Cover not available
Part of
Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Lars Johanson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli and Irina Nevskaya
[Studies in Language Companion Series 206] 2019
► pp. 169–186

Predicative possession in North Saami and Norwegian

 | University of Cologne
This paper describes the strategies employed by North Saami (Uralic, Saamic) and Norwegian (Indo-European, North Germanic) to express predicative possession. It shows that both North Saami and Norwegian do not provide evidence of splits in their possession systems; rather, they use the same constructions to express both ownership as well as less prototypical possessive notions, displaying a typical European behaviour. The expression of some notions contiguous to possession, namely experience, location and attribution is also analyzed: these are rarely coded by means of possessive constructions in Norwegian, but more often in North Saami.
Keywords: predicative possession, North Saami (Uralic, Saamic), Norwegian (Indo-European, North Germanic), experience, location and attribution
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A typological introduction to possession and possession split systems
  • 3.Predicative possession in North Saami and Norwegian
  • 4.Beyond possession: Attribution, experience and location
    • 4.1Attribution
    • 4.2Experience
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Primary sources
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.09maz
References (40)
Primary sources
North Saami
North Saami LPP: de Saint-Exupéry, Antoine. 1981. Bás Prinssaš. Helsinki: WernerGoogle Scholar
Söderström
GPC: Giellatekno Parallel Corpus North Saami – Norwegian < [URL] >
North Saami New Testament: Ođđa Testamenta, The Norwegian Bible Society < [URL]>
Norwegian
OTC: Oslo Tagged Corpus of Norwegian Bokmål < [URL] >
English
British National Corpus, < [URL] >
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Possession and ownership: A cross linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds), 1–64.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald Alexandra Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds). 2013. Possession and Ownership: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Antonsen, Lene & Janda, Laura. 2015. Oamastanráhkadusat davvisámi girjjálašvuođas (Possessive constructions in North Saami prose). In Symposia ávvučála – Nostalgiija, naga ja eará gielalaš ja kultuvrralaš fenomenat, Vuokko Hirvonen, Johanna Johansen Ijäs Marjatta Jomppanen & Kaarina Vuolab-Lohi (eds). Dieđut 2/2015: 9–43.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip & Cuzzolin, Pierluigi. 2005. Considerazioni etimologiche, areali e tipologiche dei verbi di “avere” nelle lingue indoeuropee. In Latin et langues romanes, Sandor Kiss, Luca Mondin & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 26–36. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Baron, Irène & Herslund, Michael. 2001. Dimensions of possession. Introduction. In Baron, Herslund & Sørensen (eds), 1–26.Google Scholar
Baron, Irène, Herslund, Michael & Sørensen, Finn (eds). 2001. Dimensions of Possession [Typological Studies in Language 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartens, Hans-Hermann. 1989. Lehrbuch der saamischen (lappischen) Sprache. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l'objet dans les langues d'Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l'Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Marija (eds). 2001. Circum-Baltic Languages, Vol.1: Past and Present [Studies in Language Companion Series 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, 2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gunleifsen, Elin. 2011. Attributiveuttrykkfor prototypisk possessivitet: En komparativ studie av talespråklig variasjon og endring i Kristiansand og Arendal. Oslo: NovusforlagGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001a. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Language Typology and Language Universals [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1492–1510. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khizanishvili, Tamar. 2006 Possession im Georgischen. In Possession, Quantitative Typologie und Semiotik. Georgisch, Irisch, Türkisch, Thomas Stolz & Cornelia Stroh (eds), 1–76. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1998. Possession in Yucatec Maya. Structures – Functions – Typology. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Levkovych, Nataliya, Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica & Stolz, Thomas. Forthcoming. Slavic vis-à-vis standard average European: An areal-typological profiling on the morphosyntactic and phonological levels. In Slavic in the Language Map of Europe, Andriy Danylenko & Motoki Nomachi (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, Charles D. (eds). 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 19th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International. <[URL]> Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2014. Split possession and the syntax of kinship nouns in Norwegian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(1): 35–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marjomaa, Marko. 2012. North Sámi in Norway: An Overview of a Language in Context [Working Papers in European Language Diversity 17]. Mainz: Johannes-Gutenberg Universität.Google Scholar
Manzelli, Gianguido, Ramat, Paolo & Roma, Elisa. 2002. Remarks on marginal possession: Are feelings owned? In Mediterranean Languages. Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2002, Paolo Ramat & Thomas Stolz (eds), 223–246. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica. 2017. Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. Folia Linguistica 51: 1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Expression of Predicative Possession. A Comparative Study of Belarusian and Lithuanian [Studia Typologica 18]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. The expression of predicative possession in Lithuanian. STUF (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung) 66: 4, 354–377Google Scholar
McGregor, William (ed.). 2009. The Expression of Possession. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nickel, Klaus Peter. 1994. Samisk grammatikk. Oslo: GirjiGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1983. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative Possession. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 1991. Sprachbund im Baltikum? Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft. Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 13. Bochum: BrockmeyerGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Kettler, Sonja, Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina. 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sulkala, Helena & Karjalainen, Meri. 1992. Finnish. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya [Studies in Language Companion Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Joshua. 2014. A Grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar