Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Possessive construction in the Kurdish language

A cognitive perspective

ORCID logo | University of Kurdistan
ORCID logo | Damghan University
ORCID logo | University of Kurdistan

The present study investigates Possessive Constructions and domains of possession in Kalhori Kurdish (KK) from a Cognitive Linguistics perspective to reveal the arrangement of constituents and relationships between the head (possessee) and dependent (possessor). This qualitative descriptive-analytical study collected data by interviewing KK speakers in Iran. The results indicate that KK speakers employ both the B-construction (­hin-e­) and Be-construction (ha) at the clause level to denote predicative possession characterized by [−whole-part, −kinship] relationships and [+alienable] ownership. Additionally, KK speakers were found to utilize the H-construction (/dire/) at the clause level associated with [+whole-part, +kinship] relationships and [±alienable] ownership. KK speakers also employ possession splits in nominal/attributive possession by attaching the possessor, marked by the [+human] feature, to the possessee, marked by the [±human] feature, as an affix.

Keywords: possessive construction, nominal possession, predicative possession, event schemata, Kalhori Kurdish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.A brief note on previous work
  • 3.Theoretical framework
    • 3.1Possessive event schema
  • 4.Research methodology
  • 5.Possession in Kurdish
    • 5.1Inalienable and alienable possession
    • 5.2Be-construction
    • 5.3Fluidity of possession
    • 5.4Belonging construction
    • 5.5The event schemata as sources of construction in KK
      • 5.5.1Action schema
      • 5.5.2Location schema
      • 5.5.3Companion schema
        • 5.5.3.1Be-construction
        • 5.5.3.2H-construction
        • 5.5.3.3Emphasis on companion relationship
      • 5.5.4Genitive schema
        • 5.5.4.1NP/AP construction
        • 5.5.4.2H-construction
        • 5.5.4.3Splits in the domain of NP/AP
      • 5.5.5Goal schema
        • 5.5.5.1Beneficiary in the B-construction
        • 5.5.5.2Social possession
        • 5.5.5.3Beneficiary with ʔæra (‘for’)
        • 5.5.5.4Restrictions on use
      • 5.5.6Source schema
        • 5.5.6.1Marking the source
      • 5.5.7Topic schema
        • 5.5.7.1Topicalization of Pr
        • 5.5.7.2Social possession
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 2 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00181.deh
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
Claudi, U.
(1986) To have or not to have: On the conceptual base of predicative possession in some African languages. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2013) Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Haig, G.
(2011) Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense-particle. In H. Y. Foong, K. Grunow-Hårsta & J. Wrona (Eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Volume 1: Sino-Tibetan and Iranian languages (pp. 363–390). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Claudi, U.
(1986) On the rise of grammatical categories: Some examples from Maa (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 13). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
(1997) Possession: Cognitive forces, sources, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K.
(1992) Non-verbal predications: Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series, 15.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1991) On some principle of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 1 1, 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labrada, J. E. R.
(2023) Beyond alienability: Factors determining possessive classes in Piaroa. Linguistics, 61 (6), 1447–1490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol. 21). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 1, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, F., Vaid, J., & Chin, C. H.
(2011) On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 (4), 659–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlin, M. W., & Farmer, A. T.
(2015) Cognition (9th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, L. F.
(2017) Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. Folia Linguistica, 51 (1), 1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammadirad, M.
(2020) Predicative possession across Western Iranian languages. Folia Linguistica, 54 (3), 497–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J.
(1988) On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shipley (Eds.), In Honor of Mary Haas. Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics (pp. 557-611). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, C. J., & Richard, W. S.
(2010) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J.
(1985) Cognition and cognitive psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Stassen, L.
(2001) Predicative possession. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (pp. 954–960). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009) Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Predicative possession. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world Atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL].Google Scholar
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 [Studies in Language Companion Series 101], Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.
(1996) Possessives in English. An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vattukumpu, T.
(2020) On possessive, existential and locative clause types in the Haisla Language. Northern Language Studies, 10 1, 255–274.Google Scholar
Watkins, C.
(1967) Remarks on the genitive. In To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his 70th birthday: Vol. 3 (pp. 2191–2198). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Yule, G.
(1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar