- John Newman

January 9, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Science, Health Science, Pediatrics
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download - John Newman...

Description

In Search of Possession: From Concept to Inflection

Susanne Borgwaldt1 & John Newman2 1Technical

University Braunschweig

2University

of Alberta

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) AND the leg(s) of my friend AND her 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 friend OR her/their leg(s)

Possession “Inflectional” the possessor referent in a particular number/ person category appears as a possessive determiner with a possessee: my leg OR my legs OR his leg OR his legs

Corpora  MultiSemCor   

relatively small (258,499 tokens in 116 texts) written only (subset of BROWN) POS tagged and semantically tagged

 BNC  

 

(http://multisemcor.itc.it/index.php)

(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 words 52 types and 966 tokens Clothes words and personal belongings (watch, glasses) 46 types and 177 tokens for clothes

MultiSemCor

“Conceptual” possession in MultiSemcor 900 800 700 600 500 400

778

300 200 100

185

135

0 with referent

no referent

Body Parts 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.

with referent

Clothes

42 no referent

n.s.

“Conceptual” possession in MultiSemcor 900 800 700 600 500 400

778

300 200 100

185

135

0 with referent

no referent

Body Parts

with referent

42 no referent

Clothes Kim had a hat on. Kim’s hat was cute. The hat of Kim was cute. Her hat was cute.

n.s.

“Grammatical modification in NP” in MultiSemcor 700 600 500 400 300

595

200

368

100 77

100

gram. modified

not gram. modified

0 gram. modified

not gram. modified

Body Parts

my friend’s leg the leg of my friend her leg

Tom was hit in the leg

Clothes

“Grammatical modification in NP” in MultiSemcor 700 600 500 400 300

595

200

368

100 77

100

gram. modified

not gram. modified

0 gram. modified

not gram. modified

Body Parts

Clothes my friend’s cap the cap of my friend her cap

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 possession

r-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 90 80 70 60 50 40

83.1

82.7

30 20 10

13.3

0 Poss. Det.

's

Body Parts her leg my friend’s leg the leg of my friend

15.6

4 of

1.3 Poss. Det.

's

Clothes her cap my friend’s cap the cap of my friend

of

n.s.

“Inflectional” possession in BNC We use the BNC to investigate a particular person/number possessor with a particular sg/pl possessed noun

my leg his leg her leg

Singular/Plural in the BNC SINGULAR NOUN=NN1 in whole BNC

PLURAL NOUN=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 my his her our their

LL

1738 9734.09 7198 47440.33 4879 34679.12 36 3.30 143

55.70

heads my his her our their

Freq

LL

2 4

4.14 15.46

250 1130

1580.62 8499.32

BNC ‘head’

head Freq my his her our their

LL

1738 9734.09 7198 47440.33 4879 34679.12 36 3.30 143

55.70

heads my his her our their

Freq

LL

2 4

4.14 15.46

250 1130

1580.62 8499.32

BNC ‘mouth’

mouth my his her our their

Freq

LL mouths

374

1899.28

2367

16471.23

1716

13046.38

5

0.81

my his her our

32

6.27

their

Freq

LL

42 205

296.09 1750.80

BNC ‘mouth’

mouth my his her our their

Freq

LL

374

1899.28

mouths

5

0.81

my his her our

32

6.27

their

2367 16471.23 1716 13046.38

Freq

LL

42 205

296.09 1750.80

BNC ‘finger’

finger

Freq

LL

fingers

Freq

LL

my his her our

141 418 274 14

738.44 2285.73 1628.15 24.97

my his her our

286 1221 925 52

1567.78 7963.64 6731.04 183.82

their

20

16.40

their

173

595.60

BNC ‘finger’

finger Freq

LL

fingers

Freq

LL

my his her our

141 418 274 14

738.44 2285.73 1628.15 24.97

my his her our

286 1221 925 52

1567.78 7963.64 6731.04 183.82

their

20

16.40

their

173

595.60

BNC ‘eye’

eye Freq

LL

eyes

my his her our

268 567 336 18

1174.36 2214.31 1410.16 10.70

my his her our

their

45

22.36

their

Freq

LL

1203 6164.39 6075 39500.35 5268 39838.07 286 919.83 892

3109.25

BNC ‘eye’

eye Freq

LL

eyes

my his her our

268 567 336 18

1174.36 2214.31 1410.16 10.70

my his her our

their

45

22.36

their

Freq

LL

1203 6164.39 6075 39500.35 5268 39838.07 286 919.83 892

3109.25

BNC ‘leg’

leg Freq

LL

legs

Freq

LL

my his her our

194 392 161 1

942.68 1683.74 623.18 3.56

my his her our

358 699 738 36

2039.29 3547.69 4827.82 78.83

their

16

1.57

their

195

671.97

BNC ‘leg’

leg Freq

LL

legs

Freq

LL

my his her our

194 392 161 1

942.68 1683.74 623.18 3.56

my his her our

358 699 738 36

2039.29 3547.69 4827.82 78.83

their

16

1.57

their

195

671.97

BNC ‘foot’

foot Freq

LL

feet

Freq

626 3285.40 2030 11509.72 1460 9247.34 131 405.83

my his her our

157 383 210 5

607.75 1404.62 800.24 0.09

my his her our

their

37

21.51

their

660

LL

2829.41

BNC ‘foot’

foot Freq

LL

feet

Freq

626 3285.40 2030 11509.72 1460 9247.34 131 405.83

my his her our

157 383 210 5

607.75 1404.62 800.24 0.09

my his her our

their

37

21.51

their

660

LL

2829.41

BNC ‘hand’ hand Freq my his her our their

LL

957 4165.26 3868 20034.12 2616 14978.05 34 1.66 120

24.48

hands my his her our their

Freq

LL

781 4012.78 3322 20383.04 2045 13214.01 277 1103.68 958

4287.74

BNC ‘hand’ hand Freq my his her our their

LL

957 4165.26 3868 20034.12 2616 14978.05 34 1.66 120

24.48

hands my his her our their

Freq

LL

781 4012.78 3322 20383.04 2045 13214.01 277 1103.68 958

4287.74

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)

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)

Body parts = clothes

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 finegrained  All four approaches to possession have their

virtues  Linguistic typology research can benefit from

exploiting all four ways

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF