Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: Possessive constructions.
Статті в журналах з теми "Possessive constructions"
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "Possessive constructions".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.
1
Russo, Michela. "The possessive enclitics with kinship nouns in Italo-Romance and the possessive determiners in the Francoprovençal of Faeto." Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 137, no. 1 (March 1, 2021): 217–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2021-0007.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract This paper deals with the possessive constructions in Italo-Romance dialects compared with the possessive constructions of one Francoprovençal (Gallo-Romance) variety spoken in Faeto (Foggia, Apulia). Francoprovençal possessive constructions are at a first glance distinct from Central and Southern Italian possessive constructions, mainly since in Francoprovençal (as in French) possessive forms (clitics) are prenominal. In Central and Southern Italian dialects, we find instead a split possession: 1) postnominal enclitic possessives (weak possessive markers) associated with parental kinship nouns distinct from 2) prenominal possessives associated with common nouns and postnominal strong possessive forms. Crucially, I claim that enclitic possessives are inflexional affixes, that receive a structural word-internal linearization from the same external (syntactical) linearization identified for proclitic possessive markers (in Faeto). I retain that the distinction between postnominal weak enclitics in Italian dialects and Francoprovençal weak prenominal possessive constructions is based on the inalienability (parental kin nouns + enclitics in DP). All possessive clitics (proclitics and enclitics) show a common syntactic configuration and differ only in Distributed Morphology, according to a “late” feature insertion and operations after syntax. Indeed, the possessive determiners represent three different morphological spells out of the same syntactic object: the bundle of features [Person], [(Gender) Number], [Definite], generated in functional heads.
2
Mohammadirad, Masoud. "Predicative possession across Western Iranian languages." Folia Linguistica 54, no. 3 (September 1, 2020): 497–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2038.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract This paper offers a first systematic investigation of predicative possessive constructions across Western Iranian languages. The notion of possession is conceived as a prototypical domain. It is shown that investigated languages are classified into two major areally distributed groups with respect to predicative possessive constructions: (i) “be”-verb languages, (ii) “have”-verb languages. “Have”-possessives, which originated from “action schema”, are argued to have superseded the archaic “be”-possessives, which trigger a non-canonical marking of the possessor argument. However, “have”-verb languages have preserved relics of the older “be”-possessive in some neighbouring domains to possession. In addition, two languages exhibit possession split and are in transition from “be”-possession to “have”-possession: these languages demonstrate the effect of alienability/inalienability in such a split.
3
Butorin, S. S. "The ways of expressing attributive possession in Ket: possessive syntactic constructions." Sibirskiy filologicheskiy zhurnal, no. 2 (2021): 235–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/18137083/75/17.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The paper analyzes the structural models of Ket possessive constructions. The means of ex-pressing possessive construction components and the ways of marking possessive relations between the first possessive construction component denoting the subject of possession (a possessor) and the second component indicating the object of possession (a possessum) are considered. The study is based on the conception proposed by E. Vajda, according to which the possessive markers are possessive pronominal clitics, used as either clitics or proclitics, depending on the context. Two-component and multiple-component constructions are identi-fied. The two-component constructions contain a possessor, a possessum, and a linking mark-er, the semantic scope of which is a possessum. The non-expanded and expanded possessive constructions are analyzed. Both the first and the second substantive component of the two-component construction may be expanded by an attribute. The two-component constructions having a possessor expanded by an attribute are characterized by a distant ordering of a pos-sessor noun and a possessum noun, including distant positions of a possessive proclitic and a possessum noun. The derivative processes of transforming possessive constructions are con-sidered. The rising derivation process consists of embedding one more possessor into the con-struction with an original possessor. Both possessors are marked by appropriate possessive pronominal clitics. It is found that in Ket, the recessive derivation of omitting a possessor noun expressed by a personal pronoun stem is available as well, resulting in a construction with a non-expressed (omitted) possessor. The corresponding possessive pronominal clitic attaching proclitically to possessum noun is overtly retained at the surface morphosyntactic level.
4
Chappell, Hilary, and Denis Creissels. "Topicality and the typology of predicative possession." Linguistic Typology 23, no. 3 (November 26, 2019): 467–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0016.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract Recent accounts on the typology of predicative possession, including those by Stassen, recognise a Topic Possessive type with the possessee coded like the figure in an existential predication, and the possessor coded as a topic that is not subcategorised by the predicate and is not related to any syntactic position in the comment, literally: As for Possessor, there is Possessee. The Asian region is explicitly singled out as being a Topic Possessive area. On the basis of a sample of 71 languages from the four main language families of continental East and Southeast Asia – Sino-Tibetan, Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic, contrary to these previous accounts of the distribution of the main types of predicative possession in the world’s languages, we argue that this area should rather be considered as showing a particularly high concentration of Have-Possessives, with the additional particularity that the verbs occurring in the Have-Possessive constructions in this linguistic area are polysemous verbs also used for existential predication. After briefly reviewing Stassen’s typology of predicative possession, we discuss his account of the Topic Possessive type and then present five arguments for considering why the possessor NP of the existential/possessive verb yǒu 有 in Standard Mandarin Chinese cannot be analysed as invariably occupying the position of a topic, and consequently, that the construction should be reclassified as an instance of the Have-Possessive type. In the final sections, the situation is examined for other Southeast Asian languages showing the same configuration for predicative possession and existential predication as Standard Mandarin, to the extent that data is available.
5
Fatah, Azad Hasan, and Ari Ezzat Aghal. "Possessive Constructions in Central Kurdish: A Cognitive Grammar Account." Journal of University of Human Development 8, no. 3 (August 15, 2022): 156–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v8n3y2022.pp156-167.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This paper seeks to study possessive constructions in CK henceforth from the cognitive grammar perspective. One of the tenets of construal theory is that the speakers of a language deploy alternate constructions to express different conceptual contents. To do so, the humans use construal mechanism to portray and interpret a certain scene from their perspectives. To achieve the objective of the present paper, we apply reference point model, Construal and Figure and ground theories to CK possessive constructions. Possessive constructions are relational structures established by human mental ability to invoke one entity as the reference point and relate it to another entity which is described as the profile determinant. In applying construal theory to CK possessive construction, we argue that different interpretations can be assumed from ezafe (-i) and possessive clitics in conveying possession. With the application of these three theories, a new perspective has been put forward to possessive constructions in CK.
6
Fatah, Azad Hasan, and Ari Ezzat Aghal. "Possessive Constructions in Central Kurdish: A Cognitive Grammar Account." Journal of University of Human Development 8, no. 3 (August 15, 2022): 156–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v8n3y2022.pp156-166.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This paper seeks to study possessive constructions in CK henceforth from the cognitive grammar perspective. One of the tenets of construal theory is that the speakers of a language deploy alternate constructions to express different conceptual contents. To do so, the humans use construal mechanism to portray and interpret a certain scene from their perspectives. To achieve the objective of the present paper, we apply reference point model, Construal and Figure and ground theories to CK possessive constructions. Possessive constructions are relational structures established by human mental ability to invoke one entity as the reference point and relate it to another entity which is described as the profile determinant. In applying construal theory to CK possessive construction, we argue that different interpretations can be assumed from ezafe (-i) and possessive clitics in conveying possession. With the application of these three theories, a new perspective has been put forward to possessive constructions in CK.
7
Ron’ko, Roman V. "POSSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH PRONOUNS IN SHUGHNI." RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. "Literary Theory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies" Series, no. 5 (2022): 48–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2022-5-48-66.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The paper describes possessive constructions with pronouns in Shughni. In this language, possessor can be expressed by personal and demonstrative pronouns, pronouns with the locative postposition and, and constructions including both a standard pronoun and a pronoun marked with a locative marker. I compare these construction types, analyze types of semantic relations between the possessor and the possessee. Besides that, two syntactic types of possessive constructions are distinguished and their syntactic features are described.
8
Buvet, Pierre-André. "La possessivation dans les constructions à support." Grammaires et Lexiques Comparés 26, no. 1 (September 30, 2003): 47–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/li.26.1.06buv.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Summary The aim of this paper is to study possessive determiners in French when they are used with nouns that are predicates in support verb constructions. We distinguish two situations: the possessive refers either to the first or to the second argument of the predicate. We show that in these situations the possessives behave differently from possessives in other configurations, i.e. when the POSS N noun phrases are arguments. We show that the two interpretations of the possessive vary according to whether the support verb is standard or non standard. Some of those interpretations are connected to speech phenomena.
9
Kamilatun Baroroh and Mulyadi Mulyadi. "Possessive Expressions in Javanese." International Journal of Culture and Art Studies 4, no. 1 (April 28, 2020): 42–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.32734/ijcas.v4i1.3848.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This study aims to describe the characteristics of Possessive Construction in Javanese and relations of expressions between Possessor (PR) and Possessum (PS). The source of data are texts in Javanese from Djaka Lodang Magazine Volume XXII, XXIV, XXIX year 2017 and Panjebar Semangat Magazine Volume 29, 19, and 20 from May until July 2018 which contains Possessive Constructions in Javanese also informant who is a native speaker of Javanese. The data are analyzed using Simak Method, with base Sadap technic and advance Simak-Bebas libat cakap technic and Catat technic, meanwhile technic for analyzing the data used are Agih Method to determine the Possessive Construction dan Padan Method to determine the relation between PR and PM elements. Javanese Possessive Constructions marked with clitics -e or -ne as possessive marker. The results show Javanese Possessive Constructions meaning exists at polymorphemic level, phrase level, and clause level. On polymorphemic level, possessive meaning expressed by nouns followed by enclitics persona pronoun. On Phrase level, possessive meaning expressed by noun which followed by noun persona and noun followed by noun. Persona pronoun acts as PR. Noun which acts as PR are (Ilahi), animal, plants and (concrete) noun. On clause level possessive meaning expressed by verb which occupy predicate (P). Noun occupying subject in clause recognized as possession (PM). In Javanese, it is found Possessive Construction which sates the relationship of proprietary in the form of; Possessive Construction in which PM elements is non-humane noun and PR elements is humane noun or persona pronoun, PM element is humane noun and PR element is humane (self-name) or persona pronoun, and PM element is non-living noun and PR element also non-living noun.
10
Guerrerom, Lilián. "Yaqui Possessive Constructions: Evidence For External Possession." Amerindia, no. 42 (2020): 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.56551/ffwg7769.
Повний текст джерела
11
Benu, Naniana. "Possessive Construction in Uab Meto." RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa 5, no. 1 (April 29, 2019): 45–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.22225/jr.5.1.897.45-51.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This paper is a result of research which is aimed to uncover the structure and marking on the possessive construction in Uab Meto based on morpho-syntax point of view. The data collected for this research were classified into the primary data (observation) and the secondary data (the data that are obtained from texts). The technique employed to analyze the data was descriptive-analytic, and the approach applied was deductive-inductive. The result of the research shows that in Uab Meto, predicative possession is expressed through the verb muiɁ ‘have/has’. In some usages, muiɁ metathezised to muɁi. Possesive construction of Uab Meto is also applied topicalization strategy, and the last is using a verbal prefix ma-. This prefix ma- is a verbal prefix because it carries a verbal meaning, that is have/has. Furthermore, there are two attributive possessive constructions, namely juxtaposed construction. The possessor in juxtaposed constructions can be a noun or pronoun. The second attributive possessive is pronominal clitic to show the agreement with the possessors. Relating to the marking, there are only two ways, namely by juxtaposition and pertensive marker to mark the the possession. Uab Meto allows all pronouns to mark the attributive possessive relation. Without free pronoun as the possessor, a speaker Uab Meto will understand that it is a possessive noun phrase. Clitic in possession in is obligatory for inalienable possession in Uab Meto.
12
Vydrin, Valentin. "Genitival constructions in Eastern Dan." Language in Africa 3, no. 2 (July 23, 2022): 159–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.37892/2686-8946-2022-3-2-159-180.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In Eastern Dan (< Southern Mande < Mande < Niger-Congo), the common Mande strategies of marking genitival relations are available, namely head-marking by means of tone, and dependent-marking (by a specialized postposition) in the alienable possession construction. However, against this common background, some important modifications have evolved. The opposition between the head-marked and the head-unmarked constructions, although retained, has become semantically blurred: in the proto-language, the head-marked genitival construction had the semantics of “modification-by-noun”, while in the Eastern Dan, this meaning has undergone erosion. In the dependent-marked constructions, a case-like opposition has emerged in the alienable possession constructions: different possessive markers (postpositions) are used depending on whether the head noun of an NP containing the possessive construction stands in the locative case or not. Other postpositions can also serve as markers of genitival relations. In addition, morphological case can sometimes serve to mark genitival relations.
13
Kim, Sangyoon. "Duplicity in possessive merger: evidence from Spanish alienable possessive constructions." Linguistic Review 35, no. 3 (September 25, 2018): 371–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0001.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In this paper, I argue that Spanish prenominal and postnominal possessives target different external merge positions focusing on alienable possessive constructions. The analysis is developed alongside a proposal on the organization of DPs, according to which articles are merged as a DP-internal category between the domains assigned to direct and indirect modifiers. Prenominal possessives are determiners reanalyzed from direct modification adjectives whereas postnominal possessives are indirect modification adjectives that arise as predicates of reduced relative clauses. This analysis provides a principled explanation on the behavior of Spanish possessives that is lacking in the generalized idea that they are pronouns with a unique merge position. Arguments are also presented showing that syntax-driven phonological restrictions condition the derivation of DPs. The account successfully derives the core properties of word order variation and related issues within possessive constructions.
14
HENKE, Ryan E. "The development of possession in the L1 acquisition of Northern East Cree." Journal of Child Language 46, no. 05 (June 18, 2019): 980–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0305000919000217.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThis study presents the first investigation of the development of possessive constructions in Northern East Cree, a polysynthetic language indigenous to Canada. It examines transcripts from naturalistic recording sessions involving one adult and one child, from age 2;01.12 to 3;08.24. Findings reveal that, despite the frequency of possessive inflection in child-directed speech, the child overwhelmingly produces a possessive construction that circumvents this morphology. This construction, named here the equational possessive strategy (EPS), is largely undescribed in existing literature but is the primary mechanism for the child to express possession. These findings have potential implications for the cross-linguistic acquisition of possessive morphology and the connections between child-directed speech and child language production.
15
Haddad, Youssef A. "Possessively Construed Attitude Dative Constructions in Lebanese Arabic." Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 8, no. 1 (2016): 37–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18776930-00801003.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Possessive dative constructions—a subcategory of external possession constructions, similar but not identical to the English sentence She looked him in the eye—are a cross-linguistic phenomenon. These structures feature a nominal or pronominal element—in this case, him—that functions semantically as the possessor of a separate DP—eye—and syntactically as a dependent of the verb. Syntactic approaches to possessive dative constructions in such languages as Hebrew and German argue for a movement analysis in which the possessor starts out in the possessum DP before moving to a higher position. Semantic approaches to the same phenomenon in German and French, among other languages, analyze possessive dative constructions as instances of anaphoric binding; the dative undergoes first-merge outside the possessum DP and binds a variable in it. The present article documents and analyzes what appear to be instances of possessive dative constructions in Lebanese Arabic. I show that the possessive construal of the datives in these structures is not syntactically or semantically mediated, but rather pragmatically determined.
16
Krajinović, Ana. "Existence, location, possession, and copula in Malabar Indo-Portuguese." Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 6, no. 1 (November 26, 2019): 27–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2019-2007.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract This paper offers a diachronic and a contact-based analysis of existential, locative, possessive, and copulative constructions in Malabar Indo-Portuguese creole (MIP). The existential, locative, and possessive predicates are all expressed with the copulative verb tæ, and nominal and property-denoting predicates can either have the copula tæ or zero copula. I analyze these copulative constructions by establishing their sources in the Portuguese lexifier and Malayalam substrate/adstrate. I show that although the Portuguese verbs ter ‘have’ and estar ‘be’ have paved the way to the semantics of tæ, Malayalam had a strong impact on the morphosyntax and semantics of existential, locative, possessive, and copulative constructions in MIP. This influence is most notable in the case of possessives, which take dative subjects. These findings are compared to the relevant structures in other South Asian languages and show that the existence of locative possession is a strong areal feature of South Asia. I also show that the variability of copula usage in nominal and property-denoting predicates can be explained by variable input from Portuguese and Malayalam copulative constructions. One of the most salient features influenced by Malayalam is the choice of what are etymologically Portuguese nouns instead of adjectives in property-denoting predicates.
17
Öztürk, Balkız, and Eser Erguvanlı Taylan. "Possessive constructions in Turkish." Lingua 182 (October 2016): 88–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.008.
