Possessivity, subject and object

The basic question is whether POSSESSOR and POSSESSUM are on the same level as the roles of VALENCE, two additional roles as it were. My research on POSSESSION has shown (Seiler 1981:7 ff.) that this is not the case, that there is a difference in principle between POSSESSION and VALENCE. However, there are multiple interactions between the two domains, and these interactions shall constitute the object of the following inquiry. It is hoped that this will contribute to a better understanding both of POSSESSION and of VALENCE

Posession as an operational dimension of language

In this study I want to show, above all, that the linguistic expression of POSSESSION is not a given but represents a problem to be solved by the human mind. We must recognize from the outset that linguistic POSSESSION presupposes conceptual or notional POSSESSION, and I shall say more about the latter in Chapter 3. Certain varieties of linguistic structures in the particular languages are united by the fact that they serve the common purpose of expressing notional POS SESSION. But this cannot be their sole common denominator. How would we otherwise be able to recognize, to understand, to learn and to translate a particular linguistic structure as representing POSSESSION? There must be a properly linguistic common denominator, an invariant, that makes this possible. The invariant must be present both within a particular language and in cross-language comparison. What is the nature of such an invariant? As I intend to show, it consists in operational programs and functional principles corresponding to the purpose of expressing notional POSSESSION. The structures of possessivity which we find in the languages of the world represent the traces of these operations, and from the traces it becomes possible to reconstruct stepwise the operations and functions

Language typology in the UNITYP model : paper presented for the XIV. International Congress of Linguists, August 1987, Berlin, DDR, Plenary Session on Typology

The aim of this contribution is to embed the question of an antinomy between "integral" vs. "partial typology", inscribed as the topic of this plenary session, into the comprehensive framework of the dimensional model of the research group on language universals and typology (UNITYP). In this introductory section I shall evoke some cardinal points in the theory of linguistic typology, as viewed "from outside", viz. on the basis of striking parallelisms with psychological typology. Section 2 will permit a brief look on the dimensional model of UNITYP. In section 3 I shall present an illustration of a typological treatment on the basis of one particular dimension. In section 4 I shall draw some conclusions with special reference to the "integral vs. partial" antinomy

Language universals and typology in the UNITYP framework

Why should we engage in language universals research and language typology? What do we want to explain? It is a fact that, although languages differ significantly and considerably. indeed, no one would deny, that they have something in common; how else could they be labelled 'language'? - There is obviously unity among them, no matter how vaguely felt and for what reasons: Scientific, practical, moral, etc. Neither diversity per se nor unity per se is what we want to explain. There is no reason whatsoever to consider either one of them as primary, and the other as derived. What we do want to explain is "equivalence in difference" – cf. our motto – which manifests itself, among others, in the translatability from one language to another, the learnability of any language, language change – which all presuppose that speakers intuitively find their way from diversity to unity. This is a highly salient property which deserves to be brought into our consciousness. Generally then, our basic goal is to explain the way in which language-specific facts are connected with a unitarian concept of language – "die Sprache" – "le langage"

Local prepositions and serial verb constructions in Thai

The present paper is an attempt to describe a particular semantic domain in Thai, that of local relations, in terms of a gradual interconnection of what traditional descriptions usually regard as distinct and isolated categories. It is based on the well-known observation that isolating languages like Thai typically display a high degree of 'multifunctionality', or else of syntactic 'versatility' of very many lexical items. […] The semantic area studied in the following pages yields a clear systematic interconnection of three different categories, viz. that of nouns – as the focal instance of maximum syntactic independence –, that of verbs – as, conversely, the focal instance of maximally relational concepts –, and, as an intermediary category between these two, that of prepositions which the system lexically feeds from both these opposite ends. The examples given in the course of this paper have been obtained from published grammatical literature, from Thai texts, and from informants

Refusing reconciliation with settler colonialism : wider lessons from the Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission

The Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission (MWTRC) is one of the more recent examples of the truth and reconciliation model being used in a settler colonial context. This article argues that the MWTRC highlighted a historical and continued refusal by Wabanaki people to ongoing systems of white settler violence especially in the form of Native child welfare. Examining the MWTRC through the lens of refusal allows for a critical analysis of the ways in which the MWTRC subverts neoliberal reconciliation models that leave colonial structures unchallenged and unchanged. The MWTRC, as a process founded and led by Wabanaki and settler social workers and Wabanaki survivors of the child welfare system, actively refused reconciliation with settler colonialism. Instead it sought a process predicated on a relationship that accepted the realities of historical and continued oppression of Wabanaki people and sought long-term transformative change for Wabanaki people. Relying on two years of conversations between the authors and the community of Wabanaki and settler individuals who initiated and partook in this process, this article offers an analysis of the MWTRC and how its strategy of refusal denied settler colonial co-option of a Wabanaki-centred process.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Morphosyntactic predication : a functional-operational approach

As a traditional notion of fundamental importance in linguistics and philosophy (logic), "predication" is fraught with controversial issues. It is thus difficult to delimit the scope of this paper without becoming involved in some major issue. The following distinctions seem to me to be plausible on an intuitive basis. Evidence for why they are useful and legitimate will be found in the body of the paper. The discussion will focus on morphosyntactic predication […]

Predicative possession in the Novgorod Birch Bark documents in the Ural-Altaic context

This paper discusses predicative possessive constructions in the East Slavic languages, with a particular focus on the Old Novgorod Slavic dialect, in connection to the neighbouring Ural-Altaic languages. An areal-typological investigation shows that the East Slavic languages prefer the use of a locational possessive (mihi est), while the rest of Slavic and Europe’s Indo-European languages primarily use a have-possessive (habeo). Serving as primary data for this study, the dialect written in the Novgorod Birch Bark documents confirms a preference of the locational possessive over the have -possessive. The current study also evaluates three hypotheses on the origin of the East Slavic locational possessive, proposed in earlier studies: 1) a Uralic substrate, 2) a Slavic archaism and 3) a Northern Eurasian areal pattern. Given the typological survey as well as the empirical and historical comparative investigation, the locational possessive can be considered a preferred areal pattern across Northern Eurasia. Being a part of the macro contact zone of Northern Eurasia, the choice of locational possessive in the East Slavic languages is reinforced by the areal diffusion, especially from the close neighbouring languages, Uralic and Turkic

On the sequence of the techniques on the dimension of participation

This is a survey of the development of the model of PARTICIPATION (P'ATION) with reference to the postulated sequence of the techniques on the dimension of P'ATION. Along with a brief explanation of the techniques this article contains a discussion of the major claims with regard to the sequence of the techniques and the possibilities of subjecting the claims to empirical verification