R. Ernst, TU Braunschweig 1 Embedded System Modeling Part 2 R. Ernst TU Braunschweig.
Susanne Borgwaldt 1 & John Newman 2 1 Technical University Braunschweig 2 University of Alberta In...
42
Susanne Borgwaldt 1 & John Newman 2 1 Technical University Braunschweig 2 University of Alberta In Search of Possession: From Concept to Inflection
-
Upload
nickolas-hodge -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Susanne Borgwaldt 1 & John Newman 2 1 Technical University Braunschweig 2 University of Alberta In...
Susanne Borgwaldt1 & John Newman2
1Technical University Braunschweig
2University of Alberta
In Search of Possession: From Concept to Inflection
Body part morphemes in Dene Sułine
Body part morphemes
In some languages, body part morphemes are bound morphemes.
Body parts constitute “inherent” possession.
Payne, T. E. (1997). Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 105
Body part words & words for clothing in English
What are the patterns of usage in English concerning these words and their human “possessors”?
“Possession”
There is a range of meanings associated with this word.
We distinguish 4 ways to understand possession applied to persons and their body parts.
Possession
“Conceptual”
The possessor referent is identifiable within the sentence containing the possessee:
Tom was shot in the leg.
The bullet went into Tom’s leg.
I could see the leg of a man under the table.
The bullet was in his leg.
Possession
“Grammatical modification”
the possessor referent appears as some kind of modifying element within the possessee NP (with results for all types aggregrated):
my friend’s leg(s)
ANDthe leg(s) of my friend
ANDher leg(s)
Possession
“Specific morphological class”
the possessor referent appears as a particular possessive type within the NP (with results for each type kept distinct):
my friend’s leg(s)OR
the leg(s) of my friendOR
her/their leg(s)
Possession
“Inflectional”
the possessor referent in a particular number/ person category appears as a possessive determiner with a possessee:
my legOR
my legsOR
his legOR
his legs
Corpora
MultiSemCor (http://multisemcor.itc.it/index.php)
relatively small (258,499 tokens in 116 texts) written only (subset of BROWN) POS tagged and semantically tagged
BNC (accessed through BNCWeb)
relatively large (100 million tokens) built-in stats spoken and written POS tagged, but not semantically tagged
Body parts and clothes in MultiSemCor
Body part words52 types and 966 tokens
Clothes words and personal belongings (watch, glasses) 46 types and 177 tokens for clothes
MultiSemCor
“Conceptual” possession in MultiSemcor
Tom was shot in the leg.The bullet went into Tom’s leg.
I could see the leg of a man under the table.
The bullet was in his leg.
Body Parts Clothes
778
42185 135
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
with referent no referent with referent no referent
n.s.
“Conceptual” possession in MultiSemcor
Body Parts Clothes
778
42185 135
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
with referent no referent with referent no referent
n.s.
Kim had a hat on.Kim’s hat was cute.
The hat of Kim was cute.Her hat was cute.
“Grammatical modification in NP” in MultiSemcor
my friend’s legthe leg of my friend
her leg
Body Parts Clothes
595
368
77 1000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
gram. modified not gram.modified
gram. modified not gram.modified
Tom was hit in the leg
“Grammatical modification in NP” in MultiSemcor
my friend’s capthe cap of my friend
her cap
Body Parts Clothes
595
368
77 1000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
gram. modified not gram.modified
gram. modified not gram.modified
Chi-square = 20.65, p ≤0.001
Tom had a cap on
Conceptual vs. linguistic distance
Inalienable possession tends to be reflected in closer linguistic distance between possessor and the possessed
NP-Possessor
Alienable possession tends to be reflected in further linguistic distance between possessor and the possessed
NP X Possessor
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Section 2.2.
Croft, William. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 174-192.
Conceptual vs. linguistic distance
Hua (Papuan) inalienable possessionr-vari ‘our-sweat’
Alienable possession
rgaiʔ bodoʔ ‘your loincloth’
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. CFambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 130-131.
Conceptual vs. linguistic distance
Hua
categorical distinction between alienable and inalienable possession types (“hard constraint”)
English
distinct tendencies for alienable and inalienable possession types (“soft constraints”) are seen in the preferences for possessor outside of NP and inside NP
Possessives by % morphological class in MultiSemcor
her legmy friend’s leg
the leg of my friend
Body Parts Clothes
13.34
83.1
15.61.3
82.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Poss.Det.
's of Poss.Det.
's of
n.s.her cap
my friend’s capthe cap of my friend
“Inflectional” possession in BNC
We use the BNC to investigate a particular person/number possessor with a particular sg/pl possessed noun
my leghis legher leg
Singular/Plural in the BNC
SINGULAR NOUN=NN1 in whole BNC
PLURALNOUN=NN2 in whole BNC
house 47,087 9,134
garden 10,385 3,592
child/children 23,662 45,729
On markedness reversal see:
Tiersma, P. (1982). Local and General Markedness. Language 58 832-49.
BNC ‘head’
head Freq LL heads Freq LL
my 1738 9734.09 my 2 4.14
his 7198 47440.33 his 4 15.46
her 4879 34679.12 her
our 36 3.30 our 250 1580.62
their 143 55.70 their 1130 8499.32
BNC ‘head’
head Freq LL heads Freq LL
my 1738 9734.09 my 2 4.14
his 7198 47440.33 his 4 15.46
her 4879 34679.12 her
our 36 3.30 our 250 1580.62
their 143 55.70 their 1130 8499.32
BNC ‘mouth’
mouth Freq LL mouths Freq LL
my 374 1899.28 my
his 2367 16471.23 his
her 1716 13046.38 her
our 5 0.81 our 42 296.09
their 32 6.27 their 205 1750.80
BNC ‘mouth’
mouth Freq LL mouths Freq LL
my 374 1899.28 my
his 2367 16471.23 his
her 1716 13046.38 her
our 5 0.81 our 42 296.09
their 32 6.27 their 205 1750.80
BNC ‘finger’
finger Freq LL fingers Freq LL
my 141 738.44 my 286 1567.78
his 418 2285.73 his 1221 7963.64
her 274 1628.15 her 925 6731.04
our 14 24.97 our 52 183.82
their 20 16.40 their 173 595.60
BNC ‘finger’
finger Freq LL fingers Freq LL
my 141 738.44 my 286 1567.78
his 418 2285.73 his 1221 7963.64
her 274 1628.15 her 925 6731.04
our 14 24.97 our 52 183.82
their 20 16.40 their 173 595.60
BNC ‘eye’
eye Freq LL eyes Freq LL
my 268 1174.36 my 1203 6164.39
his 567 2214.31 his 6075 39500.35
her 336 1410.16 her 5268 39838.07
our 18 10.70 our 286 919.83
their 45 22.36 their 892 3109.25
BNC ‘eye’
eye Freq LL eyes Freq LL
my 268 1174.36 my 1203 6164.39
his 567 2214.31 his 6075 39500.35
her 336 1410.16 her 5268 39838.07
our 18 10.70 our 286 919.83
their 45 22.36 their 892 3109.25
BNC ‘leg’
leg Freq LL legs Freq LL
my 194 942.68 my 358 2039.29
his 392 1683.74 his 699 3547.69
her 161 623.18 her 738 4827.82
our 1 3.56 our 36 78.83
their 16 1.57 their 195 671.97
BNC ‘leg’
leg Freq LL legs Freq LL
my 194 942.68 my 358 2039.29
his 392 1683.74 his 699 3547.69
her 161 623.18 her 738 4827.82
our 1 3.56 our 36 78.83
their 16 1.57 their 195 671.97
BNC ‘foot’
foot Freq LL feet Freq LL
my 157 607.75 my 626 3285.40
his 383 1404.62 his 2030 11509.72
her 210 800.24 her 1460 9247.34
our 5 0.09 our 131 405.83
their 37 21.51 their 660 2829.41
BNC ‘foot’
foot Freq LL feet Freq LL
my 157 607.75 my 626 3285.40
his 383 1404.62 his 2030 11509.72
her 210 800.24 her 1460 9247.34
our 5 0.09 our 131 405.83
their 37 21.51 their 660 2829.41
hand Freq LL hands Freq LL
my 957 4165.26 my 781 4012.78
his 3868 20034.12 his 3322 20383.04
her 2616 14978.05 her 2045 13214.01
our 34 1.66 our 277 1103.68
their 120 24.48 their 958 4287.74
BNC ‘hand’
hand Freq LL hands Freq LL
my 957 4165.26 my 781 4012.78
his 3868 20034.12 his 3322 20383.04
her 2616 14978.05 her 2045 13214.01
our 34 1.66 our 277 1103.68
their 120 24.48 their 958 4287.74
BNC ‘hand’
Summary
1. Possessor in Sentence or not
(conceptual possession)
2. Possessor in NP or outside of NP
(grammatical possession)
3. Possessor is
Poss Det./’s/of
(possession by specific morphological class)
4. Poss Det (Person/Number)
+ N (Singular/Plural)
(inflectional ppossession)
Summary
1. Possessor in Sentence or not
(conceptual possession)Body parts = clothes
2. Possessor in NP or outside of NP
(grammatical possession)
3. Possessor is
Poss Det./’s/of
(possession by specific morphological class)
4. Poss Det (Person/Number)
+ N (Singular/Plural)
(inflectional ppossession)
Summary
1. Possessor in Sentence or not
(conceptual possession)
Body parts = clothes
2. Possessor in NP or outside of NP
(grammatical possession)
Body parts ≠ clothes
3. Possessor is
Poss Det./’s/of
(possession by specific morphological class)
4. Poss Det (Person/Number)
+ N (Singular/Plural)
(inflectional ppossession)
Summary
1. Possessor in Sentence or not
(conceptual possession)Body parts = clothes
2. Possessor in NP or outside of NP
(grammatical possession)
Body parts ≠ clothes
3. Possessor is
Poss Det./’s/of
(possession by specific morphological class)
Body parts = clothes
4. Poss Det (Person/Number)
+ N (Singular/Plural)
(inflectional ppossession)
Summary
1. Possessor in Sentence or not
(conceptual possession)Body parts = clothes
2. Possessor in NP or outside of NP
(grammatical possession)
Body parts ≠ clothes
3. Possessor is
Poss Det./’s/of
(possession by specific morphological class)
Body parts = clothes
4. Poss Det (Person/Number)
+ N (Singular/Plural)
(inflectional ppossession)
item by item
Conclusions
We can understand “possession” in four different ways: from coarse-grained to fine-grained
All four approaches to possession have their virtues
Linguistic typology research can benefit from exploiting all four ways
