be obligatory under certain conditions or a more or less stylistically motivated free choice of the speaker. Moreover, the effect is often covert because in lieu of a dedicated marker for the expression of a possessive category, it is the absence of certain coding devices that is indicative of (inalienable) possession. We know that in many languages worldwide, inalienable possession is zero-marked and it is alienable possession which most often requires a phonologically realised marker of some kind. Viewed from this perspective, the European situation depicted above is unsurprising as it conforms to a cross-linguistically common tendency. However, there is competition in Europe (and elsewhere on the globe) with other patterns which involve some element which serves as a possessive relator (albeit sometimes only indirectly). The division line cuts across Europe in such a way that a relator-free east is separated from a western region where articles and/or possessive pronouns are used in combination with inalienable possessees of the body-part class.

PORT

GAL

IR

BAS

W

FAR

CAT

SP

FR

ENG

DU

IT

LOW

ALB

CR

HUNG

CZ

GER

DAN

NORW

GR

SER

SLOK

POL

SW

MAC BULG

RUM

LITH

LAT

FINN EST

UKR

TURK

RUSS

GEORG

(B379)

ICE

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Article-possessor patterns



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

5.1.1.2.5  Possessive adjectives vs. pronominal genitives.  The last phenomenon we will review for pronominal possession has to do with differences in the morphology/ morphosyntax of the members of the paradigm of possessive pronouns. From our discussion of Italian, we know that the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person plural loro ‘their’ is always accompanied by a definite article, whereas the other possessor person display systematic variation of constructions with and without an article depending on the properties of the possessee. In Catalan, the situation is exactly the opposite: the (literary [Brumme 1997: 77]) possessive pronoun of the 3rd person plural llur(s) ‘their’ is the only one which never takes the definite article (Lausberg 1972: 167). Thus, there is a division of the paradigm of possessive pronouns at exactly the same point in both languages, although the means with which the difference is marked are not the same. The divergence of the 3rd person plural possessive pronoun in these Romance languages is indicative of a possession split based on the properties of the possessor. Without going into much detail, we will adduce more evidence for similar possession splits from the morphology/morphosyntax of a variety of languages. First of all, we have to distinguish between the presence/absence of agreement features on the one hand, and morpheme-class status on the other. For the former, Dutch is a good example. Of all six possessive pronouns, only the one of the 1st person plural has retained agreement properties: mijn huis ‘my house’; mijn buurman ‘my neighbour’ vs. ons huis ‘our house’; onze buurman ‘our neighbour’ where the distinction of neuter vs. common gender is formally reflected on the possessive (van den Toorn 1977: 223). However another pattern is more important. In many systems of possessive pronouns, there is a division into two groups: (a) possessive pronouns which behave like adjectives and (b) those which are genitives of the personal pronouns. Members of group (a) would normally display agreement with their head noun while possessives of group (b) do not agree with their head-noun. In the Faroese example (B380), pronouns of both types co-occur. (B380)

Faroese [HP I Faroese, 46] um okkara verð moyni eg. Tína verð. Mina about we:gen world mean:1sg I POR.2sg:acc world POR.1sg:acc verð world ‘About our world is what I mean. Your world. My world.’

The possessive pronouns mína and tína agree with their head-noun verð ‘world’ in the accusative, whereas okkara ‘our’ is the genitive of the personal pronoun of the 1st person plural – and thus does not agree with its head-noun. In (B381), we survey the possessive pronouns of Faroese (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 121–122), cf. also the Icelandic inventory in (B366) above. Under the rubric adjectival, the gender specifications refer

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

to the possessee head noun, whereas for the genitive forms, the gender is that of the possessor. We only contrast the forms of the 1st person singular possessor with those of the 3rd person singular non-reflexive. (B381)

Faroese possessive pronouns

POR 1sg

POR 3sg non-reflexive



adjectival

genitive

PUM

m

f

nt

m

f

nt

nom.sg acc.sg dat.sg nom.pl acc.pl dat.pl

mín mín mínum mínir mínar mínum

mín mína mínari mínar mínar mínum

mítt mítt mínum míni míni mínum

hansara

hennara

tess

In the plural, the possessive pronouns are all genitives and no longer sensitive to the gender of the possessor. Thus: okkara ‘our’, tykkara ‘your’ and teirra ‘their’ combine with possessees of all genders, numbers and cases. This evidence becomes more interesting if connected to cross-European parallels. In Table (B382), we list a number of patterns from a selection of European languages. This table contains only languages whose paradigm of possessive pronouns combines elements of group (a) with those of group (b). Capital A (plus boldface) marks the use of adjectival forms of the possessive pronoun, whereas G and grey shading identify the use of genitive forms of the personal pronoun in possessive function.32 (B382)

Adjective-genitive split of possessive paradigms

possessor

language

reflexive

1sg

2sg

1pl

2pl

3sg

3pl

Faroese Icelandic Latvian Danish Norwegian Swedish Polish Russian Rumanian Italian

A A A A A A A A A —

A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A A A A A A

G G G A A A A A A A

G G G G G A A A A A

G G G G G G G G A/G A

G G G G G G G G A/G G

We can distinguish additional two groups of languages in Europe, namely those which make use only of adjective-like possessives as opposed to those which only employ



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

genitive-like possessives. In the former group, we find languages like Dutch, German, Spanish. French and Bulgarian are languages which have become members of this group by turning erstwhile genitives into possessive adjectives. The second group includes languages like Lithuanian, Greek, Kurdish, Armenian, Turkish, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Basque and Maltese. There is a clear eastern bias in this group which also displays a very strong non-Indo-European component (as opposed to [B382] and the languages without genitive-based possessives). Lithuanian is interesting as it diverges from its sister language Latvian in so far as Lithuanian converges with the distant Balto-Finnic neighbours – a behaviour which otherwise is more typical for Latvian (Stolz 1991). The table yields a clear pattern: wherever there is a split along the lines of the adjective-genitive distinction, reflexive possessives and those of the prototypical speech-act participants in the singular are never represented by genitives whereas the 3rd person plural practically always reflects a genitive. The chain of implications runs like this: 1st plural  ⊃  2nd plural  ⊃  3rd singular  ⊃  3rd plural

If a 1st person plural reflects a pronominal genitive this also applies to all other plural persons and the 3rd singular. If a speech-act participant has a genitive-based possessive, then the non-speech-act participants also reflect genitives. Likewise, if a singular possessor is expressed by a genitive, then plural possessors do so as well. This is absolutely in line with our previous observations on the differences between pronominal possessors: singular and plural behave differently, speech-act participants and non-speech-act participants tend to diverge from each other. Of course, the above can only be additional evidence in our search for possession splits in the European scope because all of the languages listed in (B382) are members of the Indo-European macrophlyum and thus chances are that the patterns observed have not developed independently, but rather are inherited in one way or the other. Nevertheless, the adjective-genitive criterion is suggestive of the importance the properties of the possessor have for the shaping of possession splits in the languages of Europe. In sections 5.1.1.2.1–5.1.1.2.4, we have presented an assortment of constructions which are connected to pronominal possession in various ways. These constructions may be labelled minor or secondary strategies of encoding pronominal possessors. The examples in the previous sub-section show that pronominal possession may work even in the absence of any pronominal element. The covert nature of many of these strategies together with the intricacies of the rules which determine the use of the primary strategies described in section 5.1.1.2.1 make it difficult to recognise that there are systematic possession splits in European languages – possession splits which sometimes correspond nicely to the general picture of alienability correlations, but sometimes have properties which show a stronger influence of the possessor itself

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(besides other factors such as syntactic weight, pragmatics, etc.). In the next section, we will focus on possession splits which are caused by possessor properties and/or syntactic weight in genitive constructions.

5.1.2  Genitive constructions and sundry NP-internal phenomena In the subsequent sections, we will address two areas of adnominal possession: first, we will look more closely at some languages which are characterised by possession splits in genitive constructions (section 5.1.2.1). Genetival constructions in Europe are the topic of several important articles by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001, 2003a, 2003b). The focus of our study is on splits triggered by weight factors and/or properties of the possessor. In the final sub-section 5.1.2.2, we will survey constructions which can be considered the mirror-image of those we have surveyed so far: confectives/ornatives are attributive constructions whose head is the possessor to which the possessee is in an attributive relation. Whether or not these cases can be considered instances of possession at all is a question we will try to answer only indirectly by way of discussing the wide-spread comitative-based constructions in European languages.

5.1.2.1  Genitive constructions From our discussion of the situation in North Germanic (section 4.2), we are already familiar with the fact that certain possessors ranking high on the animacy hierarchy display a special behaviour in the sense that they trigger possessive construction which are not used elsewhere in the same system. Icelandic and some of its closest relatives employ the proprial possessive construction which consists of a possessor represented by a proper noun (sometimes inflected for genitive) which is accompanied by a possessive pronoun which connects the possessor to the lexical possessee, cf. (B100) and (B194.4). This construction is restricted to proper nouns as possessors in Icelandic. In other Germanic languages, a related phenomenon – called resumptive possessive pronoun by Poulsen (2002) – can be used with other expressions of human or animate possessors as well. Poulsen (2002: 39) has found evidence for resumptive possessive pronouns in (non-standard varieties of) German, Pennsylvania Dutch, Dutch, Afrikaans, West Frisian, Norwegian and (dialectal) Danish. English lost a former resumptive possessive construction when the s-genitive took over. For all of these languages, the general outline of the construction is possessor + pronoun + possessee whereas the typically North-Germanic proprial possessive construction has the inverse order possessee + pronoun + possessor. The languages differ as to the agreement properties of the pronoun and the semantic restrictions regulating to the filling of the possessor slot. According to Poulsen’s (2002: 64–65) diachronic scenario, the construction has most probably diffused from Middle Low German to mainland Scandinavian, although the details are by no means clear. In contrast to Fiva (1984: 24), we consider the Icelandic proprial possessive construction at least a distant relative of the resumptive possessive construction, although Poulsen (2002: 18) refrains from



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

commenting on Fiva’s remark. Proprial possessive and resumptive possessive are relatives of each other in functional terms because they single out a semantically welldefined class of possessors, typically human possessors. The resumptive possessive is rather strong in spoken and written modern Low German. The inflection genitive has disappeared completely from practically all regional varieties of Low German (Lindow et al. 1998: 144). This is also the case for the Holstein variety used for the translation of Harry Potter into Low German. In this still widely spoken variety there are two genitive constructions, cf. (B383). (B383)

Low German

(B383.1)

PP-strategy (det) NPpossessee

(B383.2)

Resumptive possessive NPpossessor  pronoun  NPpossessee

[vun

(det)

NPpossessor]PP

agreement agreement

For (B383.1), there are no semantic or syntactic restrictions as to the fillers which may occupy the slots for possessee and possessor, and it is thus the more general construction of the two, whereas (B383.2) is subject to rather strong constraints. Firstly, the possessor must be human (or a metaphorically/metonymically humanised animal etc.). The possessee is inherently definite but no overt definiteness marking is allowed. Overt definiteness marking on the possessor is rare as the possessor overwhelmingly comes in the shape of a proper noun (which does not freely combine with articles in Low German). There are instances of indefinite possessors in resumptive possessive constructions, too. The resumptive possessive pronoun agrees in gender and number with the possessor NP and also with the possessee NP (Lindow et al. 1998: 160). Moreover, this construction is only possible for 3rd person possessors. In (B384) we present a selection of examples of the resumptive possessive. (B384)

Low German – resumptive possessive

(B384.1)

[HP I Low German, 5] Fro Potter weer Fro Dursley ehr Süster Mrs Potter be.pret.3sg Mrs Dursley POR.3sg.f sister ‘Mrs Potter was Mrs Dursley’s sister.’

(B384.2)

[HP I Low German, 37] Dudley harr ‘n Stä kregen an Unkel Vernon sien Dudley have:pret.3sg a post get:part at Uncle Vernon POR.3sg.m ole School old school ‘Dudley had been admitted to Uncle Vernon’s old school.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B384.3)

[HP I Low German, 66–67] Lily un James ehrn Söhn dor vun afholen Lilly and James POR.3pl:PUM.m son there of keep_from:inf na Hogwarts to gahn to Hogwarts to go:inf ‘To keep the son of Lilly and James from going to Hogwarts!’

In (B385) the two possessive constructions outlined in (B383) occur side by side in a possessor chain. (B385)

Low German [HP I Low German, 52] [de lüchten Wieser]PUM vunℜ [[Dudley]POR sienℜ [Klock]PUM]POR det light:part hand:pl of Dudley POR.3sg.m watch de üm sien dicke Wrist över de kant vun’t Sofa bammel rel around POR.3sg.m thick wrist over det edge of ’det sofa hang.3sg ‘The glowing hands of Dudley’s watch on his thick wrist that hung down over the sofa’s side […].’

In order to determine when exactly the resumptive possessive construction is used and when the prepositional strategy is given preference, we first give an exhaustive list of all occurrences of the resumptive pronoun construction in the Low German version of Harry Potter I in (B386). The examples are ordered according to the semantics of the possessee. Combinations of a given possessee with varying possessors are listed separately. Likewise, differences in the syntactic complexity of the NPs involved justifies separate entries. Internally, the presentation of the examples follows the alphabetical order of the possessees and the growing complexity of the NPs. Deviating from the alphabetical order, compounds and derivations are mentioned under the most simple form of a given possessee noun. Boldface highlights the resumptive possessive pronoun. (B386)

Resumptive possessive constructions in Low German

(B386.1)

Body-parts page

example

translation

55 277 28 224 296 128, 141 236 299 93, 138, 280 252 252 69 61 113

Harry sien ganzen Arm Hagrid sien Arm sien Mudder ehr Arms Filch sien utstreckten Arms Neville sien Arms Harry sien Been Neville sien Been den Hund sien Been Harry sien Bless Hagrid sien Boort Hagrid sien Bost Harry sien Buuk Hagrid sien Gesicht Dumbledore sien Gesicht

Harry’s whole arm Hagrid’s arm the arms of his mother the outstretched arms of Filch Neville’s arms Harry’s legs Neville’s cloak the legs of the dog Harry’s forehead Hagrid’s beard Hagrid’s chest Harry’s stomach Hagrid’s face Dumbledore’s face



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe  168, 184, 236 Harry sien Gesicht Harry’s face 237 Neville sien Gesicht Neville’s face 314 Quirrell sien Gesicht Quirrel’s face 120 Ron sien Gesicht Ron’s face 170 Malfoy sien höhnsch Gesicht Malfoy’s defiant face 181 Malfoy sien verdattert Gesicht Malfoy’s confused face 122 Hagrid sien groot horig Gesicht Hagrid’s big hairy face 46 sien Unkel sien Gesicht his uncle’s face 164 Malfoy, Crabbe un Goyle ehr the faces of Malfoy, Crabbe   Gesichter   and Goyle 227 von sien Mudder ehr Gesicht from his mother’s face 54 Unkel Vernon sien Hals Uncle Vernon’s throat 192 den Puk sien Hals the troll’s neck 181 Harry sien Hand Harry’s hand 151, 151 Hermine ehr Hand Hermione’s hand 151 Hermine ehr hibbelige Hand Hermione’s nervous hand 259 Ron sien tweie Hand Harry’s broken hand 27 Harry sien Hart Harry’s heart 126, 241, 282 Harry sien Hart Harry’s heart 259 Norbert sien Hauers Norbert’s teeth 134 Dumbledore sien sülvern Hoor Dumbledore’s silvery hair 118 de Ennen von Krätz sien the points of Scabbers’ Boorthoor whiskers 154 Harry sien Knee Harry’s knee 59, 79, 134, Harry sien Kopp Harry’s head 153, 279, 315, 320 142 Neville sien Kopp Neville’s head 192 den Puk sien Kopp the troll’s head 317 Quirrell sien Kopp Quirrel’s head 317 Quirrell sien Achterkopp the back of Quirrel’s head 317 Quirrell sien Lippen Quirrel’s lips 309 Hermine ehr Mund Hermione’s mouth 193 den Puk sien Nees the troll’s nose 290 Perfesser McGonagall ehr Nees Professor McGonagall’s nose 126 Ron sien schietige Nees Ron’s dirty nose 192 den Puk sien Neeslöcker the troll’s nostril 21 Perfessersch McGonagall ehr Ogen Professor McGonagall’s eyes 21 Dumbledore sien Ogen Dumbledore’s eyes 114 Ron sien Ogen Ron’s eyes 139 Dumbledore sien Plinkerogen Dumbledore’s winking eyes 224 den sien bleken, willen Ogen his pale, wild eyes 110, 111 Ron sien Ohren Ron’s ears 213 Malfoy sien Rüch Malfoy’s back 21 Hagrid sien Schullern Hagrid’s shoulders 154 Ron sien Sünnplacken Ron’s freckles 273 Fang sien langen Tähn Fang’s long teeth 263 Filch sien Visaasch Filch’s face

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B386.2)

Kinship terminology and social relations page

example

translation

37 Dudley sien Bagaasch Dudley’s gang 334 Harry sien Familie Harry’s family 321 Se Ehr Fründ Your friend 262 Charlie sien Frünnen Charlie’s friends 164 Hagrid sien Hölpsman Hagrid’s helper 36 Dudley sien Korona Dudley’s gang 155 Dean sien leevste Mannschop Dean’s favourite team 30 ‘n füünschen Breef von Harry a threatening letter from the   sien Schoolrektersch   headmaster of Harry’s school 17 Potters ehrn Söhn Harry Harry, the son of the Potters 185 de annern ehr Söker the other’s seeker 40, 43 Unkel Vernon sien Süster Marge Uncle Vernon’s sister Marge 334 Ron sien lütte Süster Ron’s little sister 131 Ron sien Tweeschenbröder Ron’s twin-brothers 121 Malfoy sien Vadder Malfoy’s father

(B386.3)

(B386.4)

Animals page

example

translation

246 154 217 110 321 117, 186, 333

Hagrid sien Beest Hagrid sien groten horigen Baffi em sien Peerd Percy sien ole Rott Hermine ehr Uhl Neville sien Üüz

Hagrid’s animal Hagrid’s big hairy Fluffy his horse Percy’s old rat Hermione’s owl Neville’s toad

Clothes page

example

translation

67 Dudley sien Büx Dudley’s trousers 193 den Puk sien Büx the troll’s trousers 208 Hagrid sien Jack Hagrid’s jacket 85 Madam Malkin ehr Kledaasch Madam Malkin’s clothes 69, 70 Hagrid sien Mantel Hagrid’s coat 69 Hagrid sien sworen Mantel Hagrid’s heavy coat 176 Harry sien Morgenmantel Harry’s dressing gown 39 Dudley sien ole Saken Dudley’s old clothes 42 Unkel Vernon sien blitzeblank Uncle Vernon’s shining   swatt Schoh   black shoes 111 Dudley sien olet Tüüg Dudley’s old clothes 138, 316 Quirell sien Turban Quirell’s turban 143 Perfesser Quirrell sien Turban Professor Quirrell’s turban 208 Snape sien Ümhang Snape’s cloak



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe  212 126 110 271 257 327 39

(B386.5)

Malfoy sien Ümhang Neville sien Ümhang Bill sien olen Ümhang Harry sien Ümhang Harry sien Tarnümhang dien Vadder sien Ümhang Harry sien nee’e Uniform

Malfoy’s cloak Neville’s cloak Bill’s old cloak Harry’s cloak Harry’s invisibility cloak your father’s cloak Harry’s new uniform

Artefacts and housing page

example

translation

100 Dursleys ehr Auto the Dursleys’ car 32, 34 Unkel Vernon sien Auto Uncle Vernon’s car 160, 205, Harry sien Bessen Harry’s broom 206, 210 208 den sien Bessen his broom 155 Charlie sien olen Bessen Charly’s old broom 260, 260 Charlie sien Breef Charlie’s letter 45 Harry sien Breef Harry’s letter 28 Dudley sien Computer Dudley’s computer 21 Harry sien Deken Harry’s blanket 182 Harry sien Bettdeek Harry’s sheets 181 Neville sien Denk-dor-an Neville’s Remember-all 23 Dursleys ehr Husdöör the door of the Dursleys 207 Hagrid sien Feernglas Hagrid’s telescope 44 Dudley sien eerste Fernseher Dudley’s first TV set 299 Hagrid sien Fleit Hagrid’s flute 51 Unkel Vernon sien Futteraasch Uncle Vernon’s provisions 209, 212, 254, Hagrid sien Kaat Hagrid’s hut 261, 271 82 över den Puk sien Kassenbook over the goblin’s register 152 Seamus sien Ketel Seamus’ pot 165 Flitwick sien Klass Flitwick’s classroom 100 Harry sien Koffer Harry’s suitcase 100 Harry sien groten, sworen Koffer Harry’s big, heavy suitcase 155 Harry sien Kort Harry’s postcard 169 anner Lüüd ehrn Kraam other people’s business 86 Madam Malkin ehrn Laden Madam Malkin’s shop 119 Madam Malkin ehrn Tüügladen Madam Malkin’s clothes-shop 123 Hagrid sien Lamp Hagrid’s lamp 90 Harry sien List Harry’s list 268 anner Lüüd ehr saken Other people’s business 331 Perfesser McGonagall ehr Professor McGonagall’s   groot Schachspill   big chess game 216 Ron sien Speel Ron’s chessboard Continued

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

page

example

translation

89 Harry sien Schoolböker Harry’s schoolbooks 94 mit ‘n anner Töverer with the wand of another   sien Steken   wizard 189 Perfesser Dumbledore Professor Dumbledore’s chair   sien Stohl 43 Dudley sien twete Stuuv Dudley’s other room 264 Perfesser McGonagall ehr Porfessor McGonagall’s   Studeerstuuv   office 81 Harry Potter sien Tresor Harry Potter’s safe 149 Harry sien Töller Harry’s plate 95, 175 Harry sien Töversteken Harry’s wand 189 Perfesser Dumbledore Professor Dumbledore’s   sien Töversteken   wand 110 Charlie sien olen Töversteken Charlie’s old wand 239 Flamel sien Wunnersteen Flamel’s Philosphers Stone

(B386.6)

(B386.7)

Feelings, capacities page

example

translation

332 193 17 64 10 88 72

Snape sien Geföhl Harry sien Höpen Voldemort sien Knööf Unkel Vernon sien Kraasch de Naversche ehrn Kummer Harry sien Luun Hagrid sien Töverkünsten

Snape’s feeling Harry’s hopes Voldemort’s power Uncle Vernon’s power the neighbour’s sorrow Harry’s humour Hagrid’s magic tricks

Body-parts by extension/mimics page

example

translation

299 den Hund sien heten, the dog’s hot smelly breath   stinkigen Aten the smiles of the members 331 de Slytheriners ehr Grientjes   of Slytherin 146, 149 Harry sien Naam Harry’s name 111 Du-weetst-al-wokeen You-know-who’s name   sien Naam 318, 319 Harry sien Narv Harry’s scar 105 Harry sien Blitznarv Harry’s lightning-shaped scar 181 Malfoy sien Siet Malfoy’s side 160 Neville sien Stem Neville’s voice 315 Quirrell sien Stimm Quirrel’s voice 17 Perfessersch McGonagall Professor McGonagall’s voice   ehr Stimm



(B386.8)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Time page

example

translation

24, 24, 27 Duddy sien Geburtstag Dudley’s birthday 50 Harry sien ölvten Geburtstag Harry’s eleventh birthday 332 Harry sien Leven Harry’s life 98 Harry sien letzt Maand mit Harry’s last month with   Dursleys   the Dursleys 11 Dudley sien Öller Dudley’s age 80 Harry sien Öller Harry’s age 147 Quirrel sien Stunnen Quirrel’s classes 222 Harry sien schönste Wiehnachten the best Christmas of Harry’s life

(B386.9)

Utterances/acoustic signals page

example

translation

Voldemort sien Bellen Voldemort’s shouting Quirrell sien gräsig Bölken Quirrel’s frightening cries an old man’s silly babbling of ‘n olen Mann sien gammelig   Gesabbel 193 den Puk sien Gillen the troll’s cries 304 Ron und Hermine ehr Ron and Hermione’s   Jubileren   triumphant cries 143 den sien Lachen whose laughter 262 Harry sien Raat Harry’s advice 202 Oliver sien Reed Oliver’s speech 52 Dudley sien Snorken Dudley’s snoring 248 Quirrel sien Stammern Quirrell’s stuttering 241 Wood sien opmuntern Wöör Wood’s inspiring words 320 320 330

(B386.10)

Various page

example

translation

261 139 247 199 198 212 190 308 247 204 228 89

Harry sien Afkörten Perfesser Quirell sien Baantje Quirrel sien Hokuspokus Harry un Ron ehr Schoolarbeit Harry sien eerst Spill an Harry sien Stä Snape sien Stappen Snape sien Töver Quirrel sien Töverbann Angelina ehr Tor Harry sien Weg de Muggels ehr Welt

Harry’s shortcuts Professor Quirell’s position Quirrell’s Hocus Pokus Harry and Ron’s homework Harry’s first match In Harry’s place Snape’s footsteps Snape’s magic Quirrell’s magic Angelina’s goal Harry’s walk the Muggles’ world

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

There are altogether 222 tokens of resumptive possessive constructions which represent 129 different types of possessees. Semantically, these possessees cover almost the entire range from inalienable relations of the body-part and kinship kind to alienable artefacts and abstract notions. The only functional gap are part-whole relations (including partitives). This gap notwithstanding, it is clear that the meaning of the possessee is largely irrelevant for the use of the resumptive possessive construction. Admittedly, body-part terms (cf. [B386.1]) account for the largest group of possessees with a token frequency of 73 (= 33% of all tokens of resumptive possessives). However, artefacts are next in line with 52 tokens (= 23%). Moreover, artefacts are represented with a higher number of types, namely 32 (= 25%) as opposed to the 26 (= 20%) attested for body-part terms. Thus, there is no leitmotif on the semantic side that unites all possessee classes documented in (B386). The only common bond between the examples in (B386) is to be found on the possessor side. Of all 222 cases, there is not a single one which does not have an animate possessor. There are five instances of a non-human animate possessor (= 2%). The vast majority of the cases have a human possessor (including trolls!). Furthermore, possessors are represented by proper nouns in 195 cases (= 88%), whereas of the remaining 27 examples, six have a pronominal possessor in the 3rd person (either singular or plural, relative or personal [including honorific]) – a fact which is in line with the observations made by Lindow et al. (1998: 165). This leaves us with 21 cases in which the possessor is represented by an animate noun such as de Naversche ‘the woman next door’, sien Mudder ‘his mother’, den Hund ‘the dog’, etc. This is an ideal situation as there are no competitors on the possessor side: the resumptive possessive construction in this variety of Low German strictly obeys the animacy or empathy hierarchy in so far as it grants animate possessors (preferably humans identified by name) the privilege of a distinct and dedicated construction. However, we know from (B384) and (B385) that there is an alternative construction based on the prepositional strategy. In (B385), the vun-PP can be understood as containing the whole (“the watch”) of a part-whole relation (“the hands of the watch”) if we except that the concept of a watch necessarily includes hands or another device for showing the time. The sentence pair in (B387) demonstrates that the PP headed by vun ‘of ’ may also be used to introduce a human possessor (without invoking a partwhole reading). (B387)

Low German

(B387.1)

PP [HP I Low German, 113] dor weer dat Gesicht vun ‘n Mann op there be.pret.3sg det.nt face of a man on ‘There was the face of a man (on the picture).’

(B387.2)

Resumptive pronoun [HPI Low German, 113] Harry dreih de Kort wedder üm un sehg Harry turn.pret.3sg det card again around and see.pret.3sg



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

hool di fast dat Dumbledore sien Gesicht nich mehr hold you fast that Dumbledore POR.3sg.m face neg more dor weer there be.pret.3sg ‘Harry turned the card over again and saw – believe it or not – that Dumbledore’s face was no longer there.’

Both Mann ‘man’ and Dumbledore are human possessors and nevertheless (B387.1) contains a possessive construction which differs from the one used in (B387.2). Thus, there must be a factor that determines this choice – a factor which is strong enough to overrule the animacy-based preference for the resumptive possessive construction. From the previous discussion, we already know a number of potential parameters which might be responsible for the co-existence of the two possessive constructions, namely definiteness, syntactic weight, and pragmatics. In what follows, we look at a variety of cases which have a human possessor as complement of the preposition vun. Of 311 tokens of vun-constructions with possessive function in our sample text, there are 76 with an animate possessor introduced by vun i.e., only a minority of 24% of all instances allows for animate possessors. Three quarters of all cases involve inanimate possessors which constitute the primary domain of the PP strategy. The number of instances of animate possessors in vun-constructions cannot compete with the resumptive possessive construction as it is outnumbered by a ratio of 3-to-1 by the latter. As to types (in terms of possessee classes), vun covers 54 as opposed to the 129 types reported for the resumptive possessive construction. Thus, employing vun with animate possessors is the marked option, at least statistically. Semantically, the possessees in vun-constructions cover most of the inalienable and alienable categories and thus have a similarly wide domain as the possessees of the resumptive possessive construction. In Table (B388), we give a list of all instances of vun used to introduce an animate possessor. Whether the absence of physico-mental states as possessees in (B387) is incidental or reflects a systematic constraint can be determined only with the help of a larger empirical basis. In this study, we determined which of the following criteria are fulfilled in (B388) by the possessor and possessee NPs, respectively: indefiniteness, heaviness, and – only for the possessor – whether or not a proper noun is used. The cases are presented in decreasing order according to the number of Xs ascribed to the examples. (B388)

Properties of possessive vun-PPs with animate possessors page example 154 ‘n Kaventsmann vun swatten Köter ‘a really huge black dog’ 203 ‘n schöön Spill vun den Gryffindor   Hauer ‘a great play by the Gryffindor beater’

PUM

POR

indef heavy indef heavy no name X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

(Continued)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

page example

PUM

POR

indef heavy indef heavy no name

142 dat Bild vun ‘n gewaltig dicke Fro X X ‘the picture of an enormously   fat woman’ 228 de Geist vun ‘n grote Hex X X ‘the ghost of a great witch’ 275 dat Liev vun ‘n glinstern X X   kanstangelbruun Peerd ‘the body of a shining chestnut   brown horse’ 109 ‘n Kaventsmann vun Tarantel X X ‘a really huge spider’ 215 ‘n Ünnerschrift vun ‘n Schoolmeister X X ‘the signature of a teacher’ 329 Fotos vun Töverers X X ‘photographs of sorcerers’ 329 de olen Schoolfrünnen vun dien Öllern X X ‘The old schoolmates of your parents’ 119 op beid Sieden vun den bleken Jung X X ‘on both sides of the pale boy’ 23 biller vun een X X ‘pictures of someone’ 53 ‘n Breker vun Keerl X X ‘a giant of a guy/man’ 94 Steertfeddern vun Phönixen X X ‘tailfeathers of phoenixes’ 89 ‘n lange Reeg vun Muggel-Vörfohren X X ‘a long line of Muggle ancestors’ 55 dien groten Pudding vun Söhn X X ‘your great pudding of a son’ 30 ‘n ekeligen olen Pulli vun Dudley X X ‘an ugly old sweater of Dudley’s’ 50 ‘n poor ole Socken vun Unkel Vernon X X ‘an old pair of socks of Uncle   Vernon’s’ 203 ‘n gode Wahl vun Oliver Wood X X A good choice by Oliver Wood 269 ‘n veel to goden Fründ vun Snape X X ‘a much too good friend of Snape’s’ 203 ‘n Fründ vun de Weasley Tweeschens X X ‘a friend of the Weasley twins’ 152 Gifttähn vun Slangen X X ‘venomous teeth of snakes’

X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe  15 Snoopkraam vun de Muggels X ‘sweets of the Muggles’ 212 ‘n List vun de Schölers X ‘a list of the pupils’ 44 de grote Vagel-Buur vun den Papagei X ‘the huge bird-cage of the parrot’ 299 alle dree Snuten vun den Hund X ‘all three snouts of the dog’ 8 de Döör vun’n Bäcker X ‘the door of a Baker’ 94 de Hartsehnen vun Drakens X ‘the heartstrings of dragons’ 251 dat Optrecken vun Draken X ‘the raising of dragons’ 282 dat Bloot vun ‘n Eenhoorn X ‘the blood of a unicorn’ 255 den Kopp vun den lütten Draken X ‘the head of the little dragon’ 9 den Naam van ehr Süster X ‘the name of her sister’ 58 de Familie vun de gröttsten Muggels X ‘the family of the greatest Muggles’ 92 de ogen vun dien Mudder X ‘the eyes of your mother’ 104 de Köpp vun den snötern Lüüd X ‘the heads of the talking people’ 105 de hölp vun de beiden Tweeschens X ‘the help from the twins’ 107 de Stimm vun de lütt Deern X ‘the voice of the little girl’ 127 de Prüük vun sien Schoolmeister X ‘the wig of his teacher’ 131 de Geist vun den fetten Mönk X ‘the ghost of the fat monk’ 223 den Ümhang vun sein Vadder X ‘the cloak of his father’ 232 in ‘n Schatten vun sien öllern Bröders X ‘in the shadow of his older brothers’ 237 de Sammelkort vun de berühmtesten X   Töverers ‘the trading cards of the most   famous Wizards’ 323 de vun dien Mudder X ‘that (= life) of your mother’ 14 de Ogen vun de Katt ‘the eyes of the cat’

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

(Continued)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe page example

PUM

POR

indef heavy indef heavy no name

39 de vun de annern ‘those (= clothes) of the others’ 35 keen Biller vun jüm ‘no pictures of them’ 46 de Brägen vun düsse Lüüd ‘the brains of these people’ 74 de naam vun den Schöler ‘the name of the pupil’ 95 de Broder vun em ‘its (= the wand’s) brother’ 102, 108 de Mudder vun de Jungs ‘the mother of the boys’ 133 den Disch vun de Gryffindorers ‘the table of Gryffindor’ 136 den Disch vun de Slytheriners ‘the table of Slytherin’ 163 dat Schreen vun de Tokiekers ‘the cries of the audience’ 202 den Baas vun de Slytheriners ‘the boos of the Syltherins’ 227 de Gesichter vun de annern ‘the faces of the others’ 286 vun’t Jubileren vun de annern ‘jubilation of the others’ 299 dat Knurren vun den Köter ‘the growls of the dog’ 324 de Köpp vun de Minschen ‘the heads of people’ 170, 195, 293 dat Bild vun de Dicke Fro X ‘the picture of the Fat Lady’ 167 dat Denkmaal vun Gregory den Slieker X ‘the memorial of Gregory the Conqueror’ 286 den Opstand vun Elfrich den Emsigen X ‘the Revolt of Elfrich the Diligent’ 25 dat ole Tüüg van Dudley X ‘the old clothes of Dudley’ 125 dat ganze Huus von Dursleys X ‘the entire house of the Dursleys’ 57 dat füünsch Gesicht vun Hagrid ‘the angry face of Hagrid’ X 138, 300 op de anner Sied vun Harry X ‘on the other side of Harry’

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe  195 den gräsigen Gestank vun den Puk X ‘the horrible stench of the troll’ 229 de lüchten Ogen vun Fro Norris X ‘the shining eyes of Miss Norris’ 244 dat lichen Gesicht vun Albus X   Dumbledore ‘the smiling face of Albus   Dumbledore’s’ 26 dat Geschenk vun Tante Marge ‘the present of Aunt Marge’ 43 dat Huus vun Dursleys ‘the house of the Dursleys’ 195 de vun Hermine ‘those (= the points) of Hermine’ 286 de Geist vun Perfesser Binns ‘the ghost of Professor Binns’ 307 den Töver vun Sprout ‘the magic of Sprout’ sum (for 76 tokens)

17

19

16

26

52

In 52 out of 76 cases, the possessor is a common noun (or marginally also a pronoun). Proper nouns are clearly disfavoured as possessors in vun-constructions, whereas they are overwhelmingly frequent in the resumptive possessive construction (cf. above). Syntactic heaviness of the possessor NP applies in 26 cases, and in 19 cases, it is the possessee NP which is heavy. With almost equal frequency the possessor and the possessee are indefinite with 16 as opposed to 17 instances, respectively. Only in five cases do none of the criteria apply. Before we glimpse at these, an interpretation of the Xs in Table (B388) is in order. The vun-construction differs from the resumptive possessive construction in so far as vun combines easily with indefinite possessees and indefinite possessors (even simultaneously). The resumptive possessive construction only occasionally allows for an indefinite possessor but never combines with an (inherently) indefinite possessee (see above). However, inde­finiteness of the possessee alone does not seem to be sufficient to trigger the vun-construction. It always occurs in combination with another property – a possessor property! The same applies to indefiniteness of the possessor: there is no example of an indefinite possessor in a vun-construction which does not also fulfil at least one other criterion (almost always another property of the possessor). The two criteria which do not need additional support from other factors are syntactic heaviness and the use of common nouns for the possessor. Syntactic heaviness of the possessor is the only criterion in three cases. As to heavy possessees, we find seven instances which are not subject to other factors. The strongest criterion, however, is the use of a common noun for the possessor

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

because in 16 cases it alone is sufficient. Wherever there are more than two Xs per line, one is also there marking the absence of a proper noun. Syntactic weight is clearly more prominent with vun-constructions than with resumptive possessives. Of the 76 instances of the vun-construction in (B388), 42 (= 55%) involve a heavy possessor and/or a heavy possessee. For the resumptive possessive, we count 39 instances which yield a percentage of 17.5% (for a total of 222 tokens). Thus, there is a pronounced tendency to use heavy NPs – be they possessors or possessees – in vunconstructions although the resumptive possessive construction does not preclude the use of heavy NPs. The five cases of vun-constructions in which none of our criteria are fulfilled are given in (B389). It is a fair guess that, if neither definiteness, nor syntactic weight, nor the absence of a proper noun apply, pragmatics must play a role. (B389)

Low German

(B389.1)

[HP I Low German, 26] mien Lütten du hest dat Geschenk vun Tante Marge POR.1sg small you have:2sg det.nt present of aunt Marge nich mittellt neg count_in:part ‘My dear, you haven’t counted the present of Aunt Marge.’

(B389.2)

[HP I Low German, 43] dat Huus vun Dursleys harr veer Slaapkamern det.nt house of Dursley:pl have.pret.3sg four bed-room:pl ‘The house of the Dursleys had four bed-rooms.’

(B389.3)

[HP I Low German, 195] fief meenst du wenn du de vun Hermione aftrecken deist five mean:2sg you if you det of Hermione subtract:inf do:2sg ‘You mean five if one subtracts those [= points] of Hermione.’

(B389.4)

[HP I Low German, 286] as de Geist vun Perfesser Binns jüm sä when det ghost of Professor Binns them say.pret.3sg ‘When the ghost of Professor Binns told them…’

(B389.5)

[HP I Low German, 307] den Töver vun Sprout hebbt wi achter uns det magic of Sprout have we behind us ‘We have left behind Sprout’s magic.’

Indeed, (mostly contrastive) focus is responsible for the use of vun in (B389.1). In a wider context, Dudley is about to complain because he fears that he has received fewer birthday presents than in the previous year. His mother has to explain to him that he had counted only the presents given to him by his parents, whereas he overlooked



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

the one from Aunt Marge. Focus is thus on the possessor i.e., the donor of the present. Similarly, in (B389.3) and (B389.5), the speakers contrast possessees of different possessors, namely, on the one hand, the number of points gained for their house by Ron and Harry as opposed to the points Hermione had just lost and, on the other, the various kinds of magic tricks the three friends had faced already as opposed to those which they expect to come across later. These tricks are distinguished from each other by reference to their creators and thus the possessor is focused on. The pragmatic motivation of the vun-construction is less obvious in the two remaining cases. As to (B389.2), there are no other houses to compare mentioned in the immediate context. However, the preceding paragraphs contain a dialogue about Harry moving from his cupboard to Dudley’s former spare-room. The example then opens a paragraph in which the house the Dursleys own is described in detail. This specific house is under focus in the sense that it is individualised as opposed to all other houses. (B389.4) is one of a whole series of sentences in which the behaviour of the various professors during the term exams is described. The one sentence dealing with Professor Binns is the final one and thus contrasts him with all previously mentioned colleagues of his. It is important that it is the ghost of this particular professor who speaks and not any other ghost (there are many of those about in the story). We can assume that in some of the cases of possessees occurring both in (B386) and (B388), this bi-location often involves focus (although mostly in combination with one or several of the other criteria mentioned above). More generally, in the resumptive possessive construction, the possessee is rhematic and thus more likely to associate with focus, whereas in the vunconstruction, it is exactly the other way around – the possessor is rhematic and the prime site for focus. However, the variation cannot be reduced entirely to pragmatic issues as the resumptive possessive construction displays very pronounced semantic restrictions (which go along with a clear preference for a certain word-class, namely proper nouns as possessors). In diagram (B390), we summarise our above findings schematically. The diagram contrasts the presence or absence of a given criterion for each of the possessive constructions. In brackets, we indicate to which of the two participants the criterion applies. Focus on the possessee is not mentioned separately as a criterion as it is epiphenomenally associated with the resumptive possessive construction and thus “accompanies” all criteria which favour the use of this construction type. (B390)

Motivation of genitive constructions in Low German ¬ name + [POR] ¬ animate + [POR ¬ definite + [POR]/[PUM] + heavy ¬ [POR]/[PUM] + focus ¬ [POR] vun resumptive

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

The diagram shows that the probability that a resumptive possessive construction is used rises if the possessor is represented by a proper noun (implying that it is animate and definite) in a light NP which is not in focus. Inversely, it becomes more likely that a vun-PP is employed to introduce the possessor if it is inanimate, indefinite, heavy and/ or focused on. These tendencies leave ample space for a continuum-like zone of transition. Nevertheless, the preference of proper nouns as possessors to take the resumptive possessive construction (practically as their default solution) is so strong that there can be no doubt that we are basically dealing with a possessor-oriented possession split which has nothing to do with the familiar possessee-based kinds of alienability correlations we discussed in previous sections. A close relative of Low German is Dutch. Non-standard Dutch varieties employ genitive constructions similar to the ones described for Low German above (Poulsen 2002: 39–44). In Afrikaans – a colonial offspring of 17th Century Dutch – the erstwhile resumptive possessive construction has developed into a full-blown new category for which the terms “resumptive” and “possessive pronoun” are no longer adequate. The obligatory particle se functions as a free genitive marker (comparable to the clitic s-genitive in English) (Poulsen 2002: 45–50). Note that in Afrikaans also, the new “emergent” genitive competes with a PP strategy (based on the preposition van ‘of ’ [Ponelis 1979: 480–481]). However, this issue is not of primary interest to our study because the new se-genitive in Afrikaans has been generalised in such a way that it nowadays combines freely with all semantic classes of possessors and possessees: vandag se weer {today} {gen} {weather} ‘today’s weather’, Jan se eie geld {Jan} {gen} {own} {money} ‘Jan’s own money’, de boek se omslag {det} {book} {gen} {cover} ‘the cover of the book’, etc. (Ponelis 1979: 126–129). Thus, there is no possession split of the Low German kind. In contrast to Afrikaans, standard Dutch displays a possession split which corresponds closely to what we have described for Low German although no resumptive possessive construction is involved. Except for fixed expressions and lexicalised word-forms, Dutch has lost its former case distinctions on nouns: dative and accusative have disappeared completely and, on common nouns, there is also no genitive. However, there still is an inflectional genitive -{s} on proper nouns which is very much alive (van den Toorn 1977: 158). The decline of the Dutch genitive has been described in a recent article by Weerman & de Wit (1999) whose conclusions hoewever are criticised in Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2006). In sharp contrast to English and the mainland Scandinavian languages, the Dutch genitive is not a phrasal clitic. Moreover, its use is strictly confined to proper nouns – which is not the case in other Germanic languages. In the Dutch version of the first volume of the Harry Potter series there are 202 instances of the s-genitive. In (B391) we give three typical examples of the use of the s-genitive in Dutch.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B391)

Dutch

(B391.1)

[HP I Dutch, 17] alles moet perfect zijn op Dirk-s verjaardag everything must perfect be:inf on Dirk-gen birthday ‘Everything has to be perfect on Dirk’s [= Dudley’s] birthday.’

(B391.2)

[HP I Dutch, 43] Hagrid-s woede verdween Hagrid-gen anger disappear.pret.3sg ‘Hagrid’s anger disappeared.’

(B391.3)

[HP I Dutch, 151] het was Harry-s allerbeste kerstfest geweest it be.pret.3sg Harry-gen best Christmas be:part ‘It had been Harry’s best Christmas ever.’

Three observations are important. Firstly, of the 202 instances of the s-genitive, only three do not involve a proper noun in the strictest sense of the term, namely vaders ‘father’s’ twice and teddy’s ‘teddy’s’ once. However, the latter is used as the name given to a pet-toy – and accordingly the possessor NP in (B392) is not accompanied by an article, which would have been the case with a common noun as possessor. (B392)

Dutch [HP I Dutch, 178] uit de krat klonken scheurende geluiden die Harry het from det box sound.pret:pl tearing sound:pl rel Harry det.nt idee gaven dat teddy-s hoofdje werd afgerukt idea give.pret:pl that teddy-gen head:dim become tear_off:part ‘Sounds of tearing came from the box which made Harry think that Teddy’s little head was being torn off.’

The two instances of vader ‘father’ as host of the s-genitive are more difficult because the possessor is itself pronominally possessed in both cases, and the presence of the possessive pronoun suggests that the possessor is treated as a common noun, cf. (B393) – the other example is [HP I Dutch, 152] zijn vaders mantel ‘his father’s cloak’ which is a fragmentary utterance not integrated in any grammatical sentence structure. (B393)

Dutch [HP I Dutch, 223] omdat hij je vader-s mantel heeft gestuurd en zo because he POR.2sg father-gen cloak have:3sg send:part and so ‘Because he had sent your father’s cloak and everything?’

In the absence of a better explanation, we speculate that this exceptional use of the s-genitive on a common noun has to do with the closeness of a central kinship term like vader ‘father’ to proper nouns because they can be used as terms of address and thus function like names.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Secondly, the s-genitive is attested only on proper nouns (and vader) in the singular. Wherever the possessor is a proper noun in the plural, the PP-strategy is used instead. There are 14 cases of proper nouns in the plural – mostly family names – functioning as the possessor. All of them are complements of the preposition van ‘of ’, cf. (B394). (B394)

Dutch [HP I Dutch, 13] ze zeggen dat hij ook geprobeerd heeft Harry te vermoorden they say:pl that he also try:part have:3sg Harry to kill:inf het zoontje van de Potters det.nt son:dim of det Potter:pl ‘They say that he also tried to kill Harry, the little son of the Potters.’

This sentence is telling in so far as the use of the van-construction comes somewhat unexpectedly because it runs counter to the rhematic character of the possessee. The van-construction – just like the vun-construction in Low German – is a means of making the possessor NP accessible for focus through word-order. However, the Potters themselves are the topic of the entire preceding paragraph and thus “old information” or thematic. What is “new information” is the fact that something is said about their son Harry. This suggests that the incompatibility of the s-genitive – the only segmental means to facilitate possessee focus – and possessors in the plural is such a strong restriction that it overrules the necessities of pragmatics. In (B395) we contrast two sentences with the same possessee but with a variation on the side of the possessor. (B395)

Dutch

(B395.1)

[HP I Dutch, 68] twee uur later was Harry’s enorme loodzware hutkoffer two hour later be.pret.3sg Harry-gen enormous heavy suitcase in de auto van de Duffelings geheven in det car of det Duffeling:pl heave:part ‘Two hours later, Harry’s huge, heavy suitcase was heaved into the car of the Duffelings [= Durselys].’

