PREDICATIVE POSSESSION http://wals.info/feature/117A? s=20&v1=c00d&v2=cd00&v3=cf6f&v4=cff0&v5=c000&z5=2937&z4=2941&z1=2952&z2= 2978&z3=2952&tg_format=map&lat=5.5&lng=152.

58&z=2&t=m PART I First, I must mention a considerable body of research which deals with the question of the relationship between the concept of possession and other conceptual notions. Authors have asked themselves whether possession constitutes an independent conceptual domain, or whether, alternatively, it can be reduced to some other, more basic, conceptual notion. In particular, it has been suggested that possession is in fact a subdomain of the domain of location. Another way in which possession is connected to other conceptual domains is that, apparently, the encoding of possession is a favourite source in languages for the encoding of other conceptual notions. Thus, it has been established that, in quite a few languages, possessive constructions form the diachronic basis for aspectual notions such as perfective or progressive, or for expressions of deontic modality. E.g of diachronic relationships involved: (1) French (Indo-European, Romance) a. Possession: Il a un cheval He has a horse He has a horse (own data) b. Perfective: Il a travaille He has worked He has worked (own data) (2) English (Indo-European, West Germanic) a. Possession: I have a motorcycle (own data) b. Deontic modality: I have to work (own data) There are a number of languages in which possessive encodings form the historical foundation of expressions of existence, as is shown in the following examples from French, Serbo-Croatian, and Swahili:

4) French (Indo-European, Romance) a. Possession: Il a un cheval he has a horse He has a horse (own data) b. Existence: Il y a des gens qui fument it there has indef people who smoke There are people who smoke (own data) (5) Serbo-Croatian (Indo-European, South Slavonic) a. Possession: Gospodin Petrovic ima automobil Mr. P. has car Mr. Petrovic has a car (Javarek and Sudjic 1963: 18) b. Existence: U Beogradu Ima vojnika in B.-loc it.has soldier.acc There are soldiers in Belgrade (Lord 1958: 22) (6) Swahili (Niger-Kordofanian, East Bantu) a. Possession: Wa-na pesa they-be.with money They have money (Heine 1997: 189) b. Existence: Pa-na watu wengi there-be.with people many There are many people (lit. There has (it) many people) The concept of possession expressed in the languages of the Indo-European family These languages exhibit a split, in that some of them encode (predicative) possession by way of a have-verb (to be found in the Germanic, Romance, Baltic, and Iranian subfamilies, and also in West and South Slavonic, Modern Greek, Albanian, and Armenian), whereas other members of the family employ a possessive construction that features a be-verb (Celtic, East Slavonic, Indic).

The semantics of possession: two parameters *possession is one of those relatively abstract notions which are hard to define explicitly. Perhaps the most neutral, and least controversial, characterization of possession is that, as a semantic concept, it belongs to the class of cognitive entities known as relations. From this it follows that a case of possession necessarily involves two entities, which, for this particular case, can be called the possessor and the possessee. Moreover, we may characterize this relation as asymmetric, in that it involves the notion of belonging. The notion of belonging is of course pre-theoretical and vague, and the literature has seen various attempts to explicate this notion. One influential school of thought has tackled the problem by trying to reduce the notion of belonging to a more basic type of relation, namely a locational relation. Thus, it is argued, an entity X can be said to belong to an entity Y and hence, X and Y can be said to be in a relation of possession if X and Y share the same space, and are therefore in contact (The notion of space intended here should be taken to include not only concrete or physical space, but also more abstract extensions like mental space or sphere of influence.) We find the idea that possession is a form of locational relation in studies by traditional comparative linguists (Benveniste, Anderson, Locker, Clark, etc.). The common things that we can find to all these authors- they do not conceive of possession as an independent concept: in its essential features, it can be reduced to location. As a consequence, it is held that differences between possession and other forms of locational relations can be attributed to some special, additional characteristics of the possessive relation. For one thing, it can be observed that, in cases of possession, one of the located entities (i.e. the possessor) typically has the semantic feature [+ Human]. In other cases of locational relations, it is argued, no such selection restrictions are applicable, which is why possession is a special form of location. As a second point, it can be stipulated that the possessive relation, at least in its prototypical instances, is to be viewed as holding for an enduring length of time: possession has no conceivable temporal limit and the relationship of possession is a long-term one, measured in months or years rather than in minutes or seconds. Since with other cases of location this requirement of relative time-stability does not necessarily hold, this may constitute another reason why, within the realm of locational relations, possession has a special status. A strong argument in favour of this Location Hypothesis on Possession is that, in many unrelated languages, the expression of possession is clearly parallel (or, in some cases, even identical) to the expression of locational relations. Cases in which this parallelism between locational and possessive encoding is clearly visible will be presented in abundance throughout this book. E.G: Khalkha (Altaic, Mongolian) a. Gadazar-ing dzurag xana-da baina region-gen picture wall-on be.pres The map is on the wall (Poppe 1951: 61)

