13.07.2015 Views

Dimensions of Possession - elchacocomoarealinguistica

Dimensions of Possession - elchacocomoarealinguistica

Dimensions of Possession - elchacocomoarealinguistica

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

210 Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tammgrammaticalization process by which a younger and expanding possessiveconstruction is encroaching on the territory <strong>of</strong> an older one, leaving it onlywith a few lexical items. Alternatively, the differentiation might arise by aphonetic reduction <strong>of</strong> possessive pronouns in certain contexts where they arehighly predictable and thus prone to lose stress.One important aspect <strong>of</strong> alienability distinctions noted in Nichols (1988)is that they are <strong>of</strong>ten highly lexically idiosyncratic, that is, that there is in factno general semantic rule that determines whether an inalienable constructioncan be used or not. Thus, such a construction may be possible with one kinterm and impossible with another. Such a situation commonly arises in thefinal stages <strong>of</strong> the expansion <strong>of</strong> a new construction, where only a few lexicalitems, usually high-frequency ones, are able to resist the process.We shall use kin term constructions in Catalan as an illustrative example,without making any claims as to the exact ways in which the current situationhas arisen. Catalan has two possessive constructions, as shown by the followingexamples:• ‘inalienable’: mon pare ‘my father’• ‘alienable’: a meva casa ‘my house’We can see that in addition to utilizing two different sets <strong>of</strong> possessive pronouns,the constructions differ in the presence <strong>of</strong> a definite article only in the‘alienable’ construction. This is analogous to the Italian situation referred toabove. In Catalan, however, the ‘inalienable’ construction is possible only withcertain kin terms, with considerable variation between dialects. Table 4 showsthe information given in Alcover and Moll (1956) with respect to the possiblecombinations <strong>of</strong> mon and different male kin terms in twelve different locations.(Regrettably, the corresponding female terms cannot be included, due toinsufficient information in the source.)Table 4. Distribution <strong>of</strong> mon in different locationsNoun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pare ‘father’ + + + + + + + + +germà ‘brother’ + + + + + + + + +tio/oncle ‘uncle’ + + + + + + + +cosí ‘cousin’ + + + + + + +cunyat ‘brother-in-law’ + + + +nebot ‘nephew’ + + + +sogre ‘father-in-law’ +padri ‘godfather’ + +aví ‘grandfather’ +

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!