(B395.2)

[HP I Dutch, 24] maar tegen de tijd dat ze weer in oom Herman-s but against det time that they again in Uncle Herman-gen auto zaten auto sit.pret:pl ‘But when they were sitting again in Uncle Herman’s [= Vernon’s] car…’

In (B395.1) it is doubtful whether the van-construction facilitates possessor focus as the context suggests that it is the car which is important and not so much its owners, who were introduced before. Possessee focus certainly applies in (B395.2) because it describes a change of place from the office of the zoo director to the car, which therefore



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

is “new information”. Given that the pragmatic status of auto ‘car’ is identical for both sentences, the only difference is the one of plural possessor vs singular possessor. In Table (B396) we list all cases of pluralised proper nouns as possessors found in our sample text. (B396)

Dutch plural possessors page

example

translation

5 De billen van de Duffelings 11 De donkere woonkamer van   de Duffelings 13 Het zoontje van de Potters 15, 85 Het huis van de Duffelings 17 De voordeur van de Duffelings 21, 68 De auto van de Duffelings 52 Één gigantische grap van de   Duffelings 138 De vriend van de broertjes   Wemel 138 Luid gejuich van de Griffoendors en gekreun en gejoel van de Zwadderaars

the Duffelings’ intestines the dark sitting-room of   the Duffelings the Potters’ little son the Duffelings’ house the Duffelings’ front-door the Duffelings’ car a gigantic joke by the   Duffelings’ the friend of the Wemel   brothers loud cries of joy of the Gryffindorers and jeers   of the Slytherins 225 De grijnzen van de Zwadderaars the smiles of the Slytherins

If we discount the case of de broertjes Wemel ‘the Wemel [= Weasley] brothers’, the table contains directly pluralised proper nouns. Their pluralisation is achieved via suffixation of the plural marker {s}. The s-plural is very common with nouns which end in a syllabic sonorant (= orthographic -el, -em, -en, -er) or in -aar(d), -erd, -eur. Most nouns of the latter group designate human beings. The s-plural is also common for nouns which end in -ier or -e and designate human beings. Apart from these, the majority of loanwords take the s-plural. Elsewhere in the system, the en-plural is more widespread (van den Toorn 1977: 157). S-plurals on family names and comparable proper nouns are relatively frequent because they often belong to one of the above phonologically/morphologically defined groups of s-pluralisation. En-plurals are rarer and occur most often with monosyllabic first names (cf. twee Jannen ‘two Jans’ vs. de Pietersens ‘the Pietersens’ [van den Toorn 1977: 156]). Given this preponderance of s-plurals on proper nouns, one might get the idea that the use of the s-genitive on these nouns is blocked simply because the two functionally distinct morphemes {s} cannot co-occur in one and the same word-form – and dropping one of them would then lead to misunderstandings. However, dropping or not realising an {s} is unproblematic in Dutch. In our sample text, there are two proper names which, in their singular form, end in /s/, namely

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Perkamentus (= Dumbledore) and Malfidus (= Malfoy). The use of the s-genitive is not blocked with these nouns although the phonological identity of the genitive {/s/} with the word-final /s/ leads to a word-form which is indistinct from the non-genitive: [HP I Dutch, 16] Perkamentus’ ogen ‘Perkamentus’ [= Dumbledore’s] eyes’ and [HP I Dutch, 123] Malfidus’ woede en verwarring ‘Malfidus’ [= Malfoy’s] anger and confusion’. There are seven instances of s-genitives of this kind in the text. On the whole, there is no evidence for a preference for the van-construction with names ending in a sibilant. Thus, it is doubtful that the plural {s} of the above proper nouns is an obstacle to the application of the s-genitive. A different explanation makes more sense. In Harry Potter I, we find a small number of archaic genitive constructions which involve a case-inflected form of the definite article accompanying the possessor in the plural. These instances have a formulaic character and are typical of an administrative style and the discourse of the learned. De Steen der Wijzen ‘the Philosophers Stone’ is the most frequent of these lexicalised cases. The sentence pair in (B397) nicely reflects the stylistic/sociolectal differences associated with the different genitive constructions. (B397)

Dutch

(B397.1)

[HP I Dutch, 192] de will der planeten is al eerder verkeerd det will det.gen planet:pl be.3sg already earlier wrong uitgelegd interpret:part ‘The will of the planets has already been interpreted in the wrong way in the past.’

(B397.2)

[HP I Dutch, 193] hij zei dat hij tegen de will van de he say.pret.3sg that he against det will of det planeten inging planet:pl take_issue:pret.3sg ‘He said that he acted against the will of the planets.’

Sentence (B397.1) reflects the slightly pompous and stilted style of the Centaurs. The definite article inflected for the genitive is a deliberate archaism to give the utterance more weight. In contrast to the centaur Firenze’s high-style way of putting things, Harry Potter reports to his friends what the centaurs have said in a down-to-earth style. The same combination of possessee will ‘will’ and possessor planeten ‘planets’ involves the everyday relator van in lieu of the marked der ‘of the’. As a matter of fact, the genitive forms of the article can no longer be used productively in new contexts in Dutch as the definite article has become insensitive to case. With the loss of the option of using a case-inflected article, all means of expressing the genitive by bound



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

morphology with possessors in the plural have disappeared because the noun itself lost the ability to inflect for case early on in the history of Dutch. Thus, the above puzzle of the putative incompatibility of the genitive {s} and the plural {s} receives a rather straightforward answer: there is no s-genitive for plural possessors in modern Dutch because there never was an s-genitive in the plural! In contrast to other Germanic languages, the s-genitive has not diffused beyond the singular. The present situation is the logical continuation of the previous stages – and a considerable reduction of the domain of the genitive to proper nouns. Thirdly, the use of the genitive is blocked for coordinated proper nouns. This constraint is connected to the previous one as coordinated possessors form a plurality of possessors. In (B398) we enumerate those instances in our sample text where co­ ordinated proper nouns function as possessors. (B398)

Coordinated possessors page 20

example De portretten van Poekie, Witje,

translation The portraits of Tibbles,

  Pootjes en Pluimpje   Snowy, Mr. Paws and Tufty Het gezelschap van Pieter en Dirk Pieter and Dirk’s company Lily and James Potter’s son De zoon van Lily en James Potter The triumphant faces of De triomfantelijke gezichten van   Malfidus, Korzel en Kwast   Malfoy, Crabble and Goyle 115 Het gesnurk van Daan en Simon Daan and Simon’s snoring Harry and Ron’s homework 135 Het Bezweringenhuiswerk   van Harry en Ron   for Defense 166 De kreten en klappen van Marcel, The cheers and clapping of   Korzel en Kwast   Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle 207 Het gejuich van Ron en The cheers of Ron and   Hermelien   Hermione 22 46 111–112

In some of these cases, other factors additionally favour the use of the van-construction (focus, heavy possessee), but it is nevertheless interesting that there is not a single instance of a coordinated genitive in the entire text. What is more, there is also no evidence for heavy possessors inflected for the genitive (if we discount the two exceptional cases of vader ‘father’ being pronominally possessed, cf. above). This is not absolutely surprising because the possessors hosting a bound genitive morpheme are proper nouns by default – and thus refer to unique individuals. One does not expect to find first names modified by additional attributes (although this is possible, albeit rarely). Lamentably, the first volume of the Harry Potter series does not contain any examples of proper nouns in possessor function modified by attributes in vanconstructions. This rarity corroborates the low expectancy rate for modified proper nouns occurring at all.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Indefinite possessees, focus on the possessor and syntactic heaviness are factors which support the use of the van-construction in Dutch, as in [HP I Dutch, 21] een weerzinwekkende oude trui van Dirk ‘an abominable old sweater of Dirk’s [= Dudley’s]’. In this way, Dutch and Low German behave very similar to each other. However, the Dutch genitive has the more narrowly circumscribed domain as it is confined to proper nouns in the singular whereas the Low German resumptive possessive construction has a much wider semantic scope because it embraces all animate possessors regardless of word-class and number. Diagram (B399) summarises the Dutch situation schematically. (B399)

Distribution of genitive constructions in Dutch

possessor

word-class proper noun common noun

sg genitive van

heavy/indefinite/focus [POR] pl van van

sg/pl van van

The third language to be discussed in this sub-section is Rumanian. In contrast to the above Germanic languages, Rumanian makes use of three construction types for genitive construc­tions (this excludes the de-construction whose domain has to be des­ cribed in a separate study as it leads far beyond the boundaries of possessive relations). First of all, there is the regular inflectional genitive on common nouns. For proper nouns however, we find a proprial possessive construction which is reminiscent of the one described for Icelandic (see section 4.2.1.2). The third option consists of a PP strategy which may also occur in combination with the proprial possessive. These three constructions follow a very clear logical pattern and cannot simply replace one another. Rumanian common nouns inflect regularly for case and distinguish a nominativeaccusative form from a dative-genitive form. For indefinite nouns, these distinctions are marked formally only on feminine singular nouns: nominative-accusative stea ‘star’ vs. dative-genitive stele (masculine and so-called neuter nouns have a common case form for the entire paradigm of each number: nominative-accusative-dative-genitive dinte ‘tooth’). With definite nouns, dative-genitive and nominative-accusative receive distinct forms which co-encode definiteness: nominative-accusative dintele ‘the tooth’ vs. dative-genitive dintelui. The genitive construction has possessee-possessor order. In the Rumanian translation of the first volume of the Harry Potter series, the inflectional genitive represents the majority solution with respect to adnominal genitive constructions. There are 493 tokens among which the examples in (B400) are typical. (B400)

Rumanian

(B400.1)

[HP I Rumanian, 178–179] Harry mângâia suprafaţa oglinzii Harry caress.3sg surface:def.f mirror:def.f.gen ‘Harry caressed the surface of the mirror.’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B400.2)

[HP I Rumanian, 239] eu o să iau locul unui cal I fut subord take.1sg place:def.m a:m.gen horse ‘I will take the place of a knight.’

(B400.3)

[HP I Rumanian, 90] în lumea Încuiaţilor oamenii stau in world:def.f Muggle:pl:def.pl.gen man.pl:def.pl stand:3pl nemişcaţi în fotografii neg:move:part.pl in photograph:def.dat ‘In the world of the Muggles, people remain immobile in the photograph.’

(B400.4)

[HP I Rumanian, 120] bezoarul este o piatră extrasă din stomacul bezoar:def.m be.3sg a stone extract:part.f from stomach:def.m caprei goat:def.f.gen ‘The bezoar is a stone taken from the stomach of a goat.’

The inflectional genitive occurs in combination with possessees of all semantic classes. The possessor itself may be animate or inanimate, concrete or abstract. Thus, superf­ icially, the use of this construction type is unrestricted. However, upon closer inspection, there are two major restrictions which block the use of the genitive which is then replaced by one or the other of the two competing constructions. This replacement obeys certain conditions. The proprial possessive construction is triggered if the possessor is a proper noun or a noun (mostly kinship terms) that is functionally equivalent to a name (and thus can be used as a term of address, but see below). The proprial possessive construction has the same order as the above genitive construction i.e., the possessee precedes the possessor. However, intercalated between the possessee and the possessor, there is a “pronoun” in its genitive-dative form, cf. (B401). Note that Iordan & Robu (1978: 358) classify this “pronoun” as pre-nominal definite article. The latter solution would suggest that Rumanian and the two Germanic languages discussed above represent different types. This open question notwithstanding, the proprial possessive construction is attested 222 times in our sample text. (B401)

Rumanian

(B401.1)

[HP I Rumanian, 62] coiful lui Dedalus Diggle se rostogoli pe  jos helmet:def.m POR.3sg.m Dedalus Diggle ref.3 roll_down.3sg on  down ‘The helmet of Dedalus Diggle rolled down.’

(B401.2)

[HP I Rumanian, 248] în spatele capului lui Quirrel era altă faţă in back:dat head:m:gen POR.3sg.m Quirrel be.pret.3sg other.f face.f ‘On the back of Quirrel’s head, there was another face.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B401.3)

[HP I Rumanian, 88] i-ai pronunţat numele lui O.3sg.m-have.2sg pronounce:part name:def.dat POR.3sg.m Ştim-Noi-Cine We-know-who ‘You have uttered the name of You-Know-Who!’

(B401.4)

[HP I Rumanian, 182] ai descoperit deliciile oglinzii have.2sg discover:part relish:pl:def.dat mirror:def.gen Erised lui POR.3sg.m Erised ‘You have discovered the delights of the Mirror of Erised.’

Whether or not the possessor is mentioned by last name, first name or both, the genitive form of the pronoun of the 3rd person is always employed. The proprial possessive construction is also made use of when the name of the possessor is of the evasive taboo kind as in (B401.3) or refers to an abstract concept as in (B401.4) in which the anagram Erised must be read as Desire. However, there are also a number of interesting cases where the proprial possessive construction does not apply – unexpectedly, cf. (B402). (B402)

Rumanian

(B402.1)

[HP I Rumanian, 53] Hagrid luă umbrela şi o învârti pe deasupra Hagrid take.3sg umbrella.def.f and O.3sg.f turn.3sg on over capului Unchiului Vernon head:def.dat Uncle:def.gen Vernon ‘Hagrid took the umbrella and turned it towards Uncle Vernon’s head.’

(B402.2)

[HP I Rumanian, 110] dar toată lumea ştie că vrea să-i but entire:f world:def.f know.3sg that want.3sg subord-O.3sg.m ia postul profesorului Quirrell take.3sg post:def.m professor:def.gen Quirrell ‘But everybody knows that he wants to take Professor Quirrell’s position.’

(B402.3)

[HP I Rumanian, 44] ah cât semeni cu tatăl tău dar oh how_much resemble:2sg with father POR.2sg.PUM.m but ai ochii mamei have.2sg eye:def.pl mother:def.gen ‘Oh, how you resemble your father, but you have the eyes of your mother!’

(B402.4)

[HP I Rumanian, 119] nici măcar nu se uită în direcţia Hermionei not_even at_least neg ref.3 look.3sg in direction:def.f Hermione:gen ‘He did not even look in Hermione’s direction.’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

In these four examples, the regular inflectional genitive is used in lieu of the proprial possessive although the possessor is a proper noun or a kinship term which could also be used as a proper noun. The sentences (B402.1)–(B402.2) contain possessor NPs which are complex in the sense that they include a title which precedes the proper noun. These titles are (masculine) common nouns which can be regularly inflected for case according to the system outlined above. If the title is dropped, lui has to be used automatically as in [HP I Rumanian, 209] vocea lui Quirrell ‘Quirrell’s voice’. According to Iordan & Robu (1978: 392), masculine proper nouns are morphologically invariable (except in the vocative) and thus require an additional element which specifies the case relation in which the proper noun is used. This additional element is the proprial possessive lui. However, whenever the possessor NP contains a word in leftmost position which is sensitive to morphological case the case relation is marked on the constituent of the possessor NP and the proprial possessive is not employed. Unchi ‘Uncle’ and profesor ‘Professor’ as titles usually occupy the leftmost slot in a possessor NP, and since they are masculine common nouns they are inflected for the genitive (if they are used in their definite form). While this seems to speak in favour of a purely morphological motivation for the use of the proprial possessive (namely the inability of masculine proper nouns to inflect), there is also evidence that the proprial possessive construction has been largely dissociated from the morphological properties of the possessor noun. Beyrer; Bochmann & Bronsert (1987: 101) consider the proprial possessive construction a typical trait of spoken Rumanian and present examples which include a masculine kinship term: spoken bastonul lui tata {stick:def.m} {POR.3sg.m} {father} ‘father’s stick’ vs. written bastonul tatei {stick:def.m} {father:gen}. (B402.3) however contains a feminine kinship term which is again inflected for the genitive without proprial possessive. The same applies to the final example from the above list, (B402.4), whose possessor noun is a feminine proper noun. Hermione is subject to regular case inflection and does not need any additional elements to mark the case relations. However, there are other aspects of the above problem which make the facts even more interesting. Lui as the proprial possessive displays a strong tendency to spread beyond its original domain (= masculine proper nouns as possessors). Iordan & Robu (1978: 392) have already observed that the use of lui is also accepted for feminine proper nouns which fail to inflect for case. Many of these morphologically invariable feminine proper nouns end in -i (and are of foreign origin), cf. (B403). (B403)

Rumanian [HP I Rumanian, 53] să-l opreşti tu pe fiul lui Lily subord-O.3sg.m stop.2sg you on son:def.m POR.3sg.m Lilly şi al lui James să meargă la Hogwarts and gen.m POR.3sg.m James subord go:subj.3sg at Hogwarts ‘That you stop the son of Lilly and James from going to Hogwarts!’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

In accordance with Iordan & Robu (1978), the foreign feminine proper noun Lily cannot be inflected for case. What is surprising from the point of view of gender distinctions is the fact that lui ‘his’ is not only employed for masculine proper nouns but also for feminine ones, although the correct form of the genitive singular of the feminine pronoun in the 3rd person is ei ‘her’. Thus, lui is generalised as a genderneutral proprial possessive. In (B404) we add a selection of other attestations of lui in combination with a feminine/female possessor. (B404)

Rumanian

(B404.1)

[HP I Rumanian, 23] puişorul lu’ mama nu mai plânge chicken:def.m POR.3sg.m mum neg ever cry ‘Mummy’s little boy, don’t you cry!’

(B404.2)

[HP I Rumanian, 242] buzele lui Hermione începură să tremure lip:def.pl POR.3sg.m Hermione start.3pl subord tremble.subj.3pl ‘Hermione’s lips started to tremble.’

(B404.3)

[HP I Rumanian, 170] trebuiau să caute în linişte fără să must:imperf.3pl subord seek:subj.3pl in silence without subord simtă răsuflarea lui Madam Pince în ceafă feel.subj.3pl breathing POR.3sg.m Madam Pince in neck ‘They must search in silence without feeling the breath of Madame Pince on their neck.’

(B404.4)

[HP I Rumanian, 260] Plesneală îi strângea mâna lui McGonagall Snape O.3sg.f shake:imperf.3sg hand:def.f POR.3sg.m McGonagall ‘Snape shook McGonagall’s hand.’

The sentences (B404.3)–(B404.4) contain possessor NPs whose initial or only constituent is morphologically invariable. The use of lui in these cases is thus predictable according to the above criteria. This is not the case however with the first two examples in (B404.1)–(B404.2). These have to be compared with (B402.3) and (B402.4), respectively. The comparison reveals that one and the same possessor noun may be inflected for genitive or trigger the proprial possessive construction. The pragmatic difference between (B402.3) and (B402.1) is obvious. The first occurrence of mama ‘mum’ as a possessor is in an utterance by Hagrid when he talks about Harry’s resemblance to his mother. Hagrid himself is not in a kinship relation with either of the two and thus the kinship term is more likely to be understood as a common noun (which does not allow for lui to be employed). However, in (B404.1) Dudley’s mother speaks in a highly affective way and highlights her own kinship relation to her son whom she



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

addresses in terms of endearment. In this context, the interpretation of mama as a proper noun makes more sense. As a proper noun, mama may combine with lui. There is no such explanation for the use of lui in combination with the proper noun Hermione in (B404.2). Hermione is most often inflected for genitive but there are occasional combinations with lui, too. Of course, Hermione remains a proper noun whether or not it occurs side by side with lui or is used in the morphological genitive. This variation is evidence for a tendency to generalise lui in such a way that it serves as a “analytical” genitive marker dedicated to proper nouns independent of their or their referents gender. This is in line with another observation made by Iordan & Robu (1978: 370) who state that lui is the dative marker for proper nouns functioning as an indirect object of a verb not only for masculine nouns but also for feminine proper names, e.g., i-am vorbit lui Maria ‘I have talked to Maria’ (although Maria may be inflected for case, too). As far as our corpus allows us to postulate rules, the use of lui is strictly reserved for proper nouns in the singular. There is no evidence for lui used with proper nouns in the plural nor do we find the logically more appropriate lor ‘their’. Unfortunately, the only contexts in which the Rumanian version of Harry Potter I allows for pluralised proper nouns are the names of the four colleges of Hogwarts, which are perhaps problematic representatives of the class. Nevertheless, the consistent use of the genitive (or the a-construction to be described below) in these cases is evidence for the restriction of lui to the singular, cf. [HP I Rumanian, 160] uralele galeriei Cercetaşilor ‘the hurrays from the grandstand of the Gryffindors’. If we discount these details, the following observation applies: the distribution of lui in Rumanian and its diffusion beyond the original “masculine” context is similar to what has been happening in many varieties of Low German and ultimately also in Afrikaans (Poulsen 2002), where the erstwhile possessive pronoun of the 3rd person singular masculine is used in combination with possessors of all genders and numbers – a development in which proper nouns played a major role. In East-Falian varieties of Low German, for instance, the proprial pronoun is always sien/siene (originally ‘his’) as in dat werd jo immer dullder mit Lena siene Schulden ‘things are getting ever more crazy with Lena’s debts’ (Lindow et al. 1998: 165), where Lena is a female proper noun but siene reflects an originally masculine possessive pronoun (according to Lindow et al. [1998: 165] a neuter form which however, is formally identical with the masculine one). The third construction type in Rumanian is the PP-strategy based on the so-called posses­sive article. A morphologically complex form itself, it consists of the invariable element a (a “preposition” going back to Latin ad ‘to’ according to Haşdeu [1998: 1]) and an additional variable component which reflects gender and number of the possessee (a = feminine singular, al = masculine singular, ale = feminine plural, ai = masculine plural; the dative-genitive alor can only occur in combinations with a possessive pronoun [Iordan & Robu 1978: 358–359]). Constructions of this type have 116 tokens in our sample text. A handful of these contain pronominal possessors like

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

[HP I Rumanian, 23] prientana aia a ta ‘this girlfriend of yours’ which we will not discuss in this section as our topic is lexical possessors. When is this possessive article employed under these conditions in Rumanian? The examples in (B405) suggest that syntactic weight and/or indefiniteness of the possessee are the decisive factors. (B405)

Rumanian

(B405.1)

[HP I Rumanian, 30] Harry petrecea [cea mai mare parte]PUM [a [timpului]POR]PP Harry spend:imperf.3sg det.f more big part of time:def.m.gen departe de casă away from house ‘Harry spent most of the time away from home.’

(B405.2)

[HP I Rumanian, 81] după ceasul gării mai erau zece minute after clock:def.m station:def.f.gen still be.imperf.3pl ten minute:pl până la [ore de plecare]PUM [a [trenului]POR]PP until at time from departure of train:def.m.gen ‘According to the the train station clock, there were still ten minutes until the departure time of the train.’

(B405.3)

[HP I Rumanian, 53] când se întoarse toată lumea văzu ieşind when ref.3 turn:perf.3sg entire:f world:def.f see:perf.3sg go_out:part printr-[o crăpătură]PUM [a [pantalonilor]POR]PP o codiţă mică among-a crack of trouser:def.pl.gen a tail:dim small şi răsucită de purceluş and twisted from pig:dim ‘When he turned around everybody say a little twisted tail of a piglet sticking out from a crack in his trousers.’

(B405.4)

[HP I Rumanian, 101] la [un capăt]PUM [al [sălii]POR]PP se afla o altă masă at one end of:m hall:def.f.gen ref.3 find.3sg a high table ‘At one end of the hall there was a high table.’

There are no exceptions to the above pattern: the a-construction is used if and only if the possessee NP is heavy and/or indefinite. This rule is compulsory as heavy and/or indefinite possessors never allow for any of the other construction types. The syntactic complexity of the possessor NP is irrelevant for the choice of construction as is the definiteness/indefiniteness of the possessor, cf. the possessor chain in [HP I Rumanian, 197] [[[uşa]PUM colibei]POR]PUM paznicului de vânătoare]POR ‘the door of the hut of the guard of the forest’ which has an embedded and thus complex/heavy possessor NP based on the inflectional genitive and also the indefinite possessor in [HP I Rumanian, 93] profesia unui vrăjitor



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

‘the profession of a wizard’ which includes the indefinite article unui inflected for genitive. However, one property of the possessor NP also has a say in the shaping of the a-construction, namely the classification as a proper noun. If the possessor is a proper noun and the possessee happens to be indefinite and/or heavy, a combination of the a-construction and the lui-construction applies, cf. (B406). (B406)

Rumanian

(B406.1)

[HP I Rumanian, 80] două ore mai târziu geamantanul mare şi two:f hour:pl more late suitcase:def.m big and greu al lui Harry era aşezat în heavy of:m POR.3sg.m Harry be.imperf.3sg put:part in maşina Unchiului Vernon car:def.f uncle:def.m.gen Vernon ‘Two hours later, Harry’s huge and heavy suitcase had been put into Uncle Vernon’s car.’

(B406.2)

[HP I Rumanian, 26] îi dădu lui Harry prima O.3sg.m give.perf.3sg he.dat Harry first:def.f friptură a lui Dudley roast of POR.3sg.m Dudley ‘He gave Harry Dudley’s first roast.’

This sensitivity of possessive constructions to properties of both the possessee – syntactic heaviness and/or indefiniteness – and the possessor – proper noun – suggests that we are dealing with equally strong factors since the combination of a-construction and lui-construction is absolutely compulsory if the possessor is a proper noun and the possessee is heavy and/or indefinite. Note that the PP-strategy is also used (though less consistently) on the second or last coordinated possessor, as in [HP I Rumanian, 26] calea unchilor şi a lui Dudley şi Piers ‘the path of the uncle and Dudley and Piers’ where a lui has scope of the coordinated proper nouns as possessors (but see [B403] where lui is repeated on each of the constituents).33 In Table (B407), we try again to summarise our findings in a schematic form. The distribution of the Rumanian genitive constructions is determined by properties of both participants. For the possessor, a distinction is made between proper nouns and common nouns. The former require a special construction, thus suggesting that animacy is an important factor in the possessive system of Rumanian. As to the possessee, animacy is absolutely irrelevant. However, definiteness and syntactic weight are decisive – two factors which do not seem to play a role on the side of the possessor (although proper nouns are normally associated with a high degree of [inherent] definiteness).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B407)

Distribution of genitive constructions in Rumanian

construction-type

participant

genitive

proprial

PP

possessor possessee definiteness weight

common noun definite light

proper noun – –

– indefinite heavy

The combination of the lui-construction and the a-construction is derivable from (B403): whenever there is a proper noun as possessor the proprial possessive construction has to be used; whenever the possessee is either heavy or indefinite, the a-construction is triggered. If both conditions are fulfilled the two constructions have to be used in combination. Very briefly, we will conclude the empirical survey of this section with a glimpse at three non-Indo-European languages, namely Basque, Turkish and Georgian. The isolate Basque distinguishes inter alia two inflectional cases which are traditionally labelled genitivus possessivus and genitivus locativus, respectively. Hualde & Urbina (2003: 144) describe the functional differences which apply to this pair of case distinctions as follows: the possessive genitive is used when the relation between the two participants of the situation is such that the possessor is conceived of as either exerting control over the possessee or the possessee forming part of the possessor. This is of course absolutely unspectacular because this range of usage corresponds closely to what one expects of a genitive in a European language. However, the spatial genitive is special in the sense that is has to be employed if the possessor is itself a spatial concept (i.e., a toponym, for instance). Bendel (2006: 39) provides a minimal pair: spatial possessive genitive {zuhaitz}-{a}-{r}-{en} {adar}-{r}-{a}-{k} = {tree}-{def}-{lig}-{gen. poss} {branch}-{lig}-{def}-{pl} ‘the branches of the tree’ vs. spatial genitive {zuhaitz}{e}-{ko} {txori}-{a}- {k} = {tree}-{def}-{gen.loc}-{bird}-{def}-{pl} ‘the birds of (= on/in) the tree’. The genitivus locativus should not be mistaken for just another of the admittedly numerous spatial cases of Basque. It is not used (at least not primarily) to specify a spatial relation concretely. This case is used for the expression of a rather vague association of the possessee with the possessor which happens to be a spatial concept. Thus, the phrase Bilbo-ko autobusa = {Bilbao} {gen.loc} -{bus} does not translate as ‘the bus in Bilbao’ but as ‘the bus which is related to Bilbao such that it is going there or coming from there’. Perhaps, the semantic vagueness of the English spontaneous compound the Bilbao-bus is a good equivalent. In a way, Basque differentiates possessors representing spatial concepts from the bulk of potential possessors. Something remotely similar can be observed for Turkish. In genitive constructions, there is a formal distinction between those which are double-marking and those which are head-marking. Boeder & Schroeder (1998, 2000) classify double-marking genitive



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

constructions as referential i.e., the possessor is an identifiable person, individual, entity. In contrast, the head-marking genitive constructions are generic in the sense that the possessor is de-individualised in order to represent a class. A minimal pair is given in Ersen-Rasch (1980: 103): head-marking alone {dinleyici} {mektub}-{u} = {listener} {letter}-{POR.3} ‘listener’s letter’ vs. {dinleyici}-{n}-{in} {mektub}-{n} = {listener}-{lig}-{gen} {letter}-{POR.3} ‘the letter of/by the listener’. Again, the generic construction resembles English compounds with regard to the semantic relation between the two constituents of the construction. In the head-marking case, the possessor does not refer to an identifiable person. The entire construction refers to an exemplar of letters as they are usually send to broadcasting stations by their listeners. The doublemarking construction, however, refers to a particular letter written by a particular listener. This generic-referential distinction has a kind of parallel in Georgian where the residual ta-plural is used for the purpose of marking genericity (Boeder & Schroeder 2000, Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003b). Following Hewitt (1995: 41–42) a minimal pair could look like this: generic {natir}-{ta} {mepe} = {beast}-{gen.pl} {king} ‘the animal king’ (= the lion)’ vs. {natr}-{eb}-{is} {mepe} = {beast}-{pl}-{gen} {king} ‘the king of the animals’. While the first expression can only refer to the lion – but not necessarily to any particular lion, nor to a specific group of animals, the construction with the regular inflectional genitive -is identifies one particular being which happens to be the king of an identifiable group of animals in a given situation. The king is not necessarily a lion. Once more, the generic construction is best translated into English by compounds. Especially the Turkish and the Georgian examples fit in well with Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2003b) distinction of anchored vs. non-anchored relations: the lack in referentiality makes the generic genitives instances of non-anchored cases. The above presentation of data from various European languages reveals that, in contrast to many non-European languages which attest to alienability correlations, there is a very strong component of possessor-based splits in Europe. The examples from Low German, Dutch and Rumanian fit in with the previous ones quoted from Faroese (cf. [B182]): possessors ranking high on the animacy hierarchy – especially those which identify individuals by name (and are predominantly singular) – are singled out formally as they receive a special morphological marking in possessive constructions or require the application of a marked construction type. The non-IndoEuropean examples instantiate different principles which do not relate to the animacy or empathy of the participants involved, although the distinction of spatial vs. nonspatial possessors in Basque may be understood as an indirect reflection of the prototypical possessor who is a human being and not a location. Likewise, the prototype requires the possessor to be an individual and thus referential. In this way, even in the Turkish and the Georgian cases is it possible to find some affinities to possessor empathy albeit very indirect ones. These genitive splits notwithstanding, we have not found any additional counter-evidence to Seiler’s (2000) claim that genitives are immune to

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

the alienability correlation. Note however that our earlier case studies in section 4 are suggestive of genitival constructions being sensitive to alienability-based distinctions, too. The absence of alienability-based distinctions in this section is easily explained because these genitive splits are motivated by possessor properties.

5.1.2.2  Confectives and ornatives In this sub-section, we briefly address an issue which so far has seldom been discussed within the framework of studies devoted to possession. As a matter of fact, the relations for which we employ the relatively newly coined and thus not necessarily widely accepted terms ornative and confective have properties which let them escape the observer’s possession-oriented eyes. There is a major syntactic difference between bona fide possessive constructions and those which go by the names of ornative and confective. In the possessive constructions described throughout the bulk of this book, the possessee NP is the syntactic head of the phrase whose modifier is the possessor NP (independent of its being nominal or pronominal). The possessor is the attribute of the possessee. However, for ornatives, the relation is inverted as the head of these constructions is the possessor NP, whereas the possessee NP is its attribute. In the case of the confective, possessor NP and possessee NP are no longer in a direct syntactic relation, namely forming constituents of the same phrase. Nevertheless, confectives make a statement about the possessor (see below). Put differently, possessive constructions are prototypically possessee-oriented as opposed to ornatives/con­fectives which are prototypically possessor-oriented. In diagram (B408) we put the above words into a schematic representation of the differences of the construction types. (B408)



Different orientation possessive attribute

head

Possessor

Possessee

Possessor

Possessee

head

attribute

head

attribute

ornative

confective

To better understand how the two opposing construction types can be still related to each other functionally, we first outline the major properties of ornatives and confectives. For more information on these categories, we refer the reader to Stolz; Stroh & Urdze (2006). Ornatives and confectives are not synonymous expressions but are the labels of two different categories. Simplifying, the term ornative is used if a possessor NP in



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

head function and a possessee NP as its attribute form a complex NP together, whereas the confective applies if the two participants are syntactically dissociated from one an­ other such that they do not form a complex NP together and the possessee NP is part of the VP where it can function as a kind of secondary predicate (Schultze-Berndt & Himmelmann 2004). These syntactic differences go along very often with semantic differences which in turn coincide with the conceptual distinctions of various types of possessive relations. The examples in (B409) are meant to fill out our abstract line of reasoning with something more tangible. Consider the two German sentences below. (B409)

German

(B409.1)

Ornative [[der MannHead]POR [mit den blauen AugenAttribute]PUM]NP det man with det.dat.pl blue:pl eye:pl betrat den Raum enter:imperf det.acc room ‘The blue-eyed man entered the room.’

(B409.2)

Confective [der Mann]POR [betrat [mit blauen Augen]PUM den Raum]VP det man enter:imperf with blue.pl eye:pl det.acc room ‘The man entered the room black-eyed.’

Sentence (B409.1) is perfectly acceptable, whereas (B409.2) sounds funny and needs an explanatory context to be acceptable. This has to do with the prototypical or primary reading given to the two constructions. For the ornative, the first interpretation by a native speaker of German would doubtlessly be that the man in question is actually blue-eyed. Furthermore, the complex NP der Mann mit den blauen Augen is easily replaced by the synonymous construction der blauäugige Mann ‘the blue-eyed man’ where the adjective blauäugig ‘blue-eyed’ conveys the same information as the PP mit den blauen Augen ‘with the blue eyes’. The ornative receives a reading which suggests an intimate relationship between possessor and possessee. The blue eyes are neces­ sarily the eyes forming part of the man’s body i.e., a typically inalienable relation of the body-part kind applies. That other readings are also possible given the right context will be discussed below. The confective construction integrates the possessee NP in the VP whose lexical verb is most often a verb of motion (though others are also possible). In this case, it is not possible to replace the PP mit blauen Augen ‘with blue eyes’ by the adjective blauäugig ‘blue-eyed’ although blauäugig may also be used in adverbial function and thus occur VP-internally. However, in a sentences like der Mann betrat blauäugig den Raum ‘the man entered the room naively’ the adverbially employed adjective can only be understood in its derived metaphorical meaning of naively, i.e., the concrete fact that the man has blue eyes cannot be expressed in this way. What is more, blauäugig cannot even be moved out of the VP into the subject NP to render the

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

same meaning as the confective because within the NP the attributive would give rise either to the above reading of a permanent inalienable relation (= body-part: the man whose eyes are blue) or to the interpretation of blauäuigig as meaning ‘naïve’ in the sense of a typical character trait of the person in question (= the man who is known to be naïve). However, the confective PP mit blauen Augen describes the opposite, namely a temporary state: no matter what colour the eyes of the man naturally have, he enters the room after having been roughed up outside and his eyes are beaten black. The situation is complicated by the fact that the ornative may also allow for a temporary reading. The NP der Mann mit den blauen Augen may mean either (and preferably) ‘the blue-eyed man’ or ‘the man whose eyes have been beaten black’. However, this secondary reading is never possible with adjectival attributes such as blauäugig. We could go even one step further and claim that the same complex NP may also be read in a third and a fourth way, namely (a) as ‘the man who has the aforementioned blue eyes on him’ or (b) as ‘the man who is associated in some way to the aforementioned blue eyes’. This leads us away from the nucleus of the notion of possession towards vague association of concepts and entities. For the time being, we cannot provide hard (quantitative) facts to prove that the more possessive-like readings are the unmarked ones. This absence of proof notwithstanding, we assume that with certain possessees the possessive-like interpretation clearly prevails, whereas it might be the other way around with different classes of possesses. Typical inalienable possessees, such as bodyparts, invite a possessive reading. This ability of the ornative to cover a wide range of relations should not be mistaken for a principle homology of ornative and confective. Even though both the ornative and the confective in (B412) may be interpreted such that the man is depicted as having his eyes beaten black, the situations described in the two sentences are different. In the case of the ornative, the fact that the man has black eyes is presented as old information, whereas the confective introduces a bit of new information. Accordingly, the confective is more rhematic and properly placed in the VP as opposed to the more thematic ornative in the subject-NP. The difference of thematicity and rhematicity fits in with the distinction of permanent/intimate possession and temporary/current possession. Very often, the ornative includes relations which are thematic in the sense that they belong to what is expected, presupposed, known or aforementioned. On the other hand, the confective introduces something additional, unexpected, unknown or new. Expected properties tend to be those which are there anyway and thus of a permanent nature, whereas unexpected properties are generally new and very often also of limited time span. The black eyes of our poor man in example (B409.2) will return to their pre-fight state soon enough, whereas the naturally blue eyes of the same man in (B409.1) will keep their colour, ideally for their bearer’s lifetime. Note however, that it is possible to have definite possessee NPs in the confective as well. However, a sentence like der Mann betrat mit den blauen Augen den Raum ‘the man entered the room with the blue eyes on him’ sounds rather strange without



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

appropriate context (say, a collector of glass-eyes is producing his share of blue ones for which a visitor has eagerly shown interest). This does not affect the temporary and non-intimate character of the relations expressed by the confective. They are either alienable and/or temporary. This is nicely and iconically reflected by the syntactic distance between possessor NP and possessee NP in confective constructions. In our European languages, confectives and ornatives are very often expressed by adpositional phrases whose head is a translation equivalent of English with (Stolz; Stroh & Urdze 2006: 258–268). In terms of Heine’s (1997: 53–57) theory, these constructions would thus illustrate the so-called Companion Schema i.e., they are patterned according to a basic model in which one entity is depicted as accompanying another, more prominent entity. Note however, that Heine’s examples of Accompaniment as conceptual background of possessive constructions belong exclusively to the realm of predicative possession (to be discussed in the subsequent section 5.2). Confectives and ornatives however, suggest that the Companion Schema is also common in attributive possession. To demonstrate that the Companion Schema has a real foothold in the realm of attributive possession, we will review a selection of pertinent examples from our Harry-Potter sample. Admittedly, the data we present cannot pass as ultimate proof as we make do with only a handful of sentences. However, even this restricted empirical basis already suggests that there is a strong tendency for the languages of Europe to employ the Companion Schema at least for one of the two categories under scrutiny. On the other hand, the data are also suggestive of possession splits in so far as a non negligible number of the European languages employ at least two different constructions for ornatives and confectives – a distinction which largely follows the lines of the opposition of inalienable vs. alienable possession. In the first volume of the Harry Potter series, people are repeatedly described with reference to the colour of their hair. The constructions used for this purpose fulfil the functions of ornatives. The sentences in (B410) all translate to the original [HP I English, 144] Next to the tall kid with the red hair where (the tall) kid is the possessor and the possessee is (the red) hair (the relator being the preposition with). (B410)

Ornatives: Companion Schema

(B410.1)

Polish [HP I Polish, 140] obok tego wysokiego chłopaka z rud-ymi włos-ami next this:gen high:gen boy:gen with red-ins.pl hair-ins.pl ‘Next to this tall boy with red hair.’

(B410.2)

Italian [HP I Italian, 127] vicino a quello alto co-i capelli rossi near:m to that:m tall:m with-det.pl.m hair:pl red:pl.m ‘Near the tall one with red hair.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B410.3)

Danish [HP I Danish, 131] ved siden af den høje dreng med det røde hår at side:def.u of det.u high boy with det.nt red hair ‘Beside of the tall boy with the red hair.’

(B410.4)

Greek [HP I Greek, 151] dípla ston psēló me ta kókkina malliá. at_side in_det:acc long with det:nt.pl red:nt:pl hair:nt:pl ‘Beside the tall one with the red hair.’

(B410.5)

Latvian [HP I Latvian, 132] blakus tam garajam čalītim ar at_side this:dat.m long:def:dat.m boy:dim:dat.m with rudajiem matiem red:def:dat.pl.m hair:dat.pl.m ‘Beside this tall boy with the red hair.’

(B410.6)

Welsh [HP I Welsh, 103] wrth ymyl yr hogyn tal â gwallt coch by edge det boy tall with hair red ‘Next to the boy with red hair.’

(B410.7)

Estonian [HP I Estonian, 115] selle pika punaste juuste-ga poisi kõrval this:gen long:gen red:gen hair-com boy at_side ‘Beside this tall boy with red hair.’

The morphemes marked boldface are translation equivalents of English with (although they do not necessarily cover the entire semantic range associated with this English preposition). Except for Turkish, the above languages employ the same marker in constructions which describe situations of accompaniment (Stolz; Stroh & Urdze 2006). The examples in (B410) stem from languages representing almost the entire range of phyla of European languages. There are Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Baltic, Celtic and sundry languages of Indo-European stock (of which we have mentioned only a small selection explicitly) alongside one member of the Uralo-Yukaghir macrophylum. The pattern does not appear to be genetically restricted. However, not all of the Indo-European languages and not all members of other macrophyla use the above strategy – or at least not to the same extent. In (B411), we present the most commonly used alternative solution for which our sample languages opt, namely the use of lexicalised adjectival expressions (including their nominalisations). The sentences translate the same sentence of the English original as the ones in (B410). In these cases, boldface highlights those words/lexical morphemes which are attributes similar to English red-haired. The Basque construction in (B411.9) is special in the sense that the construction involves a participle of the having-verb ukan ‘to have’ i.e., there is no proper adjectival attribute.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B411)

Ornative: other patterns

(B411.1)

German [HP I German, 145] neben dem großen rothaarigen Jungen at_side det:dat.m big:dat red_haired:dat boy:dat ‘Beside the tall red-haired boy.’

(B411.2)

Spanish [HP I Spanish, 113] al lado del chico alto y pelirrojo at:det.m side of:det.m boy high:m and red_haired:m ‘Beside the red-haired boy.’

(B411.3)

Serbian [HP I Serbian, 116] pored visokog riđokosog dečaka at_side high:gen red_haired:gen boy:gen ‘Beside the tall red-haired boy.’

(B411.4)

Irish [HP I Irish, 111] in aice leis an ngasúr ard rua this near side det Nboy high red_haired ‘The one beside the tall red-haired boy.’

(B411.5)

Hungarian [HP I Hungarian, 125] a magas vörös haj-ú mellett det high red hair-adj at_side ‘Beside the red-haired one.’

(B411.6)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 146] tuon pitkän punatukkaisen vieressä that:gen long:gen red_haired:gen at_side ‘That one beside the tall red-haired one.’

(B411.7)

Georgian [HP I Georgian, 121] c’iteltmiani maɣali bič’is gverdit red_haired:abs big:abs boy:gen side:ins ‘Beside the tall red-haired boy.’

(B411.8)

Turkish [HP I Turkish, 116] kızıl saç-lı uzun çocuğun yanında red hair-adj long boy:gen side:loc ‘Beside the tall boy with red hair.’

(B411.9)

Basque [HP I Basque, 121] ile gorria duen mutil luzearen ondoan hair red:det having boy long:det:gen after ‘Behind the boy who has red hair.’

Within the Indo-European macrophylum, the avoidance of comitative-like expressions is attested in Germanic, Slavic, Romance and Celtic languages. Thus, it has a

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

distribution over the phyla which resembles the one observed for the Companion Schema. However, avoidance is not as common as employment (cf. below). Nevertheless, the Indo-European phyla are divided as to the preference they give to the one or the other construction type. Outside the Indo-European context, the use of patterns other than the Companion Schema is much more wide-spread. Languages as different as the two major Finno-Ugric languages Finnish and Hungarian, Altaic Turkish, South Caucasian Georgian and the isolate Basque behave similarly because they all avoid the use of their comitative (or instrumental) markers (which belong to their nominal case categories and/or form part of the adpositional system). Except for Estonian in (B410.7), all non-Indo-European languages of our mini-sample employ patterns other than the one based on the Companion Schema.34 We will check whether or not this is incidental by summarily reviewing four additional instances of NPs where body-part ornatives occur, namely those which correspond to the original [HP I English, 87] a boy with a pale, pointed face, [HP I English, 128] behind a boy with sandy hair, [HP I English 138] a teacher with greasy black hair, a hooked nose and sallow skin and [HP I English, 108] that black-haired boy where English does not employ the Companion Schema. In Table (B412), the distribution of comitative-like constructions over languages and sentences is presented together with the results relating to (B410)–(B411). The contexts are identified by reference to the sentences in the English original. X marks the employment of the Companion Schema, whereas a cell filled by 0 indicates that a different pattern is made use of without specifying its properties. For Greek and Turkish, the crucial NP of the original [HP I English, 108] is not reflected in the translations. The languages are ordered according to increasing number of sentences in which a comitative-like construction represents the ornative. Among languages with identical distribution of ornative constructions, non-Indo-European languages precede Indo-European ones. (B412)

Use of ornative constructions language Basque Finnish Georgian Hungarian Turkish Catalan Spanish French Croatian Irish Portuguese Serbian

HP I, 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0

HP I, 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X

HP I, 144

HP I, 128

HP I, 108

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe  Polish Italian Faroese Low German Ukrainian Galego German Icelandic Albanian Danish Latvian Slovenian Greek Macedonian Rumanian English Norwegian Swedish Russian Slovak Bulgarian Czech Lithuanian Welsh Dutch Estonian 38

0 0 0 0 X X X 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

0 0 X X X X X X X X 0 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

0 0 X X 0 X X X 0 0 X X X 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X

0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X

23

22

21

20

5

What strikes the eye immediately is the parallel behaviour of the bulk of the nonIndo-European languages. Five out of six do not use the Companion Schema in each and every test sentence. Surprisingly, Estonian does not follow this pattern. It instead makes maximal use of its inflectional comitative which is employed in all of the five contexts. Thus, Estonian winds up at the other extreme of the scale. Except for Galego, Romance languages outside the Balkans disfavour the Companion Schema for ornatives whereas Rumanian displays a preference for comitative-based constructions which is in line with the behaviour of the other members of the Balkan Sprachbund (Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian). More generally, Indo-European languages spoken in more eastern regions of the continent tend to employ the Companion Schema more frequently than those spoken in the west and the vast majority of the non-Indo-European languages. The sole exception, Estonian, which goes along with its Baltic and Slavic surroundings, can be explained best in terms of contact-induced convergence. The Companion Schema very likely represents an Indo-European feature that has spread via language contact beyond its erstwhile boundaries.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

We contrast the above findings with a similar test conducted to find out about the importance of the Companion Schema in the realm of the confective. The original [HP I English, 286] How many people wander around with dragon eggs if it’s against the wizard law? is our starting point. English again uses the preposition with and thus treats ornatives and confectives similarly on the expression side. In (B413) we present a selection of examples of languages which follow the English pattern. In these sentences, boldface identifies the relator translating to English with. This group of examples contrasts with the one in (B414) which portray the use of alternative patterns. (B413)

Confectives: Companion Schema

(B413.1)

Italian [HP I Italian, 251] quanta gente c’è che va in giro con in how_many:f people there’be.3sg that go.3sg in round with in tasca uova di drago visto che è pocket egg:pl of dragon see:part that be.3sg vietato dalla legge dei maghi prohibit:part from:det.f law of:det.pl.m magician:pl ‘How many people walk about with dragon eggs in their pocket although it is prohibited by the wizards’ law?’

(B413.2)

Dutch [HP I Dutch, 196] hoeveel mensen lopen met drakeneieren rond terwijl dat how_many man:pl run:pl with dragon_egg:pl around while that verboden is prohibit:part be.3sg ‘How many people run around with dragons’ eggs although it is prohibited?’

(B413.3)

Czech [HP I Czech, 245] kolik lidí chodí po světě s dračím vejcem how_many people:nom.pl go.3pl on world:loc with dragon:ins egg:ins když je to proti kouzelnickým zákonům which be.3sg this against sorcerers:dat.pl law:dat.pl ‘How many people go about on the globe with a dragon egg which is against the law of sorcerers?’

(B413.4)

Latvian [HP I Latvian, 259] cik gan ir tādu cilvēku how_many then be.3 such:gen.pl man:gen.pl kuri klīst pa pasauli ar pūķa olu kabatā who:pl wander.3 on world:acc with dragon:gen egg:acc pocket:loc ja reiz tas ir pret burvju likumiem if once this be.3 against magician:gen.pl law:dat.pl ‘How many men like that are there who wander through the world with a dragon egg in their pocket although this is against the law of the wizards?’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B413.5)

Irish [HP I Irish, 225] cá mhéad duine a théann thart agus uibheacha dragain how_many person rel Awalk about and egg:pl dragon:gen leo má tá sé in aghaidh dhlí na ndraíodóirí with:3sg.m if cop he this face (= against) Alaw def.pl Nsorcerer:pl ‘How many people walk about with a dragon egg on them if this is against the law of the sorcerers?’

(B413.6)

Albanian [HP I Albanian, 219] sa njerëz vinë rrotull me një vezë dragoi në xhep how_many man.pl go:3pl about with indef egg dragon:m:def in pocket duke qenë një gjë e ndaluar nga ligji i ger be indef thing acc prohibit:part from law:m.def nom.m magjistarëve sorcerer:m.pl:gen ‘How many people go about with a dragon egg in their pocket while this is something prohibited by the law of the sorcerers?’

(B413.7)

Hungarian [HP I Hungarian, 245] hányan sétálgatnak sárkánytojásokkal ha egyszer tiltja by_how_many take_a_walk:3pl dragon_egg:pl:ins if once prohibit a törvény det law ‘How many take a walk with dragon eggs if the law simply prohibits this?’

(B413.8)

Turkish [HP I Turkish, 228] eğer sihirbaz kanununa aykırıysa kaç insan ejderha if sorcerer law:POR.3: dat violate how_many man dragon yumurtalarıyla dolaşır ki egg:pl:POR3: with walk_about ‘How many people walk about with dragon eggs if it is against the sorceres’ law?’

(B414)

Confectives: alternative patterns

(B414.1)

Catalan [HP I Catalan, 257] quanta gent porta ous de drac a sobre si va how_many.f people carry:3sg egg:pl of dragon on over if go:3sg contra les lleis against det.pl law.pl ‘How many persons carry eggs of dragons on them if is against the law?’

(B414.2)

Estonian [HP I Estonian, 226] kui palju inimesi hulgub ringi lohemunad taskus kui how many man:ptv stroll:3sg around dragon_egg:pl pocket:ine if see tähendab võlurite seaduse rikkumist this mean:3sg sorcerer:pl:gen law:gen violate ‘How many people stroll around with dragon eggs in their pocket if this means a violation of the law of the sorcerers?’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B414.3)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 287] miten moni nykyään kuljeskelee lohikäärmeenmuna taskussaan how some today carry:3sg dragon:gen:egg pocket:ine:POR.3 kun se on vastoin velhojen lakia if this be.3sg against sorcerer:pl:gen law:ptv ‘How many carry dragon eggs in their pockets nowadays if this is against the law of the sorceres?’

(B414.4)

Basque [HP I Basque, 239] zenbat jende ibiliko da hortik zehar how_many people walk:fut aux.3sg from there across herensuge-arrautzak sakelan dituela azti-legeen dragon-egg:pl pocket:ine have:O.3pl:subord wizard-law:gen kontrakoa bada opposing:def if:aux:3sg ‘How many people would walk about having dragon eggs in their pockets if this opposes the wizard law?’

As is evident from the above lists, there are many more languages that follow the English example than there are languages which opt for a different solution. This time, some of the non-Indo-Germanic languages also construe their confectives according to the Companion Schema. However, Estonian is not among them – nor are Finnish and Basque. It is necessary that we check whether this is a general tendency for confectives or just a singularity of the above sample sentence. For this purpose, we take the translations and the original of [HP I English, 286] (used for [B413]–[B414]) and compare the occurrence of comitative-like confectives there with those attested for: • [HP I English, 62] and [she] came home every holiday with her pockets full of frog-spawn, • [HP I English, 68] dreading going to school with that ridiculous haircut, •  [HP I English, 41] Dudley and Uncle Vernon came in, both with wrinkled noses, and • [HP I English, 102] He was stranded in the middle of a station with a trunk he could hardly lift, a pocket full of wizard money and a large owl. In Table (B415) X marks the use of a comitative marker in the widest sense of the term. The asterisk * indicates that a comitative-like morpheme is employed which is not identical to the one reflected in Table (B412). The exclamation mark ! is used to show that of the three possible possessees in [HP I English, 102] only one – the trunk – is part of the construction patterned according to the Companion Schema. Where the relevant English NP is not translated we indicate this with three hyphens ---. Boldface identifies those languages with no attestations of the Companion Schema for ornatives in (B412). Italics mark the languages which use the Companion Schema for all five sample sentences in (B412).



(B415)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Use of confective constructions language Irish Finnish Basque Estonian Georgian Turkish Faroese Russian French Italian Albanian Danish Czech Icelandic Welsh Latvian Lithuanian Rumanian Catalan Hungarian Greek Bulgarian Macedonian Polish Serbian Slovak Slovenian Ukrainian Dutch German Low German Norwegian Portuguese Spanish Galego Croatian English Swedish 38

HP I, 102

HP I, 286 HP I, 68

0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0 X! 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  * X X X --- X --- X 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 36 30 (+ 1*)

HP I, 62

0 0 X 0 X 0 0 X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X X  * X  * X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 30 26 (+ 2*)

HP I, 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X 5

The table reveals that the Companion Schema is much more popular among the sample languages when expressing the confective. The values for three of the four sentences in (B415) exceed by far the values for the highest score in (B412), whereas the lowest scores in both tables are identical. Furthermore, there is no language that does not

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

use the Companion Schema at least once for the purpose of expressing the confective. For the ornative, however, eight languages avoid the Companion Schema altogether. At the other extreme, there is no language that employs the Companion Schema indiscriminately in all ten sentences in Tables (B412) and (B415), although Dutch, English and Swedish come very close to this state of generalisation as their prepositions met/med ‘with’ and with are used in nine out of ten sentences. Still, the distribution of the languages printed in boldface in (B415) is interesting because five of those languages which do not use the Companion Schema for ornatives are shown to use this Schema sparingly for the confective, too. The preferences and dispreferences of the individual languages are specified numerically in Table (B416). The languages are ordered according to the increasing share of comitative-like constructions employed for the translation of the sample sentences. With X we mark those cases which cannot be mathematically computed as they involve the division of zero by a value above zero. Boldface is used to identify those languages which display a clear preference (= with a difference of three or more attestations) for the Companion Schema with confectives as opposed to not using the same schema with ornatives. Italics on the other hand, mark those languages which use the Companion Schema more often with ornatives than with confectives. (B416)

Statistics: Companion Schema language Irish Finnish Basque Georgian Turkish French Catalan Spanish Hungarian Faroese Croatian Polish Serbian Portuguese Italian Russian Albanian Danish Icelandic Low German Ukrainian Czech

ornative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 4 3 3 3 2 2 4

confective 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 2 5 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3

total

share

ratio o:c

1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7

X X X X X X X X X 1 X 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.6 2 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1.3



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe  Estonian Welsh German Slovenian Latvian Lithuanian Rumanian Greek Bulgarian Macedonian Slovak Norwegian Galego Dutch English Swedish 38 average

5 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4

2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5

7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9

93

129

222

2.4

3.4

5.8

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

2.5 1.3 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 1.25 0.8 0.8

0.58

0.72

0.58

0.7

All of our sample languages employed in this section make use of the Companion Schema at least once. The averages show that there is a tendency for the Companion Schema to be used slightly more often than in 50% of the sentences. This means that there is a slim chance of the Companion Schema occurring both on the confective side and on the ornative side. Altogether 28 languages attest to the Companion Schema for both categories. Of this group of languages, 23 also display a percentage of 60% for comitative-like constructions and thus exceed the above average. Put differently, 73% of the sample languages employ the Companion Schema for both purposes. 60% of the sample languages additionally display percentages of comitative-like constructions that are above the average. Superficially, this looks like solid statistical evidence of an underdifferentiation, meaning: the construction is used indiscriminately for ornative and confective. upon closer inspection however, we see that the distribution of the patterns is by no means random. First of all, there are ten languages which use the Companion Schema exclusively for one of the two categories, and this is always the confective. If the ornative is expressed by a comitative-like construction, then the confective is also expressed by a comitative-like construction. These implications are already suggestive of a somewhat stronger association of the Companion Schema with the confective. This potential bond between Companion Schema and confective is especially evident in those cases where the overall percentage of comitative-like constructions is higher than 20% while the percentage for ornatives is zero: French (30%), Catalan, Spanish, Hungarian (each 40%) and Croatian (50%) give preference to comitative-like constructions for the confective to such a degree that the association of Companion Schema and confective

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

becomes the default solution. Since all languages of this test section employ comitativelike constructions for confectives (though to different degrees), the pairing of comitative and confective is a common trait of our 38 European languages, whereas the comitative-ornative pair is characteristic for a smaller, albeit still sizeable segment of the sample languages. Furthermore, Polish, Serbian and Portuguese show that even though the Companion Schema is employed for both categories, this does not mean that they have the same share of the constructions. In these three languages, comitativelike confectives outnumber comitative-like ornatives by a ratio of 4-to-1. We may add to these the values given for Low German and Ukrainian which reflect a ratio of 2-to-1. Of the 38 sample languages, 22 (= 58%) have a higher number of comitativelike confectives than comitative-like ornatives. The reverse holds true for only five languages (= 13%), whereas eleven languages (= 29%) display equal numbers on both sides. Of those languages which prefer comitative-like ornatives over their confective counterparts, only Russian and Estonian display ratios of any significance, namely 2-to-1 and 2.5-to-1, respectively. All other constellations are such that the differences are statistically insignificant. All this can be understood as evidence of a basic conceptual difference reflected by language structure. Those possessees which are more closely related to the possessor’s body and self (typically body parts such as hair, etc.) tend to take a construction different from the one used for those possessees which can be disposed of easily (such as suitcases, etc.). The Companion Schema in this case lends itself to being employed predominantly for the confective as it conceptually depicts the possessee as a companion of the possessor, a companion with a separate existence (body, self or the like), which also implies that the companion might not be on hand all the time. The distinction of ornative vs. confective thus corresponds to the one of inalienable vs. alienable possession in combination with the conceptual dichotomy of permanent vs. temporary/ current possession. What we have found in typical possessive constructions (i.e., those with the possessee in head function) has a parallel in “atypical” possessive constructions (i.e., those with the possessor as head). Heine (1997: 57) discusses the conceptual connection-lines of the Companion Schema to different kinds of possessive categories and also mentions Stassen’s analysis. According to these contributions to the debate, the Companion Schema associates with a belong-reading if the possessee is the subject of the construction (meaning that otherwise a have-reading is more appropriate). However, these judgements are based only on the evidence drawn from predicative possession. We do not have sufficiently convincing evidence of attributive construction reflecting the Companion Schema in which the possessee functions as the constructional head. We end this section with an areal-linguistic evaluation of the above tables. Langu­ ages with identical genetic affiliation – such as Dutch, Low German and Danish – are characterised by different preferences: Dutch has more comitative-like ornatives,



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

whereas Low German gives preference to comitative-like confectives. Danish treats both categories identically. A tripartition of this kind is also attested for the Slavic phylum (e.g., Slovenian is pro-confective, Czech is pro-ornative and Slovak is neutral). Romance, Celtic, Baltic and Finno-Ugric are all divided into two groups. This heterogeneity excludes the possibility of explaining the behaviour of our sample languages exclusively in terms of genetic affiliation. In point of fact, there is a strong areal component which has to be taken into consideration, too. In the Northwest, Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian and Danish belong together because they prefer neither of the categories over the other. These languages are genetically closely related to one another. However, the other agglomeration of languages with the same property is on the Balkans and there it is shared by Albanian, Greek, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Rumanian. These languages do not form a genetic sub-group of Indo-European as the North Germanic languages in the European Northwest do. However, they constitute the Balkan Sprachbund, i.e., the generalised employment of the Companion Schema is a trait shared by languages which have become similar to each other via long-term convergence, cf. map (B417). The map shows that there is a huge area covered by languages which tend to use the Companion Schema for the confective more often than for the ornative. This area is surrounded by the boldface line and reaches from the European Southwest far into the Northeast and connects Ireland to the Caucasus. Languages with different pro­ perties are found on the periphery, be it in the Northwest, on the Balkans or in the Euro­pean East. The large central area embraces Indo-European languages of various phyla (Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Baltic) and the bulk of the non-IndoEuropean languages of our sample (Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Georgian and Basque). Languages with a leaning towards comitative-like ornatives do not cluster on the map and give not hind of a linguistic area (if we discount the possibility of an EstonianRussian mini-area). The dashed line indicates the limits of the distribution of this type. The two major types reflect the areally important isoglosses – and these imply that the confective is at least as strong as or stronger than the ornative when it comes to employing the Companion Schema. Of the two major types, only the numerically less important one (identified by the thin line on the map) has some isolated representatives outside its agglomerations: Slovak and Lithuanian, which are both located in the east. These areal patterns are additionally indicative of two things: • the comitative-confective association has the widest geographical distribution and is genetically unrestricted, • the centre-periphery dichotomy of the map (B417) invites an interpretation which assumes the diffusion of the Companion Schema from a central region into the outskirts. At the extremes of the area covered by the major type, Irish [= 0.19], Finnish [= 0.1], Basque [= 0.2], Turkish [= 0.2], Georgian [= 0.2] display very low

CAT

SP

GAL

PORT

BAS

FR

ENG

IR

W

FAR

IT

LG

DU

NORW DAN

ALB

CR

SLOV

GER

SW

GR

SER

CZ

POL

MAC

HUN

SLOK

FINN

RUM

LITH

LAT

EST

BUL

UKR

RUS

TUR

GEORG

(B417)

ICE

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Confectives and ornatives



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

percentages which contrast with higher values in other parts of the same area, for instance Low German [= 0.6], German [= 0.7], Slovenian [= 0.7]. Note that of the five lowest percentages, four stem from non-Indo-European languages. In the next section, the Companion Schema is again one of the featured properties of possessive constructions. This time however, we enter the realm of predicative possession.

5.2  Predicative possession The essentials of the typology of predicative possession have been laid down in several publications by Stassen (2001, 2005a, 2005b). We already know from our case studies in section 4, that employing several predicative expressions all obligatory to more or less identical degrees is not completely unknown in Europe, as shown most clearly by Icelandic (section 4.2.2) and less prominently by Goidelic (section 4.3.2.1) and Maltese (section 4.1.2). In contrast to lexical distinctions along the lines of the English word field to have ~ to own ~ to possess, etc. which has a neutralising member (in this case to have), these languages have a set of predicative expressions from which speakers are forced to make a choice every time they want to predicate possession. Thus, these systems are by far closer to grammar than the English examples. The degree of grammaticalisation of the paradigm of predicative possession is highest in Icelandic, whereas Scots Gaelic, Irish and Maltese allow for a less strict application of their rules. As far as we can tell, languages which behave as strictly as Icelandic in this respect are comparatively rare in Europe. It is normal for a European language to have an allpurpose expression of predicative possession to which a varying number of semantically more specific and largely optional expressions can be added. In a much smaller number of languages of the same area however, the speakers’ freedom of choice is restricted – in one case even severely. We start the discussion by presenting and commenting upon examples taken from European Portuguese. The usual have-verb of Portuguese is ter ‘to have’ whose functional domain resembles the one of English to have and German haben very closely – at least superficially. What especially contributes to this impression is the fact that ter is also used as auxiliary verb in periphrastic constructions (perfect and pluperfect). In (B418), we give a random list of typical possessive usages to which ter is put. (B418)

Portuguese

(B418.1)

[LPP Portuguese 67] os homens têm espingardas det.m:pl man:pl have.3pl rifle:f:pl ‘The men have rifles.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B418.2)

[LPP Portuguese 14] tem cornos have.3sg horn:m:pl ‘It [= the sheep] has horns.’

(B418.3)

[LPP Portuguese 19] quantos irmãos tem how_many brother:m:pl have.3sg ‘How many brothers does he have?’

(B418.4)

[LPP Portuguese 11] o motor tinha qualquer coisa partida det.m motor have:past.3sg some thing:f broke:pp:f ‘(lit.) The engine had something broken.’

(B418.5)

[LPP Portuguese 77] também eu tenho sede also I have:1sg thirst ‘I am thirsty also.’

This incomplete list suffices to demonstrate that ter indeed has a wide range of functions which include prototypical cases of concrete possession as in (B418.1), body-parts (= [B418.2]), kin (= [B418.3]), part-whole relations of inanimate possessors (= [B418.4]) and also physico-mental states (= [B418.5]). It is the last mentioned class of possessees however, which leads us to a rather systematic possession split in Portuguese. The physico-mental states of experiencing hunger (= fome) or thirst (= sede) can each be expressed in two different ways. One of these ways is illustrated by (B418.4) above: the noun representing the feeling is the direct object of the transitive haveverb ter. However, alternatively, the same noun may form part of a PP headed by the preposition com ‘with’ as in (B419). The partial (cf. below) functional equivalence or synonymy of ter fome and estar com fome ‘to be hungry’ is evidence of the association of estar-com-X construction with possession, albeit in the guise of non-prototypical possessive relations. Endruschat (2007: 77–78) states that estar-com-X is more common than ter-X “in vielen Kontexten”. To her mind, the possessive relations encoded by estar-com-X constructions are “aktuelle, alienable Besitzverhältnisse” which presuppose some kind of temporary spatial proximity of possessor and possessee, whereas permanent or inherent relations belong to the domain of ter-X constructions. With this information we will review the data drawn from our sample texts. (B419)

Portuguese [HP IV, 188] se estás com fome tens de ir ao celeiro if be:2sg with hunger have:2sg of go:inf to:det.m cellar das corujas of:det.f:pl owl:f:pl ‘If you are hungry, you must go to the owlery.’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

The situation in which (B419) is uttered is such that it is important to highlight the current physico-mental state of the addressee. Thus, the conditional clause could also be translated as ‘if you are hungry right now…’ . Portuguese – like Spanish (Halm 1982: 56–63) – makes use of two copular verbs, viz. ser and estar ‘to be’. On the semantic level, the main difference between the two copulae corresponds to the distinction of permanent vs. temporary/present states with estar ‘to be’ being used in constructions which express ephemeral or current states (Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982: 157–162, Endruschat 2007: 78). Ter fome and estar com fome – both translating to English to be hungry – form a kind of (asymmetric) minimal pair, as the usual have-verb ter can be used in a neutralising way or with the additional meaning component of extension over time. Its competitor estar however is restricted to those expressions which are not neutral, but refer to current/passing states. Whether this is the only criterion for the choice Portuguese speakers have for predicative possessive constructions will be answered presently. In (B420), we present a selection of pertinent examples of estar-com-X constructions in the fourth volume of the Harry Potter series. (B420)

Portuguese

(B420.1)

[HP IV Portuguese, 65] Fred e George estavam de novo com ar carrancudo Fred and George be:imperf:3pl of new with air grumpy ‘Fred and George looked grumpy again.’

(B420.2)

[HP IV Portuguese, 99] ele está com um péssimo aspecto he be:3sg with a bad:ela:m look:m ‘He looks terrible.’

(B420.3)

[HP IV Portuguese, 102] ninguém estava com vontade de dormir nobody be:imperf:3sg with desire of sleep:inf ‘Nobody wanted to sleep.’

(B420.4)

[HP IV Portuguese, 204] o Viktor está com uma leve constipação det.m Viktor be:3sg with a:f light constipation ‘Viktor is slightly constipated.’

(B420.5)

[HP IV Portuguese, 234] ele não estava com disposição para comemorar he neg be:imperf:3sg with disposition for commemorate:inf ‘He was not disposed to commemorate.’

(B420.6)

[HP IV Portuguese, 238] ele está com ciúmes he be:imperf:3sg with jealousy ‘He is jealous.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B420.7)

[HP IV Portuguese, 424] Crouch está com um esgotamento por excesso de trabalho Crouch be:3sg with a burn_out:m for excess:m of work:m ‘Crouch is burned out because of too much work.’

(B420.8)

[HP IV Portuguese, 439] ei Hermione acho que estás com sorte hey Hermione find:1sg that be:2sg with fortune ‘Hey, Hermione, I think that you are lucky.’

(B420.9)

[HP IV Portuguese, 444] Hermione estava com imensa dificuldade em manejar Hermione be:imperf:3sg with enormous:f difficulty in use:inf a faca e o garfo de tão hirtos e inchados det.f knife and det.m fork of so_many stiff:m:pl and swollen:m:pl que estavam os dedos that be:imperf:3pl det.m:pl finger:m:pl ‘Hermione had enormous difficulties handling a knife and fork her fingers were so stiff and swollen.’

(B420.10)

[HP IV Portuguese, 529] em breva estava de novo com uma forma quase humana in short:f be:imperf:3sg of new with a:f form:f almost human:f ‘Soon he would again have an almost human form.’

What all these examples have in common is that they are describing a situation which is simultaneous to the reference time. With the possible exception of (B420.10), all the possessees are fully abstract as they represent feelings, physico-mental states and bodily ailments. And these feelings, physico-mental states and ailments are such that they are experienced by the possessor at the reference time. In none of the cases does the relation of possessor and possessee imply (long) extension over time. To the contrary, in most of the examples the relation is momentary i.e., of short duration: Fred and George do not look grumpy for more than a minute (B420.1), the terrible look is temporary too (B420.2), as are the reluctance to go to bed (B420.3), Viktor’s slight constipation (B420.4), Ron’s fit of jealousy (B420.6), Mr. Crouch’s state of being overworked (B420.7) and Hermione’s difficulties eating with knife and fork (B420.9). Likewise, Harry’s unwillingness to participate in the commemoration is a momentary attitude depending on temporary circumstances (B420.5) – on a different occasion, Harry might be disposed to commemorate. Similarly, Ron’s statement that Hermione was just lucky (B420.8) refers to an achievement of hers that happened shortly before the sentence was uttered. This does not mean that Ron ascribed permanent good fortune to Hermione. She was just lucky on this particular occasion. (B420.10) is seemingly more difficult because human shape appears to be less abstract than the above feelings, physico-mental states and ailments. Moreover, Voldemort is eager to acquire a human body of his own and surely does not intend this to be an ephemeral state of



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

affairs. As to the concrete-abstract distinction, we consider the shape of a human body to be a general and thus rather abstract notion because it does not refer to an individual exemplar. Secondly, Voldemort’s relation to the body-to-be is such that he might be inclined to change his shape all over again according to his liking. Viewed from this angle, having a certain human shape is a temporary property and thus licences the use of the estar-com-X construction. Ter would certainly invite the interpretation that this particular human body would be kept permanently by Voldemort. In Portuguese descriptive grammars, the estar-com-X construction is seldom touched upon, not to mention its interrelationship with the possessive verb ter. Even where the use of the preposition com ‘with’ is discussed, the combination with the copula estar is often ignored (Cunha & Cintra 1989: 562). Hundertmark-Santos Martins (1982: 161) at least provides an open list of typical instances of the estar-com-X construction (which is translated into German as haben = English to have), cf. (B421). (B421)

Portuguese estar com apetite estar com fome estar com sede estar com sono estar com calor estar com frío estar com sorte estar com azar estar com dores de cabeça estar com fibre estar com gripe estar com medo estar com preguiça estar com vergonha

‘to feel like sth.’ ‘to be hungry’ ‘to be thirsty’ ‘to be sleepy’ ‘to be hot’ ‘to be cold’ ‘to be lucky’ ‘to have bad luck’ ‘to have a headache’ ‘to have a fever’ ‘to have a flu’ ‘to be in fear’ ‘to be lazy’ ‘to be ashamed’

This list contains exclusively possessees which represent concepts belonging to the area of physico-mental states including illnesses and “aspects of fate” (= luck). Because of this, (B421) partially reminds us of similar lists compiled for Icelandic and its structurally almost identical construction vera-með-X ‘to be with X’ = ‘to have X’ (B154)–(B156). However, as section 4.2.2.2 clearly shows, the Icelandic construction has a much wider range of functions and combines relatively freely with NPs representing concrete possessees. In these cases, the possessive relation is one of current physical possession. Examples of estar-com-X constructions being used for this function are relatively rare in our corpus, but cf. below. That the distinction of temporary vs. permanent is involved in the distribution of the Portuguese constructions estar-com-X and ter-X is corroborated by quasi-minimal pairs we have found in our sample texts. Examples (B422) and (B420.2) are such a pair.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B422)

[LPP Portuguese, 82] (cf. [B420.2] os teus embondeiros têm um certo ar de couves det.m:pl your:m:pl baobab:m:pl have:3pl a certain:m air of cabbage:pl ‘Your baobabs have a certain air of cabbage about them.’

As mentioned above in connection with (B423.2), the characters Fred and George are very unlikely to keep their grumpy look over more than a fragment of time. Thus, the estar-com-X construction is the appropriate way of encoding this ephemeral state of affairs. However, in (B422), the Little Prince comments on the picture his companion had drawn some time ago – and the impression the painted trees give is (potentially) a permanent trait as the picture will remain the same over time. Accordingly, ter-X is the best construction because it implies that the possessive relation is not punctual. (B423) is another example of a temporary state expressed by estar-com-X. (B423)

[LPP Portuguese, 86] estava com um olhar muito sério be:imperf:3sg with a look very serious:m ‘He had a very serious look.’

The Little Prince does not look serious all the time – but he does look serious on this particular occasion when he is thinking about the consequences of leaving the planet Earth. All the other examples of estar-com-X in the Portuguese translation of Le Petit Prince are of the same type: they describe an ephemeral situation which is only relevant at the reference time, cf. (B424). (B424)

Portuguese

(B424.1)

[LPP Portuguese, 14] estava com pressa de começar be:imperf:1sg with haste of start:inf a desmontar o motor to disassemble:inf det.m engine ‘I was in a hurry to start disassembling the engine.’

(B424.2)

[LPP Portuguese, 40] estava com pena de não poder ver o seu pôr do Sol be:imperf:3sg with sorrow of neg can:inf see:inf det.m his:m sundown ‘He was sorry that he could not see his sundown.’

(B424.3)

[LPP Portuguese, 59] já estava com medo de se ter enganado already be:imperf:3sg with fear of ref.3 have:inf be_mistaken:PP de planeta of planet ‘He already feared that he had the wrong planet.’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B424.4)

[LPP Portuguese, 91] e sentou-se porque estava com medo and sit_down:past.3sg-ref.3 because be:imperf:3sg with fear:m ‘And he sat down because he was in fear.’

(B424.5)

[LPP Portuguese, 77] estava com uma ponta de fibre por causa da sede be:imperf:3sg with a:f point of fever for reason of:det.f thirst ‘He had a little fever because of the thirst.’

Haste, sorrow, fear and fever are physico-mental states that the protagonist of the situations described experiences at the reference time. He is neither always in haste, nor generally sorrowful, fearful or prone to fever. This is different with the fear felt by Voldemort in (B425). (B425)

Portuguese [HP I Portuguese, 52] Dumbledore era o único de quem Dumbledore be.past:3sg det.m only_one:m of who o Quem Nós Sabemos tinha medo have:past:3sg fear:m det.m You_know_who ‘Dumbledore was the only one whom You-know-who feared.’

What Hagrid tells Harry about Voldemort is not a temporary sudden fear but Voldemort’s lifelong angst of being eventually defeated by Dumbledore i.e., the fear is felt all the time and not only on a particular occasion. Examples of this kind show that the main difference between estar-com-X constructions and their counterpart, the ter-X constructions, can be explained in terms of the temporary vs. permanent distinction. More specifically, the temporary dimension boils down to current relations i.e., relations occurring at the reference time. Furthermore, the above examples are such that the possessees belong to the sphere of abstract concepts. This is somewhat at odds with Endruschat’s (2007: 78) contention that estar-com-X constructions involve alienable possessees. Her own examples (Endruschat 2007: 211) do not contain proper alienable possessees (in the sense that the possessor is entitled to dispose of them). They instead exemplify possessed feelings, emotions, etc. However, a side remark in Hundertmark-Santos Martins (1982: 443) suggests that the X in estar-com-X constructions can be filled by concrete nouns when the meaning of “gerade etwas haben/anhaben” is intended i.e., when the current physical possession of items is focused on. Unfortunately, Hundertmark-Santos Martins (1982) does not provide any examples. This scarcity of tangible examples in the descriptive literature gives rise to the idea that we are confronted with a rather marginal phenomenon. In point of fact, our sample texts do not contain more than the occasional example of estar-com-X constructions involving a concrete possessee. Three of the few pertinent cases are given in (B426).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B426)

Portuguese

(B426.1)

[HP IV Portuguese, 54] Bill e Charlie estavam com as varinhas na mão Bill and Charlie be:imperf:3pl with det.f:pl wand:f:pl in:det.f hand ‘Bill and Charlie had their wands in their hands.’

(B426.2)

[HP IV Portuguese, 114] quando a encontrei estava com uma varinha when her meet:past.1sg be:imperf:3sg with a:f wand:f na mão in:det.f hand ‘When I met her, she had a wand in her hand.’

(B426.3)

[HP I Portuguese, 170] veste-a Percy vá lá estamos todos com put_on.imp-O.3sg.f Percy go.imp there be:1pl all:m:pl with as nossas det.f:pl our:f:pl ‘Put it [= the sweater] on, Percy, come on, we all are wearing ours already.’

In (B426.1) Bill and Charlie have the wands in their hands when they are observed by Harry Potter and the others. Bill and Charlie put their wands back into their pockets soon because they are called in to supper. It is important in (B426.2) that the observed person had a wand in her hand at the reference time. Whether the wand is actually hers is irrelevant for the situation described and the context into which the information is embedded. Example (B426.3) is the only instance of a situation in which the possessor is wearing the possessed item as clothing. The possessive pronoun (as) nossas ‘ours’ refers to the plural of camisola ‘sweater’ mentioned earlier in the text. Fred and George have put on their sweaters already when their brother Percy comes in carrying his own over his arm. Thus, the twins are wearing their sweaters at the reference time. What they do with the clothes later does not play a role for the employment of the estar-com-X construction. Thus, the aspect of current possession as opposed to permanent possession is also prominent in those cases where the possessee is a concrete object. These concrete objects fulfil the alienable criterion to which Endruschat (2007) alludes. Where inalienable and/or permanent relations are involved the best construction is ter-X. The distribution of the construction based on the Companion Schema (Heine 1997) again shares some properties with the one described for Icelandic in section 4.2.2.2, whose vera-með-X construction allows not only for physico-mental states to fill the slot of X, but also takes concrete objects as possessees which are currently-physically possessed (cf. above). Moreover, in our Portuguese texts, there is indirect evidence of the possibility of using the construction with at least certain kinds of body-part related possessees. The estar-com-X construction allows two



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

different ways of negation, one of which is illustrated by (B420.5) above, viz. the simple negation of the finite verb by não ‘not’. (B427) contains instances of an alternative of negating the construction. (B427)

Portuguese

(B427.1)

[HP IV Portuguese, 329] (cf. [B420.5]) Harry estava sem disposição para trabalhar Harry be:imperf:3sg without disposition for work:inf ‘Harry was not inclined to work.’

(B427.2)

[HP IV Portuguese, 468] (cf. [B420.8]) tu estás sem sorte you be:2sg without luck ‘You have no luck.’

The preposition com ‘with’ has a lexical antonym sem ‘without’ which conveys much the same meaning as the combination of não + estar-com-X. If we accept that sem ‘without’ contains the meaning components of negation and com, sentences like (B428) becomes interesting for possession research. (B428)

Portuguese [HP IV Portuguese, 218] se Fred e George já estariam sem barbas if Fred and George already be:cond.imperf:3pl without beard:pl ‘… whether Fred and George were already beardless.’

The situation is the following: Fred and George drank from a potion which makes people become older within seconds. As a consequence they grew beards. However, the magical effect of the potion is supposed to be only temporary and Harry wants to inquire of Hagrid whether Fred and George look normal again. Thus, the use of sem fits in with the general picture of the functional domain of estar-com-X constructions as it focuses on a temporary relation. This being the case, we assume that it is also possible to say something like se Fred e George ainda estariam com barbas ‘whether Fred and George still had beards’. Independent of the validity of this assumption, we cannot state with certainty to which body-part-related concepts the estar-com-X construction can be applied. It may be the case that only body hair, skin tan and similarly changeable aspects of the human body allow for this construction. The construction under scrutiny is employed slightly more often for the purpose of indicating the current position or state of a given bodypart of the possessor – be it concrete or metaphorical, cf. (B429). (B429)

Portuguese

(B429.1)

[HP I Portuguese, 149] o Ron estava ainda com o braço no ar det.m Ron be:imperf:3sg still with det.m arm.m in:det.m air ‘Ron still had his arm raised in the air.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B429.2)

[HP I Portuguese, 217] estava com os nervos em franjas be:imperf:3sg with det.m:pl nerve:m:pl in thread:f:pl ‘He was overly nervous.’

In cases of this type, the construction is obligatorily extended such that it contains a local adverbial PP which specifies the spatial region in which the body part is located at the reference time. We have encountered only a very small number of examples of the estar-com-X construction in which X is an inalienable body part and there is no local adverbial PP included in the construction. Sentence (B430) is the best example of this class, although it is syntactically problematic as the PP is not directly adjacent to the copula because a predicative adjective is intercalated, forming a coordinated predicate with the PP. (B430)

Portuguese [HP I Portuguese, 223] estava pálido e com os olhos brilhantes be:imperf:3sg pale and with det.m:pl eye:m:pl shining:pl ‘He was pale and had shining eyes.’

This is the description of Harry Potter at a certain point when the story is approaching the climax. He is excited and afraid at the same time – but that is not his normal appearance. His eyes are shining in this special way only at the reference time. We assume that constructions of this kind are only possible with a possessed body part if the NP representing the possessee additionally contains an attribute which describes the state of the body part at a certain point in time. A sentence *estava com os olhos ‘he had the eyes’ does not seem to make much sense (except perhaps in very specific contexts when somebody is carrying a load of aforementioned artificial eyes, for instance). Furthermore, the estar-com-X construction is also used occasionally for possessive relations whose possessee belongs to the abstract sphere without being a physico-mental state. Example (B431) refers to the situation in which the house of Gryffindor is given additional points for the house cup at the end of the scholastic year. (B431)

Portuguese [HP I Portuguese, 252] estavam com cem pontos a mais be:imperf:3pl with hundred point:m:pl to more ‘They had a hundred points more.’

In the context preceding this sentence, Gryffindor was at the bottom of the list because of their lousy performance over the year. The director of the school however grants them additional points so that Gryffindor climbs to second place. Dumbledore – the headmaster – has not come to an end and what is stated in (B431) refers only to the intermediate result. The additional hundred points are only temporary the top result because more points are about to be given to the same house. Again, the current state of affairs is focused on – which turns out to be temporary.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Finally, whether or not a sentence like (B432) qualifies as evidence of Portuguese allowing for human possessees in this construction type (and thus converging even more with Icelandic [B176]) is not easy to decide on the basis of our present knowledge. (B432)

Portuguese [HP IV Portuguese, 552] estava sempre com o elfo doméstico be:imperf:3sg always with det.m house_elf ‘He also had the house-elf with him.’

The house-elf is a slave-like being, supervised by its master who makes use of the creature as if it were an instrument. The elf is under the control of the master and thus in his possession. This is perfectly in line with the Icelandic state of affairs. However, (B432) does not describe a temporary situation. What is stated instead is a habitual co-occurrence of two participants one of which is the superior of the other. Elsewhere, estar-com-X constructions with a human X have a different meaning, namely the copresence of two human participants in the same space, cf. (B433). (B433)

Portuguese [HP IV Portuguese, 559] estão com a professora Sprout be:3pl with det.f professor:f Sprout ‘They are with Professor Sprout (meaning: together with her in her office).’

The problem of keeping purely spatial readings apart from proper possessive ones is a leitmotif in possession research. Portuguese resembles languages like Scots Gaelic, Icelandic, Finnish, etc. At this point, we are about to leave firm ground and thus refrain from indulging in mere speculation. To cut the speculation short, we conclude this sketch of Portuguese predivative possession by classifying it as an absolutely incontroversial show-case of a European possession split. In sum, the synopsis of the Portuguese system of predicative possession has the following format, cf. (B434). (B434)

Domains of ter vs. estar com possessee

construction ter X

human all body part inalienable (e.g., head)? clothes own objects own illnesses permanent physico-mental states permanent abstract concepts permanent

estar com X ? alienable (e.g., hair)?, inalienable/current position wear/carry carry momentary momentary momentary

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

This table must be read with the proviso that the ter-X construction is also the one which may be used in a neutralising way, meaning: it has a general reading beside a more specific one – and it is only the latter which contrasts with estar-com-X. In quantitative terms, the established functional domain of the estar-com-X construction is the expression of temporary/cur­rent physico-mental states i.e., it is firmly associated with marginal possession. The situation in Lithuanian has some (but by no means all) traits in common with the one described for Portuguese above. The dominant construction type in predicative possessive follows the Action Schema (Heine 1997), meaning a transitive have-verb is employed, viz. turėti ‘to have’. We document the wide functional domain of this verb with a small selection of cases in (B435). (B435)

Lithuanian

(B435.1)

[HP I Lithuanian, 7] Dursliai žinojo kad Poteriai irgi turi Dursley:nom.pl know:pret:3 that Potter:nom.pl also have:3 mažą sūnelį little:acc.m son:dim:acc.m ‘The Dursleys knew that the Potters also had a little son.’

(B435.2)

[HP I Lithuanian, 55] tebe-turi laišką Hari still-have:2sg letter:acc.m Harry ‘Do you still have the letter, Harry?’

(B435.3)

[HP I Lithuanian, 68] turi motinos akis have:2sg mother:gen.f eye:acc.pl ‘You have your mother’s eyes.’

(B435.4)

[HP I Lithuanian, 1349] suprantu ką turėjo galvoje profesorė Makgonagal understand:1sg what:acc have:pret:3 head:loc.f professor:nom.f m. ‘I understand what Professor McGonagal had in mind.’

The domain of this have-verb is almost as wide as the one assumed for English to have. However, turėti is not without competitor. Senn (1966: 414) introduces the “Dativ des Besitzers” (= possessive dative constructions) which he describes as a frequent device for encoding predicative possession. The Lithuanian Academy Grammar (Ulvydas et al. 1976: 34) however, classifies the possessive dative constructions as occurring relatively rarely. Since exact quantitative data are still lacking, we cannot decide this issue. Suffice it to say that the constructions are not marginal because there are several instances in each of our sample texts. The possessive dative construction and the turėticonstruction are different from each other in that the possessor-NP is the subject of



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

turėti, and this subject is in the nominative, whereas the possessee is the direct object of the same verb and is in the accusative, which the possessive dative construction involves a possessor in the dative and a possessee in the nominative which are connected to one another by the copula (optional in the present tense, always in the 3rd person). In the latter construction, the possessor-NP tends to precede the remainder of the construction i.e., it often behaves topologically like a subject but not morphologically (the “morphological” subject being the possessee: depending on the polarity of the sentence, the possessee-NP is either in the nominative [positive] or in the genitive [negative] which is the normal behaviour of subjects in Lithuanian existential sentences [Senn 1966: 394–395]). The two constructions are not synonymous and cannot replace one another freely. Senn (1966: 414) does not describe the semantics and functions of the possessive dative construction, but does provide a list of examples. For the bulk of these examples, it is clear that they belong to the wider sphere of marginal possession as they involve abstract possessees, physico-mental states and metaphorically used items. However, there are some cases which are more like to the prototype. In (B438) we present Senn’s list almost in full length (examples of the same possessee are left out). Boldface indicates forms of the copula if present. (B436)

Lithuanian liežuviuiPOR dveji vartaiPUM ‘the tongue has two doors’ jamPOR trisdešimt metųPUM ‘he is thirty years old’ kasPUM tauPOR yra? ‘what do you have = what’s wrong   with you?’ tauPOR bus rūpesčioPUM ‘you will experience sorrow’ mumsPOR vargasPUM ‘we are in misery’ badasPUM jamPOR ‘he must suffer from hunger’ tolus manPOR kėliasPUM ‘I have a long way (to go)’ neapsakomas džiaugsmasPUM jaiPOR ‘she feels a tremendous joy’ ‘I feel ashamed’ manPOR gėdaPUM manPOR nėra kadaPUM ‘I don’t have time’ manPOR nėra kurPUM ‘I do not find a space’ nėra manPOR motinėlėsPUM ‘I do not have a dear mother’

In most of the above cases, it is impossible to use the turėti-construction in lieu of the possessive dative construction. This is especially the case with physico-mental states and abstract concepts (like one’s age, for instance) as possessees. However, there are also instances of more concrete possessees in (B436) such as the kinship term motinėlė ‘dear mother’. Furthermore, the possessive dative construction is negated in several of the examples. Does this mean that the construction is especially prone to co-occur with negation? With a view to getting a clearer picture of the properties of the possessive dative construction, we will look first at its attestations in the Lithuanian translation of Le Petit Prince. A representative selection of these attestations is given in (B437).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B437)

Lithuanian

(B437.1)

[LPP Lithuanian, I.1] kai man buvo šešeri metai … when I.dat be:pret:3 six:nom.pl.m year:nom.pl.m ‘When I was six years old…’

(B437.2)

[LPP Lithuanian, IV.24] kiek jam metų how_many he:dat year:gen.pl ‘How old is he?’

(B437.3)

[LPP Lithuanian, XII.11] kad užmirščiau, jog man gėda that forget:conj.1sg so_that I.dat shame ‘To forget that I feel ashamed.’

(B437.4) [LPP Lithuanian, X.103] man nėra reikalo gyventi čia I.dat neg:be:3 necessity:gen live:inf here ‘I need not live here.’ (B437.5)

[LPP Lithuanian, XIV.40] man nėra nė sekundės poilsio I.dat neg:be:3 neg second:gen rest:gen ‘I don’t have one second of rest.’

(B437.6)

[LPP Lithuanian, VIII.49] jam vis tiek būtų nešvari sąžinė he:dat all_the_same be:conj.3 neg:clean:nom.f conscience:nom.f ‘He would feel guilty all the same.’ (lit:‘He would have a bad conscience all the same.’)

(B437.7)

[LPP Lithuanian, X.71] saulėlydis tau bus sundown:nom.m you:dat be:fut.3 ‘You will have a sundown.’

(B437.8)

[LPP Lithuanian, XXIV.5] mums jau nebe lapė galvoje we:dat already neg:still fox:nom.f head:loc.f ‘We don’t have the fox on our mind any longer.’

(B437.9)

[LPP Lithuanian, XXI.669] iš javų man jokios naudos out_of wheat:gen.pl I.dat any:gen.f money:gen.f ‘I don’t care for wheat (lit. I have no money out of wheat.).’



(B437.10)

Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

[LPP Lithuanian, III.35] naktį jai bus namas night:acc she:dat be:fut.3 house:nom.m ‘At night she will have a house.’

The first six examples (B437.1)–(B437.6) largely corroborate what Senn’s list suggests, namely that the possessive dative construction is employed in combination with nonprototypical possessees: age, shame, rest, conscience. We are confronted with abstract concepts, although not all of them are physico-mental states. These concepts are closely connected to the possessor’s persona as they reflect properties associated with the possessor in a given situation. However, (B437.7) contains a possessee-NP which refers to an event which is independent of the possessor. The sundown is something that occurs in the outside world, its possessor is the one who has the desire to witness a sundown. Likewise, in (B437.8) the fox has a separate existence of its own – but in this case, it is the memory of the fox that is experienced by the possessor. Thus, we may interpret the sentence under scrutiny as an indirect instance of a physico-mental state. Similarly, (B437.9) is an idiom (Xdative yra Y iš Z = Z has Y’s value for X = Z is [as] important [as Y] to X) which has only a metaphorical/metonymic reading. The only example of a full-blown concrete possessee involved in a construction of the possessive dative type is the very last one, (B437.10). In this sentence, the Little Prince thinks about the use to which the painted box his friend gave him could be put. He considers the box a good nightly hiding place for his sheep. The sheep will have a house to sleep in at night. There are thus two vastly disparate kinds of possessees involved in these possessive constructions: those which pass as non-prototypical possessees because of their abstract character and the occasional case of a prototypical i.e., concrete inanimate entity. How can this distribution be accounted for? A sentence like (B438) is helpful in revealing the principle problem behind this question. (B438)

Lithuanian [HP I Lithuanian, 108] penktadienis Hariui ir Roniui buvo Friday:nom.m Harry:dat and Ron:dat be:pret:3 svarbi diena important:nom.f day:nom.f ‘Friday was an important day for Harry and Ron.’

This example illustrates what is traditionally called the dativus commodi/incommodi. Free datives of this kind are widely used in Lithuanian (Senn 1966: 413). In (B438), the coordinated proper nouns are in the dative, although the predicate is a stative essive and does not require an indirect object. If we delete the dative-NPs from (B438), we get a fully grammatical sentence penktadienis buvo svarbi diena ‘Friday was an important day’. However, if we leave out the subject penktadienis ‘Friday’ instead, the resulting sentence Hariui ir Roniui buvo svarbi diena ‘Harry and Ron had an important day’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

is equally well-formed, and grammatically as well as pragmatically acceptable. In contrast to the stative-essive, this sentence would automatically invite a possessive reading, which is of course in line with the above findings as to the tendency of possessive dative constructions to take non-prototypical possessees. At the same time, the two deletion tests suggest that the division line between free datives and possessive datives is blurry. This is unsurprising because the fuzziness of the boundary supports Heine’s (1997) ideas. We assume therefore that our problematic case (B437.10) is not a proper instance of a possessive dative, but rather a veiled dative of interest. Immediately preceding (B437.10) we find the utterance (B439). (B439)

Lithuanian [LPP Lithuanian, III.35] ta dėžė kur man davei labai pravers this:nom.f box:nom.f where I.dat give:pret:2sg good:adv prove_useful.3 ‘This box you gave me comes in handy…’

As a matter of fact, (B437.10) and (B439) together form a complex utterance (as the ellipses suggest). It is therefore possible to consider that the subject of the first clause – the NP ta dėžė ‘this box’ – also keeps this function for the final clause (= [B437.10]) which then could be read as ta dėžė naktį jai bus namas ‘this box will be a house for it by night’. The relation between the sheep and the box is one of occasional employment of the latter by the former. The example states the general availability of the box for the purpose of sheltering the sheep. This constellation has a possessive component as one participant (= the sheep) is entitled to make use of the other (= the box) and thus the participants behave like possessor and possessee in bona fide possessive constructions. Nevertheless, a strong benefactive component remains as well, meaning the sheep is the one for whom the box is meant, for whom it was made, etc. This fact adds to the impression that (B437.10) and (B439) represent a borderline case. A look at (B440) reveals that the dative-constructions in general pose problems when we try to subsume them indiscriminately under the heading possession. (B440)

Lithuanian [LPP Lithuanian, XXVII.34] čia man gražiausias ir liūdniausias pasaulyje here I.dat beautiful:sup:nom.m and sad:sup:nom.m world:loc.f gamtovaizdis landscape:nom.m ‘This is for me the most beautiful and most melancholic landscape in the world.’

Formally, it is next to impossible to tell whether we are dealing with a possessive dative or a dative of interest. The context in which (B438) is uttered is the following: the narrator looks at a picture of the Sahara desert and starts reminiscing about his adventures with the Little Prince. In (B440) the narrator expresses his subjective attitude – mixed emotions – towards this desert where he met and lost his friend. Given this attitudinal function, we expect the sentence to represent a dative of interest. On the other hand,



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

in purely structural terms, there is nothing that prevents us from translating (B440) as ‘here I have the most beautiful and most melancholic landscape in the world’. This would not be too far removed from other marginal possessive relations with an abstract possessee like those mentioned in (B437). Senn (1966: 413) has a handful of examples of the dative of interest which can be located on the border between a benefactive reading and a possessive reading, cf. (B441). The dative NP is marked in boldface. (B441)

Lithuanian Kam tas šienelis? – Karvems ėsti. ‘For whom is his hay? – For the cows   to eat.’ Kas aš tau? ‘What am I to you? ‘Am I a farm-hand for you?’ Ar aš tau bernas?

The cows do not have the hay but they are the ones for whose good the hay is meant. The other two examples are questions which again highlight subjective attitudes: does the farmer consider his antagonist to be a member of his workforce although this is not the case legally? What the questioner asks for is the social classification of himself by the addressee. This is an instance of a dative of interest. However, the questions are such that they have a possessive tinge in so far as the farmer might indeed consider the questioner “his farm-hand”. Schmalstieg (1987: 229–230) touches upon the possessive dative and depicts it albeit indirectly as the formerly more common (perhaps even general) predicative possessive construction of Lithuanian. His example (B442) is – most probably taken from a historical source pre-dating the 20th century. (B442)

Lithuanian (Schmalstieg 1987: 229) nėr man tėvelio nėr man močiutės neg:be.3 I.dat father:dim:gen.m neg:be.3 I.dat mother:dim:gen.f ‘I do not have a father nor a mother.’

Quoting from Lithuanian sources, Schmalstieg (1987: 229) argues that the above usage of the possessive dative has given way to the turėti-construction and that a combination with possessees of the kinship class, as in (B442), would be blocked for the possessive dative. Moreover, Lithuanian’s closest relative, Latvian, exclusively employs the Dative Schema for possessive purposes in predication. All this adds up to the interpretation of the current situation in Lithuanian as the intermediate stage of a long-term marginalisation process during which the erstwhile dominating possessive dative construction is continually losing ground to the innovative turėti-construction. The first areas to be vacated by the possessive dative are those where prototypical possessees are involved. The above borderline cases can be regarded as relics of the old possessive function of the dative. Nowadays, even where descriptive grammars distinguish the possessive dative from the dative of interest, as Senn (1966) does, both dative categories are associated with subjectivity either of the possessor or the benefactive. The slow ousting of

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

the possessive dative by the turėti-construction is also reflected by the occasional competition of both constructions with illnesses and ailments as possessees, cf. (B443). (B443)

Lithuanian (Lapinskas & Tekorienė 2004: 179)

(B443.1)

aš turiu temperatūros

‘I have a temperature.’

(B443.2)

man šienligė man diabetes man astmas

‘I have/suffer from hay fever.’ ‘I have/suffer from diabetes.’ ‘I have/suffer from asthma.’

Both constructions additionally compete with other constructions based on experiential verbs such as skaudėti ‘to hurt’, etc. Note that in all of these alternative constructions, the experiencer is in the dative, whereas the hurting body-part (or the noun representing the ailment) is either in the nominative/genitive (= grammatical subject) or in the accusative as in mandative skauda galvąaccusative ‘I have a headache’ (Lapinskas & Tekorienė 2004: 179). This additional complication notwithstanding, it is clear that illnesses belong to the genuine domain of the possessive dative, although the turėti-construction seems to be making inroads. If it is at all possible to interpret the Lithuanian data in terms of possession research, the “system” of modern Lithuanian is such that there is a bipartition: prototypical possessees take the turėti-construction, others require the possessive dative – especially if the possessor is affected personally, cf. (B444). (B444)

The Lithuanian “system” possessee

construction turėti

human X body part X X clothes X objects illnesses X physico-mental states abstract concepts

possessive dative Z Z Z Z Y Y Y

X indicates the distribution of the turėti-construction, Y marks the domain of the proper possessive dative. The bold Z covers those contexts in which dative-constructions are possible but normally receive the interpretation of a dative of interest. We do not have to travel far on the linguistic map of Europe to find a system of predicative possession which resembles the Lithuanian one. In Russian, there is also a possession split which keeps relations with concrete possessees apart from those which involve abstract possessees. In the general literature on linguistic possession, however, this split is rarely addressed. What one finds normally in the paragraphs which deal



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

with possession in Russian are examples like U menja kniga ‘I have a book’ (Heine 1997: 51) mostly meant to show that a language does not need a transitive have-verb in predicative possession. Interestingly, Russian boasts of three different predicative-possessive construction types – two of which are hardly ever mentioned in the general linguistic literature. In the Russian grammar by Berneker & Vasmer (1971: 102) we read that ‘Haben’, wenn es sich um einen wirklichen Besitz handelt, drückt der Russe aus durch ‚bei mir ist’, u mit Gen[itiv]: u menja est’ dom ‚ich habe ein Haus’. Liegt auf dem ‚haben’ kein Ton, so kann est’ wegfallen, etwa: u menja dom kamennyj ‚ich habe ein steinernes Haus’; oder u menja dom, a u nego dača ‚ich habe ein Haus, aber er hat eine Villa’. […] Wenn mit ‚haben’ kein realer Besitz bezeichnet wird, wird es mit imet’ wiedergegeben, d.h. in Verbindung mit abstrakten Begriffen oder in wissenschaftlichen Definitionen: zemlja imeet formu šara ‚die Erde hat die Form einer Kugel’.

This quote contains information about the three construction types we are interested in. First of all, there is the above mentioned construction in which the possessor is part of a PP headed by the preposition u ‘at’. The noun governed by this preposition is in the genitive. The possessee is represented by a noun which – according to the polarity of the sentence – is either in the nominative or in the genitive. Possessor-NP and possessee-NP may or may not be connected to one another by a form of the verb byt’ ‘to be’. We follow Tauscher & Kirschbaum (1983: 465, 467) in their interpretation of byt’ in possessive constructions as an existential verb rather than as a copula. The presence/absence of the verb is determined by tense: only in the present tense is a variation of zero vs. est(’/sut’) ‘(there) is(/ [there] are)’ possible; outside this context (past, future), there is always a form of byt’. In addition, the presence of byt’ in yesno-questions and answers to such questions seems to be obligatory (Berneker & Vasmer 1971: 102). Thus, we have two construction types based on this general schema – one with and the other without a form of byt’ in the present tense. The presence and absence of byt’ obeys certain rules i.e., it is not random. If the possessee is specified semantically or pragmatically, byt’ is normally left out. Byt’ occurs mainly in those cases in which the possessee remains “generic” in the sense that it represents a very general class of concepts. Byt’-zero alternation reflects the distinction of current vs. other possessive relations and additionally also the possessee-related distinction of generic vs. specific. These two formally related constructions contrast with a construction type which involves a full-blown have-verb, namely imet’. Imet’ has a possessor as subject (in the nominative) and a possessee as direct object (in the accusative under positive polarity, in the genitive under negative polarity). According to our above quoted source, imet’ is used with abstract possessees – the possessive relation is then characterised as one which does not involve “realen Besitz”. This is in line with Tauscher & Kirschbaum’s (1983: 466, footnote 1) observation that imet’ is used with abstract possessees and in idioms. Their list of examples is reproduced in (B445).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B445)

Russian imet’ vozmožnost’ imet’ značenie imet’ pravo imet’ slavo imet’ slučaj imet’ sčast’e imet’ čest’ imet’ otnoščenie k imet’ ponjatie o imet’ predstavlenie o imet’ mesto

‘to have the possibility’ ‘to have a meaning’ ‘to be right’ ‘to have the right to speak’ ‘to have the opportunity’ ‘to be lucky’ ‘to have the honour’ ‘to have relations to/with’ ‘to have an idea of ’ ‘to have an idea of ’ ‘to take place’

As an intermediate result, we can formulate the following three-way distinction regulating the Russian system of predicative possession: • the superordinate distinction is the one which divides the possessees along the lines of the concrete vs. abstract distinction – abstract possessees require the use of the have-verb imet’; • if the possessee is concrete, the constructions with/without forms of byt’ have to be used; • the distinction of current vs. other possessive relations is crucial; if the possessive relation belongs to the past or future sphere, the presence of a form of byt’ is compulsory; • if the possessive relation applies currently, it becomes important whether or not the possessee is semantically and/or pragmatically specified; if it is specific in this sense, est’ does not occur; if the possessee is generic and pragmatically neutral, est’ is a necessary ingredient of the construction. Superficially, the distinction of abstract vs. concrete possessees is reminiscent of the Lithuanian situation above. What strikes the eye in this connection is the fact that Lithuanian and Russian employ their construction types differently. Both have a fullblown have-verb. Russian reserves imet’ for abstract possessees whereas Lithuanian utilizes turėti for prototypical i.e., mostly concrete possessees. Both languages also have constructions in which the possessor-NP is not the grammatical subject (this function is associated with the possessee-NP). However, the Russian constructions are employed for concrete possessees and the Lithuanian ones for abstract possessees. Of course, what we have said so far is not the entire story. First of all, Tauscher & Kirschbaum (1983: 466, footnote 1) observe that in colloquial Russian, imet’ is used occasionally with concrete possessees, too – a practice which they consider a violation of the literary norm. What is more, in the Russian verb lexicon (Daum & Schenk 1971: 184), the entry for imet’ registers as the first German translation equivalent of haben ‘to have’ and even besitzen ‘to own’. This combination of properties calls for a closer



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

look at the empirical data. In the extant general linguistic literature on possession, the co-presence of imet’ and byt’-constructions/byt’-less constructions is mostly discussed in a diachronic perspective i.e., in order to decide which of the constructions is oldest and which is a newcomer (cf. for instance Heine [1997: 232]). If one looks at the frequency of the three constructions in the Russian translation of Le Petit Prince, it is immediately clear that imet’ cannot compete with the two other constructions in terms of attestations. Of 64 instances of predicative possession in this sample text, only five attest to imet’ (= 7.8%). The remaining 59 cases are not all suited for our purposes because they belong to the non-present sphere and thus do not help us understand when byt’ is employed and when it is not. In (B444), we present those sentences in which est’ occurs. (B447) in turn contains those examples from which est’ is missing. The use of imet’ is illustrated by the examples in (B448). For the examples in (B446)–(B448), we only consider types. Wherever one and the same possessee occurs more than once with a given construction, we do not document these additional occurrences. (B446)

Russian predicative possession with byt’

(B446.1)

[LPP Russian, XXI.20] u ljudej est’ ruž’ja at people.gen.pl exi rifle:nom.pl ‘The people have rifles.’

(B446.2)

[LPP Russian, XIII.102] u menja est’ tri vulkana at I:gen exi three:nom volcano:gen.sg ‘I have three volcanoes.’

(B446.3)

[LPP Russian, XIII.89] jesli u menja est’ cevtok ja mogu sorvat’ if at I:gen exi flower:nom.sg I:nom can:1sg pick:inf ‘If I have a flower, I can pick’

(B446.4)

[LPP Russian, IX.46] u menja že est’ kogti at I:gen still exi claw:nom.pl ‘I have claws, though.’

(B446.5)

[LPP Russian, XV.89] u nejo tol’ko i est’ čto četyre šipa at she:gen only and exi that four:nom thorn:gen.sg ‘All she has got are four thorns.’

(B446.6)

[LPP Russian, IV.8] u menja est’ veskije osnovanija polagat’ at I:gen exi serious:nom.pl reason:nom.pl assume:inf ‘I have good reason to believe…’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B446.7)

[LPP Russian, XXI.102] u moix oxotnikov est’ at my:gen.pl hunter:gen.pl exi ‘My hunters have the following habit:…’

takoj such

obrjad habit

The use of est’ in possessive constructions occurs in seven types with a total token frequency of 13. This ideally leaves 46 tokens for the byt’-less construction type. However, the number of actual attestations is smaller because the presence/absence of byt’ depends on tense. (B447)

Russian predicative possession without byt’

(B447.1)

[LPP Russian, XI.8] kakaja u vas zabavnaja šljapa how:nom.sg.f at you(pl):gen funny:nom.sg.f hat:nom.sg ‘What a funny hat you have!’

(B447.2)

[LPP Russian, XIII.88] jesli u menja šolkovyj platok if at I:gen satin:nom.sg.m scarf:nom.sg ‘If I had a satin scarf…’

(B447.3)

[LPP Russian, XIII.93] pišu na bumazke skol’ko u menja zvjozd write:1sg on piece_of_paper:loc.sg how_many at I:gen star:gen.pl ‘I write down on a piece of paper, how many stars I have.’

(B447.4)

[LPP Russian, IV.25] skol’ko u nego brat’jev how_many at he:gen brother:gen.pl ‘How many brothers does he have?’

(B447.5)

[LPP Russian, II.53] u nego roga at he:gen horn:nom.pl ‘It [= the sheep] has horns.’

(B447.6)

[LPP Russian, VII.22] oni dumajut jesli u nich sipy ix vse they:nom think:3pl if at they:gen thorn:nom.pl they:gen all:nom.pl bojatsa fear:3pl:ref ‘They think that if they have thorns everybody will fear them.’

(B447.7)

[LPP Russian, XVII.47] u tebja daže lap net at you:gen even paw.gen.pl neg.exi ‘You don’t even have paws.’



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B447.8)

[LPP Russian, XVIII.13] u nich net kornej at they:gen neg root.gen.pl ‘They don’t have roots.’

(B447.9)

[LPP Russian, XXI.69] no u tebja zolotyje volosy but at you:gen golden:nom.pl hair:nom.pl ‘But you have golden hair.’

(B447.10)

[LPP Russian, XXV.48] a u lisicy tvojej uši točno roga and at fox:gen your:gen.sg.f ear:nom.pl exactly_like horn:nom.pl ‘And your fox has ears like horns!’

(B447.11)

[LPP Russian, IV.20] a kakoj u nego golos and how:nom.sg.m at he:gen voice:nom.sg ‘And what voice does he have?’

(B447.12)

[LPP Russian, XXVI.20] a u tebja xorosij jad and at you:gen good:nom.sg.m poison:nom.sg ‘And do you have good poison?’

(B447.13)

[LPP Russian, XIV.30] tjazkoje u menja remeslo difficult:nom.sg.n at I:gen job:nom.sg ‘I have a difficult job

(B447.14)

[LPP Russian, XV.96] u nego neploxaja reputacija at she:gen not:bad:nom.sg.f reputation:nom.sg ‘She has a good reputation.’

(B447.15)

[LPP Russian, XVII.45] no moguščestva u menja bol’še cem v pal’ce korolja but power:gen.sg at I:gen more than in finger:loc.sg king:gen.sg ‘I have more power than there is in the king’s finger.’

(B447.16)

[LPP Russian, XIV.40] u menja net ni sekundy peredyski at I:gen neg.exi emph.neg second:gen.sg rest:gen.sg ‘I do not have a second of rest.’

(B447.17)

[LPP Russian, XXI.55] skučnaja u menja žizn’ boring:nom.sg.f at I:gen life:nom.sg ‘I have a boring life.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B447.18)

[LPP Russian, XXI.76] no u menja tak malo vremeni but at I:gen so little time:gen.sg ‘But I have so little time.’

(B447.19)

[LPP Russian, X.94] dlja karety u menja net mesta for coach:gen.sg at I:gen neg.exi space:gen.sg ‘I do not have space for a coach.’

(B447.20)

[LPP Russian, XIII.76] jesli ty najdjoš almaz u kotorogo if you:nom find:2sg diamond:acc.sg at which:gen.sg.m net xozjaina neg.exi owner:gen.sg ‘If you find a diamond which has no owner…’

The byt’-less construction covers altogether 20 types with a total token frequency of 29 attestations. Thus, in present tense contexts, it is more common than the construction with est’. The relation of byt’-less construction to those equipped with a form of byt’ is 2.8-to-1 for types and 2.3-to-1 for tokens. With five types (= five tokens!), imet’ is the least frequent of the three constructions. (B448)

Russian imet’-constructions

(B448.1)

[LPP Russian, IV.36] jemu xotelos’ imet’ baraška he:dat want:past:3sg.nt:ref have:inf sheep:dim:gen.sg ‘He wanted to have a sheep.’

(B448.2)

[LPP Russian, XXI.81] potomu ljudi bol’ še ne imejut druzej therefore people:nom.pl anymore neg have:3pl friend.gen.pl ‘Therefore people do not have friends anymore.’

(B448.3)

[LPP Russian, X.689] ja imeju pravo trebovat’ poslušamija I:nom have:1sg right:nom.sg demand:inf obedience:gen.sg ‘I have the right to demand obedience.’

(B448.4)

[LPP Russian, XIV.31] kogda-to eto imelo smysl when-indef this:nom.sg.nt have:part.perf:nt sense:acc.sg ‘Sometime ago this made sense.’

(B448.5)

[LPP Russian, XV.81] potux vulkan ili dejstvujet ne imejet burn­out:past.m volcano:nom.sg or work:3sg neg have:3sg



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

značenija meaning:gen.sg ‘Whether the volcano is active or not is irrelevant.’

Disregarding the quantitative differences, we observe the following phenomena. The byt’-less construction is used very often when the possessee co-occurs with an attribute semantically specifying the possessee. The attribute may come in various shapes: an adjective, a numeral or quantifier, an apposition, a genitive attribute, etc. This applies to 14 of the 20 types presented in (B447), for instance (B447.9) zolotyje volosy ‘golden hair’, (B447.10) uši točno roga ‘ears like horns’, (B447.16) ni sekundy peredyski ‘not a second of rest’, (B447.18) malo vremeni ‘little time’, etc. There is thus a tendency for byt’-less constructions to occur with syntactically heavy possessee-NPs. That this is not the exclusive monopoly of byt’-less constructions results from the fact that four of the seven possessee-NPs in (446) are heavy, too (cf. [B444.2] and [B444.5] where numerals combine with the possessee noun and [B446.6]–[B446.7] where adjectival attributes occur). Constructions with and without forms of byt’ have overlapping domains if we only take into account the syntactic weight of the possessed NP. Very interestingly, all five attestations of the imet’-construction contain syntactically light possessee NPs. What about those instances of byt’-less constructions whose possessee-NPs are light? In most of these cases, it is easy to detect a pragmatic motivation for the absence of byt’. The fact that the sheep painted by the narrator has horns and thus fails to meet the expectations of the Little Prince is reason enough to block the use of est’ in (B447.5). Likewise, (B447.7) is uttered with a certain dose of indignation as the person is characterised as lacking an essential body-part (= paws) – according to the worldview of the speaker. Much the same is true of the humans characterised as “root-less” in (B447.8) because the interlocutors would expect any being to have roots. Thus, the examples (B447.5), (B447.7) and (B447.8) are on an unexpected state of affairs. One could also extend this interpretation to (B447.6): in this example, the unlikelihood of potential enemies being scared off by the rose’s thorns is indirectly (perhaps prosodically supported when read out aloud) expressed. The belief of the rose that it is well-armoured against its foes is depicted as utter nonsense and thus is pragmatically marked as it contrasts with reality. A contrast is also created in (B447.20), namely the contrast between diamonds which already belong to someone and those which still do not have an owner. In (B447.19), the possessive construction is the comment to the topic dlja karety ‘for coaches’ i.e., it is part of a pragmatically marked utterance. This theory of pragmatically-based motivation of the byt’-less construction receives support from the absence of pragmatic prominence in most of the examples for the constructions containing est’. However, two of these examples nevertheless carry pragmatic emphasis: (B446.4) is the self-centered response of the rose to a critical remark by the Little Prince. The rose insists on her being able to protect herself with her thorns. Example (B446.5) focuses on the same subject matter because it is again a comment on

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

the fact that the rose has only four thorns and nothing else. This comment is presented in the form of a pseudo-cleft sentence i.e., in a pragmatically motivated deviation from the neutral sentence format. According to Tauscher & Kirschbaum (1983: 463), the use of est’ in constructions of the latter kind is obligatory. The authors also claim that est’ is employed for the purpose of emphasis (Tauscher & Kirschbaum 1983: 463). What exactly they intend to say with “zum Zwecke der Hervorhebung” remains unclear to us, however. In the case of imet’-constructions, the absence or presence of focus properties do not seem to play a decisive role. In order to take stock of what we have come to know so far, we will recapitulate our observations. Syntactic weight is a factor which influences which of the three constructions is employed. Imet’ normally takes light possessee NPs. For heavy possessee NPs, the byt’-less construction is the prime candidate although the competing construction with a form of byt’ is by no means ruled out. If the utterance there is marked pragmatically byt’-less constructions may also take syntactically light possessee NPs – much more often than is the case for constructions with byt’. Under the proviso that the statistics are not yet conclusive, we assume – in accordance with our above sources – that the construction with byt’ is employed preferably with neutral pragmatics and light possessee NPs. At this point, we have to tackle the co-occurrence of both imet’-constructions and byt’-constructions with light possessee NPs. We will address this issue via a short detour. The first two examples of imet’ (B458.1)–(B458.2) do not fit into the picture painted in connection with the list in (B445) because they contain possessees which cannot be regarded as abstract concepts. Before we scrutinise these cases, we will take a closer look at the examples which meet our expectations. First of all, it is not correct that imet’ combines freely with all kinds of abstract concepts nor that the other two constructions are excluded from combinations with abstract possessees. For byt’-constructions, we have veskije osnovanija ‘good reasons’ in (446.6) and takoj obrjad ‘such a habit’ in (B446.7), i.e., two abstract concepts whose NPs are complex. The same applies to the abstract possessees and their syntactic representatives in byt’-less constructions. These include tjazkoje nemeslo ‘difficult job’ in (B447.13), neploxaja reputacija ‘good reputation’ in (B447.14), bol’še moguščestva ‘bigger power’ in (B447.15), ni sekundy peredyski ‘not a second of rest’ in (B447.16), skučnaja žizn’ ‘boring life’ in (B447.17) and malo vremeni ‘little time’ in (B447.18). What we see here is a clear split along the lines of syntactic weight: heavy abstract possessees avoid imet’, light abstract possessees accept only imet’. Moreover, this weight-based argument may receive a semantic interpretation. Wherever the possessee-NP is complex the possessee itself is made more specific via attribution – a procedure which also renders the possessee-NP more referential and qualifies it as a potential head of relative clauses or the reference point of an anaphor, etc. This contrasts with the light abstract possessee-NPs combining with imet’: they are usually not referential themselves and display evident signs of decategorialisation as they no longer have all the morphosyntactic properties one expects of a full-blown noun. In a way, the possessees of imet’ are closely bound to the have-verb as they are



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

immediately adjacent to it and are invariably in post-verbal position. Imet’ and the following noun (or NP) form a complex unit which may be considered a light-verb construction (Jäger 2006). In a way, imet’ takes a (pseudo-)object NP which represents the most generic kind of possessed concept. The two competing constructions however, allow for specific-referential concepts. Thus, the imet’-construction is furthest away from prototypical possession. It is responsible for the expression of purely abstract non-specific concepts. This statement also answers our initial question of how the distribution of syntactically light possessee-NPs over two to three constructions may be explained: byt’-less constructions take referential possessee-NPs, byt’-constructions take specific possessee-NPs and imet’-constructions take generic possessee-NPs. The problem of the occasional use of imet’ as have-verb with concrete possessees still remains. Examples (B448.1)–(B448.2) even contain animate possessees – sheep and friends. In the Russian translation of the first book of the Harry Potter series, we also find a couple of additional examples with inanimate concrete possessees represented by object NPs governed by imet’, cf. (B449) which also contains an example with an animate possessee. (B449)

Russian – additional imet’-constructions

(B449.1)

[HP I Russian, 80] ty xotel by imet’ drakona you:nom want:past:m subj have:inf dragon:gen.sg ‘You want to have a dragon?’

(B449.2)

[HP I Russian, 82] pervokursnikam ne položeno imet’ sobstvennye first-year_student:dat.pl neg allowed:nt have:inf own:acc.pl mjotly broom-sticks:acc.pl ‘First-years are not allowed to have broom-sticks.’

(B449.3)

[HP I Russian, 93] ne mogu ponjat’ počemu pervokursnikam neg can:1sg understand:inf why first-year_student:dat.pl nel’zja ix imet’ not_allowed they:acc have:inf ‘I can’t understand why first-years must not have them [= broom-sticks].’

What at first looks like a riddle is in fact the consistent application of the rules established above. If we discount the peculiar example (B448.1) for the time being, we may subsume all other cases under the class generic possessees. Imet’ druzej ‘to have friends’ in (B448.2) describes a generic relation – the friends are neither referential, nor specific. The situation refers to the general ability of being compatible socially with other humans. Similarly, (B449.1) reflects – via Harry’s astonished question – Hagrid’s very general desire to have a dragon, any dragon, to care for. Hagrid wants to become a dragon-keeper – the possessee-NP thus is not referential, nor fully specific as there

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

is no individual dragon to which the interlocutors refer. Likewise, the two remaining examples (B449.2)–(B449.3) make statements about the general possibility that freshmen at Hogwarts are not allowed to bring along magic broom-sticks. The prohibition is general – it does not apply to specific, individual broom-sticks. As soon the talk is about a specific individual broom-stick, however, a different construction has to be used, namely the one illustrated in (B450). (B450)

Russian [HP I Russian, 93] (cf. [B446.3]) a y tebja est’ svoja sobstvennaja metla and at you:gen exi poss:nom.sg.f own:nom.sg.f broom-stick:nom.sg ‘And do you have your own broom-stick?’

Draco Malfoy, who had uttered (B449.3) shortly before, asks Harry whether or not he has a broom-stick of his own. Being one’s own makes the broom-stick specific and referential. Accordingly, imet’ is ruled out. The byt’-construction is given preference over the byt’-less construction because the focus of the question is the existence of a broom-stick of Harry’s own (and not the distinctive properties of the individual broomstick). On the basis of these observations, it is also possible to include (B448.1) in our explanation: the Little Prince wants to have a sheep – just like Hagrid longs to have a dragon (cf. above). He does not care so much for which sheep he might get in the end, the important aspect is that he will have a sheep at all. The possessee baraška ‘sheep’ in (B448.1) is neither specific, nor referential. The possessee-NP does not represent an individual, but rather a generic class. In sum, imet’-constructions are used if the possessee is of the most generic kind. This also applies to the supposed exceptions which involve concrete and animate possessees. As a matter of fact, one could even interpret these cases as inherently abstract as the relation of possessor and possessee is of a very general kind. The Russian system is organised differently from other systems scrutinised so far because genericity is not normally a prime parameter in split possession. We sketch out the Russian system in (B451). For obvious reasons, the schematic rendering of our findings is only an approximation which fails to do justice to the many hidden aspects of the intricate architecture of predicative possession in Russian. (B451)

The Russian “system”

construction + present

±present

possessee

byt’-less

byt’

imet’

concrete human animate inanimate abstract

X X X X referential

Y Y Y Y specific genericity

Z Z Z Z generic



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Were it not for the relatively rare instances of concrete possessees in imet’-constructions discussed above (cf. [B448.1]–[B448.2] and [B449]), the superficial observer could have serious doubts that imet’ has anything to do with possession at all because the overwhelming majority of the attested cases are located on the outer margins of the scope of possession. However, this does not mean that imet’-constructions are negligible entities. A cursory search of the online dictionary Multitran has yielded 33 pages of patterns in which imet’ is used. This yields almost 700 constructions, many of which are set phrases or fixed expressions. Thus, imet’ is quantitatively strong as to the number of types in which it occurs. Their token frequency however, seems to be relatively low. On the whole, alienability and inalienability do not seem to be key notions in the organisation of the Russian system, although they might play a role on lower levels. The distinction of generic vs. non-generic together with the one of current vs. non-current forms the major axes of (B451). For the other East Slavic languages Ukrainian, Bielarusian, Mayo (1993: 934–935) and Shevelov (1993: 987–988) report that there is a dichotomy of cognates of Russian imet’ ‘to have’ vs. PPs of the Russian u menja-type, too. The said authors describe the situation as the co-existence of fully synonymous constructions. According to these sources, the haveverbs of Ukrainian and Bielorusian have the same range of functions as the Russian PP-construction. However, native speakers (Nataliya Levkovych, p.c., Oxana Schwartz) do not fully accept this view. To their minds, the PP can be used to focus on current physical possession whereas the have-verb is more appropriate in situations when the possessor does not have the possessee an him/her. Since we lack further information at the moment, we will later subsume all East Slavic languages under a common type. We will now leave the Indo-European sphere behind and take a look at three nonIndo-European languages: Finnish, Turkish and Georgian. We will start with Finnish because it is situated in roughly the same area as Lithuanian and Russian. From the little that is said about Finnish predicative possession in Sulkala & Karjalainen (1992: 178–179), one does not expect to find any convincing evidence of possession splits (for possession splits in Finnish attributive possession, cf. section 5.1.1 above). The authors emphasise that “[t]here is no clearly distinguishable difference between alienable and inalienable possession in Finnish” (Sulkala & Karjalainen 1992: 178). Nevertheless, they point at rather subtle (sometimes only quantitative) differences some of which suggest that there might be a kind of covert distinction, maybe even several distinctions. In this way, the authors try to show that the alienability correlation sometimes works, albeit very indirectly, cf. (B452). (B452)

Finnish (Sulkala & Karjalainen 1992: 178)

(B452.1)

Genitive pojan käsi on kipeä boy:gen hand be.3sg sore ‘The boy’s hand is sore.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(B452.2)

Adessive pojalla on käsi kipeä boy:ade be.3sg hand sore ‘The boy has a sore hand.’

The hypothesis put forward by the authors is that the genitive (= [B452.1]) is more often employed with inalienable possessees than the adessive (= [B452.2]) whose domain is with alienable possessees. Nevertheless, as shown by the pair of sentences in (B452), both constructions are grammatically well-formed and pragmatically acceptable independent of the alienability/inalienability of the possessee. In the absence of a statistical evaluation of the uses to which the various cases are put in Finnish, we cannot comment further on this hypothesis. In addition, Sulkala & Karjalainen (1992: 178) consider the so-called “split possessive construction” (cf. e.g., [B341] above) a good test case for alienability in Finnish, cf. (B453). (B453) (B453.1)

Finnish (Sulkala & Karjalainen 1992: 178) Inalienable mies on nopea jaloistaan man be.3sg quick foot:pl:ela:POR.3 ‘The man is quick on his feet.’

(B453.2) Alienable * tyttö on nopea koirastaan girl be.3sg quick dog:ela:POR.3 ‘The girl is quick on her dog.’

The split possessive construction only apply to inalienable relations (= [B453.1]) whereas alienable relations do not allow for the application of the construction (= [B453.2]). The split possessive construction thus is semantically blocked. It remains unclear to us how far one can get with this argument. In principle, the examples show that there are restrictions on the combinations a given item can enter. These restrictions are determined by semantic factors – and these semantic factors might not be specific to Finnish. It is very likely that an utterance with the same meaning as (B453.2) fails to make sense in many languages, if not universally. Be that as it may, one has to admit in any case that the evidence for an alienability-based distinction is not directly discernible. It is clearly indirect and restricted to very specific contexts. This is different with the distinction of temporary vs. permanent possession and of different types of possession according to the animacy of the possessor. Sulkala & Karjalainen (1992: 178–179) argue that there are indeed distinct formal expressions for these categories. For the time-based distinction of temporary vs. permanent possession, the authors add the proviso that the evidence is again somewhat indirect. The standard form of predicative possession in Finnish is at least as well known from the general literature on our topic as the Russian construction in (B446). In Finnish



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

there is no proper have-verb. Possession is predicated via the Locative Schema (Heine 1997: 206). The possessor is in the adessive, whereas the possessee is either in the nominative or in the partitive. The construction is made complete by a (singular) form of the verb olla ‘to be’. In (B454) we give a list of examples of this construction drawn from the Finnish translation of the first volume of the Harry-Potter series. (B454)

Finnish

(B454.1)

[HP I Finnish, 7] Herra ja rouva Dursleylla oli pieni poika Mister and Mistress Dursley:ade be:past.3sg little boy ‘Mr and Mrs Dursley had a little boy.’

(B454.2)

[HP I Finnish, 93] sinulla on äitisi silmät you:ade be.3sg mother:POR.2sg eye:nom.pl ‘You have your mother’s eyes.’

(B454.3)

[HP I Finnish, 104] ja heillä oli pöllo and they:ade be:past.3sg owl ‘And they had an owl.’

(B454.4)

[HP I Finnish, 55] minulla on ase I:ade be.3sg rifle ‘I have a rifle!’

(B454.5)

[HP I Finnish, 202] minulla ei ole nälkä I:ade neg.be.3sg be hunger ‘I am not hungry.’

(B454.6)

[HP I Finnish, 269] myös Malfoylla oli jälki-istuntoa also Malfoy:ade be:past.3sg detention:ptv ‘Malfoy also had detention.’

The construction under scrutiny is widely used and the possessees compatible with it cover the entire range of potential concepts. We find kin terms as in (B454.1), bodypart terminology as in (B454.2), animate possessees as in (B454.3), concrete object as in (B454.4), physico-mental states as in (B454.5) and more abstract concepts as in (B454.6). It is important to note that the temporal dimension does not make a difference in the above cases. The parent-child relation of (B454.1) is of course permanent no matter how fast the little boy turns into a big boy. The same time-stability applies to the eye colour Harry Potter has inherited from his mother (= [B454.2]). For the

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

remaining cases, the fact that the possessive relation applies at the reference time is important. (B454.3) and (B454.4) describe situations in which the presence of the rifle and the owl respectively, is crucial. It is irrelevant whether the possessive relation continues beyond the reference time or dissolves. Moreover, (B454.5) and (B454.6) clearly refer to a current state of affairs. Harry Potter experiences the lack of hunger at this precise moment – and not for a longer span of time. Similarly, Draco Malfoy has to face detention on this particular occasion only. The temporal aspects of possession are neutralised. Sulkala & Karvalainen (1992: 178) claim that there is a possibility of emphasising temporary possession by inverting the relative order of possessor > possessee to possessee > possessor. What they do not mention is the change of status of the verb olla ‘to be’: In the so-called habitive construction with possessor > possessee order, olla functions as an existential verb which is exempt from number agreement (cf. [B454.2] where silmät ‘[the] eyes’ is formally marked for plural but the verb form on ‘is’ remains in the singular). When the relative order of possessor and possessee is inverted however, olla behaves more like a copula and is then also potentially sensitive to number. Examples of this kind are hard to come by in our sample texts. Where they are mentioned in the literature, the examples normally illustrate spatial allocation as in kupit ovat pöydällä {cup:nom:pl} {be:3pl} {table:ade} ‘the cups are on the table’ (Karlsson 1978: 124). More possessive-like examples are sentences such as the ones in (B455). (B455)

Finnish

(B455.1)

[HP I Finnish, 204] kaato on Luihuisella quaffle be.3sg Slytherin:ade ‘Slytherin has the quaffle.’

(B455.2)

[HP I Finnish, 210] minulla on sieppi I:ade be.3sg snitch ‘I have the snitch!’

Both examples are taken from the description of Harry Potter’s first Quidditch match. In (B455.1), the reporter tells the spectators which team is currently in possession of the quaffle (= one of the four balls used in the game). The quaffle passes from one team to the other in quick succession. Accordingly, Slytherin loses the quaffle to the Gryffindor team immediately after (B455.1) is uttered. Slytherin was in possession of the quaffle exactly and only at the reference time. This ephemeral character of the possessive relation is symbolised by the use of a construction with inverted possessorpossessee order. However, in (B455.2) Harry Potter shouts that he has got the Snitch (= the most important of the four balls used in the game). Of course, he has the ball under his physical control exactly at the moment he utters (B455.2) and after the match is over the Snitch goes back into a chest (meaning: it does not remain with Harry). In



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

contrast to the situation described in the previous example (B455.1) however getting hold of the Snitch immediately terminates the match, i.e., this ball cannot pass from hand to hand. Harry Potter’s possession of the ball cannot be contested. Thus, the use of the normal possessor-possessee order is justified. Last but not least, Sulkala & Karjalainen (1992: 178–179) look at the influence the possessor has on the choice of predicative possessive constructions. They observe that “[i]t is important in Finnish whether the owner is animate or inanimate” (Sulkala & Karjalainen 1992: 178). As a matter of fact, all possessors in (B452)–(B455) are human beings. If the possessor is inanimate however, the adessive case is no longer possible on the possessor-NP. The adessive is replaced by the inessive -ssa/-ssä. Since the main function of the inessive is the indication of the location of an entity inside another entity, it becomes very difficult to distinguish spatial readings from purely possessive ones, cf. (B456). Karlsson (1978: 79) interprets the use of the inessive-construction differently as he assumes that its main function is the encoding of “intim samhörighet” i.e., very close association of possessor and possessee. (B456)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 45] Dursleyn talossa oli neljä makuuhuonetta Dursley:gen house:ine be:past.3sg four bedroom:ptv ‘The house of the Dursleys had four bedrooms ~ In the house of the Dursleys there were four bedrooms.’

This general difficulty notwithstanding, the restriction as such is telling. Inanimate possessors do not take the same case-marking as animate possessors. The choice of construction depends on properties of the possessor. Furthermore, Sulkala & Karjalainen (1992: 179) add that “[i]n some special cases indicating condition or quality it is also possible to use the internal local cases when referring to an animate ‘owner’”. We reproduce their example in (B457). (B457)

Finnish (Sulkala & Karjalainen 1992: 179)

(B457.1)

Adessive minulla on kuumetta I:ade be.3sg fever:ptv ‘I have a fever.’

(B457.2)

Inessive minussa on kuumetta I:ine be.3sg fever:ptv ‘I have a fever.’

We were unable to find examples of the inessive used in this function in our major sample texts. It seems to be only a relatively marginal option for speakers. Nevertheless, the possibility of using the inessive in lieu of the adessive follows a well-defined logic

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

because it is legitimate only if the possessee is a physico-mental state (and thus affects the possessors body and associated concepts). Irrespective of the evident rarity with which the inessive is employed for physico-mental states in our sources, we will take Sulkala & Karjalainen’s (1992) statement at face value and accept it as valid. The Finnish system is more complicated than expected. This is partially caused by the optional and/or indirect character of most of the distinctions. The parameters interact in peculiar ways. The schema in (B458) sketches only the ground-plan of the supposed system. The highest ranking distinction based on our empirical data and the consulted literature is the distinction of animate vs. inanimate possessors. Inanimate possessors always take the inessive, whereas animate possessors may take either the inessive or the adessive. For animate possessors, there is then another bifurcation, namely the one that separates combinations with physico-mental states and concrete objects as possessees. The former allow possessors to be either in the inessive or the adessive, whereas concrete possessees only combine with possessors in the adessive. On the next level, concrete possessees may be possessed either temporarily or permanently. In the case of temporary possession, the possessor-NP may precede or follow the possessee-NP. If the possessive relation is permanent however, the possessor-NP always precedes the possessee-NP. (B458)

The Finnish “system” predicative possession



possessor:

possessee:

ℜ:

animate

inanimate

physico-mental states

concrete

permanent

temporary

POR > POS

POR > POS POS > POR

adessive inessive

inessive

For obvious reasons, we do not include the little evidence there is of the alienability correlation in this diagram. What strikes the eye is the position of the possessor properties. They rank higher than those of the possessee. The properties of the possessive relation as such are relevant only on the third level where the distinction of permanent vs. temporary becomes relevant.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

Turkish has two translation equivalents of English have-constructions none of which contains a proper have-verb. The two Turkish constructions instantiate the Genitive Schema (Heine 1997: 58) and the Location Schema (Heine 1997: 51), respectively. They are not synonymous in the sense that it is irrelevant whether the one or the other is used in a given context (Ersen-Rasch 1980: 62). The Genitive Schema is primarily employed for those relations which are (potentially) permanent. It may also be used in a neutralising way (cf. below). The morphosyntactic make-up of this construction type involves a sentence final existential verb in the 3rd person singular, and a possessee-NP in the nominative which also bears the possessor suffix. Additionally, there is also a slot for a lexical possessor-NP in the genitive. We present a small selection of examples from our usual sources in (B459). (B459)

Turkish: Genitive Schema

(B459.1)

[HP I Turkish, 9] Dursleyler’in Dudley adında bir de oğullari Dursley:pl:gen Dudley name:POR.3sg:abl indef too son:POR:pl:3 vardı exi:past ‘The Dursleys also had a son; named Dudley.’

(B459.2)

[HP I Turkish, 24] Harry’nin ince bir yüzü Harry:gen thin indef face:POR.3sg yamru yumru dizleri siyah saçları ve crooked knee:pl:POR.3sg black hair:pl:POR.3sg and parlak yeşil gözleri vardı shiny green eye:pl:POR.3sg exi:past ‘Harry had a thin face, crooked knees, black hair and shining green eyes.’

(B459.3)

[HP I Turkish, 62] bir ejderham olsun isterdim indef dragon:POR.1sg exi:opt want:past:1sg ‘I wished to have a dragon.’

(B459.4)

[HP I Turkish, 72] senin kendi süpürgen var mı you:gen self broom:POR.2sg exi Q ‘Do you have your own broom-stick?’

(B459.5)

[HP I Turkish, 60] sihirbazların bankaları mı var magician:pl:gen bank:POR:pl:3 Q exi ‘Do wizards have banks?’

(B459.6)

[HP I Turkish, 40] bir planı vardı indef plan:POR.3sg exi:past ‘He had a plan.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

As the above examples show, the Genitive Schema has a very wide domain which covers all sorts of possessees ranging from kinship (cf. [B459.1]) to body-part terminology (cf. [B459.2]), animate possessees (cf. [B459.3]) and inanimate concrete objects (cf. [B459.4]) to those objects which cannot be easily manipulated (cf. [B459.5]) and downright abstract concepts such as ideas, thoughts, plans (cf. [459.6]). The first five examples in (B459) are all instances of permanent possession, whereas the very last one is of course less time-stable. Yet, the plan Harry has made is there not only for a second. It is valid for a restricted, but nevertheless somewhat extended span of time, lasting until Harry tries to put the plan into practice the next morning. The Turkish Location Schema differs formally from the above Genitive Schema because the possessor-NP is inflected for the locative. Relatively often, the existential verb is not overtly present. The main function of this construction is to express a temporary possessive relation that is valid or relevant only at the reference time. (B460) contains a selection of pertinent examples again taken from the Turkish translation of the first volume of the Harry Potter series. (B460)

Turkish: Location Schema

(B460.1)

[HP I Turkish, 63] mektubun hâlâ sende mi letter:POR.2sg still you:loc Q ‘Do you still have your letter?’

(B460.2)

[HP I Turkish, 91] ama kadında Mars yoktu but woman:loc Mars neg.exi:past ‘However, the woman did not have Mars Bars.’

(B460.3)

[HP I Turkish, 69] anahtarı yanınızda mi efendim key:POR.3sg side:POR.2pl:loc Q sir:POR.1sg ‘Do you have his key, sir?’

In (B460.1), Hagrid wants to know whether Harry has the letter on him at this very moment. The temporal extension of the possessive relation is unimportant. The same applies to example (B460.2): Harry wants to buy as many Mars Bars as possible from the woman, who however, does not have any for sale. The (negative) possessive relation is relevant exactly at the moment at which Harry asks for the desired product. Whether or not the woman will have Mars Bars at a later time does not have any importance. The third case (= [B460.3]) is similar. The goblin asks Hagrid whether he has Harry’s key on him at this moment. The example is especially telling as the key rightfully belongs to Harry and Hagrid only carries the key. Thus, Hagrid’s relation to the key is ephemeral as the key can be handed over to its legitimate owner or anybody



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

else at any time. The temporal focus on current possession is also reflected by the next two examples in (B461). (B461)

Turkish

(B461.1)

[HP I Turkish, 92] bende beş yüz tane var piece exi I:loc 500 ‘I have 500 (pictures).’

(B461.2)

[HP I Turkish, 175] Harry’de de bir tane Weasley kazağı var Harry:loc too indef piece Weasley sweater:POR.3sg exi ‘Harry too has a Weasley sweater.’

Both examples refer to situations in which the future of the possessive relation is not at stake. Ron Weasley will keep the 500 pictures he has collected so far, just as it is more likely than not that Harry Potter will keep the sweater he has received as a Christmas present. As to (B461.2), we assume that the utterance is motivated by the fact that Harry has put on the sweater. At the reference time, Harry has physical contact with the sweater – and that is what counts in the given context as Fred and George Weasley try to persuade their brothers Ron and Percy to put on their sweaters too. Why is the Location Schema used in (B461.1)? There is no hint in the text telling the reader that Ron Weasley has his whole collection of pictures with him. It is clear however that he does not have the pictures handy when he talks to Harry. In any case, Ron Weasley is the owner of the collection of pictures. Thus, we would expect to find the genitive construction employed in this case. The Location Schema is given preference over the Genitive Schema because Ron Weasley reports on the current size of his collection – a size which is likely to grow far beyond the 500 pictures collected so far. The Location Schema invites exactly this interpretation, namely that the present number of accumulated pictures is only a temporary property. All this suggests that the formal distinction of Genitive and Location Schema reflects the dichotomy of temporary (especially current) vs. permanent possession. However, we also encounter the occasional example of the Genitive Schema being employed in contexts which refer to a momentary possessive relation. (B462) is a case in point. (B462)

[HP I Turkish, 69] ve Profesör Dumbledore’dan da bir mektubum var and Professor Dumbledore:abl too indef letter:POR.1sg exi ‘And I also have a letter from Professor Dumbledore.’

Hagrid carries a letter written by Dumbledore to be handed over to the goblin. The letter is evidently not Hagrid’s own letter. Accordingly, we would expect a construction

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

patterned like those presented in (B458). Given the special empathy of Hagrid towards everything that is connected to his hero Dumbledore, it cannot be excluded that the use of the genitive construction is pragmatically motivated because it is better suited for the expression of emotionally loaded relations. On the other hand, Hagrid’s personal style of speech is sometimes deviant and may be employed by the translator to characterise this particular persona. Note however, that there are other sentences which point in the same direction, for instance (B463). (B463)

[HP I Turkish, 263] Gryffindor’un dört yüz yetmiş iki puanı olduğunu point:POR.3sg exi:part:gen:POR.3sg Gryffindor:gen 472 biliyorlardı know:imperf:pl:past ‘They knew that Gryffindor had 472 points.’

This is an intermediate result of the final distribution of points to the four houses of Hogwarts. The use of the imperfect tense on the finite verb indicates that we are dealing with something that is going to change. The story goes on with Dumbledore adding another ten points to Gryffindor’s score. Thus, (B463) is very similar to (B461.1) in the sense that the exact number of possessed items (points in [B463] and pictures in [B461.1]) will not remain stable for long. The use of the genitive construction in (B463) may have two explanations which perhaps can be understood as being connected to each other. As with (B462), there might be an emotional component – in this case excitement and suspense – which motivates the use of the genitive construction. A contrast is created by employing the construction which is normally associated with permanence in a situation which is about to change. Thus, the two constructions offer the writer/speaker stylistic options. It is also possible to interpret the genitive construction as the neutralising member of the opposition genitive vs. locative. It is employed either for the purpose of indicating permanent possessive relations or wherever the temporal dimension of possessive relations is deemed irrelevant or is backgrounded. The Turkish system of predicative possession is primarily bipartite. It distinguishes permanent possession from temporary possession. It remains to be seen whether this basic distinction goes along with a perhaps higher-ranking opposition, namely the distinction of alienable vs. inalienable possession. In our small corpus, we have only found evidence of concrete alienable possessees and some instances of abstract possessees which are sensitive to the temporal dimension of possession, meaning they allow the Location Schema as well as the Genitive Schema to apply. Kinship terms and body-part terminology however are only attested with the Genitive Schema. Whether or not this is an effect of the size of our empirical basis has to be proven by more detailed follow-up studies on Turkish possession. Given the limitations of our present research, (B464) is a very tentative approximation of the Turkish system.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

In contrast to the Finnish system in (B458), its Turkish counterpart lacks possessor-based criteria. In Turkish, the alienability correlation is operative among the patterns of predicative possession, at least by negative selection. This is more tangible than in Finnish where the alienability-related properties come to the fore only under very specific conditions. Much more visible however is the distinction of temporary vs. permanent possession in Turkish. This distinction is properly grammaticalised as it requires special and overt constructions. (B464)

The Turkish “system”

predicative possession

possessee:

inalienable

ℜ:

genitive

alienable

permanent

temporary

genitive

genitive locative



A note on the Location Schema in Turkish and Finnish is in order at this point. Just as the Finnish adessive retains its purely spatial functions and serves to indicate the location of an entity in the close vicinity of a landmark or on its surface (Karlsson 1978: 124–125), the Turkish locative is frequently used in the function which originally motivated the introduction of the current case-label (Ersen-Rasch 1980: 13). The sentences in (B468) are crucial for our understanding of the connections that tie spatial concepts to possessive concepts. Both examples translate the original English [HP I English, 318] Quirrell does not have the stone. The English have-construction however does not trigger the corresponding have-constructions in Finnish and Turkish in this case. We try to capture the differences by back-translating the Finnish and Turkish versions more literally. (B465)

Possession vs. location

(B465.1)

Finnish [HP I Finnish, 320] kivi ei ole Oravella stone neg.3sg be Quirrell:ade ‘The stone is not with Quirrell.’

(B465.2)

Turkish [HP I Turkish, 254] taş Quirrell’de değil stone Quirrell:loc neg.be ‘The stone is not with Quirrell.’

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Syntactically, both translations deviate from the expected word-order of typical have-constructions. In both languages, the possessor would precede the possessee in predicative possession. In (B465) it is exactly the other way around, the possessees comes first. Moreover, in the Turkish example (B465.2), the negated existential yok ‘there is not’ is replaced by the negative copula değil ‘is not’ – a substitution which implies that under positive polarity the example would have a zero-copula (= taş Quirrell’de ‘the stone is with Quirrell’) (Ersen-Rasch 1980: 22–23), cf. also (B460.1) and (B460.3) above. The possessee-NPs in (B465) are not only the grammatical subjects of their clauses – they are topics at the same time, whereas the possessor-NPs are rhematic. Thus, the usual pragmatic organisation of have-constructions (Heine 1997: 29–31) is turned upside down. Does this make the two sentences in (B465) representatives of belong-constructions? Of course not, as the examples do not state that Quirrell has become the legitimate owner of the stone. It is the whereabouts of the stone which are important in the context from which the examples are taken – not the ownership. (B465) contains two sentences which can be connected formally to similar (though not identical) constructions employed to express predicative possession. However, in contrast to the latter, the examples in (B465) highlight the present location of an object. Owing to the identity of landmark and potential possessor (= Quirrell), it is practically impossible to deny the constructions at least a minimal association with possessive relations. More generally, human landmarks are always also potential possessors because they might exert some control over objects located within their reach. For the character Quirrell, it can be assumed that he even would have the desire to control the stone. It is very difficult to find evidence of human landmarks which lack the potential of control. At the same time, Finnish and Turkish show that formal distinctions on the expression side are often weak or ambiguous when it comes to distinguishing human landmarks from human possessors if languages employ the Location Schema (or other spatial schemata) to express predicative possession. The final paragraphs of this sub-section are devoted to Georgian. In contrast to the previous cases, the split in Georgian predicative possession is absolutely obligatory and thus an instance of a genuinely grammatical possession split, although the rules apply to two distinct lexical verbs (cf. below). Attributive possession splits in Georgian are discussed in section 5.1.1 above. South-Caucasian languages like Georgian are renowned for their wealth of partially synonymous expressions in predicative possession (Boeder 1980). Khizanishvili (2006) meticulously describes the distributional criteria of the Georgian equivalents of English to have. Two verbs stand out because of their high frequency, namely kona and q’ola. These verbs cannot replace one another freely as their use depends on the animacy of the possessee. In (B466) we give a short catalogue of uses to which kona is put. Q’ola is illustrated in (B467). Note that both verbs have the same morphosyntactic properties, including valence and case-frames.



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

(B466)

Georgian: inanimate possessees

(B466.1)

[HP I Georgian, 38] Derslebs otxi saӡinebeli hkondat Dursely:pl:dat four:nom bedroom:nom O.3: have.inani:aor:sb.pl ‘The Dursleys had four bedrooms.’

(B466.2)

[HP I Georgian, 48] magram tvalebi dedasi gakvs but eye:pl:nom mother:gen:nom O.2: have.inani:sb.3sg ‘But you have the eyes of your mother.’

(B466.3)

[HP I Georgian, 64] c’erili aka gakvs letter:nom still O.2: have.inani:sb.3sg ‘Do you still have the letter?’

(B466.4)

[HP I Georgian, 199] tumca xandaxan iseti grӡnoba hkonda although sometimes such:nom feeling O.3: have.inani:aor ‘He sometimes had the horrible feeling…’

(B467)

Georgian: animate possessee

(B467.1)

[HP I Georgian, 7] Derslebs p’at’ara bič’i hq’avdat dadli. Dursley:pl:dat small boy:nom O.3: have.ani:aor:sb.pl Dudley ‘The Dursleys had a little boy, Dudley.’

(B467.2)

[HP I Georgian, 92] li ǯordans gigant’uri t’arant’uli hq’avs Lee Jordan:dat gigantic:nom tarantula:nom O.3: have.ani:sb.3sg ‘Lee Jordan has a gigantic tarantula.’

(B467.3)

[HP I Georgian, 2279 Hagridi gverdit hq’avda Hagrid:nom side:ins O.3: have.ani:aor ‘He had Hagrid with him.’

The examples reflect a very clear distributional pattern. Kona can only be employed if the possessee is inanimate whereas q’ola is restricted to combinations with animate possesses. Inanimate possessees include body-parts, concrete objects as well as physico-mental states and abstract concepts. Animate possessees include kinship relations, individuals identified by proper nouns and non-human animate beings such as spiders, etc. The animacy-based organisation of the system epiphenomenally keeps a class of prototypically inalienable concepts apart from other concepts. However, kinship relations are not singled out in the narrow sense of the term as they behave like any

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

other – alienable – human possessee. In (B467.3), Harry has Hagrid with him only on that particular occasion, whereas the parent-child relation of the Dursleys and Dudley mentioned in (B467.1) is of course permanent. Thus, what superficially might look like special treatment of kinship relations is only the secondary effect of the animacybased split. Interestingly, vehicles, for instance cars, are treated on a par with animate possessees and thus are predicatively possessed by q’ola: mankana hq’avs {car} {O.3: have.ani:s.3sg} ‘s/he has a car’ (Marchev 1999: 224). Whether this is conceptually motivated by the imagined capability of cars to move on their own account is a question ethnolinguists may have an answer to. The Georgian system is organised according to the properties of the possessee. It is exceptional from a European perspective because of its exclusive reliance on animacy. Animacy turns up every once in a while elsewhere in our European sample languages, however whenever it does, animacy interacts with other parameters some of which are by far stronger than animacy alone. As far as we can tell, other factors such as alienability, temporal extension, concrete vs. abstract, etc. are less important in Georgian. The picture we can draw is thus a rather simple diagram, cf. (B468). (B468)

The Georgian “system”

predicative possession

possessee: animate



q’ola

inanimate

kona

Our inspection of predicative possessive constructions in the languages of Europe has come to a close. We know of course that this sub-section has merely touched upon the issue at hand. Chances are that many more languages of the European continent display similar or additional phenomena like the languages discussed above. For instance, in Kalmyk, there are two different constructions whose distribution is largely unclear to us. Benzing (1985: 56) distinguishes the sociative-construction from the dative-construction as e.g., či sońn degtr-tä-č {you} {interesting} {book}-{soc}-{2sg} ‘you have an interesting book’ vs. čam-d en degtr bänü? {you}-{dat} {this} {book} {stand:3sg} ‘Do you have this book?’. Guessing from the little data there is the sociativeconstruction seems to be used in contexts where permanence is important, whereas the dative-construction is perhaps also applicable to temporary relations. However, it is not improbable that Benzing’s translation simply obscures the distinction of have-construction and belong-construction. For Basque, possessions splits are not normally mentioned. However, there are two verbs which serve as translation equivalents of English to have, namely the most widely used ukan and its less frequent



Chapter 5.  Further evidence of possession splits in Europe 

competitor eduki. Villasante (1980: 176–178) devotes a short chapter of his monograph on the syntax of the simple sentence to this dichotomy in Basque. He emphasises that in many respects the two verbs are simply synonymous. However, after reviewing a selection of examples of the use that is made of eduki in contemporary Basque prose, Villasante (1980: 178) concludes that the use of eduki “supone una tendencia continuada, sostenida, sea un tener dentro […] o tender bajo dominio o sostener con una acción proseguida.” Ukan seems to be neutral as to the temporal interpretation of the possessive relation whereas eduki strongly associates with a possessive relation that is not momentary, but instead extends over a longer period of time (“perseverancia prolongada”). Kalmyk and Basque are good candidates for follow-up studies on predicative possession in the languages of Europe – and there is reason to believe that other languages will call for in-depth studies too.

part c

On European misfits and their commonalities

chapter 6

Results In this final chapter we first look back on what we have found out about European possession splits in the previous sections 4–5 by way of putting the results into perspective. This is done in order to identify patterns which hold for more than the individual sample language. In section 6.1, we discuss to what extent the European languages behave similarly. Section 6.2 is devoted to the cross check of our findings against current hypotheses in possession research.

6.1  European possession splits – revisited The data discussed in the previous sections (4 and 5) prove that possession splits are widespread phenomena in many languages spoken on European soil. This very general observation must however, be put into perspective. First of all, possession splits in European languages are of two different kinds. There are those cases of possession splits which require the speakers of a given language to make a choice between at least two different constructions any time a possessive situation has to be described. This choice obeys the logic of categorical distinctions because the constructions cannot replace one another easily (without changing the meaning or violating grammatical rules). Each construction is determined by a set of criteria (semantic, syntactic, pragmatic) whose specific combination rules out the use of a competing construction. This scenario describes what we have termed grammatical possession splits, many of which figure prominently in our case studies in section 4 (and also more sporadically in section 5 including possessor-subject identity in section 5.1.1.2.1 and animacy-dependent predicative possession in Georgian [section 5.2]). However, obligatory employment of certain constructions does not exhaust the phenomenology of possession splits. Section 5 illustrates many more cases of European languages which allow for differences with varying degrees of subtlety on a largely optional basis. The usual pattern in these languages is comprised of a kind of general or default construction which may be used freely as long as the focus is not on a particular property of the possessive situation or its components. In the latter case, other constructions have to be employed whose functional range or meaning is much more specialised than the one associated with the default construction. This scenario describes a typical case of neutralisation. Note that the ability to highlight a given

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

aspect of the possessive relation if the speaker deems this opportune is not necessarily a purely stylistic phenomenon. We are not talking about several ways of saying exactly the same thing according to aesthetic or text-genre-dependent parameters. If the more specialised construction is chosen this choice has a repercussion on the conceptual rendering of the situation because the speaker is emphasising that a given meaning component applies or is especially prominent. In this way, many of the examples presented in section 5 are still “grammatical” although strictly speaking not compulsory. We do not deny that there are also constellations which have more in common with style than grammar. However, purely stylistically motivated examples are very rare in our documentation of the empirical data. The languages we reviewed in the previous sections form a sizeable group within the European area. The grammatical possession splits documented by Maltese, (especially Insular) North Germanic and Celtic languages should have caught the eye of interested students of possession much earlier because the formal facts are directly accessible as the coding strategies are relatively transparent. Since we have aspired neither to covering the entire continent nor to operating on the basis of a well-defined and unbiased sample of languages, we do not dare to claim that possession splits are commonplace in Europe to such an extent that European languages without possession splits are exceptions. Kenesei; Vago & Fenyesi (1998: 159) claim pace Biermann (1985) that Hungarian is a language without any trace of possession splits. Note however that similar claims have been put forward for Basque (Saltarelli 1988) and Turkish (Kornfilt 1997: 186–189), though much more cautiously for the latter. From our previous discussion we know already that the facts of Basque and Turkish speak in favour of possession splits – however not necessarily those expected according to the LDS format of the above grammars. For some languages not featured in our study like English and German, the structural impact of possessive distinctions seems to be relatively weak indeed. Our native German for instance, makes do with the typical effects of external possessor constructions (cf. section 5.1.1.2.3) and stylistically marked options in colloquial registers where kinship terms referring to ascending generations (Vater [or more often the endearing terms Papa, Papi, Vati, etc.], Mutter [or Mama, Mami, Mutti, etc.], Opa, Oma, Onkel, Tante and diminutives thereof) may be used as proper nouns without accompanying possessive pronoun, as long as speaker and addressee are related by blood or law. Colloquial German shares these stylistic options with many languages in Europe. English is largely immune to possessor ascension, but the special morphosyntactic treatment of kinship terms is also among the structural choices a native speaker of English has at his/her disposal. However, these phenomena do not make English, German and a variety of other languages stand out in any particular way. The evidence they offer is such that one would not necessarily consider possession splits worthwhile studying cross-linguistically.



Chapter 6.  Results 

Nevertheless, there is ample evidence of structurally-relevant possession splits going beyond the level of style in a wide variety of European languages. The nature of these splits is such that we consider it very likely that similar possession splits will be detected in still further languages of Europe. In the extant literature, we find various studies of particular phenomena in modern French, Portuguese and Spanish. However, with very few exceptions, these studies are devoted either to the interaction of definite articles and possessive pronouns (cf. section 5.1.1.2.4) and/or to the by now well-known strategy of possessor ascension (cf. section 5.1.1.2.3) (Spanoghe 1995: 207–226). Again, the evidence adduced in these studies does not characterise the languages and their possessive constructions as prime candidates for the presentation of proper possession splits. In the absence of tangible proof of a ubiquitous grammatically-relevant system of possession splits, we will refrain from putting forward a formal so-called Euroversal or Europeme which declares the presence of possession splits to be a typical trait of the languages of this area. Yet, we are confident that upon closer scrutiny, the number of European languages affected by possession splits of various kinds will increase such that the languages we have taken into account for this study will no longer appear extraordinary or exotic. Possession splits have been shown to occur in practically all major regions of Europe and in the phyla spoken in Europe although we have not tried to represent all of these regions and genetic groupings in a balanced way. There are possession splits in languages of the European North, in the Northwest, in the Southwest, in the South, the Southeast, in the Balkans, in the Caucasian region, in Eastern Europe and also sporadically in Central Europe. This continent-wide distribution does not speak entirely against an internal fragmentation into smaller sub-areas. Except for the North/ Northwest and the Balkans (with Italian), however, it is difficult to find convincing structural and functional parallels which would unite neighbouring languages into a common and distinct linguistic area. It is often true that genetically very diverse, but geographically related languages share the property of displaying possession splits, say Swedish, Finnish, Lithuanian and Russian. However, these possession splits are sometimes individual in the sense that the parameters which determine the possessive system of language X (= Finnish) do not line up with the parameters identified for the system of language Y (= Swedish or any other neighbour of Finnish). Admittedly, areality does not require systems (structures, constructions, etc.) to be identical to each other. However, what do we do with two neighbouring languages, one of which allows for possession splits only within the NP (= attributive possession), whereas the other only/also attests to split possession in predicative constructions? This situation applies to Icelandic (possession splits in attribution and predication) and its relatives on the Scandinavian mainland (only attributive possession splits). The two Romance languages, Portuguese and Italian, support the idea that genetic affiliation is not a very

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

reliable prognostic for determining which kind of possession split can be expected to apply: Portuguese is characterised by (optionally) split possession in predicative constructions, whereas Italian only splits attributively. Disregarding subject-possessor identity, Slavic languages behave differently from each other, too. South Slavic on the Balkans allows for splits in pronominal possession, whereas Russian splits occur in predicative possession, etc. There are some tendencies which mark certain phyla or sub-phyla (for instance the resistance to genitive loss of proper nouns in Germanic). Genealogy is however, only a relatively weak determinant of what can happen in possession splits in a given language. Accordingly, the European picture is more a kind of mosaic when determining the shape and extent of possession splits. Some languages bear evidence of splits in both attributive and predicative possession, whereas others restrict possession splits to one of the possible areas of grammar. This statement has to be understood cum grano salis because we have checked whole language systems only for the case studies in section 4. For the remainder of our empirical illustration in section 5, we have chosen only those examples which, to our minds, are particularly clear instances of possession splits. It may then be the case that possession splits in other areas of the grammar of one and the same language have escaped our notice. Again, this means that we can expect to find more cases of split possession if the languages of Europe are looked at more closely – including those which form part of our present convenient sample. For the sake of argument, we take our above data presentation at face value (i.e., we pretend that it is sufficiently exhaustive) in order to see whether or not a pattern emerges from the (perhaps only partially justified) uneven distribution of possession splits over syntactic functions. In Table (C1), we give a full list of all languages discussed in sections 4–5 and indicate which syntactic functions are susceptible to possession splits. In this table, we simply state whether or not the languages split possession in attribution and/or predication. The extent, criteria and functions associated with the possession splits are discussed separately below. We do not consider possessor ascension, proper possessive pronouns and definiteness marking as factors for the

(C1)  Possession splits and syntactic functions

attributive possession

language

pronominal

genitive

predicative

phylum

Maltese Basque Georgian Icelandic

split split split split

split split split(?) split

split split split split

Semitic Basque Caucasian Germanic



Chapter 6.  Results  Faroese split split split Welsh split split split Breton split split split Scots Gaelic split split Irish split split Norwegian split split Swedish split split Danish split split Rumanian split split Turkish split split Lithuanian split split Belarusian split split Russian split split Ukrainian split split Finnish split split Estonian split Mari split Saami split Catalan split Italian split Albanian split Aromunian split East Armenian split Bulgarian split Croatian split Czech split Macedonian split Polish split Serbian split Slovak split Slovenian split Sorbian split Latvian split Lovari split Kurdish split(?) Low German split Dutch split Portuguese split Kalmyk split(?) total  43

38

16

15

percentage

88.4%

37%

34%

Germanic Celtic Celtic Celtic Celtic Germanic Germanic Germanic Romance Turkic Baltic Slavic Slavic Slavic Finno-Ugric Finno-Ugric Finno-Ugric Finno-Ugric Romance Romance Albanian Romance Armenian Slavic Slavic Slavic Slavic Slavic Slavic Slavic Slavic Slavic Baltic Indic Iranian Germanic Germanic Romance Mongolic

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

determination of splits in this table. The languages are ordered according to their number of syntactic areas which are sensitive to possession splits. We do not differentiate between obligatory splits and others. Boldface marks the non-Indo-European languages. Of a total of 43 languages, 38 or 88.4% allow for possession splits to occur in pronominal possession. This is the highest rate we find. The results for adnominal genitive constructions and predicative possession are much lower – with 16 languages (= 36%) and 15 languages (= 34%), respectively. Generally, possession splits are almost the norm in pronominal possession whereas they are minority solutions in predicative possession (albeit still sizeable ones). 18 languages (= 41%) restrict possession splits to the realm of pronominal possession. Predicative possession as the exclusive domain of possession splits is attested in two languages (= 4.7%) and exclusive genitival splits have the same share, namely two languages (= 4.7%). Languages with two syntactic relations affected by possession splits number 14 (= 32%). Possession splitting in all three areas – pronominal, genitival and predicative – applies to seven languages (= 16%). A pattern emerges from (C1) which can be formulated as a pair of a probabilistic implications: • I f two (or more) syntactic areas are subject to possession splits, one of these areas is almost always pronominal possession. • If pronominal possession does not allow for possession splits, almost always only one of the other two syntactic areas is affected by possession splits. Only the evidence from Turkish disallows the formulation of a strict implication of the following kind: Split predicative possession Split genitival possession

⊃ Split pronominal possession

Turkish has a genitival split which involves the opposition of double marking and single head-marking both of which use possessor suffixes obligatorily (cf. section 5.1.2.1). In a way, pronominal possession is indirectly affected by this split, too. In terms of genetic affiliation, (C1) is also interesting. Split possession in predicative possession is attested in 15 languages – of which six (= 43%) belong to non-Indo-European phyla although the share of non-Indo-European languages in our sample, with nine out of 43 languages, covers slightly less than 21%. Two thirds of our non-Indo-European languages are characterised by split predicative possession. The ratio for the Indo-European languages is 2.77-to-1 for languages without split predicative possession (25 languages lack possession splits in predication, nine languages split predicative possession). If it weren’t for the singular case of



Chapter 6.  Results 

Portuguese, all Indo-European languages with split predicative possession also had pronominal possession splits. Note also that the predicative possession splits in nonIndo-European phyla are attested in several phyla, namely Semitic, Finno-Ugric, Caucasian, Turkic, Mongolic and the isolate Basque. Non-Indo-European languages without possession splits in predication are a minority not only among the languages equipped exclusively with pronominal possession splits (three out of 43 = 7%) but also within the heterogeneous group of non-Indo-European languages (three out of six = 33%). Basque, Georgian, Maltese and Turkish show evidence of genitival possession splits and among these only Turkish lacks evidence of pronominal possessive splits in the usual sense of the term. Languages with two or more syntactic areas affected by possession splits display an interesting areal distribution as they cluster in such a way on the map that they cover a formidable stretch of land in the form of a semi-circle reaching from Basque in the Southwest and the continuing along the westernmost and northern outskirts far into Eastern Europe and the Southeast until it reaches Turkey. Maltese forms a little geo-linguistic island of this group in the large central and southern territory formed by languages with possession splits restricted to one of the three possible syntactic areas. This is shown on map C2 which only includes those languages in Table (C1) above. A similar degree of areality characterises the distribution of the languages which employ possession splits in predicative possession (no matter which other syntactic areas are subject to split possession), cf. map C3. Predicative possession splits are even more prominent in the languages spoken at a distance from the geographical centre of the continent. We find evidence on the western rim and in the East as well as in Maltese which is located on the southern border of Europe. Likewise, languages which display genitival possession splits obey a geographic logic, as shown on map C4. These genitival splits have their stronghold in the European Northwest where they occur in all members of the Celtic phylum and the bulk of the Germanic languages. In the Southeast, Rumanian, Turkish and Georgian have the same property and form a less closely knit second hotbed to which the geographically isolated Maltese has to be connected as an additional southerner. The distribution of shared properties over the European map is reminiscent of the familiar patterns of areal-typological isoglosses in Europe. Most strikingly, languages with more firmly established possession splits are normally located outside the core of the SAE-area i.e., they do not belong to the so-called CharlemagneSprachbund (van der Auwera 1998). Only in the case of genitival splits does Dutch – a member of the Charlemagne-Sprachbund – behave atypically as it follows its neighbours on the outside of the sprachbund’s nucleus. Geo-linguistic patterns of this kind invite an interpretation which relies heavily on diffusion of shared properties via

PORT

BAS

BRET

IR

ICE

W

SCG

FAR

CAT

DU

MALT

IT

CZ

SW

ALB

SLOV LOV CR

LG

DAN

NORW

RUM

POL

LITH

LAT

FINN

ARO

MAC BULG

SERB

SLOK

SAA

EST

UKR

BR

TURK KURD

RUSS

GEORG

MARI

KAL ARM

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(C2)  Possession splits in more than one syntactic area

PORT

BAS

BRET

IR

ICE

W

SCG

FAR

CAT

DU

MALT

IT

CZ

SW

ALB

SLOV LOV CR

LG

DAN

NORW

RUM

POL

LITH

LAT

FINN

ARO

MAC BULG

SERB

SLOK

SAA

EST

UKR

BR

TURK KURD

RUSS

KAL

GEORG

MARI

ARM

Chapter 6.  Results 

(C3)  Predicative possession splits

PORT

BAS

BRET

IR

ICE

W

SCG

FAR

CAT

DU

MALT

IT

CZ

SW

ALB

SLOV LOV CR

LG

DAN

NORW

RUM

POL

LITH

LAT

FINN

ARO

MAC BULG

SERB

SLOK

SAA

EST

UKR

BR

TURK KURD

RUSS

KAL GEORG

MARI

ARM

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(C4)  Genitival possession splits



Chapter 6.  Results 

language contact. This is an explanation which has been shown to adequately account for the facts in numerous instances. In the absence of tangible proof, contactinduced spread of structural properties often remains the most plausible solution. To demonstrate that the present state of affairs is the result of language contact, we need diachronic evidence of change of language X to more closely resemble its neighbour Y in the realm of possession. For practical purposes, however, we have excluded all diachronic aspects from this study. A follow-up study devoted to the history of possession splits in Europe will have to tackle this problem. On the basis of the above maps, one could argue that languages equipped with full-blown possession splits are located on the periphery, whereas the centre is occupied by languages which do not display fully grammaticalised possessions splits. This centre-periphery dichotomy might be understood in the following way: innovations start in the centre and diffuse from there to the periphery, i.e., the weak status of possession splits in languages of Central Europe (and others) reflects a relatively new development which contrasts with the older state of affairs still preserved by the languages located on the more conservative periphery. Thus, the disintegration of possession splits would be a tendency slowly extending its territory in Europe to the detriment of erstwhile well-established possession splits. In light of the many other findings about the diachrony of the European linguistic landscape, this seems to be a very promising hypothesis. However, it is not entirely flawless. Suffice it to mention the following pair of “problems” (to be studied more closely in a separate study): •  some of the properties of possession splits in Europe have come about as byproducts of reductive changes elsewhere in the grammar, for instance, the resistance of proper nouns to genitive loss in Dutch (cf. section 5.1.2.1); •  some of the properties of possession splits in Europe have come about by additions to a pre-existing possessive system: if it is true that possessive imet’ is a late-comer to the Russian system (as claimed by Heine 1997: 144) this means that the introduction of a typical SAE-feature (a proper have-verb) has resulted in a differentiation of the system and thus strengthened the position of possession splits (cf. section 5.2). Note also that practically all West and South Slavic languages employ a predicative possessive construction other than the dominant have-verb in some areas of marginal possession (Stolz & Stolz in press). Whether or not this is a retention of an earlier state must be discussed on another occasion. We have not included these cases in (C1) because of the controversial status of marginal possessive relations involving possessees, such as one’s age. We do not want to get lost in diachronic speculations at this point. Indirectly, the subsequent paragraphs will contribute to the issue as they focus on the similarity/ dissimilarity of the possession splits found in the languages featured on maps C2–C4.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(C1) provides us with the necessary survey of the syntactic areas which are affected by possession splits in our sample languages. However, it is not enough to show how many syntactic areas display split possession. Neither does it suffice to state that two or more languages have splits in the same syntactic area(s). No less importantly, the presence of possession splits in several syntactic areas of one and the same language does not mean that all of the splits reflect identical distinctions conceptually speaking. We will begin our check from the constellation of languages with more than one syntactic area affected by possession splits. This property occurs in 19 languages, four of which are extensively discussed in our case-studies on Maltese, Icelandic, its relative Faroese and Celtic in sections 4.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.3.3 and 4.4. For practical reasons, we abstain from retelling the whole story and thus refer the reader to the relevant sections for details. It is sufficient here to give a simplified sketch of what is typical of the various possessive systems. •  Maltese (cf. [B64]): pro = gen ≠ pred In Maltese, the distinctions made under pronominal possession and in genitival constructions resemble one another closely and thus, in a rather general way, we state that the category inventory is the same throughout attributive possession. This is not the case with predicative possession, though. Body-parts and kinship terms which figure prominently in attribution as possessees requiring special morphosyntactic treatment, are practically irrelevant in predication where the distinction of permanent vs. current (physical) possession is more important. In sum, Maltese makes different distinctions on the levels of attribution on the one hand and in predication on the other. •  Icelandic (cf. B178]): pro ≈ gen ≠ pred In Icelandic, the situation is more complicated because the two branches of attributive possession only overlap as to the categories they give rise to. The zone of overlap is body-part terms which receive special morphosyntactic treatment in both variants of attributive possession. However, under pronominal possession, concrete alienable concepts are formally treated differently from inalienable concepts (including kinship, physico-mental states and abstract possessees). This difference notwithstanding, the two variants of attributive possession still behave sufficiently similarly when compared to what happens under predicative possession. In predication, the distinctions cut across the categories established in attribution. This cross-cutting is such that the otherwise prominent class of body-parts is lumped together with objects currently under the possessor’s physical control and temporary physicomental states, whereas permanent physico-mental states side with abstract concepts and kinship relations are treated on a par with legally owned concrete objects. This means that attributive possession and predicative possession largely obey different internal logics.



Chapter 6.  Results 

•  Faroese (cf. Section 4.2.4): pro ≈ gen ≈ pred In Faroese, the loss of the erstwhile inflectional genitive has contributed to a certain convergence of the distinctions made in pronominal and genitival possession. Bodypart and kinship terms contrast with the bulk of alienable possessees. Since a special have-verb is still in use for possessed kin, the system is relatively homogenous in the sense that one class of inalienable possessees at least is singled out in every syntactic area. In other respects, Faroese resembles Icelandic closely. Note also the special possessor-oriented genitival constructions. •  Brythonic (cf. [B309]): por = gen = pred The Brythonic languages Breton and Welsh present a variety of individual solutions on the micro-level. If we disregard these idiosyncrasies for the sake of argument, yet another picture emerges. Where Maltese and Icelandic show that attributive and predicative possession do not necessarily display identical sets of categories, the Brythonic branch of the Celtic phylum tends to have a more or less parallel organisation of their possessive systems in all syntactic areas. In this case, we have evidence for similarly structured components of the possessive system as the splits are attested in all three areas and are triggered by the same criteria. This retrospective look at the case-studies reveals that the languages are characterised by a considerable degree of individualism. They have one property in common, namely the general tendency to allow for possession splits. At the same time, they differ widely as to the internal homogeneity/heterogeneity of their split-based possessive systems. The Celtic systems are comparatively homogeneous, whereas Maltese and Icelandic operate with different criteria for attribution and predication separately. Faroese is located somewhere in between. In Icelandic, even attributive possession does not provide a homogeneous sub-system. We will now add sketches of the remaining two languages which display possession splits in all three syntactic areas, namely the non-Indo-European languages Basque and Georgian (cf. sections 5.1.1.1, 5.1.2.1 and 5.2). •  Basque: pro ≠ gen ≠ pred In this isolate, the three syntactic areas behave differently from each other in terms of possession splits. With pronouns, there is the nowadays largely optional special marking of kinship terms if the possessor is the 1st person singular (for which the genitive of the pronoun of the 1st person plural is used). To this we have to add the effects of possessor-subject identity (cf. section 5.1.1.2.1). There are two genitives (possessive vs. relational/locative) whose distribution is dependent on the nature of the possessees: one genitive is used when the possessor is understood as a location, the other when this is not the case. In predicative possession, the time dimension comes into play as one construction sounds best with permanent or more time-stable

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

relations, whereas the other can also be read as indicating current physical possession. There are thus four completely autonomous possession splits. •  Georgian: pro ≠ gen ≠ pred Much in the same vein, Georgian treats possession splits individually for each syntactic area. In pronominal possession, kinship terms are singled out for special morphosyntactic marking (cf. [B339]). In the case of genitive constructions, however, the distinctive criterion is referentiality (vs. genericity). On top of this, Georgian predicative possession is comprised of an obligatory possession split which follows yet another and completely different criterion. Animacy is decisive for the choice the speakers have: animate possessees trigger one have-verb and inanimate possessees require the use of the other have-verb (cf. [C7]). On the basis of these systems of possession it would be next to impossible to uphold the idea that attributive possession and predicative possession have common conceptual grounds. Of course, one could argue that independent of their individual traits the possessive categories still share certain features, albeit rather abstract ones. To give an example: if Georgian pronominal possession grants kinship terms a special status then this is partially and/or indirectly also reflected by the distinctions in genitive constructions and in predication. Since kinship relations of a given possessor are such that the possessee is prototypically referential, the distinction of referential vs. generic relations made on the level of genitive constructions somehow overlaps with the distinctions under pronominal possession. One’s kin is included in the set of potentially referential relations. Moreover, one’s kin is animate – and this fits the distinction of animate vs. inanimate possessees observed in Georgian predicative possession. With a view to bridging the gap between genitive constructions and predicative constructions, one might recall the tendency of animate (preferably human) participants to be referential. In this way, the common denominator in Georgian would turn out to be (connected to) animacy. Whether or not a similar interpretation of the language facts is tenable more generally is one of the topics of section 6 (cf. below). At this point we make do with stating that the supposed common bonds of attributive and predicative possession are anything but obvious from the vantage point of possession splits. This somewhat sceptical attitude of ours is supported by those languages which have possession splits in two syntactic areas including predication. The six languages are Turkish, Finnish, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian (cf. sections 5.1.1.1 and 5.2). To reduce repetition, we have combined the latter three under the heading of East Slavic. •  Turkish: gen ≠ pred In Turkish, there are two genitive constructions whose main difference on the semantic level can be described in terms of genericity vs. referentiality. Generic genitives



Chapter 6.  Results 

are such that the possessor is non-referential. For predicative possession, the major criterion on which the possessive split is based is connected to the time dimension (cf. [B467]). There is one construction that emphasises current (physical) possession, whereas its counterpart normally invites a reading of permanent or temporally unbounded possession. Again one could claim that referential and currently possessed items fit one another conceptually (as do generic and permanent possession if viewed from a particular perspective). However, it is impossible to claim that the categories are the “same”. •  Finnish: pro ≈ pred In Finnish pronominal possession, the animacy-related distinction of speech-act participants and non-speech-act participants is crucial: 1st/2nd person possessors behave differently from 3rd person possessors (cf. [B351]). Interestingly, in predicative possession, animacy is also relevant (cf. [B461]). Animate possessors and inanimate possessors obey different rules. The system is not entirely homogeneous because in predication additional factors come into play. In contrast to pronominal possession, the properties of the possessee and of the possessive relation itself (= temporary vs. permanent) guide the choice of the speakers. In sum, the Finnish system is moderately homogeneous as the general (or highest ranking) principles are the same for pronominal and predicative possession. On the micro-level, the two components of the system diverge more because under predication animacy is a general concept, whereas under pronominal possession it is much more restricted as it only applies to speech-act participants. •  Lithuanian: pro ≠ pred In pronominal possession, only possessor-subject identity leads to a formal possession split. In predication abstract and concrete possessees are represented by different constructions (cf. [B447]). It is beyond our grasp to unite these two possession splits under a common conceptual roof. •  East Slavic: pro ≠ pred For East Slavic (Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian), the description given for Lithuanian (cf. above) holds true as well with the addition that in predicative possession, more than one split is attested to (cf. [B454]). With the notable exception of Finnish, all other languages with two possession splits (one of which occurs under predication) lend support to the idea that attributive possession and predicative possession are sufficiently different from each other to cast doubt on the assumed identity of their conceptual bases. To conclude this part of our discussion, we will cursorily look at the remaining six languages with two syntactic areas subject to possession splits. In Scots Gaelic, Irish, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Rumanian possession splits occur only in attributive constructions. For convenience, we have re-grouped these languages into three sets, namely Goidelic, North Germanic and Rumanian.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

•  Goidelic: pro ≈ gen With minor differences on the micro-level, pronominally-based possession splits and those occurring in genitive constructions reflect similar distinctions for which the concept of definiteness is important. The Irish case is less easy to classify than the Scots Gaelic case. •  North Germanic: pro ≈ gen The three relatives of Icelandic and Faroese are characterised by less intricate possessive systems because their have-verbs are usually not sensitive to possessive distinctions. As observed for Icelandic and Faroese (cf. above), within attributive possession the systematicity is largely the same for pronominal possession and genitival possession. The North-Germanic languages differ from each other as to the compulsoriness of the formal distinctions. In any case, body-parts, kin and other possessees are kept apart. •  Rumanian: pro ≠ gen In pronominal possession, the distinction of singular vs. plural possessor is important. The more the possessor can be regarded as an individual the higher the chances that a special morphosyntactic device is employed to encode possession. This is only possible with kinship terms (cf. [B358]). In genitive constructions, possession splits are, on the one hand, word-class dependent (proper nouns as possessors receive special treatment) and, on the other hand, are dependent on definiteness and syntactic weight (cf. [B410]). Given that proper nouns trigger the use of the resumptive pronoun only when they are in the singular (and preferably when they are masculine), there is a certain similarity to pronominal possession – however, this connection is rather weak and indirect. Animacy is involved not only because the special pronominal possessive construction is restricted to combinations with possessees of the kinship class, but also because proper nouns are usually associated with animate beings. In genitive constructions, one split is possessor-oriented (the other being triggered by the syntactic weight of the possessee NP). In pronominal possession, the split reflects a combination of possessee properties (kinship) and possessor properties (individual). The two syntactic areas are differently organised, although some similarities do exist. The above sketches suggest that in languages whose possession splits occur in both variants of attributive possession, there is a tendency towards a relatively homogeneous organisation of possession in the entire area of attribution. Note that this is only a tendency and not a full-blown rule. Among the previous examples we find several languages in which attributive possession is heterogeneous. This leaves us with 24 languages with possession splits occurring only in one syntactic area. These two dozen languages are interesting nonetheless, because the fact that they allow for possession splits only in one syntactic area implies that the possessive



Chapter 6.  Results 

system as such is heterogeneous. Two out of three syntactic areas are not affected by splits, whereas one area is subject to possession splits i.e., there is a bipartition of the language’s possessive system into an area sensitive to splits and two areas which are immune to splits. No matter which parameters are responsible for the splits occurring in the sensitive area, their failure to apply elsewhere in the system is indicative of a high degree of autonomy of attributive and predicative possession. Neither of them is a copy of the other. Within one and the same language we thus often find heterogeneity. It is therefore justified to expect a high degree of heterogeneity too when we compare our sample languages with each other. From the sketches given above, it results that it is relatively rare that two languages display identical subdivisions of their possessive systems. Table (B310) above shows that the language group Maltese-Icelandic-Welsh does not yield commensurate distribution profiles. However, if we discount part-whole relationships (which are not a focus of our study) we observe that the lexico-semantic classes of possessees for which the three languages employ special constructions are in an inclusive relation across the languages. The smallest system applies to Welsh. The three categories singled out in this Celtic language form a proper sub-set of those ten categories which are formally marked in Maltese and also of the nine categories identified for Icelandic. Kinship and physico-mental states receive special morphosyntactic treatment in all three languages. Kinship is grammatically relevant in pronominal possession in the three languages just as physico-mental states are in predicative possession of the same languages. These basic commonalities translate into two possession splits. With pronominal possessors, the languages distinguish kinship terms from other possessees. In predication, the opposition divides the possessees into physico-mental states and a large amorphous class of other concepts. In Maltese and Icelandic, the distinctions go beyond this crude dichotomy, whereas for Welsh the system is exactly the minimum of the overlapping segments of the three systems. The question arises whether or not this minimum also recurs in other languages. Our languages differ as to the number of splits they allow in a given syntactic area. There are languages which split only once per syntactic area as opposed to others which split more often in one and the same syntactic area (usually twice). For the former group of languages, we suggest the label mono-splitters and for the latter we use the term poly-splitters. An example: Icelandic is a poly-splitter in pronominal possession and in predicative possession, but a mono-splitter in genitival possession. Maltese is a poly-splitter only in predicative possession and in Welsh, no poly-splitting occurs at all. Where two languages differ as to the number of splits they display in a given syntactic area, there can of course be no identity of the respective possessive systems. The distribution of splitter properties over sample languages is presented in (C5). Poly-splits are additionally marked in boldface.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(C5)  Mono- and poly-splitters language

mono-split pro

gen

poly-split pred

pro

gen

pred

Maltese pro gen Icelandic gen pro Georgian gen pred pro Basque gen pred pro Russian pro Belarusian pro Ukrainian pro Rumanian pro gen Irish gen pro Scots Gaelic gen pro Faroese pred pro gen Norwegian pro gen Danish pro gen Swedish pro gen Italian pro Albanian pro Bulgarian pro Macedonian pro Aromunian pro Breton pro gen pred Welsh pro gen pred Lithuanian pro pred Finnish pro pred Turkish pro pred Dutch gen Low German gen Kalmyk pred Portuguese pred Estonian pro Mari pro Saami pro Catalan pro East Armenian pro Kurdish pro Lovari pro Croatian pro Czech pro Polish pro Serbian pro

pred pred

pred pred pred



Chapter 6.  Results 

Slovenian Slovak Sorbian Latvian

pro pro pro pro

individual

25

attr vs. pred

35

total

45

10

10

14

5

10

19

5 5

24

Poly-splits are a minority solution in our sample. Of all the cases of splits, 45 are of the mono-split kind which is equivalent to a percentage of 65%. Poly-splits are attested in 24 cases i.e., in slightly more than one third of the cases. 19 languages display poly-splits (= 44.2% of the entire sample). Poly-splits are comparatively frequent under pronominal possession, whereas poly-splits in genitival possession and predicative possession are less frequently attested phenomena – in terms of absolute numbers. However, in relative numbers, poly-splits are almost equally weak or strong in all three areas. Of all pronominal possessive splits, 35.9% are poly-splits. The share of polysplits in genitival possession is 33% and in predicative possession 35.7%. In sum, there is thus a probability of 1.8-to-1 that a language will opt for mono-split instead of splitting twice or even more often. We observe the curious genetic implication according to which all languages which allow for more than one syntactic area to be affected by poly-splits belong to the North-Germanic sub-phylum. Similarly, no member of the Finno-Ugric phylum attests to poly-splits – but all members of the East Slavic subphylum do. Except Rumanian, all the core members of the Balkan Sprachbund display poly-splits in pronominal possession. The geo-linguistic distribution of poly-splitters and mono-splitters on the European map is shown on map C6. Boldface type marks languages with poly-splits. Poly-splits are mainly a Northwest and Southeast European affair. Basque shares this feature but is geographically isolated from the other poly-splitting languages. A geographic corridor reaching from the Southwest via Central Europe to the Northeast is characterised by mono-splits. The same applies to languages spoken on the eastern rim of the continent. The dichotomy of mono-splits vs. poly-splits is no less areally biased than other possessive features discussed above. The number of splits per syntactic area is one thing, the extent of the domain in which the split is relevant is another. If we say that there is a split in pronominal possession in Italian for instance (cf. [B325]) and another in Finnish (cf. [B340]) this does not automatically mean that the splits are co-extensive or organised in such a way that identical boundaries are created. A look back at Table (B362) reveals that identity of the internal make-up of pronominal possession splits applies – unsurprisingly – to

PORT

BAS

BRET

IR

ICE

W

SCG

FAR

CAT

DU

MALT

IT

CZ

SW

ALB

SLOV LOV CR

LG

DAN

NORW

RUM

POL

LITH

LAT

FINN

ARO

MAC BULG

SERB

SLOK

SAA

EST

UKR

BR

TURK KURD

RUSS

KAL GEORG

MARI

ARM

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(C6)  Mono- vs. poly-splitters



Chapter 6.  Results 

the closely related South Slavic languages Bulgarian and Macedonian, another pair of identical sets is formed by Georgian and Italian (a combination that comes as a surprise) and the third group is formed by Mari, Saami and, again unexpectedly, Rumanian. Four languages display absolutely idiosyncratic solutions (Albanian, Armenian, Aromunian and Finnish). Note that the determination of what is identical and what is not is already based on generalisations. In what follows we try to work out what are the crucial points at which our sample languages tend to split their possessive categories. To this end, we summarise our above findings according to the opposition that is created by the split itself in the respective syntactic area. The list is organised as follows. For each syntactic area, we distinguish alienability-based distinctions from others. Within these two major branches, we identify the various factors which trigger possession splits: syntactic weight, emphasis (subsuming other pragmatic criteria), definiteness, individuation and possessor properties. Wherever alienability-based distinctions are relevant, we indicate the relevant possessee classes by B for bodyparts, K for kinship, I for individual concepts and PM for physico-mental states. The presence of these abbreviations means that there are marked constructions available for the categories associated with these concepts. Boldface is employed to mark those languages which occur more than once under one and the same heading of a given syntactic area. The equals sign = (and its negative counterpart ≠) serve the purpose of determining whether or not two potential classes of inalienable possessees are treated as one morphosyntactically. •  attributive possession •  pronominal possession •  alienability •  weight/emphasis Maltese (B = K = I); Icelandic (B [exterior ≠ interior] ≠ K ≠ PM); Faroese (B [(exterior ≠ interior) = PM] ≠ K); Norwegian (B ≠ K); Swedish (B ≠ K); Danish (B ≠ K);   •  definiteness Welsh (K); Breton (K) •  individuation Scots Gaelic (K); Irish Gaelic (K); Bulgarian (K); Macedonian (K);   •  possessor restricted 3rd plural excluded: Italian (K); Georgian (K) 1st-3rd plural excluded: Albanian (K); Rumanian (K); Aromunian (K); East Armenian (B = K); only 1st singular: Basque (K)

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe



•  other •  possessor restricted only speech-act participants: Finnish; Mari; Saami • possessor-subject identity all persons: Belarusian; Croatian; Czech; Polish; Russian; Serbian; Slovak; Slovenian; Sorbian; Ukrainian; Estonian; Latvian; Lithuanian; Kurdish; Saami; speech-act participants optional: Finnish; Bulgarian; Macedonian; Albanian; Lovari; only 3rd person: Basque; Georgian; Danish; Swedish; Norwegian; Faroese; Icelandic; •  genitive constructions •  alienability •  weight/emphasis Maltese (B = K = I); Icelandic (B [exterior ≠ interior] ≠ K); Faroese (B [(exterior ≠ interior) = PM] ≠ K); Norwegian (B ≠ K); Swedish (B ≠ K); Danish (B ≠ K); •  definiteness Welsh (K); Breton (K) •  possessor restricted human: Faroese (K); •  other •  weight/emphasis •  possessor restricted proper noun: Icelandic; Dutch; Rumanian; human: Low German; Faroese; location: Basque generic: Georgian; Turkish •  definiteness Scots Gaelic; Irish; Rumanian; •  predicative possession •  alienability •  time-stability Maltese (B ≠ PM); Icelandic (B = PM ≠ K); Faroese (K); Welsh (PM); Breton (PM); Scots Gaelic (PM); Irish (PM); Portuguese (B = PM); Lithuanian (PM); Turkish (B = K)   •  possessor restricted animate: Finnish (PM)



Chapter 6.  Results 



•  other •  time-stability Basque; Kalmyk   •  individuation genericity: Russian; Ukrainian; Belarusian •  possessee restricted animate: Georgian

