According to various scholars, two nouns may enter into a syntactic dependency relation referred to as possession (cf. Alexiadou et al., 2007; Storto, 2003, among others). Possession is employed as a cover term which encompasses both literal ownership and other relations in which literal ownership is not invoked. The nouns participating in this relation are referred to as the possessum and possessor. The possessum is the head noun which indicates an entity possessed (owned or not owned). The possessor is a modifying noun indicating a possessing entity (owning or not owning). The phrase exhibiting possessum-possessor relation is descriptively referred to as a possessive/genitive construction. The possessum noun is introduced into a relation by a genitive morpheme. This morpheme is realised differently in various languages. In English, for example, it is realised by the Saxon ‘s, which can be overt with non-pronominal possessors (e.g. John’s hat) and covert with pronominal possessums (e.g. his hat). In Bantu languages, the possessor noun is introduced by the genitive morpheme a-., which also manifests in different morphological forms.
It has been pointed out that the relation ‘possession’ covers a number of semantic meanings. Ajíbóyè (2005) points out that the semantic relations that the possessum and possessor encode can be determined by considering discourse contexts or lexical meanings of the possessum and possessor. Discussing discourse context as a determinant of semantic relations between the possessum and possessor nouns, Ajíbóyè (ibid.) points out that the possessive phrase like ‘John’s book’ may have various semantic relations depending on the context in which it is uttered. For example, it may mean ‘a/the book that John owns’, ‘a book/he is reading’, or ‘a /the book he drew a picture of’, among other meanings. As for the lexical meaning of the possessum and possessor nouns, Ajíbóyè argues with nouns denoting body-party relations (e.g. nose, ear, and mouth) and kinship terms (e.g. father, son, aunt, and uncle), the semantic relations holding between the possessor and possessum nouns are lexically determined. Thus, no discourse-context is required to discern the relation invoked. For example, the mention of ‘son’ invokes ‘father/mother’.
In regard to these two contexts which determine the semantic relation holding between the possessum and possessor nouns, a distinction is made in the linguistic literature between inalienable possession and alienable possession. Vergaud and Zubizarreta (1992) point out that inalienable possession involves a semantic relation in which one entity provides the basis for defining another entity, of which it is part. Alienable possession, on the other hand, does not involve this inherent semantic dependency. In some languages, the difference between inalienable and alienable possession is exhibited by the position of the possessum and possessor relative to each other. Gebregziabher (2012) points out that in Tigrinya (a Semitic language spoken in Ethiopia) the possessum noun precedes the possessor noun when inalienable possession is invoked, and the opposite order invokes alienable
93
possession. Yet in some languages, inalienable and alienable possession can be indicated by extra morphemes added to a genitive morpheme as in Rutooro (Kaji, 2009) and Símákonde (Manus, 2010).
3.3.4.1 (In)definiteness spread in possessive/genitive constructions
As already pointed out, the head of a possessive construction is the possessum noun. This head can be definite or indefinite. Various scholars (cf. Barker, 1995; Longobardi, 1996, Ritter, 1987) among others) put forth the idea that the possessum noun is (in)definite if the possessor noun, a modifier, is (in)definite. This concept is dubbed as ‘(in)definiteness spread’. Various linguists have provided cross-linguistic evidence in support of this phenomenon. In the construct state constructions (constructions which are modified by a possessive), Ritter (1987), as reported in Alexiadou, et al., (2007), argues that the (in)definiteness of the possessum noun depends on the (in)definiteness of the possessor noun.
(17) Construct state DP in Standard Arabic (Alexiadou, et al, 2007: 248) a. Bayt-u rajul-i-n
house-NOM man-GEN-a A man’s house
b. Bayt-r rajul-i
house-NOM the man-GEN The man’s house
Citing Alexiadou, et al., (2007), Ritter (1987) argues that in (17a), the possessor takes no definite article. As a result, the possessum nouns is interpreted as indefinite. In (17b), on the contrary, the possessor noun is preceded by the definite article and the possessum noun is interpreted as definite. One of the diagnostics used to test for (in)definiteness of a given linguistic expression is ‘there- existential contractions’ (Lyons, 1999). Barker (1995) employs these diagnostics to argue that while an indefinite possessor noun can occur in existential sentences in English, a definite possessor noun cannot, as illustrated in the following examples:
(18) a. There is a teacher’s daughter in the garden b. *There is John’s child in the garden
Barker (ibid.) argues that the possessive phrase ‘a teacher’s daughter’ is indefinite because it is capable of occurring in an existential sentence as shown in (18a). This has been possible because the possessor noun ‘a teacher’ is indefinite. On the other hand, the possessive phrase ‘John’s child’ is definite, explaining why it cannot occur in an existential sentence as shown in (18b). The possessor noun ‘John’ is definite.
94
However, not every linguist supports the view that (in)definiteness of the possessum noun is determined by the possessor noun. Lyons (1999) argues that (in)definiteness of the possessum noun depends on whether the possessor noun occurs in a determiner or adjectival position. He refers to the languages that the possessor noun occurs in a determiner position as determiner genitive (DG) languages and those in which the possessor noun occurs in adjectival position as adjectival genitive (AG) languages. He cites English and Irish as DG-languages which possessor nouns render the possessum nouns definite. Greek and Italian, according to him, are AG-languages in which the possessor noun does not render the possessum noun definite.
3.3.4.2 The possessive construction in generative perspective
It is assumed in generative studies on some languages, for example, English, that possessum noun exhibits semantic and syntactic properties similar to subjects. For example, both can be agents (e.g. Jane examined a student vs. Jane’s examination of a student), they permit the transposition of arguments through passivization (e.g. a student was examined by Jane vs. a student’s examination by Jane) and they can bind an anaphor (e.g. Jane examined herself vs. Jane’s examination of herself) (Alexiadou, et al., 2007). Due to these similarities, the possessum nouns are viewed as nominal counterparts of clausal subjects. In the clausal domain, subjects are analysed as specifiers of a tense projection (Spec, TP). In the nominal domain, the possessum nouns were initially analysed as specifiers of N’ (Spec, NP), corresponding to what happens in the clausal domain. However, with the advent of the DP hypothesis (cf. Abney, 1987), instead of the possessum nouns being the specifiers of NP, it was now the specifier of DP (Spec, DP). In this spec-head, the genitive case of the possessum head was now assigned by the agreement affix hosted by D, as illustrated in the following example: (19) a. Devin’s book b. DP Spec D’ D NP DP N’ Agr N Devin book
In (19b), the Agr(eement) affix assigns the genitive case to the DP Devin, resulting into Devin’s. Agr in the nominal domain is identical to Agr in the clausal domain in that each assigns Case to a specifier in Spec-head configuration. The difference lies in the type of case each assigns. Agr in the clausal
95
domain assigns a nominative case to the subject of a verb and Agr in the nominal domain assigns the genitive case to the possessum noun (Ouhalla, 1999). However, the possessum nouns, like demonstratives, are assumed not to originate in the SpecDP position. Den Dikken (1998), analyses possessive DPs as small clauses exhibiting subject-predicate relation. In this analysis, the possessum nouns are viewed as a subject argument of a preposition-like genitive morpheme. The possessor nouns are assumed to be complements in a dative prepositional phrase (PP) predicate headed by this genitive morpheme. It is this PP predicate which modifies the possessum noun.
(20) a. John’s dog b. DP NP X’ X PP P DP dog John
It is through successive-cyclic movement of the dative PP that the prenominal position of the possessor noun is derived. When the PP moves, the dative preposition spells out as ‘s.