Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 9:1 (2022) ► pp.31–63

The iconicity of possessive-affix position in Malayo-Polynesian

| University of Hamburg

Most languages which code possession morphologically do so by using either prefixes or suffixes. This study examines the minority of languages which employ both prefixes and suffixes in order to express the contrast between alienable and inalienable possession. The focus is on a possible interaction of affix order type and possession type. An analysis of a dozen Malayo-Polynesian languages (8 Eastern Malayo-Polynesian and 4 Central Malayo-Polynesian) reveals a surprisingly consistent pattern. Ten of these languages consistently associate prefixes with alienable possession and suffixes with inalienable possession. None of the 12 languages does it the other way around. This form-meaning relationship is argued to be iconically motivated. Suffixes are claimed to be more closely linked to their stems than prefixes are. This formal closeness mirrors the tighter relationship between possessor and possessum in inalienable than in alienable possession. Five languages make a three-way contrast among inalienable, intermediate and alienable possession. This suggests that the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession should be viewed as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Individual languages may split up this continuum in different ways.

Keywords: iconicity, possession, alienability-inalienability continuum, cohesiveness, word structure
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data analysis
    • 2.1Alune (Niggemeyer 1951)
    • 2.2Paulohi (Stresemann 1918)
    • 2.3Nuaulu (Bolton 1990)
    • 2.4Nadroga (Geraghty 2002)
    • 2.5Gumawana (Olson 1992)
    • 2.6Arifama-Miniafia (Wakefield 1975)
    • 2.7Yamalele (Ezard 1971)
    • 2.8Muyuw (Lithgow & Lithgow 1974)
    • 2.9Bunama (Lithgow 1988)
    • 2.10Maleu (Haywood 1996)
    • 2.11Asilulu (Collins 1983a; Laidig 1993)
    • 2.12Irarutu (van den Berg & Matsumura 2008; Jackson 2014)
    • 2.13Interim conclusion
  • 3.General discussion
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 30 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00089.ber
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2013) Possession and ownership: a cross-linguistic perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Possession and ownership. A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Expressing ‘possession’. In L. Johanson, L. F. Mazzitelli & I. Nevskaya (Eds.), Possession in languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (pp. 7–25). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, T.
(2003) Right-branching in English derivational morphology. English Language and Linguistics, 71, 279–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Locating affixes on the lexicon-grammar continuum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 21, 150–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Ordering biases in cross-linguistic perspective: The interaction of serial order and structural level. Linguistic Typology, 241, 353–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, R.
(2013) The Austronesian languages. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bolton, R. A.
(1990) A preliminary description of Nuaulu phonology and grammar. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Arlington: The University of Texas.
Booij, G. & Rubach, J.
(1984) Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 11, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. T.
(1983a) Syntactic change in Ambonese Malay: The possessive construction. In J. T. Collins (Ed.), Studies in Malay dialects. Part II (pp. 28–41). Jacarta Selatan: Linguistic Studies of Indonesian (NUSA 17).Google Scholar
(1983b) The historical relationships of the languages of Central Maluku, Indonesia. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. U.
(1981) Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devylder, S.
(2018) Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 291, 313–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S.
(2013) Prefixing and suffixing in inflectional morphology. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Ezard, J.
(1971) Stems and words in Iamalele. Typescript. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Geraghty, P.
(2000) Possession in Fijian languages. Language Typology and Universals, 531, 243–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Nadroga. In J. Lynch, M. Ross & T. Crowley (Eds.), The Oceanic languages (pp. 833–847). Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1983) Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 591, 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) In defense of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics, 191, 35–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, E.
(1993) The phonological word in Korean. In P. M. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics. Vol. 2 1 (pp. 117–129). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Communication.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2008) Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics, 191, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: predictability vs. iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 361, 193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haywood, G.
(1996) A Maleu grammar outline and text. In M. D. Ross (Ed.), Studies in languages of New Britain and New Ireland. Vol. 1 1 (pp. 145–196). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Closs Traugott, E.
(1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M.
(2009) The natural history of verb-stem reduplication in Bantu. Morphology 191, 177–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. A. J.
(2014) A grammar of Irarutu, a language of West Papua, Indonesia, with historical analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M.
(1996) Possessive noun phrases in Maltese: Alienability, iconicity and grammaticalization. Rivista di Linguistica, 81, 245–274.Google Scholar
Laidig, W. D.
(1993) Insights from Larike possessive constructions. Oceanic Linguistics, 321, 311–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeding, V. J.
(1996) Body parts and possession in Anindilyakwa. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability (pp. 193–249). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, F.
(1985) Possessive constructions in Oceanic languages and in Proto-Oceanic. In A. Pawley & L. Carrington (Eds.), Austronesian linguistics at the 15th Pacific Science Congress (pp. 93–140). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F., Vaid, J. & Chen, H.-C.
(2011) On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 221, 659–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lithgow, D. R.
(1976) Austronesian languages: Milne Bay and adjacent islands. In S. A. Wurm (Ed.), New Guinea languages and language study. Vol. 2 1 (pp. 441–523). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lithgow, D.
(1988) Bunama grammar. Typescript. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lithgow, D. & D. Lithgow
(1974) Dictionaries of Papua New Guinea: Vol. 1: Muyuw language. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lynch, J.
(1997) On the origins of the possessive markers in Central Pacific languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 361, 227–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, J., Ross, M. & Crowley, T.
(Eds.) (2002) The Oceanic languages. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Morley, E. A.
(2010) A grammar of Ajagbe. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Müller, A.
(1954) Grammar and vocabulary of the Konua language. Fosieux, Switzerland: Anthropos.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I.
(1986) Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nichols, J.
(2013) Possessive classification. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Niggemeyer, H.
(1951) Alune-Sprache: Texte, Wörterverzeichnis und Grammatik einer Sprache West-Cerams. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 761, 50–69.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K.
(1991) The meaning of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 149–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, C.
(1992) Gumawana (Amphlett Islands, Papua New Guinea): Grammar sketch and dictionary. In M. D. Ross (Ed.), Papers in Austronesian linguistics. Vol. 2 1 (pp. 251–430). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. & Sayaba, T.
(1990) Possessive-marking in Wayan, a Western Fijian language: noun class or relational system? In J. H. C. S. Davidson (Ed.), Pacific island languages: essays in honour of G.B. Milner (pp. 147–171). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Radin, P.
(1929) A grammar of the Wappo language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Senft, G.
(1986) Kilivila. The language of the Trobriand Islanders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stresemann, E.
(1918) Die Paulohisprache. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Tryon, D.
(2002) Numa. In J. Lynch, M. Ross & T. Crowley (Eds.). The Oceanic languages (pp. 573–586). Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
van den Berg, R. & Matsumura, T.
(2008) Possession in Irarutu. Oceanic Linguistics, 471, 213–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, R. & Wiebe, B.
(2019) Bola grammar sketch. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics. (Data Papers on Papua New Guinea Languages, Vol. 63).Google Scholar
Wakefield, D.
(1975) Grammar notes on Arifama-Miniafia. Typescript. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wennerström, A.
(1993) Focus on the prefix: evidence for word-internal prosodic words. Phonology, 101, 309–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W. H.
(1982) Proto-Polynesian possessive marking. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar