Inalienable possession

In linguistics, inalienable possession (abbreviated ) 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. Inalienable nouns include body parts (such as leg, which is necessarily "someone's leg" even if it is severed from the body), kinship terms (such as mother), and part-whole relations (such as top). Many languages reflect the distinction but vary in how they mark inalienable possession. Some languages have more than two possessive classes. In Papua New Guinea, for example, Anêm has at least 20 classes, and Amele has 32.

Comparison to alienable possession

With inalienable possession, the two entities have a permanent association in which the possessed has little control over their possessor. 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: Also, languages may make different distinctions within the categories on how many and which entities are treated as inalienable.

Variation by languages

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. 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.

The examples below illustrate that the same phrase, the table's legs, is regarded as inalienable possession in Italian but alienable possession in French: (1b) is ungrammatical (as indicated by the asterisk). French cannot use the inalienable possession construction for a relationship that is alienable.

Bernd Heine argues that language change is 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 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." He considers that 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. The morphosyntactic differences are often referred to as possession split or split possession, which refer to instances of a language making a grammatical distinction between different types of possession. In a language with possession split, grammatical constructions with alienable nouns will differ from constructions with inalienable nouns.

There is a strong typological pattern for inalienable possession to require fewer morphological markers than alienable possession constructions.

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

thumb|150px|de Jean is a postnominal possessor, as it occurs after the noun. This sentence adapted from Guéron 2007: 590 (1a)thumb|John is a prenominal possessor and occurs before the possessed noun brother.

In contrast, English generally uses a prenominal possessor (Johns brother). However, in some situations, it may also use a postnominal possessor, as in the brother of John. The possessive morpheme ɛ̃̀ɟ in examples (3a) and (3b) indicates an alienable relationship between the possessor and the possessee.

The possessive marker does not occur in inalienable possession constructions. Thus, the absence of ɛ̃̀ɟ, as in example (4), indicates that the relationship between the possessor and the possessee is inalienable possession.

Identical possessor deletion

In Igbo, a West African language, the possessor is deleted in a sentence if both its subject and the possessor of an inalienable noun refer to the same entity. In (5a), both referents are the same, but it is ungrammatical to keep both of them in a sentence. Igbo uses the processes of identical possessor deletion, and the yá (his), is dropped, as in the grammatical (5b).

A similar process occurs in some Slavic languages, notably Serbian:

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.

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

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

Possessor marking

Explicit possessors

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

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.

Prepositions

Hawaiian uses different prepositions to mark possession, depending on the noun's alienability: a (alienable of) is used to indicate alienable possession as in (13a), and o (inalienable of) indicates inalienable possession as in (13b).

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, but in Hawaiian, it can be either alienable (15a) or inalienable (15b), depending on the context.

{| width="100%"

! Alienable

! Inalienable

|valign="top"| (14)

|valign="top"| (15)

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.

Using the definite article with body parts, as in the example above, creates ambiguity. 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.

Spanish also uses a definite article (el, los, la, or las) to indicate inalienable possession for body parts.

German uses a definite article (die) for inalienable body parts but a possessive (meine) for alienable possession. One subtle grammatical distinction is the postnominal genitive construction, which is normally reserved for inalienable relational nouns. For example, the brother of Mary [inalienable] is normal, but *the squirrel of Mary [alienable] would be awkward. The inalienable possessives are derived from a different deep structure than that of alienable possession. An example is 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. For example (1b) to obey those conditions, the pronominal possessor must refer to Lucy, 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

Although there are different methods of marking inalienability, inalienable possession constructions usually involve the following features:

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

thumb|170px|Attribution possession: the possessor (Ron) and the possessee (dog) form a [[phrase.]]

thumb|right|170px|Predicative possession: the possessor (Ron) and the possessee (dog) form not a phrase but instead a [[clause.]]

Alienability can be expressed only in attributive possession constructions, not in predicative possession. 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

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. 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 was its alienable counterpart. By contrast, only one of the surveyed languages required more morphological features to mark inalienable possession than alienable possession.

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. Possessors to alienable and inalienable nouns can be expressed with different constructions. Possessors in the genitive case like the friend of Mary appear as complements to the possessed noun, as part of the phrase headed by the inalienable noun.

Binding hypothesis (Guéron 1983)

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:

Landau's analysis is made on the basis of several properties possessives in the data case in Romance languages. 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.

thumb|Illustration of (28a) and (28b): possessor suppression in Norwegian compared to an explicit possessive marker in English (Thunes, 2013: 168)

Norwegian treats kinship nouns and body-part nouns similarly in relation to bound variable interpretations. 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.

thumb|Illustration of (29b) in which pro is a silent pronoun

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.

thumb|Illustration of (30a): locality with a body part noun in Norwegian in which the noun is bound by the closest subject. 'Håret' is the subordinate clause subject referent and 'John' is the subordinate clause subject. (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).

thumb|Illustration of (31a) and (31b): syntactic restrictions on first- and second-person possessors of definite body part nouns in Norwegian (Lødrup 2014: 49–50) in which '*' denotes an ungrammatical sentence

However, body part nouns do not have the restriction on first- or second-person possessors like in (32).

Form function motivations

Inalienable possession constructions often lack overt possessors. and economy explains it by the frequency of possession.

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. 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 in Yagaria, a Papuan language that marks alienable possession by a free form pronoun as in (33a). In contrast, inalienable possession constructions use an inalienable possessor that is prefixed on the possessee, as in (33b), a construction that has less linguistic distance between the possessor and possessee than the alienable construction has:

However, there are cases of linguistic distance not necessarily reflecting conceptual distance. Mandarin Chinese has 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. Both possessive expressions, with and without the marker de, are found in the Mandarin phrase "my friend", which is seen in (34a) unlike (34b):

In contrast to the previous example, the omission of the marker de is 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 of de occurs only in kinship relationships, but phrasal constructions with a mandatory de encompasse other cases of inalienable possession, such as body parts.

The following shows the frequency of possession between alienable and unalienable nouns in German.

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)

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

|+o-marked and a-marked

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:

{| class="wikitable"

|+Possessive Pronouns of Old Rapa

! colspan="2" |Singular

! colspan="2" |Dual

! colspan="2" |Plural

! rowspan="2" |1st Person

!Inclusive

| rowspan="2" |tōku

| rowspan="2" |tāku

|tō māua

|tā māua

|tō mātou

|tā mātou

!Exclusive

|tō tāua

|tā tāua

|tō tātou

|tā tātou

! colspan="2" |2nd Person

|tōkoe

|tākoe

|tō kōrua

|tā kōrua

|tō koutou

|tā koutou

! colspan="2" |3rd Person

|tōna

|tāna

|tō rāua

|tā rāua

|tō rātou

|tā rātou

Wuvulu

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

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.

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.

{| class="wikitable"

!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.

Here is a table with the Tokelauan possessive pronouns:

{| class="wikitable"

! 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

! colspan="2" | 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