Possession and ownership: a cross linguistic perspective

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660223.003.0001

Cited by 131 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ultan 1978;Nichols 1988;Chappell and McGregor 1996;Heine 1997;KoptjevskajaTamm 2003;Nichols and Bickel 2005a;Nichols and Bickel 2005b;Stolz et al 2008;Dixon 2010;Aikhenvald 2013;van Rijn 2016a). It is thus a very plausible hypothesis that the generalizations are true and will be confirmed by additional data.…”

Section: The Explanation In a Nutshellmentioning

confidence: 90%

Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity

Haspelmath

2017

Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that alienability contrasts in adnominal possessive constructions should not be explained by iconicity of distance, but by predictability due to the higher relative frequency of possessed occurrences of inalienable nouns. While it is true that when there is an alienability split, the alienable construction typically has an additional marker which often separates the possessor from the possessed noun, the broader generalization is that additional marking is found when the possessive relationship is less predictable. This generalization also extends to cases of antipossessive marking and impossessibility. The diachronic mechanisms responsible for the development of alienability contrasts are differential reduction and differential inhibition of a new construction.

show abstract

Section: The Explanation In a Nutshellmentioning

confidence: 90%

Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity

Haspelmath

2017

Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Possession relations are present in all languages, and they can reflect relationships, values, concepts and cultural changes (Aikhenvald, 2013). In this Table 7: Results obtained using SVMs with the best feature combination (all features) and the best neural network architecture when predicting temporal anchors with respect to verb y for a POSSESSION (both alienable and control).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The very definition of possession is not set in stone. Aikhenvald (2013) distinguishes three core meanings for possessive noun phrases that occur across languages: ownership (of property), wholepart (often referred to as part-whole), and kinship. Following a cross-linguistic perspective, she discusses possessions and time (present and former possession relationships, e.g., my tooth vs. my former axe), temporary and permanent possession (e.g., borrow vs. acquire) and others.…”

Section: Possession Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mining Possessions: Existence, Type and Temporal Anchors

Chinnappa

Blanco

2018

Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter Of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a corpus and experiments to mine possession relations from text. Specifically, we target alienable and control possessions, and assign temporal anchors indicating when the possession holds between possessor and possessee. We present new annotations for this task, and experimental results using both traditional classifiers and neural networks. Results show that the three subtasks (predicting possession existence, possession type and temporal anchors) can be automated.

show abstract

“…Possession as a semantic property is expressed in language through various grammatical structures. The term possession is more or less equivalent to ownership; whatever X is said to possess may be described as his property [2,3]. In language possession can be expressed within the noun phrase or the verb phrase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Account of Possession Expression in Tugen and Kiswahili

Jerono¹

2019

IJLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ownership, kinship and whole/part relationships are possessive expressions in natural languages. Possession is distinguished between alienable and inalienable possession, depending on the semantic relationship between the possessor and possessum. Alienable possession is a contextually dependent semantic relationship, where the elements in the relationship do not show any semantic dependency, whereas inalienable possession is a permanent semantic relationship between the possessor and the possessum for example as used in the expression of body parts. Besides possession, languages also exploit possessive expressions to express non possessive relationships, for example, emotive states. This paper attempts to compare how possession is expressed in Tugen, a Southern Nilotic language of the Kalenjin macro language and Kiswahili, a Bantu language. It also seeks to show how alienable and inalienable possession is distinguished in the languages, if at all, as well as how possessive expressions are used to express other non possessive relationships in both languages. It also seeks to find out the role of definiteness in the semantic expression of possession. This paper shows that in spite of the differences in the two languages the expression of possession is somewhat similar. Tugen is a VSO language while Kiswahili is an SVO language. Tugen is a native language spoken in Baringo county of Kenya, while Kiswahili is an official and national language in Kenya.

show abstract

Possession and ownership: a cross linguistic perspective

Cited by 131 publications

References 0 publications

Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity

Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity

Mining Possessions: Existence, Type and Temporal Anchors

A Comparative Account of Possession Expression in Tugen and Kiswahili

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About