EESE 6/2004

The Choice between Prenominal and Postnominal Possessors
in English and Slovene

Frančiška Lipovšek (Ljubljana)


Abstract

The paper presents the findings of a corpus-based study of possessive constructions in English and Slovene, which focused on the problem of choice between prenominal and postnominal possessors. The study was based on a cognitive approach, according to which the possessor functions as a reference point facilitating the identification of the possessee. The term identification value was used in the study to refer to the cluster of properties that render a nominal compatible with the reference-point function. The main factors contributing to the identification value of the possessor nominal are its topicality (i.e. mental accessibility) and its informativity (i.e. ability to be an effective cue for the identification of the relation between the possessor and the possessee). The findings of the study confirm that in both languages (i) the prenominal possessor has the reference-point function by default, and that (ii) the identification value of the possessor is the main factor determining the choice between prenominal and postnominal constructions.

0. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to present the findings of my recent study[1] of possessive constructions in English and Slovene, the primary objective of which was to pinpoint the main factor(s) governing the choice between prenominal and postnominal possessors, and to establish the degree of overlap between the two languages in this respect. The study focused on the following types of possessors: the Saxon-genitive phrase and the of-phrase in English, and the possessive adjective and the postnominal genitive phrase in Slovene. Of particular interest were the Saxon genitive and the possessive adjective, which - in contrast to their postnominal counterparts - are not syntactic parallels.

The paper is organized into two parts. The first part introduces the theoretical approach underlying the study, the second part outlines the methods of the empirical analysis and the findings of the study. The terminology used throughout the paper reflects the semantics of a prototypical possessive construction (e.g. my friend’s bike), where the semantic relation between the two arguments is that of ownership: one argument is assigned the semantic role of POSSESSOR (denoting the owner of something) and the other that of POSSESSEE (denoting the thing that is owned by somebody). The head of the phrase realizing the POSSESSOR (in our case the noun friend) is referred to as "possessor", and the head of the phrase realizing the POSSESSEE (in our case the noun bike) as "possessee". For the purposes of the study, the terms "possessive construction", "possessor" and "possessee" were adopted for all constructions with the Saxon-genitive phrase (English), the possessive adjective (Slovene) or their postnominal counterparts (the of-phrase and the genitive phrase respectively) as modifiers, regardless of the semantic relation involved.

1. The theoretical basis of the study: cognitive approach

The theoretical approach underlying the study was the reference-point analysis of the possessive construction, as developed within the framework of cognitive grammar (Lyons 1977, Langacker 1995, Vidovič-Muha 1998). This approach is based on the view that the function of the possessor is that of an abstract location: the possessor serves as a reference point facilitating the identification of the possessee. Not all nominals, however, are able to discharge this function. Following Taylor (1996), the term identification value was used in the study to refer to the cluster of properties that render a nominal compatible with the reference-point function.

As further elaborated by Taylor (1996), the main factor building up the identification value of the possessor nominal is its topicality (i.e. mental accessibility). Topicality can be discourse-conditioned (e.g. a concept may be mentally accessible due to its recent mention in the preceding discourse) or inherent (some concepts are automatically more easily accessed than others, regardless of the discourse context). It seems that in judging the acceptability of a given possessive construction the most important role is played by the inherent topicality of the possessor. The highest degree of inherent topicality attaches to human beings and the lowest to abstract concepts.

Another major factor contributing to the identification value of the possessor nominal is its informativity, i.e. its ability to be an effective cue for the identification of the relation between the possessor and the possessee. The possessor is able to perform the reference-point function if the semantic properties of the possessee are such that the possessor emerges as a highly informative participant in the relation, i.e. a participant on which the given relation imposes enough semantic restrictions.

1.2. Prenominal possessors: the reference-point function by default

The word order found in prenominal possessive constructions (i.e. the possessor preceding the possessee) enables the hearer to conceptualize the reference point (the possessor) before the target (the possessee). It has been proposed that the Saxon genitive phrase performs the reference-point function by default (Taylor 1996). Using a prenominal construction, the speaker indirectly tells the hearer that the possessor is a reliable reference point. The hearer understands the speaker's choice in exactly the same way: the prenominal possessor has been introduced as a highly reliable aid for the subsequent identification of the possessee.

In view of the above proposal, it must be assumed that prenominal possessors in English are realized predominantly by nominals that have high identification values whereas the use of nominals with low identification values is restricted to postnominal of-constructions. The main factor building up the identification value of a given possessor is its topicality. As pointed out by Taylor, a number of empirical studies have shown that prenominal possessors in English tend to be high in (discourse-conditioned as well as inherent) topicality. Furthermore, it turns out that the gender scale offered by traditional grammar (Quirk et al. 1985) as one of the criteria for the use of the Saxon genitive is nothing but the scale of inherent topicality.

It can be argued that the same applies to Slovene possessive constructions: the prenominal possessor is a reference point by default and as such incompatible with a low identification value. It is questionable, though, whether in Slovene the identification value of the possessor can influence the choice between prenominal and postnominal constructions to the same extent as in English. That the two languages are likely to differ in this respect becomes obvious if we consider two major morphosyntactic differences between the possessive adjective and the Saxon genitive phrase:

(i) They occupy different positions in the phrase structure. The Saxon genitive phrase is a definite element whereas the possessive adjective is a modifier (Haspelmath 1999, Plank 1992). The latter does not affect the (in)definite status of the whole phrase and is as such compatible with a(n) (in)definite element: ta Janezova knjiga ('this'+'John's'+'book' >> 'this book of John's), neka Janezova knjiga ('some/a'+'John's'+'book' >> 'a book of John's'). Cf. *this John's book, *a John's book.

(ii) Possessive adjectives ending in -ov/-ev or -in can only be derived from singular nouns. Therefore a prenominal possessor in Slovene cannot be complex or plural (dual) in form: *moj prijateljeva hiša ('my friend's house'), *prijatelji-eva hiša ('my friends' house'). In English, on the other hand, there are no restrictions of the kind: my friend's house, my friends' house. This is due to the fact that the genitival -'s is neither a derivational nor an inflectional morpheme. Although it has emerged from the Old English genitival inflection - es, it is nowadays regarded as a clitic whose function is similar to that of a preposition (Quirk et al. 1985). It can also be considered an auxiliary possessive pronoun (Delsing 1998, Hudson 1995) or, as has been established within the framework of generative grammar, the linking verb be with an incorporated preposition (den Dikken 1998a, 1998b).

1.3. Extending the notion of reference point

A prototypical reference point enables the complete identification of the target. This function of prenominal possessors reflects the exclusive nature of relation between a prototypical possessor and a prototypical possessee: there is only one owner of one particular thing. Most prenominal possessive constructions are extensions from the prototype, encoding a variety of relations other than prototypical possession. What they all have in common is the fact that in any of them the possessor facilitates the identification of the possessee in one of the following ways (1-3):

1. It enables the complete identification of the possessee.

The referent of the possessor is a specific, definite entity whose identification can be made by both the speaker and the hearer. This type of reference point enables the hearer to restrict the set of possible referents of the possessee to one particular referent: Barbara's bike ('the bike owned by Barbara').

2. It restricts the number of possible referents of the possessee by excluding referents with other possessors.

For example, in Slovene constructions like nek Barbarin prijatelj ('a'+'Barbara's'+'friend' >> 'a friend of Barbara's') the referent of the possessee is a specific, indefinite entity. Although the (specific, definite) possessor cannot facilitate the complete identification of the possessee, it can be regarded as a reference point since it excludes certain referents ('those who are not Barbara's friends') and thus restricts the set of possible referents of the possessee to a subset ('only those who are Barbara's friends').

Similarly, in English constructions like [some student]'s bike the referent of the possessor is a specific, yet indefinite entity. Despite its indefinite status the possessor has the function of a reference point: it excludes certain referents ('bikes that are not owned by students') from the set of possible referents of the possessee.

3. It restricts the set of possible referents of the possessee to one particular class.

This type of reference point is present in possessive compounds, which are characterized by the classifying function of the possessor. For example, a [lady's bike] denotes a type of bike, i.e. 'a bike designed for women' and not 'a bike owned by some particular lady' (in fact, the possessive compound [lady's bike] does not exclude the possibility that the bike in question is owned by a man: Bob's [lady's bike]). The most striking difference between possessive compounds and other possessive constructions is the fact that possessors in possessive compounds are non-referential, i.e. they have no referents in the real world. In the case of a [lady's bike] only the possessee (bike) has a referent, either a specific (e.g. She bought a new lady's bike. The lady's bike she bought was quite expensive.) or a non-specific one (e.g. A lady's bike is easy to ride.). The possessor (lady), on the other hand, does not refer to any particular lady or ladies in general; it merely states the type of bike. The situation would be different if the phrase a lady's bike was not a possessive compound but a prototypical possessive construction: [a lady]'s bike ('the bike owned by some particular lady'). The two constructions, however, are not unrelated. If we ignore the fact that ladies' bikes are not popular with all women, we can conclude that if some lady owns a bike ([a lady]'s bike) it will be a bike designed for women (a [lady's bike]). If we start the other way round, we can now provide a definition of the possessee in our possessive compound on the basis of comparison with the possessee in the homonymous (prototypical) possessive construction: a [lady's bike] = a bike of the same type as [a lady]'s bike, i.e. the bike owned by some particular lady. The possessor in the possessive compound is, notwithstanding its non-referentiality, at least indirectly in the function of a reference point: it restricts the set of possible referents of the possessee to a particular class, the class being the same as the class the possessee in the homonymous possessive construction belongs to.

