Inalienable possession

In linguistics, inalienable possession[1] (abbreviated INAL) is a type of possession in which a noun is

obligatorily possessed by its possessor. Nouns or nominal affixes in an inalienable possession relationship
cannot exist independently or be "alienated" from their possessor.[2] Inalienable nouns include body parts
(such as leg, which is necessarily "someone's leg", even if severed from the body), kinship terms (such as
mother), and part-whole relations (such as top).[3] Many languages reflect this distinction, but they vary on
how they mark inalienable possession.[4] Cross-linguistically, inalienability correlates with many
morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties.

In general, the alienable–inalienable distinction is an example of a binary possessive class system, a language
in which two kinds of possession are distinguished (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. In Papua New Guinea, for example, Anêm has at least 20 classes and
Amele has 32.[5][4]

Statistically, 15–20% of the world's languages have obligatory possession.[6]

Contents
Comparison to alienable possession
Variation among languages
Morphosyntactic strategies for marking distinction
Morphological markers
No overt possessive markers
Identical possessor deletion
Word order
Possessor switch
Genitive-noun ordering
Explicit possessors
Prepositions
Definite articles
No distinction in grammar
Cross-linguistic properties
Restricted to attributive possession
Requires fewer morphological features
Tighter structural bond between possessor and possessee
Theories of representation in syntax
External possession
Binding hypothesis (Guéron 1983)
Possessor-raising hypothesis (Landau 1999)
Form function motivations
Iconic motivation (Haiman 1983)
 Economic motivation (Nichols 1988)
Glossary of abbreviations
Morpheme glosses
Syntactic trees
Other languages
Austronesian Languages
Rapa
Wuvulu
Tokelauan
See also
Notes
References
External links

Comparison to alienable possession

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 parts eye, leg
part-whole relationship tabletop, side
possessed noun originates from the possessor sweat, voice
mental states and processes fear, mind
attributes of a known possessor name, age

Other things, such as most objects, may or may not be possessed. When such types of objects are possessed,
the possession is alienable. Alienable possession is used generally for tangible items that one might cease to
own at some point (such as my money), but inalienable possession generally refers to a perpetual relationship
that cannot be readily severed (such as my mother).[3]

Variation among languages

Although the relationships listed above are likely to be instances of inalienable possession, what is ultimately
classified as inalienable depends on conventions, specific to the language and the culture.[7] 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, neighbor may be an inalienable noun in one language but alienable in
another.[7] Thus, whether a certain type of relationship is described as alienable or inalienable can be arbitrary,
and in that respect, alienability is similar to other types of noun classes such as grammatical gender.[8]

The examples below illustrate that the same phrase, the table's legs, is regarded as inalienable possession in
Italian but alienable possession in French:[9] (1b) is ungrammatical (as indicated by the asterisk). French
cannot use the inalienable possession construction for a relationship that is alienable.
 Italian - Inalienable possession relationship
(1a) Al tavolo, qualcuno gli ha segato tutte le gambe
to.the table someone it.DAT has sawn all the legs
'The table, someone has sawn off all its legs'

French - Alienable possession relationship

(1b) *La table, quelqu'un lui a scié toutes les pattes
the table, someone it.DAT has sawn all the legs
'The table, someone has sawn off all its legs'

(Cinque & Krapova 2008: 68 (ia, ib)[a])

Bernd Heine argues that language change is responsible for the language-specific variability in categorization.
That is because "rather than being a semantically defined category, inalienability is more likely to constitute a
morphosyntactic or morphophonological entity, 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."[10] Under his view,
nouns that are "ignored" by a new marking pattern come to form a separate noun class.

Morphosyntactic strategies for marking distinction

The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is often marked by various morphosyntactic
properties such as morphological markers and word order. There is a strong typological pattern for inalienable
possession to require fewer morphological markers than alienable possession constructions.[11]

Inalienable possession constructions involve two nouns or nominals: the possessor and the possessee.
Together, they form a unit, called a determiner phrase (DP). Within the DP, the possessor nominal may occur
either before the possessee (prenominal) or after its possessee (postnominal), depending on the language.[12]
French, for example, can use a postnominal possessor (the possessor (of) Jean occurs after the possessee the
arm):

(2) le bras de Jean

the arm of Jean
'John's arm'

(Guéron 2007: 590 (la))

By contrast, English generally uses a prenominal possessor (John's brother). de Jean is a

However, in some situations, it may also use a postnominal possessor, as in the postnominal
brother of John.[4] possessor, as it occurs
after the noun. This
sentence adapted from
Morphological markers Guéron 2007: 590 (1a)

No overt possessive markers

The South American language Dâw uses a special possessive morpheme (bold in the examples below) to
indicate alienable possession:[13]
 Alienable
(3) t ɔp Tũk- ɛ̃̀ɟ
house Tũk-POSS
'Tũk's house'

(4) tih- ɛ̀̃ ɟ c ɤ̀g

3SG-POSS arrow
'his arrow'

(Martins 2004: 546)

The possessive morpheme ɛ̃̀ɟ in examples (3) and (4) indicates an alienable relationship between the
possessor and the possessee.

Inalienable
(5) tih nũh
3SG head
‘his head'

(Martins 2004: 547)

The possessive marker does not occur in inalienable possession constructions. Thus, the absence of ɛ̀̃ ɟ, as in
example (5), indicates that the relationship between the possessor and possessee is inalienable possession.

Identical possessor deletion

Igbo, a West African language, deletes the possessor if the sentence's subject and the possessor of an
inalienable noun both refer to the same entity.[14]:87 In (6a), both the referents are the same; however, it is
ungrammatical to keep both of them in a sentence. Igbo employs the processes of identical possessor deletion,
and the yá (his), is dropped, as in the grammatical (6b).

(6a) *Ó sàra áka yá

He i washed hands his i (own)
'He i washed his i hands'

(6b) Ó sàra áka

He washed hands
'He i washed his i hands'

(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (11, 12))

Similar is the case with some Slavic languages, notably Serbian:

*Oprao je svoje ruke

He i washed his i (own) hands
'He i washed his i hands'
 Oprao je ruke
He washed hands
'He i washed his i hands'

Word order

Possessor switch

The distinction between alienable and inalienable possession constructions may be marked by a difference in
word order. Igbo uses another syntactic process when the subject and the possessor refer to different
entities.[14]:89 In possessor switch, the possessor of the inalienable noun is placed as close as possible to the
verb.[14] In the following examples, the possessor yá is not deleted because the two referents in the following
sentence are different:

(7a) *Ó hùru áka

He saw hand
'He i saw his j hand'

(7b) Ó hùru áka yá

He saw hand his
'He i saw his j hand'

(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (27, 28))

In the ungrammatical (8a), the verb wàra (to split) follows the possessor m. Possessor switch requires the verb
to be placed closer to the possessor. The grammatical (8b) does so by having wàra switch with the possessor:

(8a) *ísi m wàra

Head my split
'I have a headache'

(8b) ísi wàra m

Head split to me
'I have a headache'

(Hyman et al. 1970: 87 (44, 45))

Genitive-noun ordering

Maybrat, a language from New Guinea, varies the order of the genitive case and the noun between alienable
and inalienable constructions:[15][16]

In (9), the genitive Sely precedes the possessee me, marking inalienable possession.

Inalienable: Gen-N
(9) Sely m-me
 Sely 3SG.F.POSS-mother
'Sely's mother'

(Dol 1999: 93)

However, the genitive follows the possessee in alienable possession constructions, such as (10) whose genitive
Petrus follows the possessee amah.

Alienable: N-Gen
(10) amah ro-Petrus
house GEN-Petrus
‘Petrus' house'

(Dol 1999: 97)

Explicit possessors

Another way that languages can distinguish between alienable and inalienable possession is to have one noun
class that cannot appear without an explicit possessor.[17] For example, Ojibwe, an Algonquian language, has
a class of nouns that must have explicit possessors.[18][19][b]

If explicit possessors are absent (as in (11b) and (12b)), the phrase is ungrammatical. In (11), the possessor ni is
necessary for the inalienable noun nik (arm). In (12), the same phenomenon is found with the inalienable noun
ookmis (grandmother), which requires the possessor morpheme n to be grammatical.

Inalienable
(11a) ni nik
POSS arm
'my arm'

Alienable
(11b) *nik
arm
'(an) arm'

(Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 138)

Inalienable
(12a) nookmis
POSS-grandmother
'my grandmother'

Alienable
(12b) *ookmis
grandmother
'(a) grandmother'

(Nichols & Nyholm 1995: 189)

Prepositions

Hawaiian uses different prepositions to mark possession, depending on alienability: a (alienable of) is used to
indicate alienable possession, as in (13a) and (14a), and o (inalienable of) indicates inalienable possession.[20]

Alienable
(13a) nā iwi a Pua
the bones of Pua
'Pua's bones' [as in the chicken bones she is eating]

Inalienable
(13b) nā iwi o Pua
the bones of Pua
'Pua's [own] bones'

(Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)

However, the distinction between a (alienable of) and o (inalienable of) is used for other semantic distinctions
that are less clearly attributable to common alienability relationships except metaphorically. Although lei is a
tangible object, in Hawaiian it can be either alienable (15a) or inalienable (15b), depending on the context.

