Distribution Agreement in Presenting This Thesis As a Partial Fulfillment Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Distribution Agreement In presenting this thesis as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree from Emory University, I hereby grant to Emory University and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive, make accessible, and display my thesis in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter now, including display on the World Wide Web. I understand that I may select some access restrictions as part of the online submission of this thesis. I retain all ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis. Kelsey Jamerson April 16, 2012 Revisiting Possession in English by Kelsey Jamerson Dr. Phillip Wolff Adviser Program in Linguistics Dr. Phillip Wolff Adviser Dr. Marjorie Pak Committee Member Dr. Lilia Coropceanu Committee Member 2012 Revisiting Possession in English By Kelsey Jamerson Dr. Phillip Wolff Adviser An abstract of a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Emory College of Arts and Sciences of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors ! Program in Linguistics 2012 Abstract Revisiting Possession in English By Kelsey Jamerson! Languages often distinguish inalienable from alienable possession. Inalienable possessions, such as a hand, are generally considered inherent to the possessor, while alienable possessions, such as a house, are viewed as less central, transient, and replaceable. Though many languages mark this distinction linguistically, the ways of doing so and distinctions made are varied. There is not yet a cohesive and comprehensive account of how and why possession relations are categorized the way that they are cross-linguistically. In this paper, I use syntactic and semantic tests to examine the possibility that possessions as they are coded in English fall into four main concept categories. I further argue that this framework for understanding possession may account for cross-linguistic inconsistencies in the classification of possessions into sub-categories. Implications for the theory and the theory’s larger application are discussed. Revisiting Possession in English By Kelsey Jamerson Dr. Phillip Wolff Adviser Program in Linguistics A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Emory College of Arts and Sciences of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors Program in Linguistics 2012! Table of Contents! ! Revisiting Possession in English………………………………………………………………….1! Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1! Background………………………………………………………………………………..2! Accounts to Date…………………………………………………………………………..5 ! Proposal……………………………………………………………………………………………7! An Alternative Proposal…………………………………………………………………...8! Tests……………………………………………………………………………………….9! Experiment……………………………………………………………………………………….13! Method…………………………………………………………………………………...14 ! Participants……………………………………………………………………….14! Materials………………………………………………………………………....14! Sentences………………………………………………………………....14 ! Nouns…………………………………………………………………….14! Procedure………………………………………………………………………………...15! Ratings Task………………………………………………………………….......15! Results……………………………………………………………………………………15! Averages…………………………………………………………………………15! Similarity Ratings………………………………………………………………..17! Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..19! Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..20! References………………………………………………………………………………………..23! Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….26! Illustrations Figures 1. Possession Category Schema……………………………………………………………...8 2. Possession Category derived stimulus configuration……………………………………18 3. Modified Possession Category Schema………………………………………………….20 Tables 1. Average Ratings for Each Quadrant per Sentence……………………………………….16 REVISITING POSSESSION IN ENGLISH 1! ! ! Revisiting Possession in English1 Introduction Our notions of self and social position depend on our connections to other people and objects. Often, the concept of possession lies at the heart of these relations (Bally 1996). This paper proposes a new perspective from which to look at possession as it is encoded in language. Prior research on possession has revealed that there are different kinds of possession relations and that these can perhaps differ across languages (Chappell & McGregor 1996; Heine 1997). For example, it has been suggested that people, through their language, differentiate physical from non-physical possession, temporary from permanent possession, and alienable from inalienable possession (Heine 1997). A common observation is that the different kinds of possession lack clear tests of membership (Nichols 1988). In particular, the apparent exceptions to any proposed rules have been interpreted as indicating that the notion of possession is not clearly partitioned into categories. While extremely rich in examples and fine distinctions, the state of the literature is such that there is no overarching framework for thinking about the notion of possession. In this paper, I address this limitation of the literature. Based on examples of inalienability found in the grammars of many languages, as well as evidence of this distinction in English, I propose that the different types of possession are organized with respect to two major distinctions that give rise to four main conceptual categories. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "!I would like to thank Dr. Phillip Wolff, Kevin Holmes, Jason Shepard, and the undergraduate members of Emory’s Cognitive and Linguistic Systems Lab for helpful discussion and suggestions. All errors are my own. ! ! REVISITING POSSESSION IN ENGLISH 2! ! ! I will describe a number of tests that have been developed for distinguishing different kinds of possession. It is on the basis of these various tests that I will form an overarching theory of possession as it is expressed in English. In defense of this theory, I will report the results of a ratings study. Finally, I will explore the potential implications of this theory for future research on the notion of possession. Background The concept of alienability in possession is a familiar one. Many languages exhibit a morphological distinction between possessions that are alienable and inalienable (Chappell & McGregor, 1996). Inalienability is a property generally thought to describe those possessions that inherently belong to the possessor – that is, they do not exist without the possessor or they have an indefinite period of being possessed (Nichols, 1988; Chappell & McGregor, 1996; Heine 1997; Cooper 2002). Body parts and kinship terms are commonly considered inalienable. Alienability, conversely, is a property shared by those possessions that belong to the possessor in a way that is less inherent. Alienable possessions typically consist of things like watches and houses. While marking for alienability varies in structure and frequency, the distinction, when present, is often found to be clear and consistent within a language. Membership in each category – alienable and inalienable – is generally dependent on semantic properties of the possession, though the requirements for membership vary greatly cross-linguistically (Chappell & McGregor, 1996). ! REVISITING POSSESSION IN ENGLISH 3! ! ! Cross-linguistically, inalienability is marked in a variety of ways. Most commonly, specific morphemes in the forms of affixes or free morphemes are used to modify the possessed item. Suau, a Melanesian language, affixes the possessive marker to the possessed noun (1) to indicate an inalienable relationship between the possessor and possessed item. The possessive morpheme is attached to the determiner modifying the possessed item (2) to indicate alienability. (1) sina-di !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#$%&'()%&'*(! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!‘their mother’! (2) e-na numa poss-his house ‘his house’ (Lynch 1974:71-72) In some languages, including French and German, the determiner used to modify the possessed noun marks its alienability. Consider the French sentences Il ouvrit ses lettres ‘He opened his letters’ and Il ouvrit les yeux ‘He opened his eyes’. The use of the third person possessive determiner ses in (3) indicates alienability, while the obligatory use of the definite determiner les in (4), (5) indicates inalienability. (3) Il ouvrit ses lettres he open.PST his letters ‘he opened his letters’ (4) Il ouvrit les yeux he open.PST the eyes ‘he opened his eyes’ (5) *Il ouvrit ses yeux. he open.PST his eyes ‘he opened his eyes’ ! REVISITING POSSESSION IN ENGLISH 4! ! ! (Cooper 2002:1) While many languages’ categorization of the kinds of possessions that are considered alienable and inalienable follow certain patterns, some have unexpected or unusual patterns of classification. Aroma, a Melanesian language, uses the bound morpheme ku to indicate inalienability when adjoined to the possessed noun (6), while the same morpheme is attached to the determiner to indicate alienability (7): (6) valavu-ku idea -my ‘my opinions’ (7) ge-ku valavu poss-my idea ‘my thoughts’ (Lynch 1984:77) Interestingly, these examples reveal that speakers of Aroma understand thoughts to be alienable possessions, while opinions are considered inalienable. A similar subtle distinction can be found in the two definitions of the Fijian word for heart. When used in an inalienable construction (8), the meaning reads something like ‘my repository of feelings and emotions’. When used in an alienable construction (9), however, the meaning is ‘my heart (organ)’: (8) na uto-qu art heart-my ‘my heart’ (repository