What we learn from the above classification is that there are far too many factors involved to allow us to sell split possession as a unitary phenomenon of European languages – neither in general nor more restricted basis of our sample languages. At the same time, the attentive observer notices immediately that for European possession splits, the number of decisive parameters is restricted to a certain set of criteria, albeit a quite sizeable set. Often enough, it is a combination of several of these criteria which is responsible for the use of a possessive construction or the blocking thereof. Before we look at the nature of these combinations it is important to emphasise a recurrent theme in the above classification. In all syntactic areas, there is ample evidence of the alienability distinction giving shape to the possessive systems of many European languages. More precisely, in pronominal possession, there are 19 splits connected with the alienability-inalienability distinction as opposed to 30 splits not associated from it (of which 27 are instances of possessor-subject identity). For genitival possession, the relation is nine alienability-related splits to eleven splits without connection to alienability. In the realm of predicative possession, alienability is comparatively stronger than other concepts as it accounts for eleven of the splits, whereas only six go to the credit of other concepts. These still rather crude observations alone suggest that it is erroneous to depict Europe as an alienability-free zone. We already know that the workings of the alienability correlation are often somewhat covert because alienability/ inalienability is hardly ever the sole factor in determining which possessive construction has to be employed. If no other factor intervenes, possessive constructions are selected according to criteria of syntactic weight or pragmatics, meaning: these can overrule the semantic criteria associated with alienability or inalienability. This is especially true of attributive possession and characterises the alienability correlation as a frequent, though relatively weak determinant in European possessive systems. Of all the concepts associated with inalienability, kinship is responsible for 31 possession splits, followed by physico-mental states with 17 cases and body-part terms with 16 cases (individual concepts account for no more than two cases). This preponderance of kinship terminology is in line with what Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2006) observe with regard to the importance kin relations have on the shaping of grammatical systems in the languages of the world. Interestingly, wherever alienability interacts with the parameter of definiteness, it is always kinship terms as possessees

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

which require a specific construction (only in East Armenian do body-part terms require the same). This correlation extends over all further criteria which are subordinated to definiteness in the above classification, namely individuation and restricted possessor. With 16 cases in attributive possession this correlation is far too frequent to be due to coincidence. Definiteness is irrelevant in predicative possession and thus kinship terms do not have the same strong position in this syntactic area. Body-part terms and physico-mental states, too are singled out morphosyntactically outside the realm of the definiteness correlation – especially if the time dimension comes into play. This prototypically applies to predicative possession. The alienability-correlation interacts with the distinction of temporary/current (physical) possession vs. permanent possession in such a way that the latter may neutralise alienable and inalienable categories. All these observations boil down to the simple fact that the domain in which the alienability correlation is the most important factor is constantly narrowed down by intervention of other stronger factors such as the time dimension, definiteness and individuation (in addition to syntactic weight and pragmatics). Syntactic weight and definiteness often coincide because the presence of attributes which make possessee NPs syntactically heavy also implies that the reference of the possessee NP is more specific than that of a bare NP. Accordingly, the Italian rule requiring the possessed kin term to be represented by a bare NP in the singular does not mean that the reference is unspecific or indefinite, quite the contrary is true. However, as soon as an attribute is added the degree of specificity is increased as is the syntactic weight of the construction. Note also that syntactic heaviness and specificity often go together with the necessity to indicate current or temporary properties. Properties of this kind are likely to attract focus. This relatively loose inter-connection of four rather disparatelooking parameters has a profound impact on the organisation of possessive systems in our sample languages. This fourfold bundle of factors ousts the purely semantic factors of the alienability correlation most of the time. Only to some extent does this hierarchy of factors also apply to those splits which are not associated with alienability and inalienability. As to the splits which are outside the sphere of the alienability correlation, there is one aspect which deserves special attention because it is also attested in systems which are associated with the alienability correlation. The properties of the possessor are sometimes decisive when determining which possessive construction to take. The split is sensitive to the animacy of the possessor. This is straightforward in the case of Finnish where animate possessors require proper have-constructions and inanimate possessors are treated as locations. In Icelandic, Faroese, Rumanian, Low German and Dutch, genitival possession reserves special constructions for constellations in which the possessor is (practically always an individual) human i.e., there is a special construction for the highest degrees of animacy. In Basque genitive constructions, the animacy of the possessor is reflected only indirectly because possessors which



Chapter 6.  Results 

can be conceived of as locations receive special morphosyntactic treatment as they take the genitivus locativus. Animacy can also be held responsible for the restrictions reserving the use of marked constructions to constellations which involve a speechact participant as possessor in a variety of languages – the culmination point being Basque with its (nowadays somewhat outdated) special construction for pronominal possessors in the 1st person singular. Proprial possessive constructions and sundry cases are suggestive of the importance the possessor has in European possession splits. The observed facts largely corroborate what proponents of the so-called empathy scale assume, namely that the grammatical relevance of distinctions increases the more features are shared with the speaker (or the human centrum deicticum) (Lehmann 1998). Nevertheless, the situation is almost paradoxical. Is there a need for special morphosyntactic treatment of possessors which rank high on the empathy scale? Not necessarily, because a human possessor is presupposed not only by the conceptual prototype, but also by the combination with certain classes of potentially inalienable possessees. Consider kinship terminology: if the possessee is a kin term like father for instance, then the probability that the possessor is not human is extremely low and special contexts are needed to allow for the possessor function to be fulfilled by referents of a different ontological class. If the possessee is human already, the possessor is most probably human, too. Similarly, body-parts and physico-mental states presuppose that the possessor is at least an animate being to whose body the possessee belongs or whose body or mind is affected by the possessee. In a way, one would rather expect a special construction for those cases in which the possessor happens not to be a human being. However, contrary to this expectation, there is no evidence in our sample languages to prove this hypothesis right. The use of special constructions reserved for human possessees or even more generally for possession splits is especially frequent if both participants – possessor and possessee – rank high on the empathy scale (kin terms, proper nouns, speech-act participant pronouns, singular pronouns [individuals], 1st person for the possessor; [definite (singular)] kin terms/social relational terms for the possessee). What this means is that it is the combination of two highly animate participants in one and the same construction which motivates the possession split. Neither is it the possessor alone nor the possessee on its own which triggers the use of special possessive constructions. This is a little different with the cases of possessor-oriented splits in genitival possession attested in Basque, Turkish and Georgian. In Basque, a low degree of empathy triggers a special construction, namely the classification of the possessor as a location. Human possessors are normally non-locations, but this also applies to a wide variety of other non-human possessors. Whether the genitivus locativus may combine with a human possessee is a question which we have not been able to find an answer to. For Turkish and Georgian, genericity is responsible for the possession split. A generic possessors can be human

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

just like specific or referential possessors can be non-human. Of course, a high degree of empathy correlates with a high degree of referentiality – however referentiality is not an exclusive prerogative of human possessors. These three non-Indo-European languages show that the impact of empathy on the architecture of the possessive system may be very indirect, if at all. Since we have not studied non-European languages with regard to the role the possessor plays in their possessive systems, we dare not claim that the interaction of properties of the possessor and the possessee is uniquely European. However, we consider possessor-orientation (in combination with certain classes of possessees) a widely attested, almost common trait of our sample languages. The sensitivity of possessive constructions not only to the possessee but also to the possessor is an additional factor which makes it difficult to determine the extent of alienability-related splits in the languages of Europe. We conclude this section with a survey of which of Heine’s (1997: 47) schemata are attested in our sample languages. Owing to Heine’s focus on predicative possession, we will begin with an inventory of the 15 languages which display possession splits in the realm of predication. Table (C7) reflects the distribution of the eight sche-

(C7)  Schemata in predicative possession language

action location companion goal genitive source topic equation

Russian ac lo/lo Ukrainian ac lo/lo Belarusian ac lo/lo Breton ac co go Portuguese ac co Icelandic ac/ac co Lithuanian ac go Georgian ac/ac Basque ac/ac Faroese ac Maltese lo/lo co go Welsh lo co/co Turkish lo Finnish lo/lo Kalmyk co go 15 10 7 6 4 1

ge

0

0

0

mata over the languages. The slash / indicates that a given language employs several (mostly only two) predicative possessive constructions patterned on the basis of the same schema.



Chapter 6.  Results 

Of Heine’s eight schemata, three are completely absent from the list and one – the genitive schema – is attested to only once. This is in line with other findings of Heine’s (1997), according to which these missing or under represented schemata are largely un-European. Similarly, the preponderance of the Action Schema corroborates what has been said about European preferences elsewhere (Heine 1997). The relatively frequent instances of the Location Schema and the Companion Schema are also consistent with their cross-linguistically prominent positions (Heine 1994). However, this corroboration of other linguists hypotheses is not the only interesting aspect about the patterns presented in Table (C7). There are also other equally noteworthy observations to be made. First of all, the languages differ according to whether their splits are based on one schema or on several. The non-Indo-European mono-splitters Georgian, Basque and Finnish, for instance, have two expressions each. These expressions draw on the same conceptual source: in Basque and Georgian, it is always the Action Schema and in Finnish the Location Schema is responsible for both constructions. In other languages, be they mono-splitters or poly-splitters, more than one schema is employed to create predicative possessive constructions. There is also an asymmetry between the more frequently attested schemata (Action Schema, Location Schema and Companion Schema) and the remaining two schemata – an asymmetry which can be given the form of an implication.

Goal Genitive

⊃

Action Location Companion

• If the Goal Schema or the Genitive Schema is employed to serve as the basis of a construction of predicative possession, then in the same language one or more other constructions will be used based on the Action Schema, the Location Schema or the Companion Schema. Strikingly, there seems to be a restriction on the combination of Action Schema and Location Schema. • If possession splits include constructions based on the Companion Schema, Goal Schema or Genitive Schema, then only one of the group made up of Action Schema and Location Schema may be employed in the same language. Furthermore, it is worthwhile to have a look at the functions with which the schemata in the above languages are associated. The necessary survey is presented in Table (C8).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

(C8)  Schemata and functions language

action

location

companion

goal

genitive

Russian generic; abstract referential Ukrainian generic; abstract referential Belarusian generic; abstract referential Breton general; permanent current; physical current PM Portuguese general; permanent current PM; B Icelandic abstract; permanent/ current PM; B; kin; legal physical Lithuanian general; permanent abstract; current Georgian animate/inanimate Basque general/permanent Faroese kin Maltese general current/ current B; PM general past clothes current Turkish current general; permanent Finnish human POR/PM; non-human POR Welsh current PM general; permanent Kalmyk permanent current

The picture resulting from (C8) is variegated but not entirely arbitrary. A glance at the distribution of the functions of current (or temporary) vs. permanent possession yields a telling result. The time dimension is well represented in the possessive systems. We find several “association lines” linking schemata and current/permanent possession. Of the ten occurrences of current possession as a distinct possessive category, four associate with the Companion Schema, three with the Location Schema and again three with the Goal Schema. Current possession is never expressed by a construction based either on the Action Schema or on the Genitive Schema. However, of the eight instances of permanent possession, five involve the Action Schema, two the Companion Schema and only one the Genitive Schema. The only overlap is the use of the Companion Schema in Welsh and Kalmyk for the purpose of expressing permanent possession. This is but a minor flaw because we remind the reader that the Kalmyk case is far from clear (cf. section 5.2). Note also that the function of expressing permanent possession almost always co-occurs with the notion of general possession in the sense of being unspecified or neutral as to time. Permanence is thus only one of two (or more) possible readings a given construction invites (whereas current possession is either the only possible interpretation of a given construction or co-exists with the closely related reading of physical possession). In addition, we observe that



Chapter 6.  Results 

the Goal Schema is used predominantly to express current possession (with a ratio of 3-to-1), the Companion Schema is likewise preferably associated with current possession (with a ratio of 2-to-1). The Action Schema and the Location Schema are less straightforward. For the former, permanent possession is the most frequently attested function – it ousts the others by the minimal margin of 5-to-4. As to the Location Schema, the situation is even more balanced as current possession accounts for four instances and referential possession for three along two animacy-based distinctions. Given that referential possession may refer both to permanent and to temporary relations, the Location Schema seems to represent the one schema with the highest degree of compatibility with possessive concepts. What all these observations mean for the general theory of linguistic possession will be discussed in section 6 below. Possession splits in Europe are no less interesting linguistically than those we find in other parts of the world. Sometimes the relevant distinctions hide behind all too familiar patterns and thus tend to escape the notice of the casual observer. The presence/ absence of possession splits in European languages does not appear to be crucially dependent on any major typological parameter. Most importantly, the direct or indirect participation of the alienability correlation in the possession splits is by no means exclusively correlated with head-marking properties. Admittedly, inalienable possessees (especially kinship terms in Maltese and Georgian, but also direct combinations of possessive pronouns and possessee NPs in a wide variety of languages) may be headmarked in pronominal possession. However, elsewhere the same concepts enter constructions which are clearly instances of dependent marking (such as PPs in Mainland Scandinavian languages). Furthermore, some languages distinguish one inalienable class from other inalienable classes – and these in turn from alienable classes. Except for Maltese, our sample languages tend to keep kinship and body part terms apart – sometimes also physico-mental states, i.e., there are several distinct categories of inalienable possession, not a unitary global class. Other structural parameters are also largely irrelevant. Possession splits occur in polysynthetic languages (e.g., Georgian), agglutinating languages (e.g., Turkish), introflecting languages (e.g., Maltese), fusional languages (i.e., Icelandic), and morphologically “poor” languages (e.g., Low German). Possession splits are attested in SVO-languages (e.g., Italian), SOV-languages (e.g., Basque) and VSO-languages (e.g., Scots Gaelic). Ergative languages (Georgian and Basque) split possession much the same way as accusative languages (= the bulk of our sample languages). Pro-languages (e.g., Norwegian) and pro-drop-languages (e.g., Rumanian) are together in the group of possession-splitters in Europe. This dissociation of possession splits from potential structural parameters is indicative of the basically semantic-conceptual nature of (many of) these splits. The evidence adduced from the European continent supports the idea that independent of their degree of grammaticalisation, possession splits have a raison d’être which is located outside of grammar proper.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

6.2  Lessons to learn Apart from suggesting that in the languages of Europe formal possession splits are at least as common as in languages spoken elsewhere on the globe, what does this study teach us? In this final section, we will try to put our above results into perspective by way of comparing them with selected theoretical approaches to possession in general or to certain components thereof. Owing to the number of publications dealing with subjects relevant to possession and its theory, we restrict the discussion to a relatively small set of hypotheses whose selection is justified by the fact that they are well-known, and not only among specialists of linguistic possession.

6.2.1  Semantics against the marked head In the final paragraph of the previous section (5.3), we emphasised that the motivation for possession splits occurring is to be sought on the semantic or conceptual level. This statement of ours is meant to counter inter alia Nichols (1988) and Chappell & McGregor (1989) who understand alienability-based possession splits as a purely structural phenomenon: [i]n the literature, the opposition of inalienable to alienable possession is generally presented as a semantic one, but […] it is best approached as a structural opposition rather than a semantic one. Languages with an opposition of inalienable to alienable possession have split systems of possession marking, and alienable and inalienable are not cross-linguistic semantic constants but simply the extremes of the nominal hierarchy defined by the splits. The term inalienable [italics original], then, refers not to a semantic constant having to do with the nature of possession, but to whatever set of nouns happens to take inalienable possession marking in a given language. (Nichols 1992: 117)

We will check the tenability of this assumption against the European data discussed in the previous sections. Before we can set out on this task, it is necessary to recall some of Nichols’ major points. The correlation of marking type and possession splits is central to her argument because [t]he very possibility of an alienable/inalienable opposition existing in a language depends on the type of formal coding available: inalienable possession is found almost exclusively, and very often, in languages which use head-marked possession. […] In the view argued here, inalienable possession is not primarily a semantic distinction but the automatic consequence of the closer formal bonding that results in head-marked possession[.] (Nichols 1992: 121)

Note that Nichols only refers to attributive possession – and there specifically to pronominal possession. She continues her argument as follows:



Chapter 6.  Results 

[t]here is no significant correlation between inalienable possession and head/ dependent type of the language overall. Nor is there a straightforward correlation between the overall head/dependent marking of the NP and the presence or absence of inalienable possession. It is not infrequent for a language which is otherwise unswervingly dependent-marking in its NP morphology to use headmarked or zero-marked possession with a few inalienables or a closed set of inalienables[.] (Nichols 1992: 122)

Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1998: 39–40) and Stolz & Gorsemann (2001: 486–487) express their dissatisfaction with this largely desemanticised view that relies exclusively on morphosyntactic properties which, in turn, are described as being local in the sense that they do not dependent on more general typological preferences of a given language. In other words, it suffices that head-marking strategies are available for one particular realisation of possessive NPs – no matter how head-marking strategies fare outside this restricted area of application. Nichols (1992: 121–122) has an explanation ready for the supposed tendency of inalienable possession to co-occur with head-marking strategies: inalienables typically include kinship terms, part/whole terms, an/or body parts, nouns which are most likely to occur possessed in discourse, and the formal marking of inalienability simply grammaticalises that possession.

This scenario follows the logic of text (or token) frequency in discourse. Since certain classes of nouns have a high probability of occurring as possessees in discourse, the high frequent co-occurrence of these nouns with markers encoding possessors facilitates their coalescence (provided they are syntactic neighbours) according to the wellknown processes of grammaticalsation during which bound morphology may emerge (Lehmann 1995: 148). The absence of overt marking too could be accounted for in terms of grammaticalisation phenomena because predictable co-occurrence of units and their coalescence may be seen as stages prior to further processes leading to absolute desemantisation and fossilisation (Greenberg 1991: 308) and eventually to what Lehmann (1995: 171) calls reduction to zero. Frequency effects have been shown to bear the responsibility for the genesis of linguistic structure in many cases (Bybee & Hopper 2001). Thus, Nichols’ (1992) hypothesis is in line with observations made elsewhere in the larger framework of Emergent Grammar (Macwhinney 2001). Furthermore, Nichols (1992: 120) claims that “no language […] uses only dependent marking to implement an alienable/inalienable distinction”. She also observes (Nichols 1992: 122) that there are many languages in which • inalienable possessees are often obligatorily possessed “and this constitutes the entirety of their formal distinctness”, • inalienable possessees are head-marked, whereas alienable possessees are not which “means that the former possessor has fused to the inalienably possessed noun” and

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

• zero marking of possessees is normally restricted to inalienable ones, whereas alienable possessees require overt marking (this is interpreted as a “form of com­ pounding or incorporation of possessor and possessed”). How does this list of cross-linguistic observations relate to our European findings? First of all, the vast majority of our European sample languages are bona fide instances of dependent-marking languages. As such they do not appear to be good candidates for the alienability-correlation to apply. However, as the quotes from Nichols (1992) above show, the typological macro-structure of a language (in this case, the pre-dominance of dependent-marking structures) does not necessarily determine what can happen in possession. On top of this, even the meso-structural preferences on the phrase-level are decisive: in a language which prefers dependent-making in its NPs, there might still be a niche for head-marking to apply to possessive constructions (if inalienability is involved). Thus, there is no a priori reason to exclude alienability-related distinctions in European languages. Nevertheless, Nichols (1992: 123) provides a table in which Europe (including the Caucasus region) has zero frequency for inalienable possession, meaning: there is no formal opposition of alienable vs. inalienable possession in Nichols’ admittedly small (with only ten languages) European sub-sample. Remarkably, Europe is the only region in her global study which is depicted as completely free of alienability-based possession splits (this absence of the alienability correlation from Europe and its generally low frequency in the Old World is counterbalanced by the Pacific region and the New World for which Nichols [1992: 122–123] reports much higher percentages of alienability splits). According to the model of dependency grammar used by Nichols (1986: 57), in an attributive possessive construction, the possessee is the head and the possessor the dependent. If the possessor and the possessee are expressed in one word – with the possessor being represented by an affix on the possessee noun, then we have an instance of head-marking. If however an adnominal genitive is used, dependent-marking applies (Nichols 1986: 64). This classification also extends to combinations of a possessive pronoun and a possessee noun (Nichols 1992: 47). Remarks made elsewhere in her book on linguistic diversity (Nichols 1992: 52) show that juxtaposition of possessive pronoun and possessee NP is an instance of “no morphological marking” and thus zero-marking is the appropriate label. It is difficult to decide what to do with possessive pronouns which agree with their head nouns and thus behave like modifying adjectives morphosyntactically: in her survey of marking strategies, Nichols (1992) does not mention this phenomenon, which however is frequently attested in Europe. In the absence of any statement by the proponent herself, we take the liberty of treating possessive “adjectives” in analogy to proper adjectives and thus interpret head-modifier agreement as evidence of dependent marking. However if the pronominal possessors come in the shape of a genitive then dependent marking applies (Nichols 1992: 49). Pronominal copies of possessors in genitive constructions are considered head-marking



Chapter 6.  Results 

devices because the pronoun is “associated with the head noun” (Nichols 1992: 79–80). Since the pronominal copy is an analytic means and, as such, is not morphologically part of the possessee noun, we take it that Nichols also accepts marking on the phrase level as evidence of head marking or dependent marking. There is no explicit mention of possessors being the complement of a PP. However, uninflected adpositions which govern case are treated as instances of dependent marking in Nichols’ (1986: 64) framework. Thus, we take it for granted that attributive AdPs are genuine instances of dependent marking (especially if morphological case is assigned to the possessor NP). On the basis of these clarifications, we can proceed to compare Nichols’ hypotheses with our data. For obvious reasons, we only pick out those cases which are uncontroversial and promise interesting results. For the same practical reasons, we refrain from recapitulating all facts relevant to concrete examples, and instead treat the cases rather summarily. For details, the reader is referred to the above sections 4–5, where the empirical evidence is discussed at some length. In our sample, there are only two clear instances of inalienable categories being obligatorily (or by default) encoded by head-marking strategies, whereas their alienable counterparts are not, namely Maltese (cf. section 4.1.1.1) and Georgian (cf. section 5.1.1.1). In Rumanian (cf. [B358]) and Aromunian, similar splits occur but are stylistically marked options nowadays (at least in Rumanian). For East Armenian (cf. [B359]), the evidence is suggestive of a system in which not only body parts and kinship terms are head-marked under pronominal possession, but also a variety of other concepts. Typically alienable concepts would normally require free pre-nominal possessive pronouns. Unfortunately, we could not determine whether or not there are contexts in which the so-called pronominal articles are compulsory. In Maltese, possessor suffixation is restricted to typically inalienable possessees such as kinship terms, body parts and sundry salient concepts. All other possessees obligatorily require the use of a preposition which introduces the possessor. According to the above classification, the attributive PP counts as an instance of dependent-marking. In Georgian, only kinship terms of ascending generations allow for the suffixation of the possessive pronoun to the possessee noun. With other possessees, the possessive pronouns are independent pre-nominal units which agree with their head in case. According to our stipulation above, agreement is taken as evidence of dependent marking – and thus Maltese and Georgian largely corroborate Nichols’ hypotheses. The two languages differ from each other insofar as possessor suffixation covers the entire paradigm of pronominal possessors of Maltese but in Georgian possessors in the 3rd person plural disallow possessor suffixation. We will come back to this issue of the impact of the possessor on possessive constructions shortly. For the time being, however, we will follow a different line of argumentation. If possessive “adjectives” constitute cases of dependent marking and attributive PPs are also instances of dependent marking, then Nichols’ (1992) claim is obsolete that there are no languages whose expressions of inalienable possession are entirely

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

of the dependent-marking type. Stolz & Gorsemann (2001) describe pronominal possession in Faroese as a case in point: there are several splits by which kinship terms, internal and external body parts and alienable concepts are formally distinguished. For kinship terms and the two categories of possessed body parts, dependent-marking strategies are employed (possessive “adjectives” with kinship terms, attributive PPs with body parts) – which also apply to alienable possession for which attributive PPs are used (cf. [B186]). Interpreting the possessive “adjectives” used with kinship terms in this way helps us handle another split attested in Faroese and many other European languages (cf. section 5.1.1.2.5) – a split of the pronominal paradigm into “adjectives” and proper genitives. The latter are bona fide examples of dependent marking (Nichols 1992: 54). This suggests that the remainder of the pronominal paradigm attests to dependent marking too, albeit in a different way. Again, these differences co-vary with the possessor person i.e., they are not occasioned by possessee-related distinctions (which would be typical for the alienability correlation). Dependent marking is also the only strategy employed in the realm of attributive possession of the other North Germanic languages. For Mainland Scandinavian languages this is especially interesting because PPs headed by different prepositions tend to be used for body-part possession and kinship possession, respectively (cf. [B197]). In this way, neither of the two constructions can be said to reflect inalienability more iconically than the other as possessor and possessee are equally distant from each other in both constructions. Where there is a distinction of direct pronominal possession (= the possessive pronoun combines with the head noun in one NP) and indirect pronominal possession (= the possessor is expressed by the pronominal complement of an attributive PP), the prepositional strategy leads to a greater topological distance between possessor NP and possessee NP. According to the principles laid down by Haiman (1985), the direct construction would then represent the more intimate relationship between two concepts, whereas the indirect construction refers to a looser connection between the two participants. With a bit of good will, one may interpret the co-existence of direct and indirect possessive constructions in the North Germanic languages (and elsewhere) as corroboration of Nichols’ (1992: 117) claim that [t]here are several recurrent types of splits in the marking of possession, and all of them lend themselves to a single generalization. The inalienables take marking which is more nearly head-marking or less dependent-marking than the marking of alienables.

The direct construction is not properly head marking, of course. However, it is closer to head marking than the indirect construction. For insular North Germanic, the direct construction is confined to kinship terms as possessees – in Mainland Scandinavian however, the situation is somewhat different. Discounting some details, Scots Gaelic (cf. [B210]), and presumably also Irish, behave similarly to insular North Germanic. Direct possessive constructions are



Chapter 6.  Results 

reserved for prototypical inalienable possessees (body parts and kinship terms) provided they are definite. In all other cases, attributive PPs have to be employed. Beyond Goidelic however, the evidence becomes increasingly more complex and thus does not lend itself easily to an interpretation along the lines of Haiman (1985) and Nichols (1992). One could always try a detour, though. Consider Italian for instance, where pronominally possessed kinship terms, if they are syntactically light and in the singular, normally impede the use of the definite article which is obligatorily present in constructions with alienable possessees (cf. [B325]). The possessive construction involving pronominal possessors (with the 3rd person plural excluded) and singular kinship terms in light possessee NPs are morphosyntactically less complex than the ones used for alienable possessees since the definite article cannot be used with them. This relative morphosyntactic simplicity is not the same as a direct construction of the above kind, ontologically speaking. However, the article-less construction in Italian shares one property with the direct construction of say, Icelandic: it is shorter by one unit than the construction used for alienable possessees. This absence of an otherwise indispensable component of the possessive construction could be loosely associated with the distinction of inherent and established relations (Seiler 1983a), albeit again in an indirect way: The construction which makes do with the smaller set of obligatory units is leaning towards the pole of inherence whereas the more complex construction is nearer to the pole of established categories. A modified version of the Italian pattern recurs in Bulgarian (cf. [B354]–[B355]) and Macedonian – the two South Slavic languages which use short forms of the pronouns to express possessors with kinship terms in the singular and long forms elsewhere. The short forms normally exclude the use of the definiteness marker which is however obligatory in combinations with the so-called long forms. For Albanian, the situation is more complicated (cf. [B334]). Under possession by a possessor in the 1st or 2nd person singular, old kinship terms allow for pre-nominal possessive pronouns and do not take the definiteness marker when this order is chosen. The definiteness marker is obligatory with possessees of other ontological classes. Thus, the construction used for one set of inalienable possessees is morphosyntactically simpler than the construction used for alienable possessees. In addition, 3rd person possessors of both numbers require a third construction type which involves overt definiteness marking and a linking particle but excludes the possessive pronoun. Morphosyntactically, this construction is more complex than the one used with 1st/2nd person singular possessors. However, the absence of an overt representative of the possessor is reminiscent of properties prototypically associated with inherent possessive relations. Thus, there are again possessor-dependent constructions for certain inalienably possessed items, viz. kinship terms. What is important here is, on the one hand, the fact that the constructions are not determined by the properties of the possessee alone, but also vary according to possessor properties, and on the other hand, there are several distinct constructions associated with inalienability of the same kind (kinship terms) which cannot replace each other freely.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

Superficially, this brief summary of pronominal possessive constructions in a variety of our sample languages seems to corroborate Nichols’ basic claims. Even the influence exerted by the possessor on the choice of the appropriate construction could be understood as corroboration. Since possessor-based splits are very often such that speech-act participants in the singular or some subset thereof involving the 1st person require or license specific constructions, one could argue that the more head-markinglike constructions used for these constellations of participants (= EGO/TU/ILLEPOR + KINPUM) reflect their high frequency in discourse and thus follows the paths of diachronic development sketched by Nichols (1992): the frequency with which possessors of this kind occur in combination with possessees of the kinship class is so high that reduction is triggered, yielding morphosyntactically simpler constructions. In Welsh (cf. section 4.3.1.1), for instance, there is a possessor-based split which distinguishes the 1st person singular from the rest of the paradigm of pronominal possessors. However, this split is absolutely autonomous from possessee semantics. In this case, it is evidently not inalienability that favours head-marking-like structures, but instead the identity of the possessor with EGO. The class of possessees combined with EGO is irrelevant for the choice of construction. Moreover, there are other splits which are dissociated from alienability as such. In Finnish, speech-act participants as possessors tend to be encoded only by suffixes on the possessee noun, whereas 3rd person possessors normally require an additional genitive – be it on a pronoun or on a lexical possessor noun. Thus, the morphosyntactically simpler construction is accessible to a well-defined set of possessors, only irrespective of the semantics of the possessees. Does this and similar evidence speak in favour of frequency as the determining factor? As far as we know, the statistics of possessive constructions have not yet been calculated. Admittedly, it is intuitively appealing to think of speech-act participants (and among these especially EGO) as functioning very often as possessors in real discourse. However, this is only an impressionistic argument. Hard quantitative facts are not available. Comparative studies of possessive statistics are also unheard of. Let us assume that one could indeed claim that the alienability/inalienability dichotomy is not a semantically-based opposition. If this is the case then there is no longer any reason to distinguish alienability-based splits from differently motivated possession splits because they are no longer differentiated on semantic grounds. However, if other possession splits can be shown to be triggered by semantics, then the idea imposes itself that there might be something semantic behind the alienability-correlation, too. That semantics has to be accounted for is evident in those languages where the splits are not just binary, where there are multiple splits qualifying the language as a poly-splitter. The frequency-based explanation fares well if and only if there is a binary distinction of more frequent vs. less frequent categories. This duality can be described independently from semantics. However, if there are more than just two members in a paradigm of possessive categories, problems arise as to



Chapter 6.  Results 

their exclusive dependence on text frequency. Consider scenarios in which kinship terms, body parts and alienable possessees correspond to three or more formally distinct possessive constructions (e.g., in Faroese [Stolz & Gorsemann 2001] and section 4.2.4). The direct construction – the combination of possessive pronoun and possessee noun – is reserved for kinship terms as possessees. Furthermore, another set of potential inalienables – body parts – takes a special construction, too. More precisely, there are two special constructions for body parts: one for external body parts, the other for internal organs. In both cases, PPs introduce the possessor. The prepositions indicate whether external or internal body parts are involved. Finally, there is another PP employed for combinations with alienable possessees. The three PPs are more or less of equal complexity (the three prepositions á ‘on’, í ‘in’ and hjá ‘at’ are all open monosyllables although only the one used for alienable possession has a filled onset position). We have serious doubts that this situation can be explained satisfactorily as being the result of frequency effects. Apart from the more headmarking-like direct possessive construction for kinship terms, the expressions employed for possessive relations cannot be ordered hierarchically according to more or less head-marking and more or less dependent-marking, respectively. If inalienable possessees are characterised by high frequency in possessive constructions in discourse, we would expect to find something more head-marking-like for body parts, too. One possibility could be that all inalienable possessees are treated alike i.e., kinship terms and body parts would require the same construction, namely the direct possessive construction. Another possibility would allow for two distinct constructions which may differ slightly from each other in terms of complexity (according to the supposed differences in text frequency of the two classes of inalienable concepts). However, our expectations are not met. Inalienability does not bring about head-marking properties automatically. If several classes of potentially inalienable concepts are formally kept apart, frequency cannot be the only crucial factor. The distinction of external and internal possessees in Faroese, for instance, is hardly the effect of differences in frequency. What motivates the use of the two prepositions á ‘on’ and í ‘in’ used in the possessive constructions is semantics. This also applies to the distinction of inalienable and alienable possession in this language because the constructions used for body parts are no less complex than the ones used for proper alienable possessees. Frequency might explain to some extent why kinship terms are involved in the simplest construction type, viz. the direct possessive construction. The distinction of kinship terms and body parts however is more likely a matter of qualitative than quantitative aspects. Thus, Nichols (1992) is surely right when she postulates a leaning of frequently co-occurring elements towards fusion and in this way giving rise to head-marking structures. However, she stretches her argument too far by claiming that semantics are practically irrelevant for the genesis of formal alienability correlations. If formal expression X is reserved for inalienable class

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

I and formal expression Y is responsible for inalienable class II (whereas alienable concepts require expression Z), these formal distinctions must have something to do with the qualitative properties of the members of these classes – and perhaps only indirectly with frequency. Frequency and semantics are often competitors when solving a so-called henegg-problem. We are not sure whether text frequency is the correct measure for the phenomena under scrutiny. In lieu of discourse or text frequency, we assume that cognitive forces are at work. Matras’ (1998) idea of pragmatico-cognitive salience is crucial in this respect. Speakers and listeners have certain things on their minds without necessarily putting them into words. If a concept is salient in this way it does not need to occur exceedingly often in a given text, but it must be associable with what is uttered. Constantly thinking of or being frequently reminded of something contributes to this something being cognitively present and easily accessible. It also favours the use of distinct expressions for these concepts. This might often translate into “simple constructions” including zero marking. However, constructional simplicity is not always identical with formal distinctness. If several categories of the same paradigm are (more or less equally) pragmatico-cognitively salient, simplicity alone cannot satisfy the need for distinctive constructions. Simplicity can be sacrificed for the benefit of distinctness – and distinctness is a notion which is independent of the factor of frequency. Distinctness is based primarily upon content-oriented categorisation. One more problem remains to be solved for proponents of frequency-oriented approaches of the kind Nichols (1992) put forward, namely the explanation of alienability-related distinctions in predicative possession. The best evidence for inalienability co-occurring with head marking is found in attributive possession. Proving the same in predicative possession is a different story, though not an impossible one. According to our summary in section 5.3, the alienability correlation is also relevant for predicative possession in a variety of our sample languages although with the exception of Faroese it is practically always intertwined with other distinctions (physical possession, temporary possession, etc.). Nevertheless, alienable and inalienable possessees require different have-verbs in Icelandic (cf. section 4.2.21), provided the appropriate time-frame applies (i.e., permanent vs. temporary/current possession). In Icelandic, kinship terms are predicatively possessed by a simple transitive verb eiga ‘to own/to have’, whereas body parts occur in a more complex construction involving a PP as complement of the verb vera ‘to be’. This is also the construction used with currently/physically possessed alienable possessees. One could claim that the simple verb with its direct object NP as possessee is an equivalent of the direct possessive construction described in attributive possession. In this sense, it is unsurprising that the possessees belong to the kinship class. The verb eiga is more head-marking-like as it seems to incorporate all the relevant properties which therefore do not have to be made explicit. In contrast, vera með is more dependent-marking-like as it includes a PP-complement.



Chapter 6.  Results 

There is also a markedness relation. On formal grounds, predicative constructions like Icelandic vera með X, Portuguese estar com X and Maltese kien bi X – all realisations of the Companion Schema – are more complex than the construction used for permanent/general possession (Icelandic eiga/hafa X, Portuguese ter X and Maltese ghandu X): the more complex constructions are comprised of three constituents each, whereas the simpler ones are only bipartite. If the differences in complexity on the expression side are paralleled by a difference on the content side such that more form goes along with more content, we have an iconic relation. As in all of the above cases, at least one class of possessees (namely alienably possessed objects) can occur in combination with both of the have-verbs, the differences cannot be occasioned by the semantics of the possessees in the first place. What is important is the time dimension. The more complex constructions all refer to current (and physical) possession while the simpler constructions are either in charge of permanent possession or serve as a neutral expression. Thus, we may correlate the differences on the expression side to the distinction of general/permanent vs. current/temporary. The latter categories take the more complex construction and this suggests that they might also be more complex on the conceptual level. This boils down to the following observation: the relative simplicity of certain predicative constructions is not primarily the result of inalienability-driven tendencies towards head-marking, but rather reflect differences which exist on the time dimension. We also emphasise that if alienability has a say in several syntactic areas, the probability is high that we are dealing with a deeply rooted semantico-conceptual distinction and not with a purely statistical phenomenon. We hasten to clarify that this does not mean that the systematic categorisations in attributive and predicative possession are identical in all respects, cf. below. There is also a methodological problem with Nichols’ (1992) generalisations. For practical reasons, she restricts her empirical basis to major strategies and excludes so-called minor strategies. This is without a doubt a fully legitimate way of handling things in cross-linguistic research. However, this otherwise absolutely acceptable practice has an unwelcome side-effect. Only the highest degree of grammaticalisation (within a given language system) is taken into account. Unsurprisingly, advanced stages of grammaticalisation often coincide with morphological reduction, coalescence, etc. not the least because via obligatorification frequency of use normally increases. In contrast, minor strategies are not renowned for their high type frequency – and may also be rather low as to token frequency. Why are minor strategies there if they fail to apply frequently? The answer is probably that minor strategies serve the purpose of singling out categories which are relevant for the speakers because of the concepts which associate with that category. If they are not frequent enough to qualify as major strategies then there must be something else which impels speakers to employ these constructions. This something has to be sought outside the area of text frequency. That possession splits have a semantico-conceptual basis becomes clear from another

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

fact connected with minor strategies. In many languages in our sample, there are possessive constructions whose use is not absolutely compulsory. They may be replaced by other constructions whose meaning is less specific. The choice between a general and a specific possessive construction cannot be driven by sub-conscious frequency assumptions by the speaker. To the contrary, the speaker employs the specific construction whenever s/he feels that otherwise the meaning cannot adequately be made explicit. Pragmatic factors intervene as well. By only concentrating on certain types of constructions which fulfil the parameters of grammaticalisation to the utmost, Nichols overlooks that possession is a functional domain in which elements of very different degrees of grammaticalisation form a network of expressions of content-wise related categories. In spite of all this criticism, we do not deny that Nichols (1992) describes a probable pathway by which units which are subject to grammaticalisation may wind up as instances of head-marking or zero-marking. However, she does not prove that possession splits of the alienable vs. inalienable kind are fully dissociated from semantics.

6.2.2  Out of control Leon Stassen (2001: 954) identifies two major parameters which help him in his quest for the typology and universals of possessive systems. These parameters are control and temporariness. The possessor may exert control over the possessee in some way or the possessor may fail to do so. Moreover, the relation may be of long, ideally unlimited duration or be only brief, ephemeral. The combinations of control properties and those related to the time dimension according to Stassen are three in number: •  [¬control & ¬time stable] inalienable possession The possessor typically is not in control of the possessee which happens to be an inalienable concept such as kinship or a body part which the possessor cannot normally dispose of at his or her will. The relation is time-stable i.e., one’s kin will remain one’s kin over time just as one’s left arm will remain one’s left arm as long as no special factors intervene. •  [+ control & ¬time stable] alienable possession (general) The possessor typically exerts control over the possessee which usually is an alienable concept such as a concrete object which the possessor can dispose of freely at any time as s/he is legally entitled to do so. The relation is time-stable insofar as the possessor’s decision to get rid of the possessed item may never come true. In principle, the possessor may remain in possession of the possessee for any length of time. •  [+ control & + time stable] current physical possession The possessor physically controls the possessee which normally is an alienable concept such as a portable concrete object which is either within the possessor’s reach, in his/her hands or on his/her body from where it can be removed at any time. The



Chapter 6.  Results 

relation is not stable over time because the possessed object itself is an entity whose life-cycle is extremely limited or is removed (semi-automatically) in certain intervals or moves by itself. This catalogue of categories is interesting because Stassen (2001: 954) indirectly claims that the above three combinations exhaust the typology of possible possessive relations. However, our own research reveals that this is not entirely correct as there is a fourth combination of parameters which is not only a logical possibility but is attested in a wide variety of languages. We allude to physico-mental states which have been shown to figure prominently in the inventory of possessee classes of European languages. The fourth type has the following properties: •  [¬control & + time stable] physico-mental states The possessor experiences a bodily or psychic sensation which is beyond his/her control. The possessee is most typically a feeling, an ailment, a thought, etc. Except for chronic illnesses and the like (to be classified with the inalienables above!), the average physico-mental state is a momentary phenomenon whose chances of surviving the next few minutes are very slim. There is no control whatsoever on the part of the possessor and the possessive relation is by no means time-stable. We concede that control and temporariness constitute two highly important – actually the two most important parameters for possession. However, they are not organised along the lines of what typologists call tetrachoric charts (Croft 2006) where one logically possible combination of parameters is expected, and does fail to occur. Physico-mental states as a distinct class of possessees are not negligible because they form a distinct class of possessees in an impressive number of our sample languages. They require special possessive constructions both in attributive and in predicative possession. Thus, they have a solid position among the possessee classes. For some linguists, physico-mental states are problematic in the sense of being too atypical ontologically to qualify as good instances of possessees. Manzelli; Ramat & Roma (2002: 225) classify instances of possessed physico-mental states as marginal possession. They are marginal only according to the prototype model we employ in possession research which requires the possessee to be a concrete object. They are not marginal in terms of frequency, as our sample languages amply document. Note also that in the study by Manzelli; Ramat & Roma (2002: 241–242), the authors demonstrate that physico-mental states are rarely conceived of as possessees in the languages of their sample if spoken outside the Mediterranean, whereas for many Mediterranean languages, physico-mental states are fully acceptable possessees. Interestingly, physico-mental states are almost always possessees in Mediterranean and in nonMediterranean languages if an abstract concept like TO BE RIGHT is also expressed by a possessive construction.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

This is the methodological point. The prototype of a possessive situation does not exhaust the entire domain of possession. The prototype is largely a psychologically informed construct used by us linguists to create a firm basis from which to start the investigation. We take Lazard (2001) seriously when he says that our study must be guided by the distribution of formal expressions and not by pre-conceived ideas of what can be a possessee and what cannot. Thus, if there are languages which encode the experience of a physico-mental state in the same way as they encode bona fide instances of prototypical possession, then physico-mental states form a class of potential possessees – and have to be taken account of in possession research. Language comparison must reveal how central or how peripheral physico-mental states actually are among the classes of potential possessees. Languages may be classified according to how they handle physico-mental states – do they treat them like any other possessee, do they lump them together with a particular class of possessees or do they employ means of encoding which clearly show that physico-mental states do not belong with possession? Of course, this possibility is not restricted to physico-mental states but also applies to all kinds of marginal possession including abstract possessees. Clearly, if Lazard’s methodology is rigorously applied researchers might face the danger of losing sight of the category which originally was the focus of their attention because possessive relations are not always expressed by constructions which are exclusively dedicated to possession. We have noticed repeatedly in the course of our investigation that a clear-cut division is not always feasible when possessive relations come in the guise of spatial relations i.e., when locative constructions are employed to express possessive relations. With a view to describing the possessive system properly, it would be necessary to include the entire range of functions fulfilled by locative constructions (as long as there are no formal differences between the possessive component and the purely spatial ones). In a cross-linguistic study, Croft (2001) amply demonstrates that intricacies of this kind, which can be rather pronounced in individual languages, dissolve if the distribution profiles of expressions over functions of many languages are mapped onto one another. However, we need this mapping procedure to be able to determine what counts as a core and what counts as a periphery language independently. Otherwise, we would take the prototype for granted as the outer limit of what is possible, although the prototype is there mainly for practical purposes. Lehmann (1998: 4) introduces the empathy hierarchy which is the successor of the formerly widely accepted animacy hierarchy. This hierarchy is internally organised according to the different degrees of empathy (or “similarity”) between the speaker and the participants that take part in a given situation. Speech-act participants occupy the highest rank-position followed by the following dichotomies: human vs. nonhuman > animate vs. inanimate > individual object vs. substance > object vs. location > entity vs. proposition. Lehmann (1998: 4) specifies that “the speaker



Chapter 6.  Results 

is […] least empathic with entities which are not even thing-like.” According to his hierarchy, the last dichotomy comprises the distinction of entities and propositions with the latter being clearly not thing-like. However, the question arises as to whether this hierarchy is complete. We dare say that it is not because the ontological category of propositions cannot represent the entire range of abstract phenomena. Physico-mental states are anything but thing-like (although it is sometimes possible, or experiencers think that it is possible, to locate [the source of] a sensation in a particular part of one’s body). Moreover, in many languages abstract concepts like TIME, RIGHT, AGE, RENOWN, etc. are fully acceptable possessees. An elegant solution for this problem would be to replace the label proposition in Lehmann’s hierarchy with the more general term abstract (and this might then motivate re-naming the complementary category concrete in lieu of entity).

6.2.3  Empathy for the speaker To continue with the empathy hierarchy, we emphasise that Lehmann’s (1998: 4) principle, according to which “[t]he classification imposed by the grammars of natural languages is oriented towards the ego: participants are rated as to their similarity with the speaker” promises many more insights into the nature of language than exclusive reliance on frequency ever could. Empathy is a notion which can be easily accommodated within the pragmatico-conceptual framework proposed by Matras (1998). Some concepts are more salient than others because the former have to do with the speakers, whereas frequency does not. What has a connection to the speaker is on his or her mind even though it does not have to be verbalised constantly. Rather, the concepts are associated with certain stimuli, be they of a linguistic nature or something else. Two important observations can be made with regard to the connection of the speaker to the properties associated with the participants that are relevant for the description of a state-of-affairs. Firstly, empathy can be established for each of the two basic participants of the possessive relation, namely with the possessee and with the possessor. Above, there was ample opportunity to discuss instances of human possessees, especially kinship terms, which call for a specific morphosyntactic treatment. Human possessees naturally occupy the second highest rank on the hierarchy. The uppermost rank however, is not accessible in every respect to possessees, as this top position is reserved for speech-act participants whose expected “life-form” in language is pronominal elements. Except in psychiatric discourse, meta-linguistic reflections and related lingo, constructions like German mein Ich ‘my ego’, dein Ich ‘your ego’, etc. are ruled out, at least in the languages of our European sample. Pronouns as such cannot be possessed directly in attribution although in predicative possession, constructions like German Ich habe dich ‘I have (got) you’ are possible (for instance, in children’s hideand-seek games – but not only there). Speech-act participants can be possessors, of

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

course. As we have seen in the previous sections, it is not rare for a European language to give speech-act participants and among these especially possessors of the 1st person singular morphosyntactically a privileged status by reserving distinct constructions exclusively for them. Furthermore, this prominent position of speech-act participants as possessors is especially strong if the possessee belongs to the class of kinship terms. Lehmann (1998: 5) assumes that “since the prototypical possessor is ego, the entities to which he has a direct relation belong to his personal sphere. In this sense, prototypical interpretations of the possessive relationship lie in the bio-cultural sphere. This is the anthropological basis of possession.” One’s kin undoubtedly belongs to one’s personal sphere. This also holds true for one’s body parts (Lehmann 1998: 6) – and not the least also for physico-mental states a human being is subject to. What affects my body or my mind also concerns me and thus belongs in my bio-culturally defined personal sphere. The point we are trying to make is the following: empathy does not only consist of similarity between speaker and participants in the sense of sharing a variety of features, but it also applies if the speaker “knows what it means” to be under the influence of the phenomenon represented by the possessee NP. Between the possessor and the flu s/he is suffering from (a situation described in German normally as Ich habe eine Grippe ‘I have a flu’), there is no similarity relation – but the illness is somehow located in the possessor’s body and thus resembles body parts to some extent. This speaks in favour of an extension of the notion of empathy such that similarity does not remain the only criterion by which empathy is determined. The possessor’s affectedness and the possessor’s interest are also factors which are constitutive for empathic relations. Languages may differ according to how they classify interest-based and/or affectedness-based relations. Some languages may subsume them entirely, or portions thereof, under possession, other languages may treat them differently. That affectedness and interest sometimes fail to qualify as possessive relations does not justify their exclusion from the empathy hierarchy. We cannot create a re-modelled empathy hierarchy ourselves. Perhaps the additional components do not lend themselves to being easily integrated into the extant hierarchy. Maybe it is even necessary to operate on the basis of a multi-dimensional model with more than two dimensions in order to assign these additional factors their rightful place. It is probably only a minor point that proprial possessive constructions demonstrate that the individualising proper nouns are characterised by a special morphosyntactic behaviour that is different not only from pronominal possessors, but also from human possessors represented by lexical NPs. If a human possessor identified by name triggers a specific possessive construction then this is reason enough to complement the empathy hierarchy by at least one level, namely immediately below the topmost level. The new second level is occupied then by the distinction of proper noun vs. common noun and thus the distinction of human vs. non-human is relegated to the third level. Proper nouns as possessors and the speaker EGO have in common that they are individual human beings, real personae, whereas common nouns refer to representatives of classes.



Chapter 6.  Results 

6.2.4  A trinity of parameters Our study suggests that possession splits are not entirely random, but are determined by a combination of factors such that possessive systems tend to split almost predictably at certain points (or in their vicinity, in a manner of speaking). We have learned from the above that it is by no means sufficient to focus on the possessee if one is intent on accounting for the entire phenomenology of possession. Typical alienabilityoriented possession splits are triggered by the properties of the possessee. However, the properties of the possessor also have a say in the shaping of possessive systems. Moreover, the possessive relation not only has the possessor and the possessee as its participants, but also of the nature of the relation itself. The time dimension is crucially important in many of our sample languages – and this criterion does not normally apply to the possessor or the possessee but to the relation that exists between these two participants. Thus, there are exactly three components of the possessive relation which are potentially susceptible to splitting. The diagram (C12) is meant to capture the network of factors. (C12)  The three loci of possession splits Possessive relation

possessor

ℜ

possessee

empathy

time/manner

control

The diagram simplifies the facts of course. However, the important message it conveys is that we can distinguish essentially three kinds of possession splits, namely • those for which the properties of the possessor are decisive – animacy with its full array of distinctions comes into play here and thus, possessor-oriented splits are strongly associated with empathy; • those for which the relation itself is the crucial factor – the time (e.g., temporary vs. permanent) dimension or the manner dimension (e.g., physical vs. legal) provides the yardstick against which current/temporary relations are distinguished from permanent relations;

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

• those for which the possessee is the trigger – here we have to consider with the degree of control the possessor has over the possessee, and this control is determined by the ontological class to which the possessee belongs. The three categories distinguished in (C12) are not absolutely dissociated from each other. Empathy very often is also relevant for the splits which revolve around the possessee. Nevertheless, we may use the above tripartition for the purpose of classification. Languages equipped with possession splits may differ as to which of the three components of the possessive situation is responsible for the possession split. In this way, three types emerge. (a) empathy-languages whose possession split is based on the possessor’s properties (for instance Finnish pronominal and predicative possession, cf. section 5.1.1.1 and 5.2), (b) time/manner-languages whose possession split is based on the stability of the relation over time (for instance Turkish predicative possession, cf. section 5.2) (c) control-languages whose possession split is based on the degree of the control the possessor has over the possessee (for instance Maltese pronominal possession, cf. 4.1.1.1). In point of fact, our languages mostly attest to combinations of two or more of the above categories. One and the same language may display various possession splits each of which reflects a different one of the three categories (a)–(c). Icelandic (cf. section 4.2) is a good example of a combination of this kind: its proprial possessive constructions characterise Icelandic as an empathy-language (cf. section 4.2.1.1), but in predicative possession, the paradigm of have-verbs is based on properties of the possessive relation (cf. section 4.2.2.1) and thus qualifies Icelandic as a time/ manner-language. Last but not least, Icelandic also has traits which define it as a control-language, namely the possessee-related distinctions in both pronominal and predicative possession (cf. sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.2.1). Moreover, the Icelandic case shows that the domains in which the three identified triggers of possession splits are active may overlap – sometimes in such a way that it cannot be said with certainty which of the factors predominates and which is only there additionally. The distribution of these properties over the possessive system of a given language leads us back to one of the questions which have kept possession researchers busy for a long time. We are alluding to the problem of whether or not attributive and predicative possession can be traced back to a common conceptual layer (Heine 1997: 183–186). We admit that we have not solved the problem in its entirety because we have not addressed the issue specifically. Indirectly, however, our discussion of the European sample languages shows that the whole problem is much more intricate than the simple equation



Chapter 6.  Results 

of the two kinds of possession or its negation suggests. The complexity of the relation of attributive and predicative possession arises from the fact that on the one hand, there is no language in our sample whose possession splits are semantically identical in all syntactic areas. On the other hand, if there are splits in more than one area, they often resemble one another insofar as they share a (sometimes minimal) set of features. This variegated picture is indicative of the possibility that attributive and predicative possession – at least for individual languages – may have different conceptual backgrounds but attract one another, in a manner of speaking.

6.2.5  Retrospection and outlook In his synthesis of language universals research, Seiler (2000: 167) observes that for Heine’s (1997) source schemata it is true that local and other constructions are drawn upon for the purpose of representing possessive relations, it is also true that after completion of such a grammaticalising shift the resulting expressions are no longer purely local, etc., but ‘something’ new, called possession. We want to know what this ‘something’ is.

Our own contribution to the exploration of Seiler’s ‘something’ is comparatively modest. We do not provide a definition of what exactly is meant by possession – and thus we find ourselves in the best of companies as Seiler (2001: 39) rightfully states that so far “no workable definition of possession has been put forward in the literature [small capitals original]”. Unsatisfactory as this might seem, the open question of what possession is conceptually is unproblematic for us as our concern has been with demonstrating that possession splits including those with a tight connection to the alienability-correlation are not completely alien to the linguistic landscape of Europe. To this end, it is sufficient to start from those purely linguistic phenomena which count as bona fide instances of possession in the pertinent literature, be it descriptive or theory-oriented. We have proved our first major point: possession splits are relatively common in Europe. Thus, European languages are not always as “exotic” as the typologically-minded discussion sometimes suggests. This being the case, there is reason to believe that splitting one’s possessive system is a universal option albeit not on the micro-level. Moreover, we have succeeded also in proving our second major point, namely the basic semantico-conceptual motivation of possession splits. We have shown that this basis is often hidden beneath pragmatically and/or syntactically motivated rules which often prove to be stronger than the semantically based ones and thus overrule them regularly. Syntactic weight, emphasis and focus interact with semantics in various ways to yield an intricate network of relations whose structure makes it difficult to recognise the semantic basis. Seiler (2001: 39) states that a “clear-cut delimitation of ‘inalienability’ from ‘alienability’ […] [i]n categorial terms is simply not

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe

possible.” This impossibility of drawing a division line once and for all applies to other possessive distinctions, too. The impact of pragmatics and syntax adds to the fuzziness and variability of the category borders. In spite of the numerous monographs and papers devoted to possession which have been published in the past forty years, too many open questions remain to allow linguists to consider this riddle solved. For our own area of interest, the languages of Europe and their common traits, one task for the future consists in determining whether or not what we have found out about possession splits in our sample languages applies for other languages of Europe, too. In addition, it would surely make sense to use our European findings for cross-linguistic research going beyond the limits of the areal linguistics of Europe. In non-European languages, is there evidence of possession splits based on distinctions other than the opposition of alienable vs. inalienable? If so, do any patterns emerge which are valid language-independently? Furthermore, our study has to be complemented by an in-depth investigation of the diachrony of possessive systems in Europe. A full-blown diachronic study will take account not only of grammaticalisation processes and other kinds of structural change, but also of the dynamics of diffusion of patterns via language contact probably along the lines of Heine & Kuteva (2006). Further studies on the nature of possessive systems will have to modify the preponderantly “grammar”-oriented approach in order to come to grips with possession conceptually. As our study suggests, the semantico-conceptual basis of possession splits may be overlooked if only the most grammaticalised constructions are taken account of. Semantics and conceptuality cannot be confined to grammar in the sense of absolutely obligatorified expressions because all expression units of language – including those which are employed only under certain conditions – have meaning and represent conceptual categories.

Notes   1. As far as we know, no language has ever been reported as lacking a formal means of systematically ex­pressing the relations between possessors and possessees albeit different morphosyntactic strategies are em­ployed.   2. We refer the reader to section 5 where it is shown that at least Armenian, Basque and Russian are subject to split possession, although their splits are not entirely based on the dichotomy of alienable vs. inalienable.   3. In many languages scrutinised in our case studies (sections 4–5), properly formalised possession splits are limited to attribution (and especially to pronominal possession), whereas in predication, these distinctions are often neutralised. Only rarely does the reverse hold true. This could be interpreted as evidence of at­tributive possession being semantically richer than predicative possession.   4. We have to determine frequencies connected to various phenomena occurring in our sample. However, these statistics are always a means for a specific end and do not presuppose any theory of quantitative lin­guistics.   5. We rely heavily on our extant corpora of Antoine de Saint Exupery’s Le Petit Prince and J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and their translations. However, when we use the term parallel corpora (Cysouw & Wälchli 2007) we do this in a very unspecific manner as these texts have not been compared to each other in detail, nor have we invested time and energy in creating a concordance. Cf. also Stolz (2007a).   6. The questionnaire turned out to be largely a failure because our respondents could not be made to employ expressions other than the normatively prescribed ones which tend to obfuscate potential possession splits. This is the reason why we have refrained from drawing on the questionnaire in our empirical sections and their evaluation.   7. All abbreviations are spelled out in the appropriate list. Wherever necessary unusual abbreviations are also explained at their first occurrence.   8. The examples taken from literary texts are usually (back-)translated into English by ourselves independent of the existence of an English original or English translation of the same text. Through this practice, we are able to guarantee a higher degree of similarity of example and translation. Occasionally, English versions were consulted though in order to emphasise certain contrasts. Square brackets in the numbered line of an example contain a reference to our literary corpus text.   9. These verbs normally require both possessor and possessee to be human or to be personae in the legal sense of the word. Legal ownership or part-whole relations (body-parts) are involved. 10. For re-phrasing and substitution tests in German, we rely on our introspective intuition as native speakers. Wherever test of this or a similar kind were necessary, native speakers of the language under scrutiny were consulted. 11. In Stolz & Stolz (in press), a survey of the areal distribution of have-constructions being used for the purpose of telling one’s age in the languages of Europe is provided. 12. Gerzenstein (1994: 149) classifies the -qV- as a particle. 13. The pros and cons of morphological zeros are discussed in Mel’čuk (2000).

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe 14. The table simplifies, of course. It does not say that class II of Montagnais and class III of Maka are coextensive. Technical limitations do not allow us to be more precise in this schematic representation. 15.  This conclusion is in line with some ideas in Nichols’ (1992). 16. Unless otherwise stated, boldface is employed to mark those elements of an example which are focused in the ensuing discussion. 17. Historically, ta’ goes back to a noun meaning ‘possession; possessed item’ (KoptjevskajaTamm 1996). 18. The division into classes is guided by the empirical constellations found in the different texts in our corpus. These constellations are not the same for all of the texts and thus the classes we identify do not necessarily map onto each other neatly. 19. The co-existence of lexical source and its grammaticalised offspring and metonymy/ metaphor as mechanisms are well-known phenomena of grammaticalization (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991). 20. The two vowels are look-alikes of the most frequent allomorphs of the possessor suffixes {i} for the 1st person singular and {u} for the 3rd person singular masculine. Whether this coincidence is (partially) responsible for the constraint cannot be determined without further psycholinguistic evidence. 21. In the subsequent case-studies, we also summarise the systematic aspects of possession splits in the form of tables. However, the architecture of these tables has not been standardised i.e., for each language, the internal composition of the table may be different as the parameters which determine the shape of the possessive systems may interact differently. 22. Thus, the description of this phenomenon could also be given under the heading of genitival constructions. For practical purposes, we include proprial possessors in our treatment of pronominal possession without claiming that it does not have close ties with genitival constructions. In section 5.1.2.1, we look at further examples which are then classified as instances of genitival constructions. 23. An explanation that comes to mind is that two individual constructions are used to trigger an especially contrastive effect. However, to decide this issue, we need many more empirical data which our present corpus unfortunately does not provide. Thus, we postpone the clarification to a follow-up study. 24. In this section, we refrain from adding morpheme glosses to our examples because of length restrictions. Since the exact morphological details are hardly ever crucial to understanding the role the examples play in our line of reasoning, we consider it justified to make do with the original example and the English translation. This “economic” procedure will be adhered to repeatedly in the remainder of this study. 25. For more information on this issue, we refer the reader to the publications resulting from the Bremen project on total reduplication, especially Stolz 2007b. 26. Clearly, one has to keep two levels distinct, viz. the original semantics of the words involved in a construction and the meaning of the idiomatised construction itself. Metaphors tend to introduce non-prototypical meanings. We try to keep as closely as possible to the original version. 27. All statistically minor patterns are excluded from the synopsis and thus the rare attestations of definite possessees in genitival constructions do not show up in (B 178). 28. The animacy of the possessor in Faroese PP complements is minimal only if the comparison is restricted to equivalence to bare genitives in Icelandic. For human possessors, cf. below.



Notes 

29. The arrows symbolise the increasing probability of the use of a given genitival construction, i.e., the heavier the construction the more likely the use of the PP, etc. 30. Manzelli (2007) mentions examples from dialectal varieties of Greek which could be interpreted as evidence of an alienability correlation. Since the examples are not sufficiently contextualised, we do not discuss them here, but instead rely on the information we have for the standard language. 31. The abbreviated glossonyms are listed alphabetically and spelled out in the abbreviation list. The abbreviations are largely our own creations meant to fit the available space on the map. It is not our intention to introduce yet another set of conventions to compete with the extant ones. 32. The column labelled “reflexive” refers to those pronouns which are specialised in subjectpossessor identity. If a language does not make use of two sets of pronouns in this category, the cell remains empty. We do not include those possessive pronouns which refer to non-subjects. 33. The optionality of this rule is evident from this example too as there are two coordinations the second of which is treated differently from the first one. 34. That the use of the comitative/instrumental case is not entirely excluded for instance from attributive constructions in Georgian is shown by Boeder & Schroeder (2000).

Sources Bestu Andrés Indriðason (1991). Bestu vinir. Reykjavík: Iðunn. Butlettax Ġorġ Mifsud Chircop (1994). Butlettax. Ħrafa tradizzjonali Maltija. San Ġwann: PEG. Chwarae Tudur Williams (2001). Chwarae’n troi’n chwerw. Llanrust: Gwasg Carreg Gwalch. Delitti Edward Attard (2002). Delitti f ’Malta. 200 sena ta’ omiċidji (1800–2000). Il-Ħamrun: Book Distributors. Ditectifs Louis Catt (2003). Ditectifs cysgu cŵl. Llandysul: Gwasg Gomer. [translated by Siân Lewis]. Enn Guðrún Helgadóttir (1980). Enn af Jóni Oddi og Jóni Bjarna. Reykjavík: Iðunn. Fa Carmel G. Cauchi (1998). Il-fatat fid-dar tan-Nanna. Malta: Kotba Sagħta. Faroese Jón Guðrún Helgadóttir (1986). [translated by Martin Næs]: Jón Oddur ogg Jón Bjarni. Tórshavn: Forøya Lærafelag. Futbol Carmel Baldacchino (1999). Il-futbol Malti. Il-Pjetà: PIN. Gati Heimir Pálsson (eds) (1985). Gúmmískór með gati. Reykjavík: Mál og menning. Għafrid Kilin (1995). L-Għafrid. Blata l-Bajda: Merlin. Ġaħan Ġorġ Mifsud Chircop (2001). Mill-praspar ta’ Ġaħan u stejjer tradizzjonali Maltin oħra. San Ġwann: PEG. Gerfex Carmel G. Cauchi (1997). F’Ħal Busbies ma’ mastru Gerfex. Blata l-Bajda: Merlin. Għajn Kilin (1993). Fuq il-għajn ta’ San Bastjan. Valletta: Bugelli. Għeruq Edwin Camilleri (2003). L-għeruq. L-għada soċjalista Maltija. Valletta. SKS. Háska Heiður Baldursdóttir (1992). Háska leikur. Reykjavík: Vaka-Helgafell. Jón Guðrún Helgadóttir (1995). Jón Oddur og Jón Bjarni. Reykjavík: Vaka-Helgafell. Kappa Karl Schembri (2002). Taħt il-kappa tax-xemx. Valletta: Minima. Kappillan Ġużè Chetcuti (1999). Ġrajjiet mill-ħajja ta’ Kappillan. Rabat: Studia. Kollu Tony C. Cutajar (2001). Kollu tort tan-Nannu. Il-Pjetà: PIN. Krummi Sigurgeir Jónasar (1989). Krummi Kleinusnúður. Reykjavík: Fjölvaútgáfa. Kwiekeb Ben Agius (2002). Ulied il-kwiekeb. Valletta: Klabb kotba Maltin. Lalli Þorgrímur Þráinsson (1992). Lalli ljósastaur. Reykjavík: Fróði. Lôn Kate Roberts (1973). Y Lôn wen. Dinbych. Gwas Gomer. Ma Carmel G. Cauchi (1990). Il-praspar ta’Mastru Gerfex. Malta: Merlin Library. Marh Le Bleun Brug (1981). Le cheval aveugle/Ar marh dall. Paris: Gallimard. Malta Herbert Ganado (1977). Rajt Malta tinbidel. Ir-raba’ ktieb (1955–69). Blata l-Bajda: Il-Ħajja. Mei Guðrún Helgadóttir (1985). Meira af Jóni Oddi og Jóni Bjarna. Reykjavík: Iðunn. Morð Jonnie Jacobs [translated by Sólveig Jónsdóttir] (1995). Morð í hverfinu. Reykjavík: Úrvalsbækur. Mu Alexandre Dumas (1985). Il-Tliet Muskettieri. Malta: Klabb kotba Maltin. Mudest Charles Casha (1996). Aktar praspar dwar fra Mudest. Blata l-Bajda: Merlin. Mynd Elgan Philip Davies (1995). Mynd ar ôl Tri. Aberystwyth: CLC. Nátt Thor Vilhjálmsson (1989). Náttvig. Reykjavík: Mál og menning.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe Nhŷ Rose Impey (2003). Y clwb cysgu cŵl yn Nhŷ Ffion. Llandysul: Gomer. [Translated by: Siân Lewis] Paent Narinder Dhami (2001). Y clwb cysgu cŵl a’r paent piws. Llandysul: Gomer. [Translated by: Siân Lewis] Qamar Trevor Żahra (1993). Qamar aħdar. Blata l-Bajda: Merlin. Qrempuċu Trevor Żahra (1985). Qrempuċu f ’Belt il-Ġobon. Blata l-Bajda: Merlin. Ridd Einar Már Guðmundsson (1995). Riddarar hringstigans. Reykjavík: Mál og menning. Rósir Arnaldur Indriðason (2002). Dauða rósir. Reykjavík: Vaka-Helgafell. Serafin Pawlu Mifsud (1998). Serafin is-saħħar. Valletta: Klabb kotba Maltin. Tazza Manwel Gauci (1994). It-tazza tad-dinja. Pietà: Indipendenza. Tlikki Kilin (2001). Tlikki tlikki ma’ Wenzu. Valletta: Klabb kotba Maltin. Ulied Vic Apap (1977). Ulied ta’ l-azzar. Valletta: Union. Xindi Tony C. Cutajar (2002). Il-misteru tar-razzett ta’ Xindi. Valletta: Klabb kotba Maltin. Harry Potter HP I Afrikaans Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter en die towenaar se steen. Kapstadt: Human & Rousseau. HP II Afrikaans Rowling, Joanne K. (2004). Harry Potter en die Kamer van Geheimenisse. Kapstadt: Human & Rousseau. HP I Albanian Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter dhe guri filozofal. Dituria. HP I Basque Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Harry Potter eta sorgin harria. Donostia: Elkarlanean. HP I Brazilian Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Harry Potter e a pedra filosofal. Barcarena: Ed. Portuguese Presença. HP I Bulgarian Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Chari Potăr i filosofskijat kamăk. Sofija: Egmont Balgarija. HP I Catalan Rowling, Joanne K. (1999). Harry Potter i la pedra filosofal. Barcelona: Ed. Empúries. HP I Czech Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter a Kamen mudrcu. Praha: Albatros. HP I Danish Rowling, Joanne K. (1999). Harry Potter og de vises sten. Kopenhagen: Gyldendal. HP I Dutch Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Harry Potter en de steen der wijzen. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij De Harmonie. HP I English Rowling, Joanne K. (1997). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. London: Bloomsbury. HP I Estonian Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter ja tarkade kivi. Tallinn: Varrak. HP I Faroese Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter og vitramannasteinurin. Tórshavn: Ljóðbøkur. HP I Finnish Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Harry Potter ja viisasten kivi. Helsinki: Tammi. HP I French Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter à l’école des sorciers. Paris: Gallimard. HP I Georgian Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Hari P’ot’eri da pilosopiuri kva. Tblisi: Bakur Sulakauri. HP I German Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Harry Potter und der Stein der Weisen. Hamburg: Carlson. HP I Greek Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter kai e philosophikí líthos. Athen.



Sources 

HP I Hungarian Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter és a bölcsek köve. Budapest: Animus. HP II Hungarian Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter és a titkok kamrája. Budapest: Animus. HP III Hungarian Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter és az azkabani fogoly. Budapest: Animus. HP I Icelandic Rowling, Joanne K. (1999). Harry Potter og viskusteinninn. Reykjavik: Bjartur. HP III Icelandic Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter og fanginn frá Azkaban. Reykjavik: Bjartur. HP I Irish Rowling, Joanne K. (2004). Harry Potter agus an Òrchloch. London: Bloomsbury. HP I Italian Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Harry Potter e la pietra filosofale. Milano: Salani. HP II Italian Rowling, Joanne K. (2005). Harry Potter e la camera dei segreti. Milano: Salani. HP III Italian Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter e il prigioniero di Azkaban. Milano: Salani. HP II Latvian Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harijs Poters un noslepumu kambaris. Riga: Jumava. HP I Lithuanian Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Haris Poteris ir isminties akmuo. Vilnius: Alma Litera. HP I Low German Rowling, Joanne K. (2002). Harry Potter un de Wunnersteen. Kiel: Verlag Michael Jung. HP I Norwegian Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter og de vises stein. Trondheim: N.W. Damm & Son. HP I Polish Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter i kamien filozoficzny. Poznań: Media Rodzina. HP I Portuguese Rowling, Joanne K. (2003). Harry Potter e a Pedra Filosofal. Editorial Presenca. HP IV Portuguese Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter e o Calice de Fogo. Editorial Presenca. HP I Rumanian Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter si piatra filozofala. Bucarest: Ed. Egmont. HP I Russian Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Garri Potter i filosofkii kamen. Moskau: Rosmen. HP I Serbian Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Hari Poter i kamen mudrosti. Beograd: Narodna knjiga. HP I Spanish Rowling, Joanne K. (2000). Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal. Madrid: Celesa. HP I Swedish Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter och De Vises Sten. Stockholm: Tiden. HP I Turkish Rowling, Joanne K. (2001). Harry Potter ve Felsefe Tasi. Istanbul: YKY. HP I Welsh Rowling, Joanne K. (2003). Harry Potter a maen yr Athronydd. London: Bloomsbury. Le petit prince LPP Breton Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1974). Ar Priñs Bihan. Rennes: Embannadurioù Preder. LPP Faroese Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1980). Tann lítli prinsurin. Fuglafjørður: Egið Forlag.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe LPP German Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1999). Der Kleine Prinz. Düsseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag. LPP Icelandic Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1988). Litli Prinsinn. Reykjavík: Bókaúttáfa mennin­garsjóðs. LPP Irish Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1997). An Prionsa Beag. Béal Feirste: Lagan Press. LPP Latvian Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1995). Mazais Princis. Rîga: Sprīdītis. LPP Lithuanian Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1995). Mažasis Princas. Vilnius: DŽIUGAS. LPP Maltese Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1982). Il-Prinċep Iż-Żgħir. Stampat l-M.U.P. LPP Portuguese Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (2001). O Principezinho. Lisboa: Editorail Presença. LPP Russian Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (2001). Malienkij princ. Moskva: Rosmen. LPP Welsh Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1975). Y Tywysog Bach. Liverpool: Cyhoeddiadau Modern Cymreig Cyf. A Gwasg Y Brython. LPP West-Frisian Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de (1998). De Lytse Prins. Den Haag: Gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek.

References Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2000). Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: OUP. Akkademja (2001). Akkademja tal-Malti. Regoli tal-kitba tal-Malti. Valetta: Klabb Kotba Maltin. Alhoniemi, Alho (1993). Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Hamburg: Buske. Allan, Robin; Holmes, Philip & Lundskær-Nielsen, Tom (2000). Danish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge. Ambros, Arne A. (1998). Bonġornu, kif int? Einführung in die maltesische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Aquilina, Joseph (1987). Maltese-English dictionary. Vol. I: A–L. Valletta: Midsea Books. Aquilina, Joseph (1990). Maltese-English dictionary. Vol. II: M–Z and addenda. Valletta: Midsea Books. Bally, Charles (1926). Le langage et la vie. Paris: Payot. Baron, Irène & Herslund, Michael (1997). Place and sub-place: locative specifications in haveclauses, in: Copenhagen Studies in Language 20, 5–21. Baron, Irène & Herslund, Michael (2001). Semantics of the verb have, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 85–98. Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds) (2001). Dimensions of possession [Typological Studies in Language 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bartning, Inge (2001). Towards a typology of French NP de NP structures or how much possession is there in complex noun phrases with de in French?, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 147–168. Bendel, Christiane (2006). Baskische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Benveniste, Emile (1967). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. Benzing, Johannes (1985). Kalmückische Grammatik zum Nachschlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Berneker, Erich & Vasmer, Max (1971). Russische Grammatik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Beyrer, Arthur; Bochmann, Klaus & Bronsert, Siegfried (1987). Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Biermann, Anna (1985). Possession und Zuschreibung im Ungarischen. Tübingen: Narr. Boeder, Winfried (1980). ‘Haben’ in den Kartwelsprachen, in: Brettschneider, Gunter & Lehmann, Christian (eds), Wege zur Universalienforschung: sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen: Narr, 207–217. Boeder, Winfried & Schroeder, Christoph (1998). Attribution und sekundäre Prädikate im Sprachvergleich: Deutsch, Englisch, Kurdisch, Georgisch, Türkisch, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 51(3), 207–227. Boeder, Winfried & Schroeder, Christoph (2000). Relational coding in Georgian and Turkish noun-phrases: syntax, derivational morphology, and “linking” by means of participles, in: Turkic Languages 4(2), 153–204. Böðvarsson, Árni (1985). Íslensk orðabók handa skólum og almenningi. Reykjavík: Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs. Borg, Albert (1988). Ilsienna. Studju grammatikali. Ħas Sajjied: s.l.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe Borg, Albert & Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie (1997). Maltese. London: Routledge. Borillo, Andrée (1996). La relation partie-tout et la structure [N1 à N2] en français, in: Faits de Langues 7, 111–120. Breidbach, Winfried (1983). Zur Possession im Samoanischen. Köln: Universität. Brumme, Jenny (1997). Praktische Grammatik der katalanischen Sprache. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert. Buchholz, Oda & Fiedler, Wilfried (1987). Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Burridge, Kate (1993). Syntactic change in Germanic: aspects of language change in Germanic with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bussmann, Hadumod (32002). Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kröner. Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds) (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byrne, Michel (2004). Gràmar na gàidhlig. Eilean Leòdhais: Stòrlann-Acair. Calder, George (1980). A Gaelic grammar. Glasgow: Gairm Publications. Cassirer, Ernst ([1926]1977). Philosophie der symbolischen Formen: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (1989). Alienability, inalienability and nominal classification, in: Hall, Kira; Meacham, Michael & Shapiro, Richard (eds), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 18–20, 1989: General Session and Parasession on Theoretical Issues in Language Reconstruction. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Ling. Soc., 24–36. Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds) (1996). The grammar of inalienability: a typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 14]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds) (2003). From NP to DP. Vol. II: The expression of possession in noun phrases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Comrie, Bernard (1982). Syntactic-morphological discrepancies in Maltese sentence structure, in: Communication and Cognition 15(3/4), 719–743. Comrie, Bernard (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) (1993). The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge. Cordin, Patrizia (1988). I possessivi: pronomi e aggettivi, in: Renzi, Lorenzo; Salvi, Giampaolo & Cardinaletti, Anna (eds), 619–630. Croft, William (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. Croft, William (2006). Typology and universals. Cambridge: CUP. Croft, William & Cruse, Alan D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Cunha, Celso & Cintra, Lindley (1989). Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Lisboa: Joao Sá da Costa. Cysouw, Michael & Wälchli, Bernhard (2007). Parallel texts: using translational equivalents in linguistic typology, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 60(2), 95–99. Dahl, Östen (1990). Standard Average European as an exotic language, in: Bechert, Johannes; Bernini, Giuliano; Buridant, Claude & Pottier, Bernard (eds), Toward a typology of European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–8. Dahl, Östen (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (1998). Alienability splits and the grammaticalization of possessive constructions, in: Haukioja, Timo (ed.), Papers from the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Turku: University of Turku, 38–49.



References 

Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2006). The resilient dative and other remarkable cases, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 59(1), 56–75. Daum, Edmund & Schenk, Werner (1971). Die russischen Verben. München: Max Hueber. Delsing, Lars-Olof (1993). The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. A comparative study. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages. Delsing, Lars-Olof & Egerland, Verner (2002). Kinship nouns in possessive constructions in Italian and Scandinavian, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 55(2), 103–120. Dillon, Myles & Ó Cróinín, Donncha (1980). Irish. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (2003). From DPs to NPs: A Bare Phrase Structure account of genitives, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 75–120. Dorian, Nancy C. (1978). East Sutherland Gaelic. The dialect of the Brora, Golspiem and Embo fishing communities. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. Eksell Harning, Kerstin (1980). The analytical genitive in modern Arabic dialects. Gothenburg: University og Gothenburg Press. Ellertson, Björn (1993). Íslensk-þýsk orðabók. Reykjavík: Iðunn. Elkady, Nourelhoda (2001). Ausdrucksweisen der Possessivität im Deutschen und im Arabischen. Eine konfrontative Studie. PhD-Thesis. Siegen: Universität Siegen, Fachbereich 3. Endruschat, Annette (2007). Durch ‘mit’ eingeleitete präpositionale Objekte in den romanischen Sprachen [Diversitas Linguarum 13]. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. (1980). Türkisch für Sie. Grammatik. München: Max Hueber. Fabri, Ray (1993). Kongruenz und die Grammatik des Maltesischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Fabri, Ray (1996). The construct state and the pseudo-construct state in Maltese, in: Rivista di Linguistica 8(1), 229–244. Favereau, Francis (1997). Grammaire du breton contemporain. Morlaix: Skol Vreizh. Fenech, Edward (1978). Contemporary journalistic Maltese. Leiden: Brill. Fenech, Karm (1984). Idjomi Maltin. Infissra a mwettqa b’siltiet minn kitba siewja. Valletta: Ġiżwiti Maltin. Fiva, Toril (1984). NP-internal chains in Norwegian. Tromsø: Universitet. Fiva, Toril (1987). Possessor chains in Norwegian. Oslo: Novus. Foulon-Hristova, Jordanka (1998). Grammaire pratique du macédonien. Paris: Langues Mondes. Friðjónsson, Jón (1978). A course in modern Icelandic. Reykjavík: Skák. Geiriadur (1987). Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru. Cyfrol II: G-Llyys. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. Gerzenstein, Ana (1994). Lengua Maká. Estudio descriptivo. Buenos Aires: Nuestra America. Goŀąb, Zbigniew (1984). The Arumanian dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1991). The last stages of grammatical elements; contractive and expansive desemanticization, in: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301–314. Guéron, Jacqueline (2003). Inalienable possession and the interpretation of determiners, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 189–220. Haegeman, Liliane (2003). The external possessor construction in West Flemish, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 221–257. Haiman, John (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Halm, Wolfgang (1982). Moderne spanische Kurzgrammatik. München: Max Hueber. Harning, K.I. Eksell (1980). The analytical genitive in the modern Arabic dialects [Orientalia Gothoburgensia 5]. Göteborg: Acta Univ. Gothoburgensis.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe Haşdeu, Bogdan P. (1998). Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Bucureşti: Universitas. Haspelmath, Martin (1999a). External possession in a European areal perspective, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 109–135. Haspelmath, Martin (1999b). Explaining article-possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun-phrase syntax, in: Language 75(2), 227–243. Haspelmath, Martin (2001). The European linguistic area: Standard Average Euopean, in: Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds), 1492–1510. Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds) (2001). Language typology and language universals/Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien/La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques. Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin & Caruana, Sandro (2000). Subject diffuseness in Maltese: On some subject properties of experiential verbs, in: Folia Linguistica 24(3/4), 245–265. Heine, Bernd (1997). Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Heine, Bernd (2001). Ways of explaining possession, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 311–328. Heine, Bernd; Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Frederike (1991). Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania (2006). The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: OUP. Helmbrecht, Johannes (2003). Possession in Hocak (Winnebago). Problems for a prototype approach. Erfurt: Universität Erfurt. Heltoft, Lars (2001). Datives and comitatives as neighbouring spouses. The case of indirect objects and comitatives in Danish, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 115–146. Henriksen, Jeffrei (1998). Hvørsfall, in: Málting 23, 31–33. Hewitt, Brian George (1995). Georgian. A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hewitt, Steve (1988). Un cadre descriptif pour la syntaxe du verbe breton, in: La Bretagne linguistique 4, 203–211. Hinrichs, Uwe (1999). Die sogenannten ‘Balkanismen’ als Problem der Südosteuropa-Linguistik und der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, in: Hinrichs, Uwe & Büttner, Uwe (eds), Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 429–462. Holm, Britta & Nylund Lindgren, Eilzabeth (1977). Deskriptiv svensk Grammatik. Stockholm: Skriptor. Holmes, Philip (1994). Swedish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Hualde, José Ignacio & Urbina, Jon Ortiz de (eds) (2003). A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hundertmark-Santos Martins, Maria Teresa (1982). Portugiesische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Iordan, Iorgu & Robu, Vladimir (1978). Limba română contemporană. Bucureşti: Editura didactică şi pedagogică. Jäger, Andreas (2006). Typology of periphrastic ‘do’-constructions [Diversitas Linguarum 12]. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Karlsson, Fred (1978). Finsk grammatik. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Kenesei, István; Vago, Robert M. & Fenyvesi, Anna (1998). Hungarian. London: Routledge.



References 

Khizanishvili, Tamar (2006). Possession im Georgischen, in: Stolz, Thomas & Stroh, Cornelia (eds), Possession, Quantitative Typologie und Semiotik. Georgisch, Irisch, Türkisch [Diversitas Linguarum 11]. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 1–76. King, Gareth (1996). Modern Welsh. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. König, Ekkehard & Haspelmath, Martin (1997). Les constructions à possesseurs externes dans les langues de l’Europe, in: Feuillet, Jacques (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 525–606. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (1996). Possessive noun phrases in Maltese: alienability, iconicity and grammaticalization, in: Rivista di Linguistica 8(1), 245–274. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2001). Adnominal possession, in: Haspelmath, Martin et al., 960–970. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2002). Adnominal possession in the European languages: form and function, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 55(2), 141–172. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2003a). Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe, in: Plank, Frans (ed.), 621–722. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2003b). A woman of sin, a man of duty, and a hell of a mess. Non-determiner genitives in Swedish, in: Plank, Frans (ed.), 515–560. Kornfilt, Jaklin (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge. Kozintseva, Natalia (1995). Modern Eastern Armenian. Munich: Lincom. Kress, Bruno (1982). Isländische Grammatik. München: Max Hueber. Kukuczka, Elena (1982). Verwandtschaft, Körperteile und Besitz. Zur Possession im Tamil. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Kwon, Joung-Mi (1995). Possession im Swahili. Köln: Institut für Afrikanistik. Lamb, William (2003). Scottish Gaelic. Munich: Lincom. Langacker, Ronald W. (1968). Language and its structure: some fundamental linguistic concepts. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Lapinskas, Saulius & Tekorienė, Dalija (2004). Litauische Konversationsgrammatik. Vilnius: Versus Aureus. Laskowski, Roman (1972). Polnische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Lausberg, Heinrich (1972). Romanische Sprachwissenschaft III: Formenlehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lazard, Gilbert (2001). Etudes de linguistique générale: Typologie grammaticale. Leuven: Peeters. Lehmann, Christian (1995). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom. Lehmann, Christian (1998). Possession in Yucatec Maya: structures, functions, typology. München: Lincom. Lehmann, Christian; Shin, Yong-Min & Verhoeven, Elisabeth (2000). Direkte und indirekte Partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen [Lincom Studies in Language Typology 4]. Munich: Lincom. Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien (1914). L’expression de la possession dans les langues mélanésiennes; in: Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 19, 96–104. Lindow, Wolfgang et al. (1998). Niederdeutsche Grammatik. Leer: Schuster. Lockwood, William Burley (1977). An introduction to modern Faroese. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnrur. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe MacAulay, Donald (1992). The Scottish Gaelic language, in: MacAulay, Donald (ed.), 137–247. MacAulay, Donald (ed.) (1992). The Celtic languages. Cambridge: CUP. Mackinnon, Roderick (1975). Gaelic. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Macwhinney, Brian (2001). Emergentist approaches to language, in: Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds), 449–470. Manoliu-Manea, Maria (1996). Inalienability and topicality in Romanian: pragmasemantics of syntax, in: Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds), 711–743. Manzelli, Gianguido (1990). Possessive adnominal modifiers, in: Bechert, Johannes; Bernini, Giuliano & Buridant, Claude (eds), Towards a typology of European languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 8]. Berlin: de Gruyter, 63–111. Manzelli, Gianguido (2007). Inalienability and emphatic pronominal possession in European and Mediterranean languages: Morphosyntactic strategies and historical change, in: Ramat, Paolo & Roma, Elisa (eds), Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 159–182. Manzelli, Gianguido; Ramat, Paolo & Roma, Elisa (2002). Remarks on marginal possession: are feelings owned?, in: Ramat, Paolo & Stolz, Thomas (eds), Mediterranean languages. Papers from the MEDTYP workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000 [Diversitas Linguarum 1]. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 223–246. Marchev, Yolanda (1999). Deutsch-Georgisches Wörterbuch. Würenlos: Kaukasus-Verlag. Martin, Pierre (1991). Le montagnais. Langue algonquienne du Québec. Paris: Peeters/SELAF. Matras, Yaron (1998). Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing, in: Linguistics 36(2), 281–331. Mayo, Peter (1993). Belorussian, in: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds), 887–946. Mel’čuk, Igor’ Aleksandrovič (2000). Towards a formal concept ‘Zero Linguistic Sign’: applications in typology, in: Bendjaballah, Sabrina et al. (eds), Morphology 2000. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 241–258. Miller, George A. & Johnson-Laird, Philip N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Montan, Per & Rosenqvist, Håkan (1992). Prepositionsboken. Stockholm: Skriptor. Multitran. http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?11=3&s=%E8%EC%E5%F2%FC Neumann, Dorothea (1996). The dative and the grammar of body parts in German, in: Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds), 745–782. Newman, John (1998). The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nichols, Johanna (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking in grammar, in: Language 62 (1), 56–119. Nichols, Johanna (1988). On alienable and inalienable possession, in: Shipley, William (ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: from the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 557–609. Nichols, Johanna (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. Nickel, Klaus Peter (1990). Samisk grammatik. Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget. Ó Dochartaigh, Cathair (1992). The Irish language, in: MacAulay, Donald (ed.), 11–99. Ó Siadhail, Mícheál (1985). Lehrbuch der irischen Sprache: mit Übungen und Lösungen. Hamburg: Buske. Ó Siadhail, Mícheál (1989). Modern Irish. Grammatical structure and dialectal variation. Cambridge: CUP.



References 

Paul, Ludwig (1998). Zazaki. Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektologie. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds) (1999). External possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (1999). External possession: what, where, how, and why, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 3–29. Plank, Frans (ed.) (2003). Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ponelis, F.A. (1979). Afrikaanse sintaksis. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Poulsen, Johan Hendrik W. et al. (1998). Føroysk orðabók. Tórshavn: Føroya Fródskaparfelag. Poulsen, Morten (2002). “Meinem Vater sein Haus” – Konstruktioner med resumptivt possessivpronomen i tysk og beslægtede sprog. Unpublished MA-thesis. Aaarhus: Aarhus Universitet, Institut for Germanks Filologi. Premper, Waldfried (ed.) (2004). Dimensionen und Kontinua. Beiträge zu Hansjakob Seilers Universalienforschung. (Diversitas Linguarum 4). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Press, Ian (1986). A grammar of modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Puech, Gilbert (1994). Ethnotextes maltais. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pustet, Regina (1985). Possession im Dakota. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Radeva, Vassilka (ed.) (2003). Bulgarische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Reinheimer Rîpeanu, Sandra (2001). Les verbes de la possession, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (Coord.), 1–12. Renzi, Lorenzo (1988). L’articolo, in: Renzi, Lorenzo; Salvi, Giampaolo & Cardinaletti, Anna (eds), 371–438. Renzi, Lorenzo; Salvi, Giampaolo & Cardinaletti, Anna (eds) (1988). Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Tomo I: La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale. Bologna: Il Mulino. Rosén, Hajim (1959). Die Ausdrucksformen für ‘veräußerlichen’ und ‘unveräußerlichen’ Besitz im Frühgriechischen. Das Funktionsfeld von Homer phílos, in: Lingua 8, 264–293. Sakayan, Dora (2000). Modern Western Armenian for the English-speaking world. A contrastive approach. Montreal: Arod Books. Saltarelli, Mario (1988). Basque. London: Croom Helm. Sands, Kristina & Campbell, Lyle (2001). Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish, in: Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y; Dixon R.M.W. & Onishi, Masayuki (eds), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–306. Schmalstieg, William R. (1987). A Lithuanian historical syntax. Columbus: Slavica. Schultze-Berndt, Eva & Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2004). Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective, in: Linguistic Typology 8(1), 59–132. Seiler, Hansjakob (1973). Zum Problem der sprachlichen Possessivität, in: Folia Linguistica 6, 231–250. Seiler, Hansjakob (1983a). Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr. Seiler, Hansjakob (1983b). Possessivity, subject and object, in: Studies in Language 7(1), 89–117. Seiler, Hansjakob (1995). Cognitive-conceptual structure and linguistic encoding: language universals and typology in the UNITYP framework, in: Shibatani, Masayoshi et al. (eds), Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Clarendon, 273–325. Seiler, Hansjakob (2000). Language universals research: a synthesis. Tübingen: Narr. Seiler, Hansjakob (2001). The operational basis of possession: A dimensional approach revisited, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 27–40.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe Senn, Alfred (1966). Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Band I: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Serzisko, Fritz (1984). Orientierung: (Beitrag zur sprachlichen Dimension der Partizipation). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Shevelov, George Y. (1993). Ukrainian, in: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds), 947– 998. Shin, Yong-Min (2004). Possession und Partizipantenrelation. Eine funktional-typologische Studie zur Possession und ihren semantischen Rollen am Beispiel des Deutschen und des Koreanischen [Diversitas Linguarum 5]. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Sørensen, Finn (2001). Possession spaces in Danish, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 57–66. Spanoghe, Anne-Marie (1995). La syntaxe de l’appartenance inaliénable en français, en espagnol et en portugais. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Spanoghe, Anne-Marie (1996). Elementos para uma interpretação discursiva do possessive português, in: Verba 23, 67–82. Spanoghe, Anne-Marie (2001). (In)alienability and (in)determination in Portuguese, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 227–242. Staksberg, Marius (1996). Sa-possessiv, in: Málting 18, 28–34. Stassen, Leon (2001). Predicative possession, in: Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds), 954–960. Stassen, Leon (2005a). Predicative possession, in: Brown, Keith (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd edn) (Vol. 9). Oxford: Elsevier, 769–773. Stassen, Leon (2005b). Predicative possession, in: Haspelmath, Martin; Dryer, Matthew; Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: OUP, 474–477. Stolz, Thomas (1991). Sprachbund im Baltikum? Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Stolz, Thomas (1998). UND, MIT und/oder UND/MIT? – Koordination, Instrumental und Komitativ – kymrisch, typologisch, universell, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienfor schung (STUF) 51(2), 107–130. Stolz, Thomas (2001). Minor languages and general linguistics (with special focus on Europe), in: Stolz, Thomas (ed.), Minor languages of Europe. A series of lectures at the University of Bremen, April-July 2000. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 211–242. Stolz, Thomas (2003). Not quite the right mixture: Chamorro and Malti as candidates for the status of mixed language, in: Matras, Yaron & Bakker, Peter (eds), The mixed language debate. New York NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 271–315. Stolz, Thomas (2004). Possessions in the Far North: a glimpse of the alienability correlation in modern Icelandic, in: Premper, Waldfried (ed.), 73–96. Stolz, Thomas (2007a). Harry Potter meets Le petit prince: On the usefulness of parallel corpora in crosslinguistic investigations, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 60(2), 100–117. Stolz, Thomas (2007b). Re:duplication. Iconic vs. counter-iconic principles (and their areal correlates), in: Ramat, Paolo & Roma, Elisa (eds), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317–350. Stolz, Thomas & Gorsemann, Sabine (2001). Pronominal possession in Faroese and the parameters of alienability/inalienability, in: Studies in Language 25(3), 557–599.



References 

Stolz, Christel & Stolz, Thomas (in press). On being six(ty) in Europe. A study in marginal possession, in: Helmbrecht, Johannes et al. (eds), Festschrift for Christian Lehmann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stolz, Thomas; Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina (2003). Solidaritäten, in: Lingua Posananiensis 45, 69–92. Stolz, Thomas; Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina (2006). On comitatives and related categories. A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sulkala, Helena & Karjalainen, Merja (1992). Finnish. London: Routledge. Tasmowski, Liliane (Coord.) (2001). The expression of possession in Romance and Germanic languages. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. Tauscher, Elisabeth & Kirschbaum, Ernst-Georg (1983). Grammatik der russischen Sprache. Düsseldorf: Brücken-Verlag. Taylor, John R(1996). Possessives in English: an exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ternes, Elmar (1992). The Breton language, in: MacAulay, Donald (ed.), 371–451. Thomas, Alan R. (1992). The Welsh language, in: MacAulay, Donald (ed.), 251–344. Thráinsson, Höskuldur et al. (2004). Faroese. An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag. Timoc-Bardy, Romana (1996). Appartenance implicite vs appartenance explicite en roumain, in: Faits de Langues 7, 241–250. Togeby, Ole (2001). The concept of possession in Danish grammar, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 41–56. Trépos, Pierre (1980). Grammaire bretonne. Rennes: Ouest-France. Tsujioka, Takae (2002). The syntax of possession in Japanese. London: Routledge. Tumanyan, Eteri (1963). Artikli v Sovremennom Armjanskom Jazyke. Erevan: Izdatel’stvo Erevanskogo universiteta. Ultan, Russel (1978). Towards a typology of substantival possession, in: Greenberg, Joseph H (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. 4. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 11–50. Ulvydas, Karlis et al. (1976). Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. III Tomas: Sintaksė. Vilnius: Mokslas. Van den Toorn, M.C. (1977). Nederlandse grammatica. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Van der Auwera, Johan (1998). Conclusion, in: van der Auwera, Johan (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 813–836. Vanhove, Martine (1993). La langue maltaise. Études syntaxiques d’un dialecte arabe “periphérique”. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Velazquez-Castillo, Maura (1996). The grammar of possession: inalienability, incorporation and possessor ascension in Guaraní [Studies in Language Companion Series 33]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vella, Joseph (1994). Learn Maltese – why not? Valletta: Valletta Publishing. Villasante, Fray Luis (1980). Sintaxis de la oración simple. Onate: Editorial Franicana Aranzazu. Weerman, Fred & De Wit, Petra (1999). The decline of the genitive in Dutch, in: Linguistics 37, 1155–1192. Wierzbicka, Anna & Goddard, Cliff (eds) (2002). Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Williams, Stephen J. (1980). A Welsh grammar. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Additional background literature Alexiadou, Artemis (2003). Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 167–188. Andrieux-Reix, Nelly (1996). Séquences binominales non-prépositionnelles et relation dite d’appartenance en ancien français, in: Faits de Langues 7, 197–210. Avram, Larisa (2001). From possessive clitics to object clitics: a unifying analysis, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 83–100. Baron, Irène (1996). L’expression du possesseur dans le syntagme nominal danois, in: Faits de Langues 7, 211–220. Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds) (2001). Dimensions of possession [Typological Studies in Language 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Berretti, Jany (1996). DE, souverain du français, in: Faits de Langues 7, 221–230. Brigaudiot, Mireille & Danon-Boileau, Laurent (1996). La relation d’appartenance: évolution de ses valeurs chez l’enfant, in: Faits de Langues 7, 63–70. Bril, Isabelle (1996). La relation d’appartenance en nélêmwâ (Nouvelle Calédonie), in: Faits de Langues 7, 187–196. Buchholz, Oda & Fiedler, Wilfried (1988). Wörterbuch Albanisch-Deutsch: mit etwa 30.000 Stichwörtern. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Chamoreau, Claudine (1996). Les possessions ‘aliénables’ et ‘inaliénables’. L’exemple du phurhépecha, in: Faits de Langues 7, 71–80. Coene, Martine (2001). A truncation approach to the acquisition of DP, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 213–227. Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds) (2003). From NP to DP. Vol. II: The expression of possession in noun phrases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Corbett, Greville G. (1999). Gender. Cambridge: CUP. Cornilescu, Alexandra (2001). Some ‘have’ curiosities, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 13–28. Creissels, Denis (1996). Remarques sur l’émergence de verbes avoir au cours de l’histoire des langues, in: Faits de Langues 7, 149–158. Cristea, Teodora (2001). Structures possessives complexes en français et en roumain, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 163–170. Cuniţă, Alexandra (2001). Les dictionnaires bilingues et l’expression de la possession: de quelques métonymies intégrées, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 171–182. Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2001). Kinship in grammar, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 201–226. Danon-Boileau, Laurent & Morel, Mary-Annick (eds) (1996). La relation d’appartenance, in: Faits de Langues 7. Darot, Mireille (1996). Relation d’appartenance et détermination en arabe dialectal tunisien, in: Faits de Langues 7, 131–138. De Cuyper, Gretel (2001). Le datif de possession au sein du datif non lexical, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 115–132. Delmas, Claude (1996). Remarques partielles sur l’appartenance (le GN anglais), in: Faits de Langues 7, 169–176.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe De Mulder, Walter & Tasmowski, Liliane (2001). Déterminat possessif et anaphore associative, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 69–82. Desclés, Jean-Pierre (1996). Appartenance/inclusion, localisation, ingrédience et possession, in: Faits de Langues 7, 91–100. D’Hulst, Yves (2001). Phrase réduite et interprétation possessive. Les syntagmes prépositionnels introduits par con en italien, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 183–194. Drossard, Werner (2004). Einige ergänzende Bemerkungen zur Dimension der POSSESSION, in: Premper, Waldfried (ed.), 97–110. Durst-Andersen, Per (2001). Possessum-oriented and possessor-oriented constructions in Russian, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 99–114. Fischer, Jean-Paul (1996). La genèse des questions d’inclusion, in: Faits de Langues 7, 121–130. Fraurud, Kari (2001). Possessives with extensive use: A source of definite articles?, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 243–268. Fried, Mirjam (1999). From interest to ownership: a constructional view of external possessors, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 473–504. Gerdts, Donna B. (1999). Mapping possessors: parameterizing the external possession construction, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 137–163. Guiraud-Weber, Marguerite (1996). L’appartenance: le cas du russe, in: Faits de Langues 7, 139–148. Heine, Bernd (1996). Grammaticalization and language universals, in: Faits de Langues 7, 11–22. Hentschel, Gerd & Menzel, Thomas (2002). Zum Ausdruck des unveräußerlichen Besitzes im Russischen: dativische oder präpositionale Markierung des Possessors. in: Bublitz, Wolfram; von Roncador, Manfred & Vater, Heinz (eds), Philologie, Typologie und Sprachstruktur. Festschrift für Winfried Boeder zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 323–346. Herslund, Michael (1996). Partitivité et possession inaliénable, in: Faits de Langues 7, 33–42. Hewitt, Steve (2002). The impersonal in Breton, in: Journal of Celtic Linguistics 7, 1–39. Høeg Müller, Henrik (2001). Spanish N de N structures from a cognitive perspective, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 169–186. Ihsane, Tabea (2003). A typology of possesive modifiers, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 23–42. Jackiewicz, Agata (1996). L’expression lexicale de la relation d’ingrédience (partie-tout), in: Faits de Langues 7, 53–62. Karolak, Stanislas (1996). Considérations sur le concept d’appartenance, in: Faits de Langues 7, 101–110. Kleiber, Georges (2001). Le possessif via l’anaphore associative, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 29–52. Kleiber, Georges (2003). The possessive via associative anaphor, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 43–71. Kliffer, Michael D. (2002). Register variation in Brazilian Portuguese inalienable possession, in: Sprachtypo­logie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 55(2), 121–140. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2006). Adnominal possession, in: Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 765–769. Lamiroy, Béatrice (2001). La construction à possesseur externe, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 101–114. Lamiroy, Béatrice (2003). Grammaticalization and external possessor structures in Romance and Germanic languages, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 257–280.



Additional background literature 

Lancri, Annie (1996). Syntaxe du génitif en vieil anglais et stratégie énonciative, in: Faits de Langues 7, 177–186. Machtelt Bolkestein, A. (2001). Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin, in: Baron, Irène; Hers­lund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 269–284. McGregor, William (2001). The verb have in Nyulnyulan languages, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 67–84. Mithun, Marianne (2001). The difference a category makes in the expression of possession and inalienability, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 285–310. Ono, Yoshiko (2004). POSSESSION, PARTIZIPATION, IDENTIFIKATION am Beispiel des Japanischen im typologischen Vergleich, in: Premper, Waldfried (ed.), 111–136. Otman, Gabriel (1996). Le traitement automatique de la relation partie-tout en terminologie, in: Faits de Langues 7, 43–52. Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds) (1999). External possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Podlesskaya, Vera I. & Rakhilina, Ekaterina V. (1999). External possession, reflexivization and body parts in Russian, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 505–521. Polinsky, Maria & Comrie, Bernard (1999). Possessor raising in a language that does not have any, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 523–542. Premper, Waldfried (ed.) (2004). Dimensionen und Kontinua. Beiträge zu Hansjakob Seilers Universalien­forschung [Diversitas Linguarum 4]. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. Rebuschi, Georges (1996). Sur l’évolution des pronoms génitifs en basque labourdin, in: Faits de Langues 7, 231–240. Riegel, Martin (2001). The grammatical category “Possession” and the part-whole relation in French, in: Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds), 187–200. Sala, Marius (2001). Sur l’expression de la possession en judéo-espagnol, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 209–212. Schroten, Jan (2001). The human factor in subject pronouns and possessive pronouns in Romance and Germanic languages, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 53–68. Schürcks, Lilia & Wunderlich, Dieter (2003). Determiner-possessor relation in the Bulgarian DP, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 121–139. Seiler, Hansjakob (2004). Über das Verhältnis von Sprachuniversalienforschung und Sprachtypologie: Rückblick und Ausblick, in: Premper, Waldfried (ed.), 1–16. Şerbănescu, Andra (2001). Dative possessive revisited, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 133–148. Shimamungu, Eugène (1996). Association, comparaison, attribution: Continuum conceptuel du 〈connectif 〉 bantu et détermination nominale en kinyarwanda, in: Faits de Langues 7, 159–168. Singer, Murray (1999). External possession and language processes, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 33–43. Steinkrüger, Patrick O. (1997). Zur Grammatikalisierung der haben-Verben im Katalanischen, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 50(4), 329–338. Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.) (2001). The expression of possession in Romance and Germanic languages. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. Vandeloise, Claude (1996). La méronomie, l’inclusion topologique et la préposition dans, in: Faits de Langues 7, 81–90. Van Peteghem, Marleen (2001). Datif possessif et inaliénabilité en français, roumain et russe, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 149–162. Velázquez-Castillo, Maura (1999). Body-Part EP constructions: a cognitive/functional analysis, in: Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds), 77–107.

 Split possession: An areal-linguistic study in the languages of Europe Vintilă-Rădulescu, Iona (2001). Aspects de l’expression de la possession en créole français, in: Tasmowski, Liliane (ed.), 195–208. Weiss, Daniel & Raxilina, Ekaterina (2002). Forgetting one’s roots: Slavic and non-Slavic elements in possessive constructions of modern Russian, in: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 55(2), 173–205. Yariv-Laor, Lihi (1996). L’expression de la possession inaliénable. L’exemple du chinois moderne, in: Faits de Langues 7, 23–32. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (2003). On the asymmetrical but regular properties of French possessive DPs, in: Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds), 141–163.

Index of languages

A Abkhaz  6 Afrikaans  18, 19, 374, 390, 401 Albanian  14, 328ff, 342, 413, 415, 421, 503 Arabic  44, 48f, 96, 314 Armenian  6, 346–8, 350, 362, 363, 373, 473, 486, 489, 492, 501 Aromunian  342, 344f, 348, 350, 473, 486, 489, 501 B Basque  6, 13, 347ff, 355f, 373, 404f, 410ff, 416ff, 421, 464f, 470, 475, 481f, 491–7 Belarusian  355, 473, 482f, 486, 490f, 494, 496 Breton  43, 239–41, 250ff, 254ff, 263, 266f, 269, 306–13, 481 Bulgarian  342–4, 348, 350–2, 355–7, 366, 373, 413, 417, 419, 421, 473, 486, 489, 490, 503 C Catalan  12, 353, 366, 371, 412, 415, 417–19, 473, 486 Chechen  6 Cornish  239 Croatian  355, 367, 412, 417–19, 473, 486, 490 Czech  355, 362, 367, 413f, 417f, 421, 473, 486, 490 D Danish  5, 111, 225f, 231f, 234f, 238, 374, 410, 420f, 483 Dutch  39, 360, 371, 373f, 390–6, 405, 414, 420, 475, 479, 492 E English  3, 5ff, 17, 49ff, 374, 390, 404f, 412ff, 416ff, 461f, 470

Estonian  139, 355, 367, 373, 410, 412, 413, 415ff, 419ff, 473, 486, 490 F Faroese  7, 43, 111f, 217–26, 238, 313, 371f, 405, 421, 480f, 484, 492, 502, 505f Finnish  12, 335–42, 411f, 416, 451–6, 460–2, 483, 504 Flemish West Flemish  39 French  3–5, 6, 17, 21, 22, 34, 78, 239, 362, 367, 369, 373, 412, 417–9, 471 Frisian West Frisian  39, 40, 374 G Galego  367, 369, 413, 417, 419 Georgian  4, 6, 7, 333–5, 348–50, 404f, 411f, 421, 462–5, 482, 489–91, 493–7, 501 German  17f, 22–4, 38f, 354, 395–7, 407, 411, 421f, 470, 475, 511f Greek  4, 342, 356, 367, 369, 373, 410, 412f, 417, 419, 421 H Hungarian  4, 6, 26–8, 363, 367, 369, 373, 411f, 415, 417–19, 421, 470 I Icelandic  5, 7f, 27f, 111–225, 312–5, 471f, 480f, 484f, 503, 514 Irish  14, 239–50, 259–62, 272–80, 283, 411f, 415, 502 Italian  25f, 60, 318–28, 332–4, 364–6, 409, 413f

K Kalmyk  464f, 473, 486, 491, 494, 496 Kurdish  355, 356, 373, 473, 486, 490 L Latvian  15, 16, 354f, 362, 367, 372f, 410, 413f, 417, 419, 439, 473, 487, 490 Low German  16, 367, 374–6, 382, 388–90, 392, 396, 401, 405, 413, 417f, 492, 497 Lithuanian  355, 367, 373, 413, 417, 419, 421, 434–40, 442, 451, 471, 482, 483, 494, 496 Lovari  355, 356, 473, 486, 490 M Macedonian  342, 344, 348, 350–2, 355–7, 367, 413, 417, 419, 421, 473, 486, 489, 490, 503 Maka  31, 33–6 Maltese  7, 39, 43–110, 120f, 312–5, 475, 480f, 485, 497, 501, 507, 514 Manx  239 Mari  341, 342, 348, 350, 473, 486, 489, 490 Montagnais  31–5, 36 N Norwegian  43, 111f, 139, 225f, 228, 230–2, 234–8, 355, 367, 372, 374, 413, 417, 497 P Polish  355, 357, 367, 372, 409, 413, 417f, 420, 473, 486, 490 Portuguese  7, 13, 357, 420, 423–33, 434, 471, 472, 490, 507 Brazilian Portuguese  13

  Index of languages R Rumanian  38, 342ff, 348, 357, 362ff, 396–405, 421, 475, 483f, 487, 492, 497, 501 Russian  6, 15, 139, 420f, 440–52, 471f, 479, 482f S Saami  341, 342, 348, 350, 355, 356, 473, 486, 489, 490 Scots Gaelic  7, 43, 239–46, 255–60, 268–72, 306f, 311f, 483f, 497, 502 Serbian  355, 367, 411, 412, 417, 418, 420, 473, 486, 490

Sicilian  44 Slovak  355, 367, 413, 417, 419, 421, 473, 487, 490 Slovenian  355, 413, 417, 419, 421, 423, 473, 487, 490 Sorbian  355, 473, 487, 490 Spanish  36–8, 279, 362, 367, 373, 411, 412, 417–9, 425, 471 Swedish  13, 111, 225f, 230–5, 237f, 355f, 359f, 417f, 471, 483 T Turkish  13, 369, 404f, 410–2, 415, 456–62, 470, 474f, 482, 493f, 497

U Ukrainian  355, 367, 413, 417f, 420, 451, 473, 482f, 486, 490f, 494, 496 W Welsh  15, 239–42, 250–6, 262–67, 280–315, 410, 481, 485, 504 Z Zyryan  6

Index of authors

A Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.  34, 525, 531 Alexiadou, Artemis  535 Alhoniemi, Alho  341, 525 Allan, Robin  237, 525 Ambros, Arne A.  45, 47–9, 50, 77, 83, 86, 90, 525 Andrieux-Reix, Nelly  535 Aquilina, Joseph  61, 80, 86, 89, 94, 100, 101, 107, 108 Avram, Larisa  535 Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie  48, 58, 64, 90, 95, 97, 526

Bril, Isabelle  535 Bronsert, Siegfried  399, 525 Brown, Keith  532, 536 Brumme, Jenny  353, 371, 526 Bublitz, Wolfram  536 Buchholz, Oda  328–30, 331, 526, 535 Buridant, Claude  526, 530 Burridge, Kate  38, 526 Bussmann, Hadumod  5, 526 Büttner, Uwe  528 Bybee, Joan  499, 526, 530 Byrne, Michel  243, 246, 256, 257, 259, 526

B Bakker, Peter  237, 532 Bally, Charles  3, 4, 525 Baron, Irène  4, 5, 7, 296, 525, 528, 531–3, 535, 536, 537 Barshi, Immanuel  4, 528, 531, 536, 537 Bartning, Inge  7, 525 Bechert, Johannes  526, 530 Bendel, Christiane  404, 525 Bendjaballah, Sabrina  530 Benveniste, Emile  4, 525 Benzing, Johannes  464, 525 Berneker, Erich  441, 525 Bernini, Giuliano  526, 530 Berretti, Jany  535 Beyrer, Arthur  399, 525 Biermann, Anna  4, 470, 525 Bochmann, Klaus  399, 525 Böðvarsson, Árni  165 Boeder, Winfried  4, 404, 405, 462, 519, 525, 536 Borg, Albert  48, 58, 64, 90, 95–97, 104, 525 Borillo, Andrée  526 Breidbach, Winfried  526 Brettschneider, Gunter  525 Brigaudiot, Mireille  535

C Calder, George  242, 243, 526 Campbell, Lyle  337, 531 Cardinaletti, Anna  526, 531 Caruana, Sandro  98, 528 Cassirer, Ernst  4, 526 Chamoreau, Claudine  535 Chappell, Hilary  3–5, 30, 38, 498, 526, 530 Cintra, Lindley  357, 427, 526 Claudi, Ulrike  518, 528 Coene, Martine  4, 526, 527, 535–8 Comrie, Bernard  97, 526, 530, 532, 537 Corbett, Greville G.  35, 526, 530, 532, 535 Cordin, Patrizia  318, 320, 326, 327, 526 Cornilescu, Alexandra  535 Creissels, Denis  535 Cristea, Teodora  535 Croft, William  25, 31, 509, 510, 526 Cruse, Alan D.  31, 526 Cunha, Celso  357, 427, 526 Cuniţă, Alexandra  535 Cysouw, Michael  517, 526

D D’Hulst, Yves  4, 535 Dahl, Östen  3, 5, 29, 333, 334, 390, 491, 499, 526, 535 Danon-Boileau, Laurent  535 Darot, Mireille  535 Daum, Edmund  442, 527 De Cuyper, Gretel  535 De Mulder, Walter  536 De Wit, Petra  360, 533 Delmas, Claude  535 Delsing, Lars-Olof  111, 114, 135, 136, 139, 221, 225, 226, 231, 235–8, 527 Desclés, Jean-Pierre  536 Dillon, Myles  2, 46, 527 Dixon, R.M.W.  531 Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen  527 Dorian, Nancy C.  243, 244, 527 Drossard, Werner  536 Dryer, Matthew  532 Durst-Andersen, Per  536 E Egerland, Verner  238, 527 Eksell Harning, Kerstin  49, 527 Elkady, Nourelhoda  96, 527 Ellertson, Björn  527 Endruschat, Annette  424, 425, 429, 430, 527 Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I.  405, 457, 461, 462, 527 F Fabri, Ray  77–9, 81, 85, 86, 90–3, 527 Favereau, Francis  267, 307–9, 527 Fenech, Edward  48, 72, 527 Fenyvesi, Anna  528 Feuillet, Jacques  529 Fiedler, Wilfried  328–30, 331, 526, 535

  Index of authors Fischer, Jean-Paul  536 Fiva, Toril  231, 236, 374, 375, 527 Foulon-Hristova, Jordanka  344, 527 Fraurud, Kari  536 Friðónsson, Jon  111, 118, 123, 159, 527 Fried, Mirjam  536 G Gerdts, Donna B.  536 Gerzenstein, Ana  31, 33, 34, 517, 527 Gil, David  532 Goddard, Cliff  5, 533 Gołąb, Zbigniew  345, 527 Gorsemann, Sabine  7, 217, 219, 222–4, 499, 502, 505, 532 Greenberg, Joseph H.  351, 499, 527, 533 Guéron, Jacqueline  36, 527 Guiraud-Weber, Margue­ rite  536 H Haegeman, Liliane  39, 527 Haiman, John  33, 45, 502, 503, 527 Hall, Kira  526 Halm, Wolfgang  425, 527 Harning, K.I.  Eksell  77, 83, 84, 94 Haşdeu, Bogdan P.  401, 528 Haspelmath, Martin  3, 5, 7, 38, 98, 136, 138, 139, 317, 318, 327, 343, 362, 364, 528, 529, 532 Haukioja, Timo  526 Heine, Bernd  4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17–21, 29, 30, 33, 98, 156, 172, 269, 270, 281, 289, 307, 314, 409, 420, 430, 434, 438, 441, 443, 453, 457, 462, 479, 494, 495, 514, 515, 516, 518, 527, 528, 536 Helmbrecht, Johannes  4, 31, 528, 533 Heltoft, Lars  111, 528 Henriksen, Jeffrei  219, 528 Hentschel, Gerd  536 Herslund, Michael  4, 5, 7, 525, 528, 531–3, 535, 536, 537

Hewitt, Brian George  239, 405, 528, 536 Hewitt, Steve  239, 405, 528, 536 Himmelmann, Nikolaus  407, 531 Hinrichs, Uwe  342, 528 Høeg Müller, Henrik  536 Holm, Britta  360, 528 Holmes, Philip  237, 525, 528 Hopper, Paul  499, 526, 530 Hualde, José Ignacio  347, 404, 528 Hundertmark-Santos Martins, Maria Teresa  425, 427, 429, 528 Hünnemeyer, Frederike  528 I Ihsane, Tabea  536 Iordan, Iorgu  344, 345, 357, 397, 399–401, 528 J Jackiewicz, Agata  536 Jäger, Andreas  449, 528 Johnson-Laird Philip N.  17, 530 K Karjalainen, Merja  451, 452, 455, 456, 533 Karlsson, Fred  336, 339, 340, 454, 455, 461, 528 Karolak, Stanislas  536 Kenesei, István  470, 528 Khizanishvili, Tamar  333, 334, 462, 529 King, Gareth  262, 265, 283–5, 290, 291, 293, 297, 299, 301, 304, 305, 529 Kirschbaum, Ernst-Georg  357, 441, 442, 448, 533 Kleiber, Georges  536 Kliffer, Michael D.  536 König, Ekkehard  5, 38, 138, 139, 362, 529 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria  5, 7, 43–5, 46, 48, 49, 94, 112, 144, 333, 334, 374, 390, 405, 491, 499, 518, 526, 527, 529, 535, 536 Kornfilt, Jaklin  470, 529 Kozintseva, Natalia  346, 529

Kress, Bruno  5, 111–14, 116–18, 122, 129, 144, 145, 156, 160, 161, 215, 529 Kukuczka, Elena  4, 529 Kuteva, Tania  156, 516, 528 Kwon, Joung-Mi  4, 529 L Lamb, William  239, 240, 243, 244, 529 Lamiroy, Béatrice  536 Lancri, Annie  537 Langacker, Ronald W.  5, 529 Lapinskas, Saulius  440, 529 Laskowski, Roman  357, 529 Lausberg, Heinrich  352, 356, 362, 371, 529 Lazard, Gilbert  25, 510, 529 Lehmann, Christian  4, 9, 11, 18, 19, 33, 39, 349, 493, 499, 510, 511, 512, 525, 529, 533 Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien  4, 529 Lindow, Wolfgang  375, 382, 401, 529 Lockwood, William Bur­ ley  223, 529 Lundskar-Nielsen, Tom  525 Lyons, John  4, 529 M MacAulay, Donald  243, 246, 259, 530, 533 Machtelt Bolkestein, A.  537 Mackinnon, Roderick  243, 245, 257, 258, 268, 270, 271, 530 Macwhinney, Brian  499, 530 Manoliu-Manea, Maria  38, 363, 364, 530 Manzelli, Gianguido  5, 18, 317, 509, 519, 530 Marchev, Yolanda  530 Martin, Pierre  32–4, 222, 521, 528, 529, 530, 532, 537 Matras, Yaron  506, 511, 530, 532 Mayo, Peter  451, 530 McGregor, William  3–5, 30, 38, 498, 526, 530, 537 Meacham, Michael  526 Mel’čuk, Igor’ Aleksandrovič  530 Menzel, Thomas  536 Miller, George A.  17, 530

Index of authors  Mithun, Marianne  537 Montan, Per  237, 530 Morel, Mary-Annick  535 N Neumann, Dorothea  38, 530 Newman, John  17, 530 Nichols, Johanna  3, 4, 6, 7, 29, 31, 33, 38, 40, 315, 498, 499, 500, 501–8, 518, 530 Nickel, Klaus Peter  341, 530 Nylund Lindgren, Elizabeth  360, 528 O Ó Cróinín, Donncha  246, 527 Ó Dochartaigh, Cathair  242, 260, 530 Ó Siadhail, Mícheál  242, 243, 245, 260, 261, 273–5, 276, 278, 279 Onishi, Masayuki  531 Ono, Yoshiko  537 Otman, Gabriel  537 P Paul, Ludwig  22, 356, 526, 530, 536 Payne, Doris L.  4, 528, 531, 536, 537 Plank, Frans  529, 531 Podlesskaya, Vera I.  537 Polinsky, Maria  537 Ponelis, F.A.  390, 531 Pottier, Bernard  526 Poulsen, Johan Hendrik W.  219, 221, 236, 238, 374, 390, 401, 531 Poulsen, Morten  219, 221, 236, 238, 374, 390, 401, 531 Premper, Waldfried  531, 532, 536, 537 Press, Ian  239, 254, 255, 524, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 533 Puech, Gilbert  50, 531 Pustet, Regina  4, 531 R Radeva, Vassilka  342, 343, 531 Rakhilina, Ekaterina V.  537 Ramat, Paolo18, 509, 530, 532 Raxilina, Ekaterina  538

Rebuschi, Georges  537 Reinheimer Rîpeanu, Sandra  17, 531 Renzi, Lorenzo  320–6, 364, 365, 526, 531 Riegel, Martin  537 Robu, Vladimir  344, 345, 357, 397, 399–401, 528 Rosén, Hajim  4, 531 Rosenqvist, Håkan  237, 530 S Sakayan, Dora  347, 531 Sala, Marius  537 Saltarelli, Mario  470, 531 Salvi, Giampaolo  526, 531 Sands, Kristina  337, 531 Schenk, Werner  442, 527 Schmalstieg, William R.  439, 531 Schroeder, Christoph  404, 405, 519, 525 Schroten, Jan  537 Schultze-Berndt, Eva  407, 531 Schürcks, Lilia  537 Seiler, Hansjakob  4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 405, 503, 515, 525, 531, 537 Senn, Alfred  434, 435, 437, 439, 532 Şerbănescu, Andra  537 Serzisko, Fritz  4, 532 Shapiro, Richard  526 Shevelov, George Y.  451, 532 Shibatani, Masayoshi  531 Shimamungu, Eugène  537 Shin, Yong-Min  4, 39, 529, 532 Shipley, William  530 Singer, Murray  537 Sørensen, Finn  4, 5, 111, 525, 528, 531–3, 53–7 Spanoghe, Anne-Marie  5, 364, 471, 532 Staksberg, Marius  220, 532 Stassen, Leon  5, 420, 423, 508, 509, 532 Steinkrüger, Patrick O.  537 Stolz, Christel  7–9, 27, 28, 44, 100, 111, 114, 117, 153, 155, 156, 215, 217, 219, 222–4, 274, 276, 284, 308, 359, 373, 406, 409, 410, 479, 499,

502, 505, 517, 518, 529, 530, 532, 533 Stolz, Thomas  7, 8, 27, 44, 111, 114, 117, 153, 217, 219, 222–4, 284, 359, 373, 479, 499, 502, 505, 529, 530, 532, 533 Stroh, Cornelia  9, 28, 100, 155, 156, 215, 274, 276, 308, 406, 409, 410, 529, 533 Sulkala, Helena  451, 452, 454–6, 533 T Tasmowski, Liliane  4, 5, 531, 533, 535–8 Tauscher, Elisabeth  357, 441, 442, 448, 533 Taylor, John R.  5, 533 Tekorien, Dalija  440, 529 Ternes, Elmar  241, 250, 266, 307, 533 Thomas, Alan R.  241, 242, 262, 266, 529, 530, 532, 533, 536 Thráinsson, Höskuldur  111, 217, 219–25, 371, 533 Timoc-Bardy, Romana  363, 533 Togeby, Ole  111, 533 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs  527 Trépos, Pierre  262, 533 Tsujioka, Takae  4, 533 Tumanyan, Eteri  346, 533 U Ultan, Russel  4, 533 Ulvydas, Karlis  434, 533 Urbina, Jon Ortiz de  347, 404, 528 Urdze, Aina  9, 28, 100, 155, 156, 215, 274, 276, 308, 406, 409, 410, 533 V Vago, Robert M.  470, 528 Van den Toorn, M.C.  360, 371, 390, 393, 533 Van der Auwera, Johan  475, 533 Van Peteghem, Marleen  537 Vandeloise, Claude  537 Vanhove, Martine  50, 77, 533 Vasmer, Max  441, 525

  Index of authors Vater, Heinz  470, 531, 536 Velazquez-Castillo, Maura  4, 533 Vella, Joseph  48, 80, 533 Verhoeven, Elisabeth  39, 529 Villasante, Fray Luis  465, 533 Vintilă-Rădulescu, Iona  538 von Roncador, Manfred  536

W Wälchli, Bernhard  526 Weerman, Fred  390, 533 Weiss, Daniel  538 Wierzbicka, Anna  5, 533 Williams, Stephen J.  239–41, 251, 266, 521, 533 Wunderlich, Dieter  537

Y Yariv-Laor, Lihi  538 Z Zribi-Hertz, Anne  538

Index of subjects

A abstract possession  19, 28, 108 adnominal possession  91, 109, 144, 147, 374 adpositional  5, 12, 409, 412 alienable  242–6, 363–9, 497–508 animacy  19–21, 161f, 220f, 277f, 374f, 462ff, 482f, 492ff, 510, 513 areality  44, 362, 369, 471 attributive possession  7f, 12, 44, 95, 107–15, 142–54, 215–7, 238f, 253, 265, 471f, 480–98, 502, 506 B belong-verb  22 body-part external  4f, 38–40, 116, 129, 136–9, 143–6, 176, 181, 184f, 237, 470, 502, 505 internal  40, 116f, 143, 157, 181–8, 256f, 265f, 351–5, 376, 455, 471, 480–7, 502f, 510 by extension  117, 125, 143, 235, 264, 287, 380 C case

ablative  144f, 267, 328, 331 accusative  14, 27f, 154, 207, 215, 220f, 313, 328, 371, 390, 396, 435ff, 440f, 497 adessive  337, 452–6, 461 allative  269 benefactive  40, 269, 278, 438f comitative  46, 175, 374, 411–3, 416, 418–21

dative  21–7, 39f, 114–6, 155f, 166, 170, 220, 239, 269, 342, 390, 396f, 434f, 437–40 elative  325, 437 genitive  11–5, 111–3, 141–52, 219–39, 255–69, 335–41, 371–56, 389–406, 451f, 457–60, 479–84, 490–6, 500, 504 inessive  455f instrumental  274, 308, 412, 485 locative  14, 21, 269, 307, 453, 458, 460f, 481, 510 partitive  28, 94, 118, 144f, 156ff, 223, 242ff, 253f, 260–7, 297, 337 clothes  53f, 113f, 119–27, 144–8, 229–31, 243–7, 253–8, 260–5, 346f, 378f, 386, 430, 433, 440, 496 concrete possession  94, 118, 122, 424 confective  276, 279, 311, 406–9, 414, 417–21 construct state  78–95, 109f, 257, 262, 314 control  18–20, 26f, 102–9, 167–70, 181-8, 191–216, 277, 308f, 454–62, 480, 508f, 514 current possession  108, 408, 420, 430, 459, 496f, 506 D definiteness  19f, 77–9, 114–8, 128f, 160f, 224f, 254–79, 303–17, 326f, 331–3, 342–7, 362–8, 402–4, 489–92, 503 dependent marking  497, 499–502 disambiguation  38, 70, 153, 357

discourse participant  36, 38, 147 double marking  474 E empathy  20f, 326–8, 349, 382, 405, 460, 493f, 510–4 emphasis  67–71, 84, 134–6, 151, 153, 236, 268f, 283, 317, 327, 338, 353, 447f, 489f, 515 existential  14f, 290–4, 297–99, 303–6, 435, 441, 454, 457f, 462 F focus  67–71, 84f, 134–6, 151–3, 241–4, 281–97, 301–9, 326f, 337f, 346f, 388–96, 450f, 469, 492–4, 513–5 frequency tokens, 50–4, 61ff, 116ff, 126–8, 142–7, 159–61, 172–5, 319ff, 382f, 396, 401, 444 types  49–55, 61–4, 116–22, 126–8, 130–6, 146–50, 156–61, 265–8, 359–71, 382f, 406f, 441–7, 451f, 514 G grammaticalisation  4, 6, 25, 38, 58, 60f, 156, 271, 282, 423, 497f, 507f, 516 H have-verb  14, 21  423–5, 434, 441f, 448f, 451–3, 457, 479, 481f head-marking  13, 38, 45, 312, 315, 404f, 474, 497, 499–502, 504–8

  Index of subjects I illness  143f, 148, 173f, 189, 309, 311, 512 inalienable  29–38, 130–9, 240–6, 363–9, 497–508 inanimate  19–21, 25–8, 81, 97, 150, 215, 258, 289, 383, 424, 449–58, 482f, 496, 510 indefiniteness  87, 89f, 246, 255, 266f, 272, 299f, 383, 387, 402f K kinship  30–5, 49–56, 88–94, 118–27, 142, 148, 150, 157–68, 215–26, 236–55, 264–7, 310–335, 341–51, 363–6, 391–400, 480–512 L language contact  313, 413, 479, 516 lexicalisation  169 linear order  77, 146f, 151f linguistic area  421, 471 M metaphor  55, 61, 71f, 279 metonymy  61, 72, 81, 188, 279 mono-split  486f N negation  97, 200, 297–9, 431, 435, 515 O orientation possessee orientation  22, 351f possessor orientation  20, 22, 351f, 494 ornative  406–8, 412, 418–21

P part-whole relation  202, 215, 382 permanent possession  103, 205, 250, 290–3, 306, 308, 315, 430, 452, 458–61, 483, 492, 496f, 507 physical possession  21, 24, 28, 108, 166, 198–203, 213, 276, 294, 303f, 308, 311, 427ff, 451, 482, 496, 506ff physico-mental state  206, 425, 432, 437, 456, 509f poly-split  486 possessive adjective  318, 357, 360 possessor-subject identity  353–7, 359, 363, 365, 469, 481, 483, 490f possessor affix  45, 47f, 58, 61 pragmatics  90, 95, 255, 268, 271, 300–10, 312–4, 327–40, 383–8, 392, 448, 491f, 516 predicative possession  7f, 14f, 21, 58, 109–11, 215–9, 269–85, 290–8, 301–17, 409, 420, 433–75, 480–95, 506–15 pronominal possession  7, 12, 41, 44, 77–81, 109–15, 142–53, 215f, 239f, 250–69, 317–60, 371–3, 472–502 proper nouns  124, 139, 142, 160–2, 220, 234, 260, 289, 374, 382, 389–403, 437, 463, 470–9, 484, 493, 512 proprial possession  145, 216 prototype  6, 17, 19f, 24–6, 31, 39, 56, 95, 216, 279, 328, 349, 405, 435, 493, 509f R restricted possessor  492

resumptive possessive  221, 238, 374–6, 382f, 387–90, 396 rhematic  22, 280, 389, 392, 408, 462 S schema action  17, 98, 152, 276, 434, 494–97 companion  269, 307, 409, 412–4, 416–23, 428, 430, 494–7, 507 equation  494, 514 genitive cf. case, genitive goal  8, 18, 21, 98, 193, 381, 494–7 location, 98, 173, 190, 199, 202, 213, 455, 457–62, 494–7 topic  95, 98, 126, 160, 255, 269, 303, 312, 341, 374, 392, 402, 452, 494 speech-act participant  328, 332, 340, 349f, 373, 493 sprachbund  475 style  61, 118, 132, 139, 151, 183, 195, 220, 250, 259, 283, 394, 460, 470f syntactic weight  95, 134, 151, 224, 236, 246–68, 300–14, 320–38, 343–7, 374–88, 402f, 447f, 484, 489, 491f temporary possession  18, 99, 102, 106–8, 250, 274, 276f, 290f, 311, 454f, 460, 506 thematic  280, 352, 392, 408 time stability  110, 186, 453, 490f U universal, 6, 17, 25, 29, 136, 315, 351, 515

Studies in Language Companion Series A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 103 Josephson, Folke and Ingmar Söhrman (eds.): Form and Functions. Apsect, tense, mood, diathesis, and valency. Expected August 2008 102 Goddard, Cliff (ed.): Cross-Linguistic Semantics. 2008. xvi, 356 pp. 101 Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze: Split Possession. An areallinguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. x, 546 pp. Expected May 2008 100 Ameka, Felix K. and M.E. Kropp Dakubu (eds.): Aspect and Modality in Kwa Languages. 2008. ix, 335 pp. 99 Høeg Müller, Henrik and Alex Klinge (eds.): Essays on Nominal Determination. From morphology to discourse management. xviii, 366 pp. + index. Expected May 2008 98 Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine and Wiebke Ramm (eds.): 'Subordination' versus 'Coordination' in Sentence and Text. A cross-linguistic perspective. 2008. vi, 357 pp. 97 Dollinger, Stefan: New-Dialect Formation in Canada. Evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. 2008. xxii, 355 pp. 96 Romeo, Nicoletta: Aspect in Burmese. Meaning and function. 2008. xv, 289 pp. 95 O’Connor, Loretta: Motion, Transfer and Transformation. The grammar of change in Lowland Chontal. 2007. xiv, 251 pp. 94 Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson (eds.): Language Complexity. Typology, contact, change. 2008. xiv, 356 pp. 93 Schalley, Andrea C. and Drew Khlentzos (eds.): Mental States. Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure. 2007. x, 362 pp. 92 Schalley, Andrea C. and Drew Khlentzos (eds.): Mental States. Volume 1: Evolution, function, nature. 2007. xii, 304 pp. 91 Filipović, Luna: Talking about Motion. A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. 2007. x, 182 pp. 90 Muysken, Pieter (ed.): From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics. 2008. vii, 293 pp. 89 Stark, Elisabeth, Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham (eds.): Nominal Determination. Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence. 2007. viii, 370 pp. 88 Ramat, Paolo and Elisa Roma (eds.): Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. 2007. xxvi, 364 pp. 87 Verhoeven, Elisabeth: Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya. A typologically based analysis of a functional domain in a Mayan language. 2007. xiv, 380 pp. 86 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika, Manfred Consten and Mareile Knees (eds.): Anaphors in Text. Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference. 2007. xvi, 282 pp. 85 Butler, Christopher S., Raquel Hidalgo Downing and Julia Lavid (eds.): Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse. In honour of Angela Downing. 2007. xxx, 481 pp. 84 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Selected Lexical and Grammatical Issues in the Meaning–Text Theory. In honour of Igor Mel'čuk. 2007. xviii, 380 pp. 83 Hannay, Mike and Gerard J. Steen (eds.): Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. 2007. vi, 393 pp. 82 Ziegeler, Debra: Interfaces with English Aspect. Diachronic and empirical studies. 2006. xvi, 325 pp. 81 Peeters, Bert (ed.): Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar. Empirical evidence from the Romance languages. 2006. xvi, 374 pp. 80 Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward (eds.): Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn. 2006. xii, 350 pp. 79 Laffut, An: Three-Participant Constructions in English. A functional-cognitive approach to caused relations. 2006. ix, 268 pp. 78 Yamamoto, Mutsumi: Agency and Impersonality. Their Linguistic and Cultural Manifestations. 2006. x, 152 pp. 77 Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.): Case, Valency and Transitivity. 2006. xx, 503 pp.

76 Nevalainen, Terttu, Juhani Klemola and Mikko Laitinen (eds.): Types of Variation. Diachronic, dialectal and typological interfaces. 2006. viii, 378 pp. 75 Hole, Daniel, André Meinunger and Werner Abraham (eds.): Datives and Other Cases. Between argument structure and event structure. 2006. viii, 385 pp. 74 Pietrandrea, Paola: Epistemic Modality. Functional properties and the Italian system. 2005. xii, 232 pp. 73 Xiao, Richard and Tony McEnery: Aspect in Mandarin Chinese. A corpus-based study. 2004. x, 305 pp. 72 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Adam Hodges and David S. Rood (eds.): Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories. 2005. xii, 432 pp. 71 Dahl, Östen: The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. 2004. x, 336 pp. 70 Lefebvre, Claire: Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 2004. xvi, 358 pp. 69 Tanaka, Lidia: Gender, Language and Culture. A study of Japanese television interview discourse. 2004. xvii, 233 pp. 68 Moder, Carol Lynn and Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.): Discourse Across Languages and Cultures. 2004. vi, 366 pp. 67 Luraghi, Silvia: On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. 2003. xii, 366 pp. 66 Nariyama, Shigeko: Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese. 2003. xvi, 400 pp. 65 Matsumoto, Kazuko: Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation. Syntactic, informational and functional structures. 2003. xviii, 215 pp. 64 Butler, Christopher S.: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. 2003. xiv, 579 pp. 63 Butler, Christopher S.: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. 2003. xx, 573 pp. 62 Field, Fredric: Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. With a foreword by Bernard Comrie. 2002. xviii, 255 pp. 61 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 2. 2002. xvi, 337 pp. 60 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 1. 2002. xvi, 337 pp. 59 Shi, Yuzhi: The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar. The formation of the resultative construction and its effects. 2002. xiv, 262 pp. 58 Maylor, B. Roger: Lexical Template Morphology. Change of state and the verbal prefixes in German. 2002. x, 273 pp. 57 Mel’čuk, Igor A.: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semantic-communicative structure of sentences. 2001. xii, 393 pp. 56 Faarlund, Jan Terje (ed.): Grammatical Relations in Change. 2001. viii, 326 pp. 55 Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 2: Grammar and Typology. 2001. xx, 423 pp. 54 Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 1: Past and Present. 2001. xx, 382 pp. 53 Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach and Dieter Stein (eds.): Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English. 2000. x, 391 pp. 52 Torres Cacoullos, Rena: Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language Contact. A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. 2000. xvi, 255 pp. 51 Ziegeler, Debra: Hypothetical Modality. Grammaticalisation in an L2 dialect. 2000. xx, 290 pp. 50 Abraham, Werner and Leonid Kulikov (eds.): Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. 1999. xxxiv, 359 pp. 49 Bhat, D.N.S.: The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. 1999. xii, 198 pp. 48 Manney, Linda Joyce: Middle Voice in Modern Greek. Meaning and function of an inflectional category. 2000. xiii, 262 pp. 47 Brinton, Laurel J. and Minoji Akimoto (eds.): Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. 1999. xiv, 283 pp. 46 Yamamoto, Mutsumi: Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. 1999. xviii, 278 pp.

45 Collins, Peter C. and David Lee (eds.): The Clause in English. In honour of Rodney Huddleston. 1999. xv, 342 pp. 44 Hannay, Mike and A. Machtelt Bolkestein (eds.): Functional Grammar and Verbal Interaction. 1998. xii, 304 pp. 43 Olbertz, Hella, Kees Hengeveld and Jesús Sánchez García (eds.): The Structure of the Lexicon in Functional Grammar. 1998. xii, 312 pp. 42 Darnell, Michael, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II: Case studies. 1999. vi, 407 pp. 41 Darnell, Michael, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General papers. 1999. vi, 486 pp. 40 Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward: Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. 1998. xiv, 314 pp. 39 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Recent Trends in Meaning–Text Theory. 1997. xx, 202 pp. 38 Hacking, Jane F.: Coding the Hypothetical. A comparative typology of Russian and Macedonian conditionals. 1998. vi, 156 pp. 37 Harvey, Mark and Nicholas Reid (eds.): Nominal Classification in Aboriginal Australia. 1997. x, 296 pp. 36 Kamio, Akio (ed.): Directions in Functional Linguistics. 1997. xiii, 259 pp. 35 Matsumoto, Yoshiko: Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. A frame semantic approach. 1997. viii, 204 pp. 34 Hatav, Galia: The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. 1997. x, 224 pp. 33 Velázquez-Castillo, Maura: The Grammar of Possession. Inalienability, incorporation and possessor ascension in Guaraní. 1996. xvi, 274 pp. 32 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt: Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence. A case study in Chadic. 1996. xviii, 501 pp. 31 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. 1996. xx, 355 pp. 30 Huffman, Alan: The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le. 1997. xiv, 379 pp. 29 Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft and Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen (eds.): Content, Expression and Structure. Studies in Danish functional grammar. 1996. xvi, 510 pp. 28 Herman, József (ed.): Linguistic Studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991). 1994. ix, 421 pp. 27 Abraham, Werner, T. Givón and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.): Discourse, Grammar and Typology. Papers in honor of John W.M. Verhaar. 1995. xx, 352 pp. 26 Lima, Susan D., Roberta L. Corrigan and Gregory K. Iverson: The Reality of Linguistic Rules. 1994. xxiii, 480 pp. 25 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Semantic and Lexical Universals. Theory and empirical findings. 1994. viii, 510 pp. 24 Bhat, D.N.S.: The Adjectival Category. Criteria for differentiation and identification. 1994. xii, 295 pp. 23 Comrie, Bernard and Maria Polinsky (eds.): Causatives and Transitivity. 1993. x, 399 pp. 22 McGregor, William B.: A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. 1990. xx, 618 pp. 21 Coleman, Robert (ed.): New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. 1990. x, 480 pp. 20 Verhaar, John W.M. S.J. (ed.): Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles in Melanesia. 1990. xiv, 409 pp. 19 Blust, Robert A.: Austronesian Root Theory. An essay on the limits of morphology. 1988. xi, 190 pp. 18 Wierzbicka, Anna: The Semantics of Grammar. 1988. vii, 581 pp. 17 Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.): Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1–5 April 1985. 1989. xxix, 691 pp. 16 Conte, Maria-Elisabeth, János Sánder Petöfi and Emel Sözer (eds.): Text and Discourse Connectedness. Proceedings of the Conference on Connexity and Coherence, Urbino, July 16–21, 1984. 1989. xxiv, 584 pp.

15 Justice, David: The Semantics of Form in Arabic. In the mirror of European languages. 1987. iv, 417 pp. 14 Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson and Robert F. Ilson: Lexicographic Description of English. 1986. xiii, 275 pp. 13 Reesink, Ger P.: Structures and their Functions in Usan. 1987. xviii, 369 pp. 12 Pinkster, Harm (ed.): Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. 1983. xviii, 307 pp. 11 Panhuis, Dirk G.J.: The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence. A study of Latin word order. 1982. viii, 172 pp. 10 Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl and Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel: Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. 1988. ix, 168 pp. 9 Lang, Ewald and John Pheby: The Semantics of Coordination. (English transl. by John Pheby from the German orig. ed. 'Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung', Berlin, 1977). 1984. 300 pp. 8 Barth, E.M. and J.L. Martens (eds.): Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation. Containing the Contributions to the Groningen Conference on the Theory of Argumentation, October 1978. 1982. xviii, 333 pp. 7 Parret, Herman, Marina Sbisà and Jef Verschueren (eds.): Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. 1981. x, 854 pp. 6 Vago, Robert M. (ed.): Issues in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics Conference on Vowel Harmony, May 14, 1977. 1980. xx, 340 pp. 5 Haiman, John: Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. 1980. iv, 550 pp. 4 Lloyd, Albert L.: Anatomy of the Verb. The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. (Part I: Theory; Part II: Application). 1979. x, 351 pp. 3 Malkiel, Yakov: From Particular to General Linguistics. Selected Essays 1965–1978. With an introduction by the author, an index rerum and an index nominum. 1983. xxii, 659 pp. 2 Anwar, Mohamed Sami: BE and Equational Sentences in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. 1979. vi, 128 pp. 1 Abraham, Werner (ed.): Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Workshop studies prepared for the 12th International Congress of Linguists, Vienna, August 29th to September 3rd, 1977. xiv, 729 pp. Expected Out of print