Повний текст джерела
18
Abner, Natasha. "Gettin’ together a posse." Sign Language Syntax from a Formal Perspective 16, no. 2 (December 12, 2013): 125–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sll.16.2.02abn.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This article addresses the derivational relationship between attributive (nominal) and predicative (verbal) possessives marked by the poss sign in American Sign Language. Though traditionally classified as a possessive pronoun, a collection of morphological, syntactic, and semantic patterns is presented here as evidence that poss instead displays the distributional characteristics of a verbal predicate in the language. Classifying poss as a verbal predicate of possession explains its presence in predicative possessives and allows its attributive use to be derived from this underlying verbal structure as an instance of a prenominal reduced relative clause modifier. These base structures and their interaction with other components of the predicative and attributive domains explain the documented properties of attributive and predicative poss possessives, including, crucially, the sometimes divergent behaviors of these two possessive constructions.
19
Wang, Yong, and Jie Xu. "A systemic typology of existential and possessive constructions." Functions of Language 20, no. 1 (May 13, 2013): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/fol.20.1.01wan.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In this article, we examine locational constructions (including existentials, locatives, and possessives) in a number of languages. Morpho-syntactically, locationals resemble or are related to one another in word order, in case marking, and in the choice of verbs. In semantics, the relatedness lies in the definiteness effect, in the locative feature, and in the mutually defining relationship between the semantic elements within each construction. As is recognized by Heine (1997), Stassen (2001) and others, the existential is one of the major sources from which possessives are derived. Basically, possessive constructions are existentials whose locative elements are prototypically human. We argue that locational constructions are relational processes and that they can be integrated into a systemic network with respect to two semantic features, i.e., the definiteness of the existent element and the humanness of the locative element. This systemic relationship between locationals has implications for the description and comparison of languages within the Systemic Functional Grammar framework, particularly where locationals are concerned.
20
Schwenter, Scott A., and Kendra V. Dickinson. "A distinct aspectual analysis of predicative possession in Brazilian Portuguese." Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5, no. 1 (March 23, 2020): 242. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4702.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
We provide an aspectual analysis of Brazilian Portuguese predicative possessives, ter ('have') NP vs. estar com ('to be with') NP, which have been analyzed as denoting permanent versus temporary possession, respectively. Data include 20th century tokens of estar com NP (n=553) and ter NP (n=2976) from Davies' Corpus do Português. These data show that both possessive constructions can occur with the same temporal/aspectual reference and possessum, but that ter NP has a 0.55 type-token ratio while estar com NP shows significantly lower (p<0.01) productivity (0.41). An online experimental survey in which we manipulated the possessum and the duration of the possession was designed and responded to by over 200 native Brazilian participants. Results show that while both forms are possible in all contexts they are nevertheless sensitive to the duration of the possession, thus suggesting that the association with permanent versus temporary possession is pragmatic in nature. We propose that estar com NP’s possessive interval is co-extensive with the reference interval supplied by context, while ter NP’s possessive interval is a superinterval of the reference interval, like progressive and imperfective aspects, respectively (Deo 2009).
21
Pleshak, P. S. "Possessive constructions of Samburg Komi." Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XVI, no. 3 (2020): 407–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573716314.
Повний текст джерела
22
Laidig, Wyn D. "Insights from Larike Possessive Constructions." Oceanic Linguistics 32, no. 2 (1993): 311. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3623197.
Повний текст джерела
23
Cornips, Leonie M. E. A. "Possessive Object Constructions in Heerlens." Linguistics in the Netherlands 8 (November 12, 1991): 21–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/avt.8.05cor.
Повний текст джерела
24
Rooryck, Johan, and Erik Schoorlemmer. "Consanguinity and Possession in Varieties of Dutch." Journal of Germanic Linguistics 29, no. 1 (February 23, 2017): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1470542716000258.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Southern varieties of Dutch use the 1st person plural form of the possessive pronounonsas a marker of consanguinity with proper names, as inons Emma‘Emma, our consanguineous family member’. This use ofons‘our’ has some remarkable properties: It is incompatible with adjectival modification and contrastive stress. These properties are shared with a construction from Standard Dutch: complex prenominals-possessors consisting of the 1st person singular form of the possessive pronoun and a kinship term as inmijn vaders fiets‘my father's bike’. We propose that both these constructions are constructional idioms (Booij 2002), a lexical template with a variable part. This offers a straightforward account of the properties of these constructions.*
25
van Lier, Eva, and Marlou van Rijn. "Alienability splits in action nominal constructions." STUF - Language Typology and Universals 71, no. 4 (September 25, 2018): 631–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2018-0023.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractAdnominal alienability splits typically involve a coding asymmetry: inalienable possessive constructions are shorter (or zero-coded) and/or more bound than alienable possessive constructions. This has been explained using one of two functional principles: iconicity (possessive constructions reflect differential conceptual distance) or economy (possessive constructions are the result of differential usage frequency). Alienability splits may also affect the coding of arguments in action nominal constructions. For this phenomenon only the iconicity explanation has been invoked, using the semantic notion of control. In the present paper, we investigate the merits of the alternative economy explanation for the cross-linguistic distribution of (in)alienable possessive coding of arguments in such nominalizations. Based on typological and corpus data, we conclude that the economy explanation covers the widest variety of typological generalizations concerning split possessive coding, in both underived NPs and derived action nominals.
26
Dincă, Daniela, and Ilona Bădescu. "Moyens d’expression de la possession inalienable dans les constructions verbales avec des noms de parties du corps (domaine français-roumain)." Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia 67, no. 4 (December 20, 2022): 335–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/subbphilo.2022.4.17.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
" Means of Expressing Inalienable Possession in Verb Structures with Body Part Nouns (French and Romanian). Departing from the verb structures with the possessive dative that express the inalienable possession between a noun that names body parts (Nbp) and its possessor in Romanian (Ro: I-a rupt gâtul. / Fr. Il lui a rompu le cou), we set out to establish a typology of verb structures consisting of two subclasses: (1) Verbs that place the possessor in the possessive dative and the Nbp in the accusative (direct object); (2) verbs that place the Nbp as an adverbial modifier and the possessor in the possessive dative, possessive accusative or genitive. The second objective of our study is to carry out a comparative-based analysis of the ways of expressing the inalienable possession in the verb structures of the two Romance languages, constructed with the lexeme Fr. cou, gorge / Ro gât, to highlight the similarities and differences in this relationship-type structures specific for the two Romance languages. For the analysis we resorted to an authentic corpus, complied from real-life examples sampled from journalistic texts (Corpus Leipzig, online newspapers), supplemented by electronic dictionaries (TLFi, CNTRL, Dex online). Given the richness of verb structures and the considerable number of differences between the two languages, we systematised our analysis in several stages: (1) identifying the verb structures built with the possessive dative; (2) establishing a verb structure typology according to the syntactic function assigned to the Nbp (subject, direct object, indirect object, adverbial modifier) and its possessor (possessive dative, possessive accusative, genitive); (3) highlighting the similarities and differences between the two languages in terms of the construction of the inalienable possession relationship between the Nbp and its possessor. Keywords: possessive dative, inalienable possession, noun denoting body parts, possessor, syntactic function "
27
Anschutz, Arlea. "How to Choose a Possessive Noun Phrase Construction in Four Easy Steps." Studies in Language 21, no. 1 (January 1, 1997): 1–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.1.02ans.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Why does an English speaker use an inflected possessive like 'The president's daughter" rather than a prepositional possessive like "The daughter of the president?" This question has intrigued linguists for decades. Traditional grammarians (see Curme 1947) defined and classified the relationships coded by each of the possessive forms. Transformational grammarians (see Jacobson 1968) wrote rules to transform deep structure of constructions into surface structure inflected noun phrases. Most recently, researchers (Quirk 1972, Hawkins 1981) have proposed that the use of the inflected construction is related to the position of the modifier NP on an animacy hierarchy. What all these attempts at explaining the inflected/ prepositional variation in English possessives have in common is their use of intuited data: that is, subjective judgements about whether a particular noun phrase taken out of context is grammatical, ungrammatical or "questionable". This paper attempts to answer the question initially posed in this paragraph through an appeal to actual spoken and written English by means of a database of possessive noun phrases. It concludes that four basic criteria are involved in the choice of one possessive construction over another. One of these is animacy, but a more important factor, not heretofore considered for modern English, is the information status of the two constituent NPs.
28
Gardiner, Shayna. "What's mine is yours: Stable variation and language change in Ancient Egyptian possessive constructions." Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 62, no. 4 (July 4, 2017): 639–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.35.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractVariation is described as two or more variants competing for finite resources. In this model, two outcomes are possible: language change or specialization. Specialization can be broken down further: specialization for different functions, and partial specialization – stable variation. In this paper, I analyze the differences between stable variation and language change using the two variables present in Ancient Egyptian possessive constructions. Observing four Egyptian possessive variants, split into two groups with two variants each – clitic possessor variants and full nominal possessor variants – for a total of 2251 tokens, I compare factors affecting variant choice in each possessive group. Results of distributional and multivariate analyses indicate that a) change over time occurs in clitic possession, while stable variation occurs with noun variants; and b) different kinds of factors govern the two sets: the continuous variable phrase complexity affects variant choice in nominal possession, but does not affect the clitic variants.
29
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica. "Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area." Folia Linguistica 51, no. 1 (January 1, 2017): 1–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0001.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThis paper deals with the linguistic means used to express predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. The domain of possession is considered here as a prototypically organized domain, where the prototype is the notion of ownership. It is shown that most languages of the area do not provide evidence of splits in their possession systems: rather, they extend the scope of use of their ownership constructions to include all other non-prototypical possessive notions. The linguistic expression of notions that belong to domains neighboring possession, namely experience, location and attribution, is also analyzed. The results show that these notions are rarely coded by means of possessive constructions: exceptions are explained by invoking semantic causes as well as language contact. A comparison of the functions fulfilled by “have”-verbs in the Indo-European languages of the area and by adessive constructions in the Finnic languages is provided, too, and their different scopes of use are explained with reference to their diachronic development and to processes of areal convergence.
30
ALHARBI, ABDULLAH. "Possessive Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis." Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Educational Sciences 13, no. 1 (2000): 3–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.4197/edu.13-1.1.
Повний текст джерела
31
HAYASE, NAOKO. "POSSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS: THEIR COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES." ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 16, no. 2 (1999): 514–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.16.514.
Повний текст джерела
32
Livitz, Inna. "Modal possessive constructions: Evidence from Russian." Lingua 122, no. 6 (May 2012): 714–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.02.002.
Повний текст джерела
33
Long, Haiping. "On the Formation of Modern Chinese Pseudo-Possessive-Object Constructions." Studies in Language 42, no. 2 (June 6, 2018): 297–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sl.16018.lon.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract Modern Chinese Pseudo-Possessive-Object Constructions (shortened as Modern Chinese PPO constructions; e.g. ta shuo le wo de haohua (他说了我的好话) ‘he has put in a good word for me’ and ta chi le wo de doufu (他吃了我的豆腐) ‘he has taken advantage of me’) are actually constructions displaying possessor-affectee syncretism. They derive from Early Modern Chinese Real-Possessive-Object constructions in bridging contexts, some examples being wo ye quande liewei daren de jiu (我也劝得列位大人的酒), ‘I also urged all the magistrates here to finish drinking your wine’ and shi nage zai jie wo de duan li (是那个在揭我的短哩) ‘who is uncovering my demerits’. Di-transitive constructions in Middle Chinese and Early Modern Chinese (e.g. Changxing! quan er yibei jiu (长星，劝尔一杯酒) ‘Comet! I urge you (to finish drinking) a cup of wine’ and shuru gan jie wu duanchu (竖儒敢揭吾短处) ‘how dare the Confucius scholar uncover my demerits’) have provided structural templates for the formation of Modern Chinese PPO constructions. They also have led to a condition in which there are more examples of a maleficiary Modern Chinese PPO construction than examples of a beneficiary Modern Chinese PPO construction (e.g. ta chi le wo de doufu (他吃了我的豆腐) ‘he has taken advantage of me’ vs. ta shuo le wo de haohua (他说了我的好话) ‘he has put in a good word for me’). The grammaticalization pathway can also explain the formation of other constructions including another Modern Chinese PPO construction (e.g. ta chi le wo de kui (他吃了我的亏) ‘he has suffered the loss caused by me’), a Modern Chinese pseudo-object construction (e.g. wo ganxie ni de haoxin (我感谢你的好心) ‘I thank you for your kindness’), and a Modern Chinese pseudo-modifier construction (e.g. wo pa le yi xiawu de shan (我爬了一下午的山) ‘I did mountain-climbing for the whole afternoon’).