b. Na-d olon mori bajna 1sg-at many horse be.pres I have many horses (lit. At me are many horses) (Street 1963: 163)

(18) Fijian (Austronesian, East Oceanic) a. E tu ko Samu mai Niu Siladi pres stand art Samu dir New Zealand Samu is in New Zealand (Milner 1956: 151) b. Sa tu vei au e dua na isele perf stand to me pred one art knife I have a knife (lit. To me stands/is one knife) (Churchward 1940: 40) On the other hand, however, it must be admitted that the parallelism between locational and possessive encoding is certainly not universal. There are quite a few languages in which the relation between these two encodings is not visible. Notably, this is the case in languages such as English, in which the encoding of possession features a non-locational, transitive have-verb. Reviewing the reductionist literature, I tend to the position that location cannot be seen as a suYcient template for the cognitive/semantic notion of possession. in cases of possession, the relation between the two participating entities is necessarily asymmetrical, in that the role, or the status, of the two participants in the relation is fundamentally diVerent. This diVerence can be captured by invoking the cognitive/ semantic notion of control, which has been proven to be fruitful in the analysis of a number of diVerent grammatical constructions. The role of control in possessive constructions has been formulated concisely by Evans (1995: 146), who states that the meaning of the major possessive construction in the Australian language Kayardild can be explicated as follows: X [the possessor] can expect Y [the possessee] to be in the same place as X when X wants, and X can do with Y what X wants. Thus, basically, the notion of control can be described in terms of power. It should be pointed out that, if we accept control as a parameter in the semantics of possession, we no longer have to view the human or humanized status of the possessor as a deWning factor in the possessive relation. Instead, the [+Human] status of the possessor can now be seen as a consequence of the fact that, in possessive relations, one of the participants has control over the other, and that, in general, it is only humans that can execute control. If we accept the semantic analysis proposed in this section, we can state that possession is located at the intersection of two parameters, and that it can be described with reference to the

extent of control the possessor has over the possessee on the one hand, and the length of time during which the possessee is located in proximity to the possessor on the other. (20) DEFINITION: A prototypical case of possession is characterized by the presence of two entities (the possessor and the possessee) such that a) the possessor and the possessee are in some relatively enduring locational relation, and b) the possessor exerts control over the possessee (and is therefore typically human). The cognitive space of possession: subdomains In the literature, cases of possession which conform to the deWnition given in (20) are commonly labelled as instances of alienable possession. By this term, it is indicated that, in such constructions, the possessive relation between the possessor and the possessee is not seen as inherent or indissoluble. Thus, although in cases of alienable possession the possessive relation is seen as relatively time-stable, it is understood that this relation continues to exist only for as long as the controlling agency in the relation chooses to maintain it. Alienable possession is the concept that is intuitively regarded as the prototypical or canonical case of possession. In accordance with that intuition, linguists have commonly regarded expressions of alienable possession as the prototypical case of possessive constructions (Taylor 1989b: 204; Heine 1997: 5). There is ample evidence that suggests that alienable possession is a part (or a subdomain) of a larger conceptual space,12 and that it borders on various other subdomains that cover possessive notions. Thus, in addition to alienable possession, the literature also broadly acknowledges cases of inalienable possession and cases of temporary or physical possession, and some authors (such as Taylor 1989a/b and Heine 1997) even distinguish a fourth subdomain of abstract possession. I hold that the various subtypes of possession can be characterized in terms of the diVerent values which they assume on the parameters of permanent contact and control. As we have seen above, the subtype of alienable possession takes positive values on both of these parameters: in a case of alienable possession, the locational relation between possessor and possessee is permanent to a signiWcant degree, and the relation involves control of the possessor over the possessee. (PAG.37) POSSESSIVE SUBTYPE Alienable Inalienable Temporary Abstract P.38 Alienable, Inalienable and Temporary= generally acknowledged in the literature on the semantics of possession PERMANENT CONTACT + + _ _ CONTROL + _ + _

Abstract- indicates that, in this subtype, the possessee is not a physical object. (e.g. Bill has a cold) Formal restrictions on the domain Predicative and attributive possession PREDICATIVE (alienable) possession The encoding of possession in a language can take two forms; the relation of possession between possessor and possessee can either be the main assertion of the sentence, as in (38a), or it can be presupposed, as in (38b). (38) English (Indo-European, West Germanic) a. John has a motorcycle (own data) b. Johns motorcycle got stolen (own data) From a formal point of view, it can be observed that, cross-linguistically, there does not seem to be a predictable match of the type of encoding for predicative and attributive possession. Formal encodings of predicative and attributive possession are probably to be considered as belonging to two diferent (or at least partially diferent) typologies. Definite and indefinite possession Predicative possession in a language like English can take two diVerent formal encodings, which might be labelled indefinite and definite predicative possession. English (Indo-European, West Germanic) a. John has a motorcycle (own data) b. This motorcycle is Johns/ belongs to John (own data) The difference between the encoding of definite and indefinite predicative possession is rather pronounced in English. In other languages, the formal diVerence between these two options can be more subtle. Thus, in Akan we Wnd that there is no lexical contrast between the two constructions, as both use the same be-verb. The contrast between deWnite and indeWnite possession is indicated by the use of articles, and by the switch in subjecthood of the two noun phrases involved. Akan (Niger-Kordofanian, Kwa) a. Me wo wodan bi 1sg be.at house one I have a house (Christaller 1875: 66) b. Odan yi wo me house def be.at 1sg This house is mine/belongs to me (Christaller 1875: 66)

A language in which none of the formal contrasts that are employed in English are applicable is Latin. This language has no articles. There is no switch in subjecthood in predicative possessive constructions:. The fact that cases of deWnite predicative possession very often take the form of identity statements, a structural encoding option that is never used for indeWnite predicative possession, demonstrates that the two construction types are best regarded as constituting the bases of two essentially diVerent typologies.

Four basic types of predicative possession I will start from the assumption that the encoding of the possessor and the possessee in terms of their grammatical function is the main, and in fact the only, criterion on which the typology of predicative possession has to be based. The Locational Possessive (At/to PR, (there) is/exists a PE.) The construction contains a locative/existential predicate, in the form of a verb with the rough meaning of to be. The possessee NP (PE) is constructed as the grammatical subject of the predicate. As such, it takes all the morphosyntactic privileges that the language allows for grammatical subjects. For example, if the language allows subject-agreement on verbs, the PE will be the determining factor in that agreement. Likewise, if the language has a case system, the PE will be in the case form that is employed for intransitive subjects in general. The possessor NP (PR) is constructed in some oblique, adverbial case form. As such, the PR may be marked by any formal device that the language employs to encode adverbial relations in general, such as case aYxes or adpositions. E.G: Modern Irish (Indo-European, Celtic) Ta airgead aig-e be.3sg.pres money at-3sg He has money (Lewis and Pedersen 1961: 197) (13) Classical Latin (Indo-European, Italic) Est mihi liber be.3sg.pres 1sg.dat book.nom.sg I have a book (Benveniste 1960: 116) An interesting fact about the Locational Possessive is that its areal distribution across the globe is almost certainly not random. There are some parts of the world in which it is practically the norm, and other parts in which it is hardly, if ever, encountered.

