Regarding the reason why inalienable markings are generally shorter than those for alienable possessions, Martin has mentioned two explanations. One is frequency-induced economy: frequent items tend to be of simpler structure, the other is iconicity: closer relations are marked with tighter structures.
It seems to me that we do not have to choose one explanation over the other: both may be operative. Frequency-induced economy may account for the historical origin of these constructions while iconicity may motivate their persistence. In other words, the shorter forms of inalienable markers that have arisen from frequency may appeal to the language learner/user and thus they may become entrenched.
Edith Moravcsik
________________________________
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 4:26 AM
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Phonological differences of alienable vs. inalienable possession
Haiman (1983; 1985) was the first to propose a highly general explanation of alienability contrasts, but it appears that the generalization is the following:
If a language has different adpossessive constructions for inalienable (i.e. kinship and/or body-part) nouns and alienable (i.e. other) nouns and if the grammatical coding is asymmetric, the coding is shorter for inalienable nouns.
"Shorter coding" most often means lack of a marker with inalienable nouns (as opposed to presence of a marker for alienable nouns), but it can also mean that the marker is shorter, or that the adpossessive person forms are shorter (as in the Hungarian contrast between -a and ja, mentioned by Edith Moravcsik, or the Italian contrast between mio and -mo, mentioned by Nigel Vincent). Haiman attributed the difference to "iconic motivation", but frequency-induced predictability ("economic motivation") is probably a better explanation (Haspelmath 2017<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.degruyter.com%2Fdocument%2Fdoi%2F10.1515%2Fzfs-2017-0009%2Fhtml&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Ce1773b0324804397fa2708d9e4a42fd7%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637792217159376246%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=7F3biFDb7Q26ra4%2FDEUmShaVk706V611bPprzge95So%3D&reserved=0>). (There was a recent LSA talk by Lelia Glass that confirmed the frequency asymmetries that I had observed: https://twitter.com/lelia_glass/status/1479083599186075649<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Flelia_glass%2Fstatus%2F1479083599186075649&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Ce1773b0324804397fa2708d9e4a42fd7%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637792217159376246%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=dZ%2BqGAOegofYlLF%2Fs7Ecssl0CFvKh919QCOh3nviJiM%3D&reserved=0>)
It seems that the generalization above, in terms of "coding length", also covers the cases of phonological contrasts that we find (e.g. the contrast noted for Ojibwe by Marie-Luise Popp: "In Ojibwe, vowel hiatus is resolved via consonant epenthesis in alienable possession, but via deletion in inalienable
possession.")
Martin
Am 31.01.22 um 08:41 schrieb TasakuTsunoda:
2022/01/31
Dear Colleague,
The following work may be relevant.
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax[:] Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
I don’t have an access to this book now, but if I remember correctly, this book discusses morphosyntactic differences between expressions of alienable possession and those of inalienable possession. It may discuss phonological differences as well.
Best wishes,
Tasaku Tsunoda
2022/01/28 20:10 に、"Lingtyp (Marie-Luise Popp の代理)" <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> (marie_luise.popp at uni-leipzig.de<mailto:marie_luise.popp at uni-leipzig.de> の代理)> を書き込みました:
Dear all,
I'm looking for languages, in which alienable and inalienable possession
is marked by the same set (or at least - phonologically similar)
exponents, yet do these exponents undergo different phonological
processes in alienable vs. inalienable possession.
In Ojibwe, for example, vowel hiatus is resolved via consonant
epenthesis in alienable possession, but via deletion in inalienable
possession.
If anyone knows of more languages of this type, I would be grateful for
references and comments.
Best,
Luise (Leipzig University)
--
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Ce1773b0324804397fa2708d9e4a42fd7%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637792217159376246%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=nt9yC8vvVAmIRkwMkN55rUeb96UtQ7uIgEfQZByzWfU%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Ce1773b0324804397fa2708d9e4a42fd7%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637792217159376246%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=nt9yC8vvVAmIRkwMkN55rUeb96UtQ7uIgEfQZByzWfU%3D&reserved=0>
--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eva.mpg.de%2Flinguistic-and-cultural-evolution%2Fstaff%2Fmartin-haspelmath%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Ce1773b0324804397fa2708d9e4a42fd7%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637792217159376246%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=hsFbwHFz8hdg8aHhNIVz%2BF91iQTBoNn2wjlb8YXE04I%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220201/15602bd6/attachment.htm>