34
A., Getahun. "Morphosyntactic Structures of Existential, Possessive and Locative Constructions in Amharic." Macrolinguistics 9, no. 15 (December 31, 2021): 25–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.26478/ja2021.9.15.2.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This paper lays out the morphosyntactic structures of existential, locative and possessive constructions in Amharic. Amharic belongs to South Ethio-Semitic language subfamily. It is natively spoken in the Amhara region and used as the first and the second language for some urban dwellers in the country. It is a working language for the Federal Government of Ethiopia. It serves the same in Gambella, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ and Benishangul-Gumuz regional states. The Amharic existential, possessive and locative constructions are characterized by using the same existential verb stem all-‘exist’. The verb is defective in its derivation and conjugation. Unlike the prototypical verbs of the language, the existential verb uses a different verb for imperfective and past verb forms. Unlike the regular verbs of the language, the existential verb, which is perfective in form, conveys present tense. It has been observed that indefinite nominals appear as the E (Existent) in existentials and possessives, whereas definite ones appear in locatives. The morphosyntactic features of existentials and locatives are the same in every aspect except the use of definiteness of the E (Existent). The possessives differ from the two constructions in word order and morphological structure of the verb.
35
Schermer, Ina. "‘Onvervreemdbaar bezit’ verschillend benaderd." Nederlandse Taalkunde 26, no. 1 (April 1, 2021): 121–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/nedtaa2021.1.005.sche.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In this paper I explain the difference between the notions possessive dative and possessive accusative as used by me and other linguists like Vandeweghe (e.g. 1986 and 1987) and the notions dative and accusative inalienable possessors as used in ). It is not so much the difference in the descriptive system I want to focus on, but the difference in aim. Broekhuis et al. want to specify the syntactic encoding of ‘inalienable possession’ and come to the conclusion that the possessor of the inalienable possession is always the referent of an indirect object, be it on different syntactic levels. I want to explain why this is the case. This can be done by showing that the complex predicates in inalienable possession constructions are comparable to the dative verbs in constructions with a regular indirect object, due to the fact that they contain a constituent referring to inalienable possession. Our descriptions have much in common and if we see them as complementary, they can profit from each other.
36
Nevskaya, I. A., and O. A. Shalamay. "King of Kings and Song of Songs: An Elative-Superlative Construction in Turkic Languages." Philology 17, no. 9 (2018): 9–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2018-17-9-9-21.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The article describes superlative, hyperlative and elative use of formally possessive constructions in a number of Turkic languages from a comparative perspective, analyzing their structural and semantic types as well as their pragmatic properties. Similar non-canonical possessive constructions are found all over Eurasia in languages belonging to various language families. One of the most unclear issues of such constructions is their origin. They could have emerged spontaneously in Turkic languages due to the inner stimuli of language development: a. From possessive reading of possessive constructions featuring the following semantic development: The construction “king of the kings” first referred to the ruler of a state consisting of subordinate kingdoms with their own rulers. For them, the emperor was “their king, the king of the kings of subordinated kingdoms”. Such constructions became a part of the pattern of titles’ formation, and due to the frequent use could develop the meaning of an extreme/high extent of the qualities associated with the notion expressed by the nominals used as their components. b. Old Turkic canonical superlative constructions could be used with and without the superlative marker on the parameter. The economy of language means could have contributed to emergence of non-canonical superlative constructions. c. These constructions could be a result of contacts of Turkic peoples and their languages with world religions and translation of their sacred books into Turkic (beginning with Buddhism and followed by Christianity and Islam). These internal developments (e.g. economy) could be supported by external influences (structural copying of Bible prototypes) and common cultural paradigms. These issues should be addressed in more detail in the future.
37
Benvenuto, Maria Carmela, and Flavia Pompeo. "Verbal Semantics in Ancient Greek Possessive Constructions with eînai." Journal of Greek Linguistics 15, no. 1 (2015): 3–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15699846-01501004.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The aim of this paper is to investigate ‘eînai (‘be’) plus dative’ and ‘eînai plus genitive’ possessive constructions, paying special attention to the semantic content of the verb eînai in order to identify the function and the distribution of the various combinatorial patterns of the constructions in question, and the precise role of the verbal items. In particular, the present analysis, carried out within the framework of Construction Grammar, will attempt to demonstrate that each possessive variant constitutes a semantically and pragmatically distinct pattern where the semantic content of the verb eînai is the result of form-meaning configurations over and above the morpheme and word level. From this perspective, the cluster of semantic, pragmatic and morpho-syntactic values attributed to participant slots constitutes an integral part of constructions.
38
GERNER, MATTHIAS. "The zoom-on-possessee construction in Kam (Dong): the anatomy of a new construction type." Journal of Linguistics 41, no. 2 (June 28, 2005): 307–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022226705003282.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Kam, a Kadai language spoken in Guizhou province (People's Republic of China), has a family of intransitive possessive constructions with the word order ‘Possessor–Verb–Possessee’. (The basic word order in Kam is SV and AVO.) While two recent papers have featured this unique construction type for an array of other Southeast Asian languages, they fail to acknowledge its distinct semantic value in contrast to the related construction type ‘Possessee–Possessor–Verb’. The former construction type displays a so-called ‘zoom-effect’: the possessor is predicated IN, AT or THROUGH his/her/its possessee; the predication zooms from the possessor on his/her/its possessee. The latter construction, in contrast, views the possessee as an entity separated from its possessor, and the predicate as applying solely to the possessee. After illustrating the ‘zoom-effect’ for a representative sample of Kam constructions, I demonstrate that ‘zoom-effects’ do not merely exist when the possessee–possessor compound has the zero-role (=intransitive subject) as above, but also when it assumes other semantic roles (e.g. patient, force, etc.). A general definition of this construction type, called ‘zoom-on-possessee construction’, is proposed; it enables us to unify and account for an array of hitherto disparate construction types that run in the literature under labels such as ‘proprioceptive state expressions’, ‘body part locative constructions’, ‘dative of affect’, etc. Furthermore, I discuss in some detail whether zoom-on-possessee constructions are better accounted for within a multi-stratal or a mono-stratal framework and, finally, whether the concept of noun-incorporation has any relevance.
39
Makeeva, Nadezhda, and Andrey Shluinsky. "Ditransitive constructions in Akebu." Studies in Language 44, no. 4 (October 23, 2020): 964–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sl.19068.shl.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract This paper contributes to the typology of ditransitive constructions. Akebu (Kwa, Ghana-Togo mountain, West Africa) has four strategies of alignment of ditransitive verbs, if both theme and recipient objects are expressed: a neutral strategy, a possessive-like strategy, a strategy with a pronominal reprise and a ‘take’ serial verb construction strategy. The possessive-like strategy that is most standard in Akebu is rare in a cross-linguistic perspective and has not been attested in other Kwa languages. The factors that license a certain strategy are person, number and noun class of the theme and recipient and the internal structure of the theme noun phrase.
40
Mertins, Barbara. "On the interpretation of possessives in Czech: An experimental approach." Oslo Studies in Language 12, no. 2 (July 15, 2021): 97–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/osla.8957.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This paper presents first findings from an offline study of Czech native speakers’ use and interpretation of reflexive and non-reflexive possessive pronouns. The study is part of a larger possessive project outlined by Fabricius-Hansen et al. (2017), leaning on the comprehension experiment presented in Pitz et al. (2017). The study encompasses questionnaire data collected from 259 informants who were tested under four different conditions on two competing pronouns: the reflexive possessive (svůj) and the 3rd person non-reflexive possessive (jeho). The results revealed that Czech native speakers show a strong uncertainty when interpreting constructions with a cataphoric non-reflexive possessive. This shows that even for native speakers, the establishment of the anaphoric and cataphoric relations under certain syntactic conditions is a challenging and highly complex task. With these results, several hypotheses are formulated in various target-source-language pairs concerning the processing of reflexive and non-reflexive possessives in L2.
41
Bernstein, Judy B. "On the morpho-syntax of possessive constructions." Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, no. 34 (December 1, 2005): 55–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1364.
Повний текст джерела
42
Frantisek Lichtenberk. "Southeast Solomonic: A View from Possessive Constructions." Oceanic Linguistics 49, no. 1 (2010): 259–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ol.0.0062.
Повний текст джерела
43
Devylder, Simon. "Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions." Cognitive Linguistics 29, no. 2 (May 25, 2018): 313–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0058.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractGrammatical asymmetries in possessive constructions are overtly coded in about 18% of the world’s languages according to the World Atlas of Language Structures What primarily motivates these grammatical asymmetries is controversial and has been at the crux of the “iconicity vs. frequency” debate This paper contributes to this debate by focusing on the grammatical asymmetries of Paamese possessive constructions, and looking for the primary motivating factor in their multidimensional experiential context. After a careful account of four experiential dimensions of distance (functional, affective, sociopragmatic, and embodied), the degrees of experiential distance are shown to systematically correspond to the degrees of formal distance of the possessive constructions used to refer to these experiences (e.g., direct or indirect suffixation of kinship and body part terms). Relevant anthropological and linguistic data concerning Paamese is used to explore whether this correspondence between language and experience is primarily motivated by iconicity or economy. I argue that diagrammatic iconicity is the primary motivating factor for the grammatical asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions, and that economy can account for some, but not all cases. I also show that economy and iconicity can collaborate in motivating some cases, and thus do not necessarily need to be opposed.
44
Ye, Jingting. "Independent and dependent possessive person forms." Studies in Language 44, no. 2 (June 10, 2020): 363–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sl.19020.ye.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract This study explores the coding asymmetry between independent and dependent possessive person forms (as in English mine/my) from a cross-linguistic perspective. On the basis of a typological survey of 70 geographically and genealogically diverse languages, this paper identifies three universal tendencies: the length universal, the constituent order universal and the alienability universal. First, the length universal claims that independent possessive person forms are either longer or as long as the dependent possessive person forms. Second, the constituent order universal claims that the internal constituent order of the person form and the substantivizer correlates with the constituent order of the possessor and the possessum. In addition, in languages where both a composite possessive marker and a composite substantivizer are used, the possessive marker is always closer to the person root. Finally, the alienability universal claims that the possessive person forms in the alienable possessive constructions are more likely to be used as independent possessive person forms than those in the inalienable possessive constructions. These universal tendencies are instances of form-frequency correspondence, which is shown by corpus evidence from three languages.