The With-Possessive (PR is/exists with a PE) With the Locational Possessive, theWith-Possessive shares the feature of containing a locative/existential predicate, which in a number of non-standard cases may be realized as zero. In other respects, however, the two possessive types are diametrically opposed. While in the Locational Possessive the possessee NP has subject function, in the With-Possessive it is the possessor NP that is the subject. Definition of the With-Possessive a. The construction contains a locative/existential predicate, in theform of a verb with the rough meaning of to be. b. The possessor NP (PR) is constructed as the grammatical subject of the predicate. c. The possessee NP (PE) is constructed in some oblique, adverbial case form. Clear instances of the With-Possessive are found in a restricted number of linguistic areas. (43) Kapau (Papuan, Central and Western) Ni anga hanga ti I house with(?) decl I have a house (Oates and Oates 1968: 75) (44) Amele (Papuan, Madang) Ija sigin ca 1sg knife with I have a knife (Roberts 1987: 81) The Topic Possessive (As for) PR, PE is/exists) This strategy shares a number of deWning characteristics with the Locational Possessive. Apart from the fact that they both contain a locative/ existential predicate, they also both construct the possessee NP as the grammatical subject. The distinguishing feature of the Topic Possessive lies in the encoding of the possessor NP, which is constructed as the sentence topic of the possessive sentence. Definition of the Topic Possessive a. The construction contains a locative/existential predicate, in the form of a verb with the rough meaning of to be. b. The possessee NP (PE) is constructed as the grammatical subject of the predicate. c. The possessor NP (PR) is constructed as the sentence topic of the sentence. Languages may diVer considerably in the formal means by which they encode sentence topics. A frequent, but not necessary, formal feature of such topics is their placement at the beginning of the sentence. Mandarin (Sino-Tibetan, Sinitic) Ta you san-ge ha izi

3sg exist three-class child He/she has three children (Li and Thompson 1981: 513) (60) Arleng Alam (Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Mikir) Ne` po cha`y-nong jon-n do 1sg father cow class-two exist My father has two cows (Grussner 1978: 136) The Have-Possessive Opposed to the three possession types discussed above, the fourth major type does not encode predicative possession in the form of an intransitive construction. TheHave-Possessive is transitive in nature. Its most conspicuous feature is the presence of a (semi-)transitive verb, which it is called the have-verb. The Have-Possessive is not conceptually derived from the expression of location/existence. The Have- Possessive can be described as essentially similar to an English construction like PR has a PE Definition of the Have-Possessive a. The construction contains a transitive predicate. b. The possessor NP is constructed as the subject/agent. c. The possessee NP is constructed as the direct object/patient. The Universal of Have-Possessives (version 1) If a language has a Have-Possessive, that construction will always be in use for the encoding of temporary possession. An alternative way to state this universal is: (85) The Universal of Have-Possessives (version 2) If a language employs a Have-Possessive for the encoding of alienable possession, it will employ a Have-Possessive for the encoding of temporary possession. Norwegian (indo-european, north germanic) Mannen ha-r en hund man.def have-pres a dog The man has a dog (Pal Kristian Eriksen p.c.) Rumanian (indo-european, romance) Tu ai un stilou 2sg.nom have.2sg.pres indef pen You have a pen (Cazacu et al. 1967: 57) CONCLUZII Cele 4 forme ale predicative possession *they constitute large classes, and taken together they cover more than ninety per cent of the possessive constructions in the data base.

Possessor indexing on the possessee A phenomenon that can be documented for all four major consists in an additional encoding of the possessor by means of pronominal items. In non-standard variant we have pronominal indexing of the possessor. Such a pronominal index takes the form of a possessive pronoun or a possessive affix on the possessee NP. Pronominal indexing of the possessor on the possessee NP is especially popular among languages with a Topic Possessive (e.g. of languages Toba Batak, Toradja, Buli, Banggai, Mangap-Mbula, Kilivila, Tawala, Saliba, Palauan, Mokilese, Kwaio, and Tinrin.) Compared to the Topic Possessive, pronominal indexing in the Locational Possessive is relatively infrequent, and is, in all probability, a characteristic of certain linguistic areas. In all cases, the pronominal indexing of the possessor consists of a possessive suffix on the possessee NP, which, in this possession type, is the subject of the construction. While possessor indexing is fairly frequent with Topic Possessives and is at least characteristic of some areas with Locational Possessives, instances of the phenomenon are only incidentally encountered with the With-Possessive and the Have-Possessive.( e.g: New Guinea/ Western Pacific). There is evidence that the occurrence or non-occurrence of pronominal indexing is not a phenomenon that is limited to predicative possessive constructions. Conjunctional Possessives -form of nonstandard possession Both the possessor NP and the possessee NP appear in their unmarked, nonoblique form. What makes this construction special is the presence of an item which, on closer inspection, turns out to have the function of a marker of coordinations. The Conjunctional Possessive is a variant of the Topic Possessive, and the function of the conjunctional element is comparable to the function of possessor indexing. Clausal Possessives *the Ixtlan dialect of the Central American language Zapotec and in the Tibeto-Burman language Dafla. The defining feature of these Clausal Possessives is that the construction consists of two clauses, instead of the usual single sentence. Each of the clauses contains a locational/existential be-verb, which has the possessor NP as its subject in one clause and the possessee NP as its subject in the other. Adnominalization PRs PE is/exists. In addition to the four types that were introduced in Chapter 2, most of the earlier typologies of predicative possession recognize a Wfth type, which has been referred to as the genitive possessive. This Adnominal Possessive is an intransitive construction, which has at least in its standard form a locational/existential item as its predicate. Moreover, the Adnominal Possessive is similar to the Locational Possessive and the Topic Possessive in that the possessee NP is the grammatical subject in the construction In the Adnominal Possessive, it is argued, the possessor NP has the syntactic status of an adnominal, or genitival, modiWer to the possessee NP. In other words, the Adnominal

Possessive exploits existing means of encoding possessive relations between thing-like entities, attributive possession, for the expression of propositional forms of encoding possession. (1) Ormuri (Indo-European, Iranian) a. Ta-sa sarai dyo kullan bukin gen-one man two son be.3pl.past A man had two sons (Grierson 1921: 229) b. Ta Zaid ta yansp ghilami gen Z. gen horse bridle The bridle of Zaids horse (Grierson 1921: 202) The defining characteristic of the Adnominal Possessive lies in the fact that there is a parallelism between the encoding of attributive and predicative possession. The Adnominal Possessive can be said to manifest itself in two subtypes, to wit: (a) a marked variant, in which the possessor NP receives a marking, and for which the term genitive possessive can be reserved, and (b) an unmarked or zero variant, in which the possessor NP does not have overt marking. Compared to the four major types, Adnominal Possessive constructions are relatively rare. Predicativization I will refer to a process that results in a reanalysis of the categorial and syntactic status of the phrase which contains the possessee. A predicativized possessee phrase in these languages can be likened to such English formations as moneyed, red-nosed, wide-eyed, long-legged, or pot-bellied. Sandawe (Khoisan) The heu maganza-se Tree this tall(ness)-having This tree is tall (DempwolV 1916: 19) Transitivization Have-Drift aims at turning an intransitive construction into a transitive one: it is a process of transitivization, in which the possessor NP is or comes to be the subject. we Wnd that, as a result of Have-Drift, languages may create a new, transitive haveverb, often on the basis of the locative/existential predicate that is present in the source construction. Basic features of the typology The concept of possession constitutes a conceptual space or domain, which is deWned by the intersection of two independent parameters, namely permanent contact and control. Depending on the values of these two parameters, the domain of possession can be divided into a number of subdomains, the most important of which are alienable possession, inalienable possession, and temporary possession. The present study restricts itself to the predicative encoding of alienable

possession. In the construction of the typology of predicative (alienable) possession, the fundamental criterion is constituted by the morphosyntactic encoding of the two participants in the construction, i.e. the possessor(PR) and the possessee (PE). Applying this criterion yields a typology in which four basic encoding types are distinguished, namely . the Locational Possessive . the With-Possessive . the Topic Possessive . the Have-Possessive. Of these four types, the Wrst three are intransitive constructions, which are grounded in the encoding of existential predications. In contrast, the fourth type represents a transitive construction, which does not have its basis in the expression of existence. Especially the three intransitive possession types allow for a degree of non-standard encoding. Phenomena that cause this variation are: . Possessor indexing on the possessee: This phenomenon is particularly visible with Locational Possessives and Topic Possessives. . Zero-encoding of the existential predicate: This phenomenon occurs with all three intransitive possession types. In the case of zero-encoding of Topic Possessives, potential ambiguity may result, in that the construction may allow for both a possessive and a predicate nominal reading. . Hybrid formations: This phenomenon appears to be restricted to the construction of TopicLocational hybrids. The three intransitive possession types form the source structure in one or more paths of diachronic reanalysis. The following diachronic processes have been identiWed: . Adnominalization, which is applicable to Locational Possessives and Topic Possessives; . Predicativization, which is mainly applicable to With-Possessives, but may in some cases also have a Topic Possessive as its source; . Transitivization or Have-Drift, which can apply to With-Possessives, to Topic Possessives, and to Topic-Locational hybrids. In contrast, reanalysis with a Have-Possessive as its source does not seem to occur. Areal distribution of the types (a) Locational Possessives have their major concentration in Eurasia, a mega-area which includes Europe, all of continental Asia except China and south-east Asia, and north Africa. Outside Eurasia, minor concentrations of the Locational Possessive can be found in Polynesia, in the Mande languages of west Africa, and in the north-western part of South America. Furthermore, the type occurs incidentally in a number of languages from eastern Indonesia and New Guinea. (b) Major concentrations of With-Possessives are found in four areas: the languages of New Guinea and the Pama-Nyungan family in Australia; east Africa below the Sahara; from northeast Siberia, through the north and west of North America, into Central America by way of the Uto-Aztecan family; And finally, With-Possessives are found in various families from the north and north-west of South America.

(c) The Topic Possessive is the unchallenged option in China and southeast Asia. It is also by far the most prominent choice in the languages of the Austronesian family. midwest and east of North America and Central America., (d) As has already been indicated above, a major concentration of Have- Possessives is found in the languages of western and south-eastern Europe: Germanic, Romance, West and South Slavonic, as well as Albanian, Modern Greek, and Basque feature this type as their unique encoding option. Speaking in general, one can say that the areal distribution of Have- Possessives is characterized by two conspicuous features. First, in the areas in which the type occurs it is often not the only option. Secondly, these areas are relatively small, when compared to the areas that are covered by other possession types. Especially in the case of Have- Possessives one often finds isolated occurrences, or small pockets of occurrences, within areas that have some other possessive type as the dominant choice. The universals of predicative possession encoding a. If a language has a Locational Possessive, it has deranking of simultaneous DS-sequences. b. If a language has aWith-Possessive, it has deranking of simultaneous DS-sequences. c. If a language has a (standard) Topic Possessive, it has balanced simultaneous DS-sequences, and it is a split-language. d. If a language has a Have-Possessive, it has balanced simultaneous DS(deranking of simultaneous)-sequences, and it is a share-language.

http://wals.info/chapter/117 http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no24_ses/21_Grkovic.pdf http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/apics/index.php/Predicative_Possession_(Feature_77) https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/osla/article/view/44/221 http://books.google.ro/books? id=xxPGZ9yEMcMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=predicative+possession&source=bl&ots=oP0A igBAF5&sig=bLuTE7qYLpyGa8MaS5Q1htnOMTE&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=yrDxUNaZOcfEswbQ 8YH4Bg&ved=0CHAQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=predicative%20possession&f=false