As argued in the study, all the above functions of the possessor can be described as reference-point functions. Extending the notion of reference point makes it possible to associate the reference-point function with any prenominal possessor, irrespective of how far it may be removed from the prototype.

2. The empirical part of the study

2.1. The hypotheses

The study addressed the question of choice between prenominal and postnominal possessive constructions in English and Slovene. In accordance with the reference-point analysis of the possessive construction, two hypotheses were put forward:

1. The prenominal possessor has the reference-point function by default. (H1)

2. The identification value of the possessor is the main factor determining the choice between prenominal and postnominal constructions. (H2)

For either language, the hypotheses were checked against empirical data. The data were compiled from the B(ritish) N(ational) C(orpus) (a corpus of modern English) and the corpus FIDA[2] (a corpus of modern Slovene). A brief description of the sources is given in the section below.

2.2. The sources

Contrastive studies often involve analyses based on parallel corpora, i.e. collections of source-language texts together with their translations into the target language(s). Data obtained in this way, however, do not always reflect actual use because a particular translation variant may be chosen for a variety of reasons. Therefore the study made use of referential corpora instead: the BNC[3] served as the source for the "English" part of the analysis and FIDA[4] for the "Slovene" part.

Both the BNC and FIDA can be characterized as:

(i) 100-million-word corpora,
(ii) monolingual corpora (each dealing with one language only although foreign language words do occur in it),
(iii) synchronic corpora (containing texts from roughly the same period, i.e. the late twentieth century),
(iv) general corpora (including many different styles and varieties; not being limited to any particular subject field, genre or register).

They differ in two aspects regarding text selection:

(i) FIDA is a written corpus only whereas the BNC includes both written and spoken language.
(ii) FIDA includes all its texts in full whereas the BNC is a sample corpus: with the exception of shorter texts and multi-author texts, samples of 45,000 words are taken from various parts of single-author texts. Sampling allows for a wider coverage of texts and avoids over-representing idiosyncratic texts.

The actual source for the English part of the analysis was the BNC Sampler, which includes 184 texts selected from the BNC, with the variety of text-types and genres preserved. The Sampler contains one million words of written text and one million words of spoken text. In order to maintain the parallel with FIDA, the spoken component of the Sampler was excluded from the analysis. From the written component, 500 examples of the prenominal possessive construction (i.e. with a Saxon genitive phrase as the possessor) and 500 examples of the postnominal one (i.e. with an of-phrase as the possessor) were chosen at random to serve as empirical data for the analysis.

Similarly, only a small portion of FIDA served as the actual source for the Slovene part of the analysis. The problem of FIDA is that the majority of the texts included are translations from foreign languages, predominantly from English. For the purposes of the study, originally Slovene texts had to be selected. The selection followed two criteria: time (the texts had to be published in the last decade) and domain (they had to cover different kinds of writing). Thus 24 texts were chosen, none of them dating back further than 1996: 12 from fiction, 6 from the field of natural sciences, 6 from the field of humanities. For each text, the first 100 examples of the prenominal possessive construction and the first 50 examples of the postnominal one (a smaller amount of empirical data was needed here because the analysis focused on the use of the possessive adjective) were extracted. In the case of short texts, of course, these numbers were smaller. Besides, 200 examples of the prenominal construction and 100 examples of the postnominal one were taken from national newspapers and periodicals. In total, the Slovene part of the analysis comprised 1954 examples of the prenominal construction (i.e. with a possessive adjective as the possessor) and 1200 examples of the postnominal construction (i.e. with a postnominal genitive phrase as the possessor).

2.3. The analysis

Focusing on each language separately, the analysis comprised 500 examples of the English prenominal (Saxon genitive phrase) construction, 500 examples of the English postnominal (of-phrase) construction, 1954 examples of the Slovene prenominal (possessive adjective) construction and 1200 examples of the Slovene postnominal (genitive phrase) construction.[5]

The English part of the analysis was carried out on a smaller scale because there had already been similar empirical studies, all of them confirming the tendency for prenominal possessors in English to be high in topicality. For Slovene, on the other hand, this was the first corpus-based analysis of the kind.