45
Trousdale, Graeme. "A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions." Word Structure 1, no. 2 (October 2008): 156–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1750124508000202.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This article is concerned with aspects of lexicalization in the history of English from the perspective of Construction Grammar (CxnG). I show how constructional approaches can account for both grammaticalization and lexicalization within a unified framework, basing my argument around the two kinds of input to lexicalization which Brinton & Traugott (2005 : 96) identify: syntactic constructions and word formation patterns. In lexicalization, linguistic forms that initially participate in an abstract schematic macro- or meso-construction, become idiosyncratic micro-constructions, whereas in grammaticalization an idiosyncratic micro-construction comes to participate in a more schematic meso- or macro-level construction.The main part of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the evolution of what Taylor (1996) has described as possessive compounds, such as driver's license, in the history of English. I specifically consider how the CxnG framework can explain the development of form-meaning mismatches, conventionalization, and the loss of internal constituency, in lexicalization. The data suggest that a constructional approach can account for the two stages of lexicalization (grammatical to lexical, less lexical to more lexical) in a way parallel to the two stages of grammaticalization (lexical to grammatical, less grammatical to more grammatical).
46
HOLLMANN, WILLEM, and ANNA SIEWIERSKA. "A construction grammar account of possessive constructions in Lancashire dialect: some advantages and challenges." English Language and Linguistics 11, no. 2 (July 2007): 407–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1360674307002304.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This study investigates reduction of 1SG possessives in possessive–noun constructions in Lancashire dialect. On the basis of a corpus of twenty-six interviews we show that reduction patterns according to (in)alienability. This dialectal evidence runs counter to the normal assumption about English, i.e. that there is no such effect. Following work by Haspelmath (2006b) that reinterprets iconicity effects in terms of frequency, we proceed to show that frequency may indeed underlie alienability/iconicity in our data as well. Relative frequency seems more useful in capturing the correlation with reduction than absolute frequency. For a few [1SGPOSS-N] combinations the reduction facts are problematic for the frequency-based account we offer. These difficulties might seem to disappear in the light of the construction grammar notion of schemas, but we point out that this notion itself has serious theoretical problems associated with it. Future theory-driven work on dialect grammar may help resolve these issues.
47
van der Linden, Elisabeth, and Atie Blok-Boas. "Exploring possession in simultaneous bilingualism." EUROSLA Yearbook 5 (August 2, 2005): 103–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.07lin.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Young children often express possession before they have mastered the linguistic means to express this notion in adult forms. In this paper we present evidence on the acquisition of possessive constructions in bilingual children acquiring a Germanic and a Romance language (i.e. Dutch/French and Dutch/Italian). In a multiple case study, we compare their acquisition with that of monolingual children and suggest that while the stages of acquisition in monolingual and bilingual children are largely the same, the possessive constructions of the bilingual children show signs of cross-linguistic influence. This influence goes mainly from Dutch (the dominant language) to the Romance language, but there are also signs of influence from the Romance language on Dutch. This is in contradiction to earlier claims (Hulk and Mueller 2000, 2001, for example), where influence is predicted to be unidirectional.
48
Chappell, Hilary, and Shanshan Lü. "A semantic typology of location, existence, possession and copular verbs: areal patterns of polysemy in Mainland East and Southeast Asia." Linguistics 60, no. 1 (December 21, 2021): 1–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0219.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract This study is based on a sample of 116 languages from the Mainland East and Southeast Asian linguistic area. Its first objective is to examine four distinct synchronic patterns of areal polysemy, created by the semantic domains of copular, locative, existential and possessive verbs and the constructions they form. As a consequence, its second objective is to model the diachronic change underlying four language types identified on this basis from the data. We argue that there are three grammaticalization pathways which motivate the four synchronic patterns: Type III languages are distinguished by the grammaticalization chain: (Postural verb) > (Dwell) > Locative > Existential > Possessive, while the other two types, Type II and Type IV, show an opposing pathway: (Grasp) > Possessive > Existential. Type I and Type II languages additionally reveal a recurrent polysemy between Locative and Copular verbs. On this basis, an implicational universal is adduced to the effect that no diachronic adjacency exists between locative and possessive constructions. Crucially, the intervening stage of an existential construction provides the necessary bridging context for possessive reanalysis in this first pathway, while possessive verbs are formally distinct from locatives in the second, bearing no diachronic relationship to them. The findings on the patterns of polysemy sharing reinforce the notion of a clear typological split between Tibeto-Burman languages on the one hand, and Sinitic, Kra–Dai, Hmong–Mien, and Austroasiatic on the other.
49
Ahland, Michael. "From topic to subject." Studies in Language 33, no. 3 (July 23, 2009): 685–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.3.06ahl.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The predicative possessive construction in Amharic exhibits a mismatch in grammatical coding: the possessor receives object marking on the verb while the overt NP exhibits phenomena associated with nominative case in Amharic. This article investigates the mismatch in light of its historical development as attested in archaisms found in proverbs and old Biblical texts, examines both overt and covert syntactic properties of the possessor today, and also considers evidence from other related constructions. The possessive construction developed from the existential construction where the possessor corresponded to a locative/recipient and today shows evidence of developing subject status.
50
Taube, Moshe. "The Usual Suspects: Slavic, Yiddish, and the Accusative Existentials and Possessives in Modern Hebrew." Journal of Jewish Languages 3, no. 1-2 (October 16, 2015): 27–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134638-12340035.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Existential and possessive constructions with a definite np marked as object appear in both spoken and written Modern Hebrew. This paper ascribes their appearance to negative existential and possessive constructions with genitive accusative in Slavic languages (Polish, Russian, Ukrainian). These were reinterpreted in Yiddish as accusative and subsequently calqued by bilingual speakers of Modern Hebrew in the first generations of its emergence as a spoken language.