Alienable
(14a) ke kanaka a ke ali ʻi
the man of the king
'the subject [controlled or appointed by] the chief'

Inalienable
(14b) ke kanaka o ke ali ʻi
the man of the king
'the [hereditary] subject of the chief'

(Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)

Alienable
(15a) ka lei a Pua
the lei of Pua
'Pua's lei [to sell]'

Inalienable
(15b) ka lei o Pua
the lei of Pua
'Pua's lei [to wear]'

(Elbert & Pukui 1979: 139)

Definite articles

Subtler cases of syntactic patterns sensitive to alienability are found in many languages. For example, French
can use a definite article, rather than the possessive, for body parts.[21]
 (16) Il lève les mains.
he raises the hands
'He raises his hands.'

(Nakamoto 2010: 75 (2a))

Using the definite article with body parts, as in the example above, it creates ambiguity. The following
sentence has both an alienable and an inalienable interpretation:

a) he raises his own hands [inalienable]

b) he raises another pair of hands [alienable]

That type of ambiguity also occurs in English with body part constructions.[22]

Spanish also uses a definite article (las) to indicate inalienable possession for body parts.[23]

(17) él se lava las manos

he himself washes the hands
'He washes his hands'

(Kockelman 2009: 30)

German uses a definite article (die) for inalienable body parts but a possessive (meine) for alienable
possession.[23]

Inalienable
(18) Er wäscht sich die Hände.
he washes REFLEX the hands
'He is washing his hands'

(Kockelman 2009: 29)

Alienable
(19) ich zerriß meine Hose
I tore my pants
'I tore my pants'

(Kockelman 2009: 30)

No distinction in grammar

Although English has alienable and inalienable nouns (Mary's brother [inalienable] vs. Mary's squirrel
[alienable]), there are few formal distinctions of that in the grammar.[24] One subtle grammatical distinction is
the postnominal genitive construction, which is normally used only for inalienable, relational nouns. For
example, the brother of Mary [inalienable] is acceptable, but *the squirrel of Mary [alienable] would be
awkward.[24]

Since the alienability distinction is rooted in semantics, in languages like English with few morphological or
syntactic distinctions sensitive to alienability, ambiguities can occur. For example, the phrase she has her
father's eyes has two different meanings:

a) her eyes resemble her father's [inalienable possession]

b) she is in actual physical possession of the eyes [alienable possession]

Another example in semantic dependency is 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.[22] (20) is ambiguous and has two possible meanings. In the inalienable possessive interpretation, la
main belongs to the subject, les enfants. The second interpretation is that la main is an alienable object that
does not belong to the subject. The English equivalent of the sentence (The children raised the hand) had only
the alienable possessive reading in which the hand does not belong to the children.

(20) Les enfants ont levé la main

The children have raised the hand
'The children raised the hand'

(Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596 (1))

Syntactically, Noam Chomsky proposed that some genitive or possessive cases originate as part of the
determiner in the underlying structure.[25]:680 The inalienable possessives are derived from a different deep
structure than that of alienable possession. For example, given the following interpretations of the phrase
John'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, arm is a complement of the determiner phrase. That contrasts to the alienable
reading in which John has an arm is part of the determiner.[25]:690 Charles J. Fillmore and Chomsky make a
syntactic distinction between alienable and inalienable possession and suggest that the distinction is relevant to
English.[25]

In contrast, others have argued that although semantics plays a role in inalienable possession, it is not central to
the syntactic class of case-derived possessives. For example, compare the difference between the book's
contents and the book's jacket. While a book cannot be divorced from its contents, it can be removed from its
jacket.[25]:690 Still, both phrases have the same syntactic structure. Another example is Mary's mother and
Mary'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]

Cross-linguistic properties
Although there are different methods of marking inalienability, inalienable possession constructions usually
involve the following features:[7]

The distinction is confined to attributive possession.

Alienable possession requires more phonological or morphological features than inalienable
possession.
Inalienable possession involves a tighter structural bond between the possessor and the
possessee.
Possessive markers on inalienable nouns are etymologically older[c]
Inalienable nouns include kinship terms and/or body parts.
Inalienable nouns form a closed class, but alienable nouns form an open class.

(Heine 1997: 85-86 (1-6))

Restricted to attributive possession

Alienability can be expressed only in attributive possession constructions, not

in predicative possession.[7]

Attributive possession is a type of possession in which the possessor and

possessee form a phrase. That contrasts to predicative possession
constructions in which the possessor and possessee are part of a clause and
the verb affirms the possessive relationship.[27] The examples in (21) express
the same alienable relationship between possessor and possessee but illustrate
the difference between attributive and predicative possession: Attribution possession: the
possessor (Ron) and the
possessee (dog) form a
Attributive possession phrase.
(21a) Ron's dog

Predicative possession
(21b) Ron has a dog
(21c) The dog is Ron's

(Heine 1997: 87 (2))

Requires fewer morphological features Predicative possession: the

possessor (Ron) and the
If a language has separate alienable and inalienable possession constructions, possessee (dog) form not a
and if one of the constructions is overtly marked and the other is "zero- phrase but instead a clause.
marked", the marked form tends to be alienable possession. Inalienable
possession is indicated by the absence of the overt marker.[28] An example is
the data 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 fewer morphological markers than its
alienable counterpart. By contrast, only one of the surveyed languages required more morphological features
to mark inalienable possession than alienable possession.[11] If a language makes a grammatical distinction
between alienable and inalienable nouns, it is redundant to have an overt possessive marker to mark
inalienability. Just by being inalienable, a noun must be possessed.

Tighter structural bond between possessor and possessee

In inalienable possession constructions, the relationship between the possessor and possessee is stronger than
in alienable possession constructions. Johanna Nichols characterizes that by the tendency of inalienable
possession to be head-marked but alienable possession to be dependent-marked.[26] In head-marking, the head
of an inalienable possession construction (the possessed noun) is marked, but in dependent-marking, the
dependent (the possessor noun) is marked.[29]

Theories of representation in syntax

Since the possessor is crucially linked to an inalienable noun's meaning, inalienable nouns are assumed to take
their possessors as a semantic argument.[30] Possessors (to either alienable or inalienable nouns) can be
expressed with different constructions. Possessors in the genitive case (such as the friend of Mary) appear as
complements to the possessed noun, as part of the phrase headed by the inalienable noun.[22] That is an
example of internal possession since the possessor of the noun is inside of the determiner phrase.

External possession

Inalienable possession can also be marked with external 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 (22):[22]

External possession:
(22a) Le médecin leur a examiné la External possession in French. The
gorge. possessor is outside the phrase that
the doctor to them examined SG DEF DET
throat contains the possessee (circled in
'The doctor examined their throats.' red). Sentence adapted from
Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992: 596
(4b)
Internal possession:
(22b) Le médecin a examiné leurs gorges.
the doctor examined POSS(3PL) 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 a
semantic argument. On the surface syntactic structure, however, the
possessor appears in a position that marks it as an argument of the
verb.[12] 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 then moves to a position in which on the surface, it looks like
it is an argument of the verb.[31] Internal possession in French.
The possessor and possessee are
contained inside the same phrase
Binding hypothesis (Guéron 1983)
(circled in red). Sentence adapted
from Vergnaud and Zubizarreta
The binding hypothesis reconciles the fact that the possessor appears
1992: 596 (6b)
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:[12]

a. There must be an obligatory possessor.

b. The possessor must be in the same minimal domain of the possessee.
c. The possessor must c-command the possessee or its trace
(The c-command must occur in the underlying or surface structures of the inalienable
possession constructions.

It is assumed that inalienable possession constructions are

one form of anaphoric binding: obligatory control.[30]
Thus, the possessor DP originates in the specifier of 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 possessee DPs. The parallel
between inalienable possession constructions and
obligatory control can be seen in the examples below:[21]

Inalienable possession
(23a) Jean i lève la i main
Jean raise the hand
'Jean raises his hand.'

Obligatory control Inalienable possession binding:: the possessor

(23b) Jean i veut PRO i partir c-commands the possessee in its domain. The
Jean want (Jean) to leave possessor and possessee constitute a lexical
'Jean wants to leave'
chain and receive the same theta-roles from the
verb.
(Nakamoto 2010: 80 (30a,b))

That hypothesis accounts for differences between French and English, and it may also eliminate the ambiguity
created by definite determiners.[30] According to this hypothesis, anaphoric binding in inalienable possession
constructions relates to the theta-features that a language assigns to its determiners.[12] 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.[12] Therefore, inalienable possession is predicted to exist in Romance languages and even Russian
but not in languages like English or Hebrew.[12] In the French sentence Il lève les mains, the determiner les is
assigned theta-features. Thus, it is understood as inalienable possession. However, in the English translation,
the determiner the does not have theta-features because English is considered does not assign theta-features to
its determiners. Therefore, the does not necessarily signify inalienable possession and so ambiguity surfaces.

That hypothesis, however, does not account for verbs allowing reflexive anaphora (Jean se lave 'Jean washes
himself').[12] To account for the grammaticality of such verbs, Guéron proposes that in an inalienable
construction the POSS DP (possessor DP) and BP DP (body part DP) constitute two links of a lexical chain,
in addition to their anaphoric relation.[12] 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 (24b) is
ungrammatical. The POSS DP is assigned an agent theta-role, and the BP DP is assigned a theme theta-role.

(24a) Jean lève la main

Jean raise the hand
'Jean raises his hand.'

(24b) *Jean lave/gratte/chatouille la main.

Jean wash/scratch/tickle the hand
'Jean washes/scratches/tickles the hand.'
AGENT THEME

(Guéron 2007: 598 (40, 42))

Possessor-raising hypothesis (Landau 1999)

Possessor-raising is a syntactic hypothesis that attempts to explain the

structures of inalienable DPs. Landau argues that the possessor is
initially introduced in the specifier position of DP (Spec-DP), but it
later raises to the specifier of the VP. The possessor DP gets its theta-
role from the head D, and that gives rise to the meaning that the
possessor is related to the possessee.[32]

Landau's analysis is made on the basis of several properties

possessives in the data case in Romance languages.[21]

Possessor-raising from SpecDP to

a. The possessor dative must be interpreted as a SpecVP
possessor, not an object/theme.
b. Possession interpretation is obligatory.
c. The possessed DP cannot be an external argument.
d. The possessor dative must c-command the possessed DP
(or its trace).
e. Possessive interpretation is constrained by locality.

(Nakamoto 2010: 76)

The French data below illustrate how that is thought to work. The possessor lui originates in the specifier of
DP as an argument of the noun figure. That is equivalent to an underlying structure Gilles a lavé lui la figure.
The possessor raises to the specifier of VP, which is seen in the surface structure Gilles lui a lavé la figure.
 (25) Gilles lui a lavé la figure
Gilles him.DAT washed the face
[TP Gilles [VP lui i a lavé [DP t i la figure]]]
'Gilles washed his face'

(Guéron 2007: 611 (100b))

According to Guéron, a benefit of the hypothesis is that it is consistent

with principles of syntactic movement such as locality of selection and Illustration of possessor-raising in
French. Sentence adapted from
c-command. If the position to which it needs to move is already filled,
(Guéron 2007: 611 (100b)
as with a transitive verb like see, the possessor cannot raise, and the
sentence is correctly predicted to be ungrammatical.[12]

Hebrew
(26) *Gil ra'a le-Rina et ha-punim
Gil saw to Rina the face
[TP Gil j [VP t j ra'a [DP le-Rina et ha panim]]]
NOM *DAT ACC
'Gil saw Rina's face'

(Guéron 2007: 613 (109))

However, some languages such as Russian do not have to raise the DP possessor and can leave it in situ,
making it unclear why the possessor would ever have to raise.[12] Possessor-raising also violates a constraint
on syntactic movement, the specificity constraint: an element cannot be moved out of a DP if that DP is
specific.[12] In (23), the DP lui is specific, yet possessor-raising predicts it can be moved out of the larger DP
lui la figure. Such movement is excluded by the specificity constraint.

Form function motivations

Inalienable possession constructions often lack overt possessors.[28] There is a debate as to how to account for
the linguistically-universal difference in form. Iconicity explains the in terms of the relationship between the
conceptual distance between the possessor and possessee,[33] and economy explains it by the frequency of
possession.[34]

Iconic motivation (Haiman 1983)

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.[33] Joseph
Greenberg hypothesizes that the distance between the possessor and possessee in a sentence with alienable
possession is greater than in a sentence with inalienable constructions.[35] 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 the two would, in turn, increase their conceptual
independence.

That is demonstrated in Yagaria, a Papuan language. It marks alienable possession by a free form pronoun as
in (27a). In contrast, inalienable possession constructions use an inalienable possessor prefixed on the
possessee, as in (27b). That construction has less linguistic distance between the possessor and possessee than
in the alienable construction:

Alienable
(27a) dgai' fu
my pig
'my pig'

Inalienable
(27b) d-za'
my-arm
'my arm'

(Haiman 1983: 793 (30a,b))

However, there are cases of linguistic distance not necessarily reflecting conceptual distance. In Mandarin
Chinese, there are 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
possessee, but it reflects the same conceptual distance.[36] Both possessive expressions, with and without the
marker de, are found in the Mandarin phrase "my friend", seen in (28a) compared to (28b):[37]

POSSESSOR + de + POSSESSEE
(28a) w ǒ DE péngy ǒu
I DE friend
'My friend'

POSSESSOR + POSSESSEE
(28b) w ǒ péngy ǒu
I friend
'My friend'

(Hsu 2009: 101 (22a,b))

In contrast to the previous example, the omission of the marker de is ungrammatical, as in example (29b). The
linguistic distance between the possessor and possessee is much smaller in (29b) than in (29a). It has been
argued that the omission of de occurs only in kinship relationships, but phrasal constructions with a mandatory
de encompasses other inalienable possession examples, such as body parts.[33]:783 That contradicts the notion
that inalienable possession is marked by less linguistic distance between the possessor and possessee.

(29a) w ǒ x ǐhuān n ǐ DE tóufà

I like you DE hair
'I like your hair'

(29b) *w ǒ x ǐhuān n ǐ tóufà

I like you hair
'I like your hair'

(Li & Thompson 1981: 169)

Economic motivation (Nichols 1988)

Nichols notes that frequently-possessed nouns, such as body parts and kinship terms, almost always occur with
possessors, and alienable nouns occur with possessors less often.[34][38]

The following shows the frequency of possession between alienable and unalienable nouns in German.[38]
The table below shows the number of times each noun occurred with or without a possessor in texts from the
German Goethe-Corpus, the works by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Noun category Noun Unpossessed Possessed

Gärtner 'gardener' 24 0
Alienable Jäger 'hunter' 48 2
Pfarrer 'priest' 12 0
Schwester 'sister' 32 58
Inalienable Tante 'aunt' 47 22
Tochter 'daughter' 46 53

The alienable nouns above are rarely possessed, but the inalienable kinship terms are frequently possessed.[38]
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 to employ economical syntactic
construction, languages often zero-mark their inalienable nouns.[34]

That could be explained by Zipf's Law in which the familiarity or the frequency of an occurrence motivates
the linguistic simplification of the concept.[33] A listener who hears an inalienable noun can predict that it will
be possessed, thereby eliminating the need for an overt possessor.[28]

Glossary of abbreviations

Morpheme glosses

* ungrammatical
3 third person
ACC accusative case
DAT dative case
DEF DET definite determiner
F feminine
GEN genitive case
NOM nominative case
PL plural
POSS possessive
REFLEX reflexive
SG singular
tx trace

i co-referenced
Syntactic trees

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

Austronesian Languages

Rapa

Old Rapa is the indigenous language of Rapa Iti, an island of French Polynesia located within its Bass Islands
archipelago. Within the language structure of Rapa are two primary possessive particles, a and o. The usage of
the two particles is dependent on the relation between the possessor and the object. When words of the
language are categorized by possessive particles, there is a very close resemblance to the usage of the
possessive particle and the object's alienability. However, this relation is better defined by William Wilson in
his article Proto-Polynesian Possessive Marking.

Briefly, through his two theories, the Simple Control Theory and Initial Control Theory, Wilson can contrast
and thus better define the usage of the possessive particles, a and o. The Simple Control Theory speculates that
the determining factor directly correlated to the possessor's control over the object; emphasizing a dominant vs.
less-dominant relationship. Old Rapa adheres closer to the latter of Wilson's two theories, the Initial Control
Theory, which speculates that "the possessor's control over the initiation of the possessive relationship is the
determining factor." Here, his Initial Control Theory can also be generally expanded to the whole Polynesian
language family in terms of better describing the "alienability" of possession.[39]

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, is defines possession relationships that are initiated
through the possessor's control. The following list and classifications are literal examples provided by Mary
Walworth, in her dissertation of the Rapa language. 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 and a-marked [39]

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 does fall short in properly categorizing a few miscellaneous items such as articles of
clothing and furniture that his theory would incorrectly predict to be marked with an a-possessive particle. The
reverse would occur forobjects such as food and animals. The synthesis of Wilson's theory and other approach
a better understanding of the Rapa language. Svenja Völkel proposed the idea of looking further into the
ritualistic beliefs of the community, namely their mana. That idea has been relatable to other languages in the
Eastern Polynesian language family, and it states that objects that possess less mana than the possessor are
indicated with the a-possessive particle, and the usage of the o-possessive marker is reserved for the
possessor's mana not being superior.[40]

The same usage of the possessive particles, a and o, in possessive pronouns can be seen in the contracted
portmanteau, the combination of the articles and possessive markers. The resultants are the tō and tā prefixes in
the following possessive pronouns, as can be seen in the table below:
 Possessive Pronouns of Old Rapa [41]
Singular Dual Plural
Inclusive tōku tāku tō māua tā māua tō mātou tā mātou
First Person
Exclusive ~~~ ~~~ tō tāua tā tāua tō tātou tā tātou
Second Person tōkoe tākoe tō kōrua tā kōrua tō koutou tā koutou
Third Person tōna tāna tō rāua tā rāua tō rātou tā rātou

Wuvulu

Wuvulu language is a small language spoken in Wuvulu Island.[42] Direct possession has a close relationship
with inalienability in the Oceanic linguistics. Similarly, the inherent possession of the possessor is called the
possessum.[43]

The inalienable noun also has a possessor suffix and includes body parts, kin 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.[44]

