Alienability Splits in Swedish from a Diachronic Perspective

Alicja Piotrowska, Dominika Skrzypek

Abstract


The paper discusses possessive expressions with body-part nouns in Swedish (1300–1550) with particular focus on the so-called alienability splits, i.e., separate patterns of marking possession for alienable and inalienable entities. The key problem to be addressed is to what extent such splits can be found in Swedish and the aim of the study is to establish when they arise and what motivates their formation. The inalienable possessive constructions with body-part referents in Modern Swedish include the so-called implicit possession, where only the definite article is used and the inalienable prepositional construction of the type ‘the head on him’. The analyzed material consists of Old Swedish prosaic texts written between 1300 and 1550. The corpus includes eight texts and amounts to ca. 250,000 words. The material is studied both quantitatively and qualitatively; collostructional analysis is used for the statistical overview of the data. The results of the collostructional analysis confirm that the implicit possessive construction first appears in Period II (1350–1450) and becomes grammaticalized in the late 1400s. The inalienable prepositional construction is not found in the material studied and thus must be of later origin. The results suggest further that the inalienable possessive constructions do not arise as a result of the speaker’s wish to disambiguate the notion of inalienability but are a by-product of other diachronic processes, such as the grammaticalization of the definite article in the indirect anaphoric context.


Keywords


alienability; split possession; Swedish; definite article; prepositional construction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic construction grammar (pp. 1–50). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Chappell, H. & McGregor, W. (Eds.). (1996). The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cristofaro, S. (2020). On the diachronic emergence of alienability splits cross-linguistically: Two types of counterexamples to frequency-based explanations. Paper presented at SLE 2020: 53rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. SLE Digital Platform, August–September

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (1998). Alienability splits and the grammaticalization of possessive constructions. In Papers from the XVIth Conference of Scandinavian Linguistics, Turku. University of Turku and Åbo Akademi.

Delsing, L.-O. (2014). Den stora katastrofen med för- och efterskalv: Om kasussammanfallet i fornsvenska. In C. Falk & M. Bylin (Eds.), Studier i svensk språkhistoria 12 (pp. 9–29). Stockholm University.

Goldberg, A. (2013). Constructionist Approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59, 781–819.

Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haspelmath, M. (2017). Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 36, 193–231.

Håkansson, D. (2008). Syntaktisk variation och förändring: En studie av subjektslösa satser i fornsvenska. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.

Herslund, M. & Baron, I. (2001). Introduction: Dimensions of possession. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Dimensions of Possession (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Holmbäck, Å. & Wessén, E. (Ed.). (1979). Svenska landskapslagar Ser. 5 Äldre västgötalagen, Yngre västgötalagen, Smålandslagens kyrkobalk och Bjärköarätten. Stockholm: Geber.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (1996). Possessive noun phrases in Maltese: Alienability, iconicity and grammaticalization. Rivista di Linguistica 8, 245–274.

Lødrup, H. (2009). External and internal possessors with body part nouns: The case of Norwegian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 221–250.

Nichols, J. (1988). On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shipley (Ed.), In honor of Mary Haas (pp. 475–521). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Nichols, J. & Bickel, B. (2011). Possessive classification. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online (chapter 59). Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/chapter/59.

Piotrowska, A. (2021). Possessive expressions in Danish and Swedish in a diachronic and synchronic perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Piotrowska, A. & Skrzypek D. (2021). Familiar vs. unique in a diachronic perspective: Case study of the rise of the definite article in North Germanic. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1178.

Schmid, H.-J. & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24(3), 531–577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018.

Schuster, S. (2019). A diachronic perspective on alienability splits in Icelandic attributive possession. In L. Johanson, L. F. Mazzitelli & I. Nevskaya (Eds.), Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Skrzypek, D. (2012). Grammaticalization of (in)definiteness in Swedish. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

Skrzypek, D. (2021). Alienability splits in North Germanic – a diachronic perspective. Paper presented at 5th Norwegian Graduate Student Conference in Linguistics and Philology. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Skrzypek, D. (2021). Animacy, Anaphora and Language Change in Swedish. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 3, 1–15.

Skrzypek, D. & Piotrowska, A. (2017). Inalienable possession in Swedish and Danish – a diachronic perspective. Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia 23, 25–45.

Skrzypek, D., Piotrowska, A. & Jaworski, R. (2021). The diachrony of definiteness in North Germanic. Leiden: Brill.

Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 209–243.

Stolz, T., Kettler, S., Stroh, C. & Urdze, A. (2008). Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Stroh-Wollin, U. (2016). The emergence of definiteness marking in Scandinavian – new answers to old questions. Arkiv För Nordisk Filologi 131, 129–169.

Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Lier, E. & van Rijn, M. (2018). Alienability splits in action nominal constructions. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 71(4), 631–677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2018-0023.

van Rijn, M. (2016). Locus of marking typology in the possessive NP. Folia Linguistica 50(1), 269–327.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2201-04

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021