<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font size="4">A <span lang="EN-US">semantic explanation for the
observed asymmetry between the marking (if distinguished) of
adnominal inalienable vs alienable possession is proposed in my
Theory of Concept Types and Determination (CTD, Löbner 2011).
According to CTD, inalienable possession occurs with relational
nouns. This type of noun is congruent (unmarked) with possessive
determination since the noun concept contains a relational
argument that is in need of specification in a “possessive”
construction. Nonrelational nouns lack such an argument and are
hence congruent with absolute determination. For the use with
possessive determination, a nonrelational noun concept needs to
be accommodated with a relational argument. The process may be
expressed by extra morphosyntactic marking in addition to mere
possessor specification.</span></font><br>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><span lang="EN-US"></span></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For a typological survey in
this framework, see Ortmann (2018); for a study of
the observed split in Hungarian, Ortmann & Gerland (2014)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Löbner (2011) <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">Concept types and determination. </i>doi
10.1093/jos/ffq022<br>
Ortmann & Gerland (2014) <i>She loves you, -ja -ja -ja:
objective conjugation and pragmatic possession in Hungaria</i>n.
doi <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110720075-011"
target="_blank">10.1515/9783110720075-011</a><br>
Ortmann (2018)<i> Connecting the typology and semantics of
nominal possession: alienability splits and the
morphology–semantics interface</i> 10.1007/s11525-017-9319-6</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sebastian Löbner<br>
</span></p>
</body>
</html>