Possessive constructions in Likpe (Sɛkpɛlé)

2012 ◽  
pp. 224-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix K. Ameka
Keyword(s):  
Possessive Constructions

Adnominal Possessive Constructions in Narym, Vasjugan and Middle-Ob Dialects of Selkup

2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
V Vorobeva ◽  
I Novitskaya ◽  
K Girfanova ◽  
V Vesnin
Keyword(s):  
Possessive Constructions

‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

Predicative possession across Western Iranian languages

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-526
Author(s):  
Masoud Mohammadirad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Investigation ◽  
Distributed Groups ◽  
Possessive Constructions

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.

Argument structure licensing and Englishhave

2011 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
KYUMIN KIM
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Causative Constructions ◽  
Theoretical Claim ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Typological Classification

This paper provides a unified syntactic account of the distribution of Englishhavein causative constructions (e.g.John had Mary read a book) and experiencer constructions (e.g.John had the student walk out of his classroom). It is argued thathaveis realized in the context of anapplicative head(Appl) and an event-introducer v, regardless of the type of v.Haveis spelled out in the causative when Appl merges under vCAUSE, and in the experiencer construction when Appl merges under vBE. This proposal is extended tohavein possessive constructions (e.g.John has a hat/a brother):haveis realized in the context of vBEand Appl. The proposed account provides empirical evidence for expanding the distribution of Appl: (i) a causative can take ApplP as a complement, which was absent in Pylkkänen's (2008) typological classification, and (ii) Appl can merge above Voice, contrary to Pylkkänen's analysis in which Appl is argued to always merge below VoiceP, never above. Moreover, the proposed account supports the theoretical claim that argument structure is licensed by functional syntactic structure; in particular, it shows that the relevant functional heads are not aspectual heads, but Appl and v.

Noun modifiers and the n preposition in Siwi Berber (Egypt)

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-263
Author(s):  
Valentina Schiattarella
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Supplementary Data ◽  
Global Function ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
And Function

Abstract The three most common strategies used to modify a head noun, namely through a possessive, an adjective and a relative clause construction feature in Siwi the use of the preposition n. Its presence is obligatory in the possessive constructions, but only present before an adjective or a relative clause in some contexts, depending on the level of restriction that the speaker wants to place on the head noun. The aim of the article is to describe the use and function of n in all three contexts of noun modification in Siwi and present supplementary data that helps the understanding of the global function of this preposition.

scholarly journals Possessive Construction in Russian and Indonesian Noun Phrases: Contrastive Analysis and Translation

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Translation Process ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Translation Analysis ◽  
Structural Differences ◽  
Descriptive Method ◽  
National Corpus

This paper aims to discuss the comparison between possessive constructions in Russian and Indonesian noun phrases. Since both of the languages have different grammatical systems, their possessive constructions may also be different. The differences are discussed using a contrastive analysis approach. However, the similarities between them are also taken into consideration following one of the practical purposes of contrastive analysis, namely, to aid the translation process. The theory employed in this research is eclectic. The research method employed in this research is descriptive method with contrastive analysis model. In addition, for translation analysis, word-for-word and literal methods are used here. The data in this research are collected from the Russian National Corpus and some selected literary works in Russian and Indonesian. The result suggests that there are some structural differences and similarities between Russian and Indonesian in terms of word order, attributive categories, and grammatical categories of the elements constituting noun phrases. The results of this comparison can be referred to in the translation of possessive construction of both languages so that the closest equivalent is found following the rules of each language. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document