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.[45]

Taba-u taba-mu taba-na

my head your head his/her/its head

Kin terms

Kin terms in Wuvulu language take singular possessive suffixes.[45]

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)

This kind of word can take the direct possessor suffix. "-mu" (your {singular])

faʔua, ʔei ware-a-mu

true the talk-DER-2SG

Your words are true.[45]

Tokelauan
Here is a table displaying the predicative possessive pronouns in Tokelauan:

Singular Dual Plural

o taua, o ta o tatou
1st person incl.
a taua, a ta a tatou

o oku, o kita o maua, o ma o matou

1st person excl.
a aku, a kite a maua, a ma a matou

o ou/o koe o koulua o koutou

2nd person
a au/a koe a koulua a koutou

o ona o laua, o la o latou

3rd person
a ona a laua, a la a latou

[46]

Here is a table showing Tokelauan premodifying 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
to ta, to taua o ta, o taue
1 dual incl.
ta ta, ta taue a ta, a taua

to ma, to maua o ma, o maua

1 dual excl.
ta ma, ta maua a ma, a maua

2 dual toulua, taulua oulua, aulua

to la, to laue o la, o laua
3 dual
ta la, ta laue 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
hoku, hota ni oku, ni ota
1 singular
haku, hata niaku, niata

2 singular ho, hau ni o, ni au

3 singular hona, hana ni ona, ni ana
ho ta, ho taua ni o ta, ni o taue
1 dual incl.
ha ta, ha taua ni a ta, ni a taua

ho ma, ho maua ni o ma, ni o maua

1 dual excl.
ha ma, ha maua ni a ma, ni a maua

2 dual houlua, haulua ni oulua, ni aulua

[46]

See also
Possession (linguistics) Noun phrase
Obligatory possession Possessive
Noun class Possessive affix
Determiner phrase English possessive
 Genitive case

Notes
a. 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."
b. Technically, the obligatory occurrence of a possessor is a property of certain morphemes called
obligatory possession, but linguists often use the term inalienable possession to mean that.
c. For example, in the Native American language Diegueño, the alienable possessive marker (?-
əny ) appears to originate from the inalienable possessive marker (?-ə), suggesting the latter to
be older.[26]

References
1. "Haspelmath Possessives" (https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/co
urse_materials/Haspelmath_Possessives.pdf) (PDF). www.eva.mpg.de.
2. Matthews, P. H. (2007). Inalienable possession. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Facref%2F978019920
2720.001.0001). ISBN 9780199202720.
3. Lichtenberk, 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 (https://doi.org/10.1515%2Fcogl.2011.025).
ProQuest 919350399 (https://search.proquest.com/docview/919350399).
4. Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar. "Possessive Classification" (http://wals.info/feature/descri
ption/59). World Atlas of Language Structures. Retrieved 2011-02-26.
5. Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar (2013). Dryer, Matthew S; Haspelmath, Martin (eds.).
"Possessive Classification" (http://wals.info/chapter/59). The World Atlas of Language
Structures Online.
6. Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar. "Feature/Obligatory Possessive Inflection" (http://wals.info/
feature/58). World Atlas of Language Structures. Retrieved 2011-03-06.
7. Heine, Bernd (1997). Cognitive Foundations of Grammar (http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=5285
8). USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 85–86. ISBN 9780195356205. Retrieved 6 November
2014.
8. Matthews, P. H. (2007). Noun class. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Facref%2F978019920
2720.001.0001). ISBN 9780199202720.
9. Cinque, Guglielmo; Krapova, Iliana (2008). "The two "possessor raising" constructions of
Bulgarian" (http://arca.unive.it/bitstream/10278/1085/1/Working%20Papers%2018-2008%20PD
F.pdf#page=60) (PDF). Working Papers in Linguistics. 18: 68. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
10. Heine, Bernd (1997). Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 182.
11. Krasnoukhova, Olga (2011). "Attributive possession in the languages of South America" (http
s://doi.org/10.1075/avt.28.08kra). Linguistics in the Netherlands. 28 (1): 86–98.
doi:10.1075/avt.28.08kra (https://doi.org/10.1075%2Favt.28.08kra).
12. Guéron, 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 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9780470996591).
ISBN 9780470996591.
13. Martins, Silvana Andrade (2004). Fonologia e gramática Dâw. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT.
pp. 546–547.
14. Hyman, Larry M.; Alford, Danny; Elizabeth, Akpati (1970). "Inalienable Possession in Igbo".
Journal of West African Languages. VII (2).
15. Dol, Philomena (1999). A Grammar of Maybrat: A Language of the Bird's Head, Irian Jaya,
Indonesia. University of Leiden. pp. 93–97.
16. Dryer, Matthew S. "Order of Genitive and Noun" (http://wals.info/chapter/86). The World Atlas of
Language Structures Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved
29 October 2014.
17. Nichols, Johanna; Bickel, Balthasar. "Obligatory Possessive Inflection" (http://wals.info/feature/
description/58). World Atlas of Language Structures. Retrieved 2011-03-06.
18. Valentine, J. Randolph Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar Nishnaabemwin Reference
Grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2001. §3.3.1. pg. 106 ff.
19. Nichols, J. D.; Nyholm, E. A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press. 1995.
20. Elbert, Samuel H.; Pukui, Mary Kawena (1979). Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu: University
Press of Hawaii. p. 139.
21. Nakamoto, Takeshi (2010). "Inalienable Possession Constructions in French". Lingua. 120 (1):
74–102. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2009.05.003).
22. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger; Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1992). "The Definite Determiner and the
Inalienable Construction in French and in English". Linguistic Inquiry. 23 (4): 595–652.
23. Kockelman, Paul (2009). "Inalienable Possession as Grammatical Category and Discourse
Pattern" (https://semanticscholar.org/paper/5d428e7dfebdf279eec0d803fbb55debf10c1c6b).
Studies in Language. 33 (1): 29–30. doi:10.1075/sl.33.1.03koc (https://doi.org/10.1075%2Fsl.3
3.1.03koc).
24. Barker, Chris (2011). "Possessives and relational nouns" (http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/
WYxOTc5M/barker-possessives.pdf) (PDF). In Maienborn, Claudia; von Heusinger, Klaus;
Portner, Paul (eds.). Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning.
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
25. Stockwell, Robert P.; Schachter, Paul; Partee, Barbara Hall (1973). The Major Syntactic
Structures of English (https://archive.org/details/majorsyntacticst0000stoc). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc. ISBN 978-0-03-088042-1.
26. Nichols, Johanna (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (ACLS Humanities E-Book
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 116–123.
27. Herslund, Michael; Baron, Irène (2001). Dimensions of Possession (https://books.google.com/?
id=lcCKtWG3wsAC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Dimensions+of+Possession#v=onepage&q=Dim
ensions%20of%20Possession&f=false). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 1–15.
ISBN 978-9027229519. Retrieved 11 December 2014.
28. Haspelmath, Martin. "Alienable vs. inalienable possessive constructions" (http://www.eva.mpg.
de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/Haspelmath_Possessives.pdf)
(PDF). Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic
Diversity. Retrieved 9 November 2014.
29. Matthews, P. H. (2007). Head marking. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acref/9780199202720.001.0001 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Facref%2F978019920
2720.001.0001). ISBN 9780199202720.
30. Guéron, Jacqueline. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume I (Chapter 35). Blackwell
Publishing, Ltd. pp. 595–596.
31. 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. ISBN 90-272-3591-0.
32. Landau, Idan (1999). "Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP". Lingua. 107 (1): 1–37.
doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00025-4 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0024-3841%2898%290002
5-4).
33. Haiman, John (1983). "Iconic and Economic Motivation". Language. 59 (4): 781–819.
doi:10.2307/413373 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F413373). JSTOR 413373 (https://www.jstor.or
g/stable/413373).
34. Nichols, Johanna (1988). "On Alienable and Inalienable Possession". In Honor of Mary Haas.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. p. 579.
35. Greenberg, Joseph (1966). Universals of Human Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
36. Hsu, Yu-Yin (2009). "Possessor extraction in Mandarin Chinese". University of Pennsylvania
Working Papers in Linguistics. 15 (1).
37. Li, Charles; Thompson, Sandra (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar.
Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 169.
38. Good, Jeff ed. (2008). Linguistic Universals and Language Change. New York: Oxford
University Press. p. 197.
39. WILSON, WILLIAM H. 1982. Proto-Polynesian possessive marking. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
40. Vökel, Svenja. 2010. Structure, space, and possession in Tongan culture and language: An
ethnolinguistic study. John Benjamins Publishing.
41. 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.
42. Hafford, James (2015). "Introduction". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary: 1.
43. Hafford, James (2015). "Possession". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary: 59–60.
44. Hafford, James (2015). "Possessor Suffixes". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary: 61.
45. Hafford, James (2015). "Direct possession". Wuvulu Grammar and Vocabulary – via 61-63.
46. Hooper, Robin (1994). Studies in Tokelauan syntax. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms
International. p. 51.

External links
A map of the world's languages colored by possessive classification complexity (http://wals.inf
o/feature/59A#2/25.5/153.5) from the World Atlas of Language Structures.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inalienable_possession&oldid=963123923"

This page was last edited on 18 June 2020, at 00:05 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.