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. 239–266

Possession in Khinalug

| Goethe University Frankfurt
The article describes the functions and the usage of the genitive in Khinalug, a Nakh-Dagestanian language spoken in the North-East of Azerbaijan. Khinalug stands out for its tripartite genitive system with two subsystems: (a) a possessee-based subsystem, which distinguishes alienability versus certain types of inalienability according to the degree of bondedness towards the possessee; only animate possessors can take an inalienably marked possessee. (b) a possessor-based subsystem, which distinguishes alienability versus family-relatedness according to the bondedness among the members of the possessor group towards each other: They have to be in a family relationship to justify the use of this genitive. Moreover, independently from animacy, the alienable and the inalienable genitive are governed by a range of postpositions.
Keywords: Khinalug (Nakh-Dagestanian) language, tripartite genitive system, alienable and inalienable genitive
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Some notes on the typology of genitives and the position of Khinalug
  • 2.The genitives
    • 2.1Phonetic restrictions to the alienable genitive suffix
    • 2.2Some notes on the family-related genitive pronouns
  • 3.The use of the genitives in the semantic subgroups of possession-related noun phrases
    • 3.1Body parts
    • 3.2Part-whole-relationships
    • 3.3Material
    • 3.4Things emanating from the possessor
    • 3.5Physical states and processes
    • 3.6Mental states and processes
    • 3.7Attributes of the possessor
    • 3.8Kinship
  • 4.Case government of postpositions
  • 5.Conclusion and hypotheses
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.12rin
References (14)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Possession and Ownership. A Cross-linguistic Typology, Alxandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Authier, Gilles. 2003. Inalienability split in possessive NPs and the origin of the two cases with genitive function in Budugh. Faits de Langues 41: 171–192.Google Scholar
. 2009. Grammaire krjz, langue caucasique d’Azerbaïdjan, dialecte d’Alik. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Chapell, Hilary & McGregor, William. 1996. The Grammar of Inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1987. English possessives, topicality and the Silverstein Hierarchy. In Proceedings of the thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Feb. 14–16, 1987), Jon Aske (ed.), 65–76. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar or Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik Aleksandr E., Kodzasov Sandro V., Olovjanikova Irina P. 1972. Fragmenty Grammatiki Xinalugskogo Jazyka. Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo UniversitetaGoogle Scholar
Klimov, Georgij A. 1994. Einführung in die kaukasische Sprachwissenschaft. Deutsche Bearbeitung von Jost Gippert. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek, Vaid, Jyotsna & Chen, Hsin-Chin. 2011. On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(4): 659–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, William Shipley (ed.), 557–609. Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2003. The Nakh-Daghestanian consonant correspondences. In Current Trends in Caucasian, East European, and Inner Asian Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Howard I. Aronson [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 246], Dee Ann Holiski & Kevin Tuite (eds), 207–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Claudia & Jing-heng Shen Ma. 2006. Modern Mandarin Chinese Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1981. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language [Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekt 42]. Cologne: University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Talibov, Bukar Bekirovič. 1985. K voprosu ob ograničennnom čisle v lezginskom jazyke (On the question of the limited number in Lezgian). In Kategorija čisla v dagestanskix jazykax (The category of number in the Daghestanian languages) [Sbornik statej], Mikailov K. S. (ed.), 90–92. Maxačkala: Institut Istorii; Jazyka i Literatury im. Cadasa (Dagestanskij Filial AN SSSR).Google Scholar