Inalienable possession
| Part ofa serieson |
| Linguistics |
|---|
 Portal |
Inlinguistics,inalienable possession[1](abbreviatedINAL) is a type ofpossessionin which anounisobligatorily possessedby its possessor. Nouns ornominal affixesin an inalienable possession relationship cannot exist independently or be "alienated" from their possessor.[2]Inalienable nouns include body parts (such asleg,which is necessarily "someone's leg" even if it is severed from the body),kinship terms(such asmother), and part-whole relations (such astop).[3]Many languages reflect the distinction but vary in how they mark inalienable possession.[4]Cross-linguistically, inalienability correlates with manymorphological,syntactic,andsemanticproperties.
In general, the alienable–inalienable distinction is an example of a binary possessiveclass systemin which a language distinguishes two kinds of possession (alienable and inalienable). The alienability distinction is the most common kind of binary possessive class system, but it is not the only one.[4]Some languages have more than two possessive classes. InPapua New Guinea,for example,Anêmhas at least 20 classes, andAmelehas 32.[5][4]
Statistically, 15–20% of the world's languages haveobligatory possession.[6]
Comparison to alienable possession[edit]
With inalienable possession, the two entities have a permanent association in which the possessed has little control over their possessor.[7]For instance, body parts (under normal circumstances) do not change and cannot be removed from their possessor. The following real-world relationships often fall under inalienable possession:[3]
| Type of relationship | Examples |
|---|---|
| kinship | father, mother, aunt |
| social relationship | trading partner, neighbor |
| body part | eye, leg |
| part-whole relationship | tabletop, side |
| possessed noun originates from the possessor | sweat, voice |
| mental state or process | fear, mind |
| attribute of a known possessor | name, age |
Alienable possession, on the other hand, has a less permanent association between the two entities.[7]For instance, most objects may or may not be possessed. When such types of objects are possessed, the possession isalienable.Alienable possession is used generally for tangible items that one might cease to own at some point (such asmy money), but inalienable possession generally refers to a perpetual relationship that cannot be readily severed (such asmy motherormy arm).[3]
The table above outlines some common inalienable relationships, but it is important to note that they are just the most common types of inalienable nouns. Languages with an alienable/inalienable possession distinction differ in which classes fall under each type of possession. However, if a language has such a distinction, kinship roles or body parts (or both) make up some of the entities that are inalienably possessed.[8]Also, languages may make different distinctions within the categories on how many and which entities are treated as inalienable.[8]
Moreover, some languages allow the same noun to be either alienable or inalienable.[7]Thus, trying to determine if a noun is alienable or inalienable based on its meaning or its affiliation to a specific noun category (for instance,body parts) can be difficult.[9]
Variation by languages[edit]
Although the relationships listed above are likely to be instances of inalienable possession, those that are ultimately classified as inalienable depend on conventions that are specific by language and culture.[10]It is impossible to say that a particular relationship is an example of inalienable possession without specifying the languages for which that holds true. For example,neighbormay be an inalienable noun in one language but alienable in another.[10]Additionally, in some languages, one entity can be both alienably possessed and inalienably possessed, and its type of possession is influenced by other properties of the sentence.[7]Thus, whether a certain type of relationship is described as alienable or inalienable can be arbitrary. In that respect, alienability is similar to other types ofnoun classessuch asgrammatical gender.[11]
The examples below illustrate that the same phrase,the table's legs,is regarded as inalienable possession inItalianbut alienable possession inFrench:[12](1b) isungrammatical(as indicated by the asterisk). French cannot use the inalienable possession construction for a relationship that is alienable.
Al
to.the
tavolo,
table
qualcuno
someone
gli
it.DAT
ha
has
segato
sawn
tutte
all
le
the
gambe
legs
'The table, someone has sawn off allitslegs'
*
La
the
table,
table,
quelqu'un
someone
lui
it.DAT
a
has
scié
sawn
toutes
all
les
the
pattes
legs
'The table, someone has sawn off allitslegs'
(Cinque & Krapova 2008: 68 (ia, ib)[a]))
Bernd Heineargues thatlanguage changeis responsible for the observed cross-linguistic variation in the categorization of (in)alienable nouns. He states that "rather than being a semantically defined category, inalienability is more likely to constitute amorphosyntacticormorphophonologicalentity, one that owes its existence to the fact that certain nouns happened to be left out when a new pattern for marking attributive possession arose. "[13]He considers that nouns that are "ignored" by a new marking pattern come to form a separate noun class.
Morphosyntactic strategies for marking distinction[edit]
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is often marked by various morphosyntactic properties such asmorphological markersandword order.The morphosyntactic differences are often referred to aspossession splitorsplit possession,which refer to instances of a language making a grammatical distinction between different types of possession.[14]In a language with possession split, grammatical constructions with alienable nouns will differ from constructions with inalienable nouns.
There is a strongtypologicalpattern for inalienable possession to require fewer morphological markers than alienable possession constructions.[15]
Inalienable possession constructions involve two nouns or nominals: the possessor and the possessee. Together, they form a unit, thedeterminer phrase(DP), in which the possessor nominal may occur either before the possessee (prenominal) or after its possessee (postnominal), depending on the language.[16]French, for example, can use a postnominal possessor (the possessor(of) Jeanoccurs after the possesseethe arm):
le
the
bras
arm
de
of
Jean
Jean
'John's arm'
(Guéron 2007: 590 (la))
le
the
frère
brother
de
of
Jean
Jean
'John's brother'
le
the
livre
book
de
of
Jean
Jean
'John's book'
In contrast, English generally uses a prenominal possessor (John'sbrother). However, in some situations, it may also use a postnominal possessor, as inthe brotherof John.[4]
Morphological markers[edit]
No overt possessive markers[edit]
TheSouth American languageDâwuses a special possessivemorpheme(bold in the examples below) to indicate alienable possession.[17]The possessive morphemeɛ̃̀ɟin examples (3a) and (3b) indicates an alienable relationship between the possessor and the possessee.
tɔp
house
Tũk-ɛ̃̀ɟ
Tũk-POSS
'Tũk's house'
tih-ɛ̃̀ɟ
3SG-POSS
cɤ̀g
arrow
'his arrow'
(Martins 2004: 546)
The possessive marker does not occur in inalienable possession constructions. Thus, the absence ofɛ̃̀ɟ,as in example (4), indicates that the relationship between the possessor and the possessee is inalienable possession.
tih
3SG
nũh
head
‘his head'
(Martins 2004: 547)
Identical possessor deletion[edit]
Igbo,aWest African language,the possessor isdeletedin a sentence if both itssubjectand the possessor of an inalienable nounreferto the same entity.[18]: 87 In (5a), bothreferentsare the same, but it is ungrammatical to keep both of them in a sentence. Igbo uses the processes of identical possessor deletion, and theyá(his), is dropped, as in the grammatical (5b).
*
Ó
Hei
sàra
washed
áka
hands
yá
hisi(own)
'Heiwashed hisihands'
Ó
He
sàra
washed
áka
hands
'Heiwashed hisihands'
(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (11, 12))
A similar process occurs in someSlavic languages,notablySerbian:
*
Oprao
Washed
je
hei.is
svoje
hisi(own)
ruke
hands
'Heiwashed hisihands'
Oprao
Washed
je
he.is
ruke
hands
'Heiwashed hisihands'
Word order[edit]
Possessor switch[edit]
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession constructions may be marked by a difference in word order. Igbo uses anothersyntacticprocess when the subject and the possessor refer to different entities.[18]: 89 In possessor switch, the possessor of the inalienable noun is placed as close as possible to theverb.[18]In the following examples, the possessoryáis not deleted because both referents are different:
*
Ó
He
hùru
saw
áka
hand
'Heisaw hisjhand'
Ó
He
hùru
saw
áka
hand
yá
his
'Heisaw hisjhand'
(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (27, 28))
In the ungrammatical (8a), the verbwàra(to split) follows the possessorm.Possessor switch requires the verb to be placed nearer to the possessor. The grammatical (8b) does so switchingwàrawith the possessor:
*
ísi
Head
m
my
wàra
split
'I have a headache'
ísi
Head
wàra
split
m
to me
'I have a headache'
(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (44, 45))
Genitive-noun ordering[edit]
TheMaybrat languagesinNew Guineavary the order of thegenitive caseand the noun between alienable and inalienable constructions:[19][20]
In (9), the genitiveSelyprecedes the possesseeme,marking inalienable possession.
Sely
Sely
m-me
3SG.F.POSS-mother
'Sely's mother'
(Dol 1999: 93)
However, the genitive follows the possessee in alienable possession constructions, such as (10) whose genitivePetrusfollows the possesseeamah.
amah
house
ro-Petrus
GEN-Petrus
‘Petrus' house'
(Dol 1999: 97)
Possessor marking[edit]
Explicit possessors[edit]
Another way for languages to distinguish between alienable and inalienable possession is to have one noun class that cannot appear without an explicit possessor.[21]For example,Ojibwe,anAlgonquian language,has a class of nouns that must have explicit possessors.[22][23][b]
If explicit possessors are absent (as in (11b) and (12b)), the phrase is ungrammatical. In (11), the possessorniis necessary for the inalienable nounnik(arm). In (12), the same phenomenon is found with the inalienable nounookmis(grandmother), which requires the possessor morphemento be grammatical.
ni
POSS
nik
arm
'myarm'
*
nik
arm
'(an) arm'
(Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 138)
nookmis
POSS-grandmother
'mygrandmother'
*
ookmis
grandmother
'(a) grandmother'
(Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 189)
Prepositions[edit]
Hawaiianuses differentprepositionsto mark possession, depending on the noun's alienability:a(alienableof) is used to indicate alienable possession as in (13a), ando(inalienableof) indicates inalienable possession as in (13b).[24]
nā
the
iwi
bones
a
of
Pua
Pua
'Pua's bones' [as in the chicken bones she is eating]
nā
the
iwi
bones
o
of
Pua
Pua
'Pua's [own] bones'
(Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)
However, the distinction betweena(alienableof) ando(inalienableof) is used for othersemanticdistinctions that are less clearly attributable to common alienability relationships exceptmetaphorically.Althoughleiis a tangible object, but in Hawaiian, it can be either alienable (15a) or inalienable (15b), depending on the context.
| Alienable | Inalienable | |
|---|---|---|
| (14) | ke the kanaka man a of ke the aliʻi king 'the subject [controlled or appointed by] the chief' |
ke the kanaka man o of ke the aliʻi king 'the [hereditary] subject of the chief' (Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139) |
| (15) | ka the lei lei a of Pua Pua 'Pua's lei [to sell]' |
ka the lei lei o of Pua Pua 'Pua's lei [to wear]' (Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139) |
Definite articles[edit]
Subtler cases of syntactic patterns sensitive to alienability are found in many languages. For example, French can use adefinite article,rather than thepossessive,for body parts.[25]
Il
he
lève
raises
les
the
mains.
hands
'He raiseshishands.'
(Nakamoto 2010: 75 (2a))
Using the definite article with body parts, as in the example above, createsambiguity.Thus, the sentence has both an alienable and an inalienable interpretation:
a) he raises his own hands [inalienable] b) he raises another pair of hands [alienable] |
Such an ambiguity also occurs in English with body-part constructions.[26]
Spanishalso uses a definite article (el,los,la,orlas) to indicate inalienable possession for body parts.[27]
Él
he
se
himself
lava
washes
las
the
manos.
hands
'He washeshishands.'
(Kockelman 2009: 30)
Germanuses a definite article (die) for inalienable body parts but a possessive (meine) for alienable possession.[27]
Er
he
wäscht
washes
sich
REFL
die
the
Hände.
hands
'He is washinghishands.'
(Kockelman 2009: 29)
Ich
I
zerriss
tore
meine
my
Hose.
pants
'I toremypants.'
(Kockelman 2009: 30)
No distinction in grammar[edit]
Although English has alienable and inalienable nouns (Mary's brother[inalienable] vs.Mary's squirrel[alienable]), it has few such formal distinctions in its grammar.[28]One subtle grammatical distinction is the postnominal genitive construction, which is normally reserved for inalienable relational nouns. For example,thebrotherof Mary[inalienable] is normal, but *thesquirrelof Mary[alienable] would be awkward.[28]
Since the alienability distinction is rooted in semantics, languages like English with few morphological or syntactic distinctions sensitive to alienability can have ambiguities occur. For example, the phraseshe has herfather's eyeshas two different meanings:
a) her eyes resemble her father's [inalienable possession] |
Another example insemantic dependencyis the difference between possible interpretations in a language that marks inalienable possession (such as French) with a language that does not mark it (such as English). Inalienable possession is semantically dependent and is defined in reference to another object to which it belongs.[26]Sentence (20) is ambiguous and has two possible meanings. In the inalienable possessive interpretation,la mainbelongs to the subject,les enfants.The second interpretation is thatla mainis an alienable object and does not belong to the subject. The English equivalent of the sentence (The children raised the hand) has only the alienable possessive reading in which the hand does not belong to the children.
Les
The
enfants
children
ont
have
levé
raised
la
the
main
hand
'The children raised the hand' (Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (1))
Syntactically,Noam Chomskyproposed that some genitive or possessive cases originate as part of thedeterminerin the underlying structure.[29]: 680 The inalienable possessives are derived from a differentdeep structurethan that of alienable possession. An example is interpretations of thephraseJohn's arm:
a) an arm that is part of John's body [inalienable] b) the arm that John happens to have physical possession of [alienable] |
In the inalienable reading,armis acomplementof the determiner phrase. That contrasts to the alienable reading in whichJohn has an armis part of the determiner.[29]: 690 Charles J. Fillmoreand Chomsky make a syntactic distinction between alienable and inalienable possession and suggest that the distinction is relevant to English.[29]
In contrast, others have argued that semantics plays a role in inalienable possession, but it is not central to the syntactic class of case-derived possessives. An example is the difference betweenthe book's contentsandthe book's jacket.A book cannot be divorced from its contents, but it can be removed from its jacket.[29]: 690 Still, both phrases have the same syntactic structure. Another example isMary's motherandMary's friend.The mother will always be Mary's mother, but an individual might not always be Mary's friend. Again, both have the same syntactic structure.
The distinction between alienable and inalienable possessions can be influenced by cognitive factors.[3]Languages such as English that do not encode the alienability distinction in their grammar rely on the real-world relationship between the possessed noun and possessor noun. Nouns that are "inherently relational" and whose possession is associated with a single dominant interpretation (mother) are of the inalienable type, and nouns whose possession is open to interpretation (car) are of the alienable type.[3]
Interaction with coreference[edit]
There are few grammatical distinctions between alienable and inalienable possession in English, but there are differences in the way coreference occurs for such possessive constructions. For instance, examples (21a) and (21b) have interpretations that differ by the type of (in)alienable possession:
(21) a. Lucy1raised her1/2horse [alienable] b. Lucy1raised her1/*2hand [inalienable] |
In example (1a), the pronominal possessor (her) can refer toLucyor to another possessor not mentioned in the sentence. As such, two interpretations of the sentence are possible:
i) The horse belongs to Lucy, and Lucy raised this horse ii) The horse belongs to someone else, but Lucy raised the horse |
However, in example (21b), the pronominal possessor (her) can only grammatically refer to Lucy. As such, the hand being discussed must belong to Lucy.
Therefore, the pronominal possessor patterns with pronominal binding in the alienable construction, but the pronominal possessor patterns with anaphoric binding in the inalienable construction.[30]In anaphoric binding, an anaphor requires a coreferent antecedent that c-commands the anaphor and that is in the domain of the anaphor.[31]For example (1b) to obey those conditions, the pronominal possessor must refer toLucy,not to another possessor that is not mentioned in the sentence. Thus, by having only one grammatical interpretation, (1b) is consistent with anaphoric binding. On the other hand, the interpretation of alienable constructions such as 1a can be ambiguous since it is not restricted by the same properties of anaphoric binding.
Cross-linguistic properties[edit]
Although there are different methods of marking inalienability, inalienable possession constructions usually involve the following features:[10]
- The distinction is confined to attributive possession.
- Alienable possession requires morephonologicalormorphologicalfeatures than inalienable possession.
- Inalienable possession involves a tighter structural bond between the possessor and the possessee.
- Possessive markers on inalienable nouns areetymologicallyolder[c]
- Inalienable nouns include kinship terms and/or body parts.
- Inalienable nouns form aclosed class,but alienable nouns form anopen class.
(Heine 1997: 85-86 (1-6))
Restricted to attributive possession[edit]
Alienability can be expressed only in attributive possession constructions, not in predicative possession.[10]
Attributive possession is a type of possession in which the possessor and possessee form aphrase.That contrasts to predicative possession constructions in which the possessor and possessee are part of aclause,and the verb affirms the possessive relationship.[33]The examples in (22) express the same alienable relationship between possessor and possessee but illustrate the difference between attributive and predicative possession:
Attributive possession (22) a. Ron's dog Predicative possession b. Ron has a dog c. The dog is Ron's (Heine 1997: 87 (2)) |
Requires fewer morphological features[edit]
If a language has separate alienable and inalienable possession constructions, and one of the constructions is overtly marked and the other is "zero-marked", the marked form tends to be alienable possession. Inalienable possession is indicated by the absence of the overt marker.[34]An example is thedata from Dâw.
One typological study showed that in 78% of South American languages that distinguish between inalienable and alienable possession, inalienable possession was associated with fewermorphologicalmarkers than was its alienable counterpart. By contrast, only one of the surveyed languages required moremorphologicalfeatures to mark inalienable possession than alienable possession.[15]If a language makes a grammatical distinction between alienable and inalienable nouns, having an overt possessive marker to mark inalienability is redundant. After all, by being inalienable, a noun must be possessed.
Tighter structural bond between possessor and possessee[edit]
In inalienable possession constructions, the relationship between the possessor and possessee is stronger than in alienable possession constructions.Johanna Nicholscharacterizes that by the tendency of inalienable possession to behead-markedbut alienable possession to bedependent-marked.[32]In head-marking, theheadof an inalienable possession construction (the possessed noun) is marked, but in dependent-marking, the dependent (the possessor noun) is marked.[35]
Theories of representation in syntax[edit]
Since the possessor is crucially linked to an inalienable noun's meaning, inalienable nouns are assumed to take their possessors as a semanticargument.[30]Possessors to alienable and inalienable nouns can be expressed with different constructions. Possessors in thegenitive caselikethe friendof Maryappear ascomplementsto the possessed noun, as part of the phrase headed by the inalienable noun.[26]That is an example ofinternal possessionsince the possessor of the noun is inside the determiner phrase.
External possession[edit]
Inalienable possession can also be marked withexternal possession.Such constructions have the possessor appearing outside the determiner phrase. For example, the possessor may appear as a dative complement of the verb.
French exhibits both external possessor construction and internal possessor construction, as in (23):[26]
Le
the
médecin
doctor
leur
to them
a examiné
examined
la
SG.DEF.DET
gorge.
throat
'The doctor examined their throats.'
Le
the
médecin
doctor
a examiné
examined
leurs
POSS(3PL)
gorges.
throat
'The doctor examined their throats.'
(Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (4b, 6b))
However, those types of possessors are problematic. There is a discrepancy between the possessor appearing syntactically in an inalienable possession construction and what its semantic relationship to the inalienable noun seems to be. Semantically, the possessor of an inalienable noun is intrinsic to its meaning and acts like asemantic argument.On the surface syntactic structure, however, the possessor appears in a position that marks it as an argument of the verb.[16]Thus, there are different views on how those types of inalienable possession constructions should be represented in the syntactic structure. The binding hypothesis argues that the possessor is an argument of the verb. Conversely, the possessor-raising hypothesis argues that the possessor originates as an argument of the possessed noun and thenmovesto a position in which on the surface, it looks like an argument of the verb.[36]
Binding hypothesis (Guéron 1983)[edit]
The binding hypothesis reconciles the fact that the possessor appears both as a syntactic and semantic argument of the verb but as a semantic argument of the possessed noun. It assumes that inalienable possession constructions are subject to the following syntactic constraints:[16]
- There must be an obligatory possessor.
- The possessor must be in the same minimaldomainof the possessee.
- The possessor mustc-commandthe possessee or itstrace(The c-command must occur in the underlying orsurface structuresof the inalienable possession constructions.
It is assumed that inalienable possession constructions are one form ofanaphoric binding:obligatory control.[30]Thus, the possessor DP originates in thespecifierof the verb; the fact that the possessor seems to be a semantic argument of the noun arises from the binding relationship between the possessor and the possessee DPs. The parallel between inalienable possession constructions and obligatory control can be seen in the examples below:[25]
Jeani
Jean
lève
raise
lai
the
main
hand
'Jean raises his hand.'
Jeani
Jean
veut
want
PROi
(Jean)
partir
to leave
'Jean wants to leave'
(Nakamoto 2010: 80 (30a,b))
The hypothesis accounts for differences between French and English, and it may also eliminate the ambiguity created by definite determiners.[30]According to the hypothesis, anaphoric binding in inalienable possession constructions relates to thetheta-featuresthat a language assigns to its determiners.[16]The hypothesis predicts that inalienable possession constructions exist in languages that assign variable theta-features to its determiners and that inalienable possession constructions do not exist in languages that lack variable theta-feature assignment.[16]Therefore, inalienable possession is predicted to exist inRomance languagesand alsoRussianbut not inEnglishorHebrew.[16]In the French sentenceIl lève les mains,the determinerlesis assigned theta-features. Thus, it is understood as inalienable possession. However, in the English translation, the determinerthedoes not have theta-features since English is considered not to assign theta-features to its determiners. Therefore,thedoes not necessarily signify inalienable possession and so ambiguity surfaces.
That hypothesis, however, does not account for verbs allowingreflexiveanaphora (Jeanselave 'Jean washes himself').[16]To account for the grammaticality of such verbs, Guéron proposes that in an inalienable construction thePOSS DP(possessor DP) andBP DP(body part DP) constitute two links of alexical chain,in addition to their anaphoric relation.[16]The two links of a lexical chain must obey the same constraints as anaphora, which accounts for the locality restrictions on inalienable construals. Every chain is then associated with one theta-role. Inalienable possession surfaces as ungrammatical when the possessed DP and the possessor DP are assigned two different theta-roles by the verb. That explains why sentence (25b) is ungrammatical. The POSS DP is assigned anagenttheta-role, and the BP DP is assigned athemetheta-role.
Jean
Jean
lève
raise
la
the
main
hand
'Jean raises his hand.'
Jean lave/gratte/chatouille
Jean wash/scratch/tickle
AGENT
la main.
the hand
THEME
'Jean washes/scratches/tickles the hand.'
(Guéron 2007: 598 (40, 42))
Possessor-raising hypothesis (Landau 1999)[edit]
Possessor-raising is a syntactic hypothesis that attempts to explain the structures of inalienableDPs.Landau argues that the possessor is initially introduced in the specifier position of DP (Spec-DP), but it later raises to the specifier of theVP.The possessor DP gets itstheta-rolefrom theheadD, which gives rise to the meaning that the possessor is related to the possessee.[37]
Landau's analysis is made on the basis of several properties possessives in the data case in Romance languages.[25]
- The possessor dative must be interpreted as a possessor, not an object/theme.
- Possession interpretation is obligatory.
- The possessed DP cannot be an external argument.
- The possessor dative must c-command the possessed DP (or its trace).
- Possessive interpretation is constrained by locality. (Nakamoto 2010: 76)
The French data below illustrate how the analysis is thought to work. The possessorluioriginates in the specifier of DP as an argument of the nounfigure.That is equivalent to an underlying structureGilles a lavéluila figure.The possessor raises to the specifier of VP, which is seen in the surface structureGillesluia lavé la figure.
Gilles
Gilles
[TPGilles
lui
him.DAT
[VPluii
a lavé
washed
a lavé
la figure
the face
[DPtila figure]]]
'Gilles washed his face'
(Guéron 2007: 611 (100b))
According to Guéron, a benefit of the hypothesis is that it is consistent with principles ofsyntactic movementsuch as locality of selection andc-command.If the position to which it must move is already filled, as with atransitive verblikesee,the possessor cannot raise, and the sentence is correctly predicted to be ungrammatical.[16]
*
Gil
Gil
[TPGilj
NOM
ra'a
saw
[VPtjra'a
le-Rina
to Rina
[DPle-Rina
*DAT
et
the
et
ha-panim
face
ha panim]]]
ACC
'Gil saw Rina's face'
(Guéron 2007: 613 (109))
However, some languages like Russian do not have to raise the DP possessor and can leave itin situand so it is unclear why the possessor would ever have to raise.[16]Possessor-raising also violates aconstraint on syntactic movement,thespecificity constraint:an element cannot be moved out of a DP if that DP isspecific.[16]In (23), the DPluiis specific, but possessor-raising predicts it can be moved out of the larger DPlui la figure.Such movement is excluded by the specificity constraint.
Possessor suppression with kin and body-part nouns (Lødrup 2014)[edit]
Norwegianis aNorth Germaniclanguagethat is spoken mainly inNorwayand is its official language. Norwegian expresses inalienability by possessor suppression,[38]which takes place when noun phrases referring to inalienable possessions use the definite form and contain no possessive determiner.
In sentence (28), "haken", the syntactic object, contains a suppressed possessor in its definite form. It does not contain an explicit possessive marker. In contrast, the English translation contains an explicit possessive determiner, "her", which denote possession. Possessive determiners are obligatory in English for subject-controlled body-part terms.
Hun
She
løftet
raised
haken
chin.DEF
'She raisedherchin';lit.'She raised the chin'
(Thunes 2013: 168)
Norwegian treats kinship nouns and body-part nouns similarly in relation to bound variable interpretations.[39]When a definite noun is present, it usually has a referential reading. In (29a), the referential reading is present. However, the presence of definite kinship or body part nouns may also bring about the bound variable reading in which a kinship or body part noun contains a variable bound by the quantifier in the subject, and (29b) may produce both the referential and bound variable readings. With the referential reading, the professors washed a face or father, mentioned earlier. With the bound variable reading, the professors washed their own face or father. Additionally, both kinship and body part nouns behave similarly in sentences with VP pronominalization. VP pronominalization involving both nouns allow for both a referential reading and a "sloppy reading", which involves variable binding. In (29c) in the referential reading, John and Mari wash a face or a mother been mentioned earlier. In the "sloppy reading", John washes his face or mother, and Mari washes hers.
Hver
every
eneste
single
professor
professor
beskøte
visited
museet
museum.DEF
'Every single professor visited the museum'
(Lødrup 2014:45)
Hver
every
eneste
single
professor
professor
vasket
washed
ansiktet/faren
face.DEF/father.DEF
'Every single professor washed his/her face/father'
Referential reading: Every single professor washed a face or father that was mentioned earlier.
(Lødrup 2014:45)
John
John
skal
shall
vaske
wash
ansiket
face.DEF
/moren,
/mother.DEF
og
and
det
that
skal
shall
Mari
Mari
også
too
'John will wash his face/mother, and Mari will, too'
Referential reading: John and Mari will wash a face or a mother that was mentioned earlier.
(Lødrup 2014:46)
Finally, both kinship and body part nouns bear similarities in locality. Both behave in such a way that the definite form of the noun is bound by the closest subject. In (30a), the possessor must be the subordinate clause subject, not the main clause subject. Likewise, in (30b), the father mentioned is preferably the father of the subordinate clause subject referent, not of the main clause subject referent.
Hun
she
sa
said
at
that
John
John
vasket
washed
håret
hair.DEF
'She said that John washed his hair'
Hun
she
visste
knew
ikke
not
at
that
John
John
hadde
had
snakket
talked
med
to
faren
father.DEF
'She did not know that John had talked to his father'
(Lødrup 2014:47)
On the other hand, definite kinship and body-part nouns in Norwegian have a syntactic difference. Definite body part nouns allow a first- or second-person possessor, but some definite kinship nouns do not. For instance, the sentence in (31a) is not allowed as it contains a first-person possessor and kinship term. The kinship term can be used only with a third-person possessor, such as in (31b).
*
Jeg
I
snakket
talked
med
to
faren
father.DEF
'I talked to my father'
Han
He
snakket
talked
med
to
far/faren
father/father.DEF
'He talked to his father'
(Lødrup 2014:49-50)
However, body part nouns do not have the restriction on first- or second-person possessors like in (32).
Jeg
I
klør
itch
på
on
ryggen
back.DEF
'My back is itching'
(Lødrup 2014:49)
Form function motivations[edit]
Inalienable possession constructions often lack overt possessors.[34]There is a debate as to how to account for thelinguistically-universaldifference in form. Iconicity explains the in terms of the relationship between the conceptual distance between the possessor and the possessee,[40]and economy explains it by the frequency of possession.[41]
Iconic motivation (Haiman 1983)[edit]
Haiman describes iconic expression and conceptual distance and how both concepts are conceptually close if they share semantic properties, affect each other and cannot be separated from each other.[40]Joseph Greenberghypothesizes that the distance between the possessor and possessee in a sentence with alienable possession is greater than in a sentence with inalienable constructions.[42]Because the possessor and the possessee have a close conceptual relationship, their relative positions with a sentence reflect that, and there is little distance between them. Increasing the distance between both would in turn increase their conceptual independence.
That is demonstrated inYagaria,aPapuan languagethat marks alienable possession by a free form pronoun as in (33a). In contrast, inalienable possession constructions use an inalienable possessor that isprefixedon the possessee, as in (33b), a construction that has less linguistic distance between the possessor and possessee than the alienable construction has:
dgai'
my
fu
pig
'my pig'
d-za'
my-arm
'my arm'
(Haiman 1983: 793 (30a,b))
However, there are cases of linguistic distance not necessarily reflecting conceptual distance.Mandarin Chinesehas two ways to express the same type of possession: POSSESSOR + POSSESSEE and POSSESSOR + de + POSSESSEE. The latter has more linguistic distance between the possessor and the possessee, but it reflects the same conceptual distance.[43]Both possessive expressions, with and without the markerde,are found in the Mandarin phrase "my friend", which is seen in (34a) unlike (34b):[44]
wǒ
I
DE
de
péngyǒu
friend
'My friend'
wǒ
I
péngyǒu
friend
'My friend'
(Hsu 2009: 101 (22a,b))
In contrast to the previous example, the omission of the markerdeis ungrammatical, as in example (35b). The linguistic distance between the possessor and the possessee is much smaller in (35b) than in (35a). It has been argued that the omission ofdeoccurs only in kinship relationships, but phrasal constructions with a mandatorydeencompasse other cases of inalienable possession, such as body parts.[40]: 783 That contradicts the notion that inalienable possession is marked by less linguistic distance between the possessor and the possessee.
wǒ
I
xǐhuān
like
nǐ
you
DE
de
tóufà
hair
'I like your hair'
*
wǒ
I
xǐhuān
like
nǐ
you
tóufà
hair
'I like your hair'
(Li & Thompson 1981: 169)
Economic motivation (Nichols 1988)[edit]
Nichols notes that frequently-possessed nouns, such as body parts and kinship terms, almost always occur with possessors, and alienable nouns occur less often with possessors.[41][45]
The following shows the frequency of possession between alienable and unalienable nouns inGerman.[45]The table below shows the number of times that each noun occurred with or without a possessor in texts from the German Goethe-Corpus of the works ofJohann Wolfgang von Goethe.
| Noun category | Noun | Unpossessed | Possessed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alienable | Gärtner'gardener' Jäger'hunter' Pfarrer'priest' |
24 48 12 |
0 2 0 |
| Inalienable | Schwester'sister' Tante'aunt' Tochter'daughter' |
32 47 46 |
58 22 53 |
The alienable nouns above are rarely possessed, but the inalienable kinship terms are frequently possessed.[45]Consequently, inalienable nouns are expected to be possessed even if they lack a distinct possessive marker. Therefore, overt markings on inalienable nouns are redundant, and for economical syntactic construction, languages often have zero-marking for their inalienable nouns.[41]
That could be explained byZipf's Lawin which the familiarity or the frequency of an occurrence motivates the linguistic simplification of the concept.[40]A listener who hears an inalienable noun can predict that it will be possessed, which eliminates the need for an overt possessor.[34]
Glossary of abbreviations[edit]
Morpheme glosses[edit]
| * | ungrammatical |
| 3 | third person |
| ACC | accusative case |
| DAT | dative case |
| DEF DET | definitedeterminer |
| F | feminine |
| GEN | genitive case |
| NOM | nominative case |
| PL | plural |
| POSS | possessive |
| REFLEX | reflexive |
| SG | singular |
| tx | trace |
| i | co-referenced |
Syntactic trees[edit]
| D | determiner |
| DP | determiner phrase |
| N | noun |
| NP | noun phrase |
| PP | prepositional phrase |
| T | tense |
| TP | tense phrase |
| V | verb |
| VP | verb phrase |
| e | empty category |
Other languages[edit]
Austronesian languages[edit]
Rapa[edit]
OldRapais the indigenous language ofRapa Iti,an island ofFrench Polynesiain the Bass Islands archipelago. The language structure of Rapa has two primary possessive particles: a and o. The usage of both particles is dependent on the relation between the possessor and the object. When words are categorized by possessive particles, there is a very close resemblance to the usage of the possessive particle and the object's alienability. However, the relation is better defined by William Wilson in his articleProto-Polynesian Possessive Marking.
Briefly, through his two theories, the Simple Control Theory and Initial Control Theory, Wilson s contrast and thus better defines the usage of the possessive particles. The Simple Control Theory speculates that the determining factor directly correlated to the possessor's control over the object and emphasises a dominant vs. less-dominant relationship. Old Rapa adheres closer to the Initial Control Theory, which speculates that "the possessor's control over the initiation of the possessive relationship is the determining factor." Here, the Initial Control Theory can also be generally expanded to the whole Polynesian language family in terms of better describing the "alienability" of possession.[46]
In the case of Old Rapa, the possession particle o is used to define a possession relationship that was not initiated on the basis of choice. The possession particle a defines possession relationships that are initiated with the possessor's control. The following list and classifications are literal examples provided by Mary Walworth in her dissertation of Rapa. Words that are marked with the o possessive markers are nouns that are:
- Inalienable (leg, hand, foot)
- A whole of which the possessor is a permanent part (household)
- Kinship (father, mother, brother)
- Higher social or religious status (teacher, pastor, president)
- Vehicles (canoe, car)
- Necessary actions (work)
- Involuntary body functions (heartbeat, stomach, pupils, breathing)
- Words that relate to indigenous identity (language, country)
| o-marked | a-marked |
|---|---|
| house | terrain |
| canoe | taro-bed |
| boat | children |
| parents | spouse |
| brother | food |
| sister | animals |
| country/island | oven |
| god | grandchildren |
| car | unborn child |
| teacher | a group (sport's team, association) |
| preacher | trip, coming/goings |
| friend | project/plans |
| sickness | |
| happiness/smile | |
| town | |
| body and body parts | |
| grandparents | |
| language | |
| chief | |
| life | |
| idea |
However, Wilson's theory falls short of properly categorizing a few miscellaneous items such as articles of clothing and furniture that his theory would incorrectly predict to be marked with the possessive particle a. The reverse occurs for objects such as food and animals. The synthesis of Wilson's theory and others approach a better understanding of the Rapa language. Svenja Völkel proposed the idea of looking further into the ritualistic beliefs of the community: its mana. That idea has been related to other languages in the Eastern Polynesian language family. It states that objects with less mana than the possessor use the a-possessive particle, and the usage of the o-possessive marker is reserved for the possessor's mana that is not superior.[47]
The same usage of the possessive particles in possessive pronouns can be seen in the contracted portmanteau, the combination of the articles and possessive markers. The results are the prefixes tō and tā in the following possessive pronouns, as can be seen in the table below:
| Singular | Dual | Plural | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Person | Inclusive | tōku | tāku | tō māua | tā māua | tō mātou | tā mātou |
| Exclusive | tō tāua | tā tāua | tō tātou | tā tātou | |||
| 2nd Person | tōkoe | tākoe | tō kōrua | tā kōrua | tō koutou | tā koutou | |
| 3rd Person | tōna | tāna | tō rāua | tā rāua | tō rātou | tā rātou | |
Wuvulu[edit]
Wuvulu languageis a small language spoken inWuvulu Island.[49]Direct possession has a close relationship with inalienability in Oceanic linguistics. Similarly, the inherent possession of the possessor is called the possessum.[50]
The inalienable noun also has a possessor suffix and includes body parts, kinship terms, locative part nouns and derived nouns. According to Hafford's research, "-u" (my), "-mu" (your) and "na-" ( his/her/its) are three direct possession suffix in Wuvulu.[51]
- Body parts
Direct- possession suffix "-u" (my), "-mu" (your) and "na-" ( his/her/its) can be taken to attach the noun phrase of body part.[52]
| Taba-u | taba-mu | taba-na |
|---|---|---|
| my head | your head | his/her/its head |
- Kinship terms
Kinship terms in Wuvulu language take singular possessive suffixes.[52]
| ʔama-u | ʔama-mu | ʔama-na |
|---|---|---|
| my father | your father | his/her/its father |
- Derived nouns (Nouns that derived from other words)
Example:
ʔei wareamu (Your word) is derived from the verb ware (talk)
Such a word can take the direct possessor suffix. "-mu" (your {singular])
faʔua,
true
ʔei
the
ware-a-mu
talk-DER-2SG
Your words are true.[52]Unknown glossing abbreviation(s) (help);
Tokelauan[edit]
Here is a table displaying the predicative possessive pronouns inTokelauan:
| Singular | Dual | Plural | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st person | incl. | o oku, o kita a aku, a kite |
o taua, o ta a taua, a ta |
o tatou a tatou |
| excl. | o maua, o ma o a maua, a ma a |
matou matou | ||
| 2nd person | o ou/o koe a au/a koe |
o koulua a koulua |
o koutou a koutou | |
| 3rd person | o ona a ona |
o laua, o la a laua, a la |
o latou a latou | |
Here is a table with the Tokelauan possessive pronouns:
| Possessor | Singular reference | Plural reference |
|---|---|---|
| 1 singular | toku, taku, tota, tata | oku, aku, ota, ata |
| 2 singular | to, tau | o, au |
| 3 singular | tona, tana | ona, ana |
| 1 dual incl. | to ta, to taua ta ta, ta taue |
o ta, o taue a ta, a taua |
| 1 dual excl. | to ma, to maua ta ma, ta maua |
o ma, o maua a ma, a maua |
| 2 dual | toulua, taulua | oulua, aulua |
| 3 dual | to la, to laue ta la, ta laue |
o la, o laua a la a laua |
| 1 plural incl. | to tatou, ta tatou | o tatou, a tatou |
| 1 plural excl. | to matou, ta matou | o matou, a matou |
| 2 plural | toutou, tautau | outou, autou |
| 3 plural | to latou, ta latau | o latou, a latou |
| NON-SPECIFIC/INDEFINITE | ||
| 1 singular | hoku, hota haku, hata |
ni oku, ni ota niaku, niata |
| 2 singular | ho, hau | ni o, ni au |
| 3 singular | hona, hana | ni ona, ni ana |
| 1 dual incl. | ho ta, ho taua ha ta, ha taua |
ni o ta, ni o taue ni a ta, ni a taua |
| 1 dual excl. | ho ma, ho maua ha ma, ha maua |
ni o ma, ni o maua ni a ma, ni a maua |
| 2 dual | houlua, haulua | ni oulua, ni aulua |
See also[edit]
Notes[edit]
- ^Cinque and Krapova are citing Lamiroy (2003). "Grammaticalization and external possessor structures in Romance and Germanic languages", p.259, who is in turn citing Leclère (1976). "Datifs syntaxiques et datif éthique."
- ^Technically, the obligatory occurrence of a possessor is a property of certain morphemes calledobligatory possession,but linguists often useinalienable possessioninstead.
- ^For example, in theNative American languageDiegueño,the alienable possessive marker (?-əny) appears to have originated from the inalienable possessive marker (?-ə), which suggests the latter to be older.[32]
References[edit]
- ^"Haspelmath Possessives"(PDF).eva.mpg.de.
- ^Matthews, P. H. (2007).Inalienable possession.Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001.ISBN9780199202720.
- ^abcdeLichtenberk, Frantisek; Vaid, Jyotsna; Chen, Hsin-Chin (2011)."On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation".Cognitive Linguistics.22(4): 659–689.doi:10.1515/cogl.2011.025.S2CID143993134.ProQuest919350399.
- ^abcdNichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar."Possessive Classification".World Atlas of Language Structures.Retrieved2011-02-26.
- ^Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar (2013). Dryer, Matthew S; Haspelmath, Martin (eds.)."Possessive Classification".The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
- ^Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar."Feature/Obligatory Possessive Inflection".World Atlas of Language Structures.Retrieved2011-03-06.
- ^abcdChappell, Hilary; McGregor, William (1996).Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body-part terms and the part-whole relation.Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 3–30.ISBN3-11-012804-7.
- ^abStolz, Thomas; Kettler, Sonja; Stroh, Cornelia; Urdze, Aina (2008).Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe.John Benjamins Publishing Company.ISBN978-90-272-0568-1.
- ^Thunes, Martha (2013)."The inalienability pattern of English and Norwegian".Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies.3(1): 167–178.doi:10.15845/bells.v3i1.369.
- ^abcdHeine, Bernd (1997).Cognitive Foundations of Grammar.USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 85–86.ISBN9780195356205.Retrieved6 November2014.
- ^Matthews, P. H. (2007).Noun class.Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001.ISBN9780199202720.
- ^Cinque, Guglielmo;Krapova, Iliana (2008)."The two" possessor raising "constructions of Bulgarian"(PDF).Working Papers in Linguistics.18:68.Retrieved7 November2014.
- ^Heine, Bernd (1997).Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 182.
- ^Lødrup, Helge (2014). "Split possession and the syntax of kinship nouns in Norwegian".The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics.17(1): 35–57.doi:10.1007/s10828-014-9065-7.S2CID119555932.
- ^abKrasnoukhova, Olga (2011)."Attributive possession in the languages of South America".Linguistics in the Netherlands.28(1): 86–98.doi:10.1075/avt.28.08kra.hdl:1887/3160735.
- ^abcdefghijkGuéron, Jacqueline (2007). "Inalienable Possession". In Everaert, Martin;van Riemsdijk, Henk(eds.).The Blackwell Companion to Syntax.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 589–638.doi:10.1002/9780470996591.ISBN9780470996591.
- ^Martins, Silvana Andrade (2004).Fonologia e gramática Dâw.Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT. pp. 546–547.
- ^abcHyman, Larry M.; Alford, Danny; Elizabeth, Akpati (1970). "Inalienable Possession in Igbo".Journal of West African Languages.VII(2).
- ^Dol, Philomena (1999).A Grammar of Maybrat: A Language of the Bird's Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia.University of Leiden. pp. 93–97.
{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^Dryer, Matthew S."Order of Genitive and Noun".The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Retrieved29 October2014.
- ^Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar."Obligatory Possessive Inflection".World Atlas of Language Structures.Retrieved2011-03-06.
- ^Valentine, J. RandolphNishnaabemwin Reference Grammar Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar.Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2001. §3.3.1. pg. 106 ff.
- ^Nichols, J. D.; Nyholm, E.A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.1995.
- ^Elbert, Samuel H.; Pukui, Mary Kawena (1979).Hawaiian Grammar.Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. p. 139.
- ^abcNakamoto, Takeshi (2010). "Inalienable Possession Constructions in French".Lingua.120(1): 74–102.doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.003.
- ^abcdVergnaud, Jean-Roger; Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1992). "The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Construction in French and in English".Linguistic Inquiry.23(4): 595–652.
- ^abKockelman, Paul (2009). "Inalienable Possession as Grammatical Category and Discourse Pattern".Studies in Language.33(1): 29–30.doi:10.1075/sl.33.1.03koc.S2CID59504908.
- ^abBarker, Chris (2011)."Possessives and relational nouns"(PDF).In Maienborn, Claudia; von Heusinger, Klaus; Portner, Paul (eds.).Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning.Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
- ^abcdStockwell, Robert P.; Schachter, Paul; Partee, Barbara Hall (1973).The Major Syntactic Structures of English.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.ISBN978-0-03-088042-1.
- ^abcdGuéron, Jacqueline.The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume I (Chapter 35).Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. pp. 595–596.
- ^Sportiche, Dominique; Koopman, Hilda; Stabler, Edward (2014).An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory(1 ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc. p. 165.ISBN978-1-4051-0017-5.
- ^abNichols, Johanna (1992).Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time(ACLS Humanities E-Book ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 116–123.
- ^Herslund, Michael; Baron, Irène (2001).Dimensions of Possession.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 1–15.ISBN978-9027229519.Retrieved11 December2014.
- ^abcHaspelmath, Martin."Alienable vs. inalienable possessive constructions"(PDF).Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity.Retrieved9 November2014.
- ^Matthews, P. H. (2007).Head marking.Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001.ISBN9780199202720.
- ^Kempchinsky, Paula (1992). "The Spanish possessive dative construction: θ-role assignment and proper government". In Hirschbühler, Paul; Koerner, E.F.K. (eds.).Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages(20 ed.). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 135–148.ISBN90-272-3591-0.
- ^Landau, Idan (1999). "Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP".Lingua.107(1): 1–37.doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00025-4.
- ^Thunes, Martha. “The Inalieability Pattern of English and Norwegian.” 1 Feb. 2013, pp. 168–169.
- ^Lødrup, Helge. "Split Possession and the Syntax of Kinship Nouns in Norwegian." The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014, pp. 35-57.
- ^abcdHaiman, John (1983). "Iconic and Economic Motivation".Language.59(4): 781–819.doi:10.2307/413373.JSTOR413373.
- ^abcNichols, Johanna (1988). "On Alienable and Inalienable Possession".In Honor of Mary Haas.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. p. 579.
- ^Greenberg, Joseph (1966).Universals of Human Language(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- ^Hsu, Yu-Yin (2009). "Possessor extraction in Mandarin Chinese".University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics.15(1).
- ^Li, Charles; Thompson, Sandra (1989).Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar.Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 169.
- ^abcGood, Jeff, ed. (2008).Linguistic Universals and Language Change.New York: Oxford University Press. p. 197.
- ^abWILSON, WILLIAM H. 1982. Proto-Polynesian possessive marking. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
- ^Vökel, Svenja. 2010.Structure, space, and possession in Tongan culture and language: An ethnolinguistic study.John Benjamins Publishing.
- ^Walworth, Mary E.The Language of Rapa Iti: Description of a Language In Change.Diss. U of Hawaii at Manoa, 2015. Honolulu: U of Hawaii at Manoa, 2015. Print.
- ^Hafford, James (2015). "Introduction".Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary:1.
- ^Hafford, James (2015). "Possession".Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary:59–60.
- ^Hafford, James (2015). "Possessor Suffixes".Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary:61.
- ^abcHafford, James (2015). "Direct possession".Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary– via 61-63.
- ^abHooper, Robin (1994).Studies in Tokelauan syntax.Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International. p. 51.