In the case of each construction, both factors contributing to the identification value of the possessor were considered: topicality and informativity. Therefore each example was classified according to (i) the semantic properties of the possessor (building up its topicality) and (ii) the semantic properties of the possessee and the semantic relation between the possessor and the possessee (building up the informativity of the possessor). The classification followed the following frame:

1 ENGLISH
   1.1 PRENOMINAL POSSESSOR: the Saxon genitive phrase
      1.1.1 Possessor (<> topicality)
      1.1.2 Possessor <==> Possessee (<> informativity)
   1.2 POSTNOMINAL POSSESSOR: the of-phrase
      1.2.1 Possessor
      1.2.2 Possessor <==> Possessee

2 SLOVENE
   2.1 PRENOMINAL POSSESSOR: the possessive adjective
      2.1.1 Possessor
      2.1.2 Possessor <==> Possessee
   2.2 POSTNOMINAL POSSESSOR: the genitive phrase
      2.2.1 Possessor
      2.2.2 Possessor <==> Possessee

Besides its semantics, the following aspects of the possessive construction were relevant for the analysis:

(i) the form of the possessor (i.e. the grammatical number and the modifiers)
(ii) the form of the possessee (a noun, a deverbal noun, a gerund)
(iii) the syntactic function of the possessor (relevant in cases where the possessee was realized by a deverbal noun or a gerund)

2.4. The findings

The analysis of the empirical data has shown that (1-3):

1. In both languages the prenominal construction is characterized by a high identification value of the possessor, which is reflected in the fact that (1.1.) the possessor is highly topical, i.e. mentally accessible, and (1.2.) the relation between the possessor and the possessee is such that the possessor emerges as a highly informative participant in the relation.

1.1. The prenominal possessor is realized predominantly by:

(i) Personal names:

      (1) Joan's hesitation, the Simpsons' flat

      (2) Žigov naslov ('Žiga's address'), Pogačnikova ponudba ('Pogačnik's offer')

(ii) Kinship terms and nouns denoting mutual interpersonal relations:

(3) his wife's persistent chattering, her friend's letter

(4) očetov obraz ('her father's face'), sosedino vedro ('the neighbour's bucket')

(iii) Other nouns denoting people:

      (5) the old woman's death, the architect’s own design

      (6) starkina odločnost ('the old woman's determination'), doktorjevi gostje ('Doctor's guests')

Less frequent, however not unlikely to occur as prenominal possessors, are names of institutions, places and countries, common nouns referring to these entities (e.g. city, country, firm, institute, island, nation, school, state, town) and expressions of time. Their common denominator is that they all relate to human activities and interests, which makes them relatively high in topicality. Abstract concepts, on the other hand, have the lowest possible degree of inherent topicality and are as such not used as prenominal possessors.

1.2. The prevailing relations between the possessor and the possessee are the following:

(i) The possessee denotes some part of the possessor's body or psyche:

      (7) Elizabeth Danziger's face, Richard's mind

      (8) Irenine oči ('Irene's eyes'), Erazmova duševnost ('Erasmus's mind')

(ii) The possessee denotes some part of the possessor's life or identity:

      (9) his father's death, the girls' switched identities

      (10) hčerina poroka ('her daughter's wedding'), sestrino ime ('her sister's name')

(iii) The possessee denotes some quality of the possessor:

(11) Hamlet's lunacy

(12) Janezova hvalisavost ('John's boastfulness')

(iv) Between the possessor and the possessee exists a kinship relation or a mutual interpersonal relation:

      (13) the old farmer's daughter, Rory's pals

      (14) Aleševa sestra ('Alex's sister'), hčerkin fant ('her daughter's boyfriend')

(v) Between the possessor and the possessee exists an "employer-employee" relation:

      (15) Gorbrandt's men, the young king's faithful chamberlain

      (16) očkov šef ('Dad's boss'), Oblakovi fantje ('Oblak's boys')

(vi) The possessor is the owner of the possessee:

      (17) Karen's things, the boy's sandshoe

      (18) Kajini čevlji ('Kaja's shoes'), Martina bajta ('Martha's shack')

      (vii) The possessor is the performer or carrier of the activity or state denoted by the possessee:

      (19) Mr Gorbachev's policies, the group's main strategy

       (20) Kristusovi čudeži ('Christ's miracles'), Andrejeva kariera ('Andrew's career')

(viii) The possessor is the author of the thing denoted by the possessee:

      (21) Rupert Brooke's poems, the architect's own design

      (22) očetov prejšnji film ('his father's previous film'), Einsteinova formula ('Einstein's formula')

(ix) If the possessee is realized by a deverbal noun or a gerund, the possessor performs the function of an intransitive subject or a subject that does not denote a prototypical agent (i.e. a volitional initiator or causer of an action that affects the state of another participant in the process):

      (23) white farmers' fears (<< White farmers fear something.), his wife's persistent chattering (<< His wife chatters.)

(24) otrokov psihofizični razvoj << Otrok se razvija. ('the child's mental and physical development' << 'The child develops.'), Sovino hukanje << Sova huka. ('Owl's hooting' << 'Owl hoots.')

What all these relations have in common is the fact that in each of them even a non-relational possessee nominal starts to behave as a relational one. Thus the possessor becomes part of the semantic structure of the possessee, the result being that the possessor gains in its informativity.

2. Unless their use is precluded by some morpho-syntactic factors, possessors with high identification values do not occur in postnominal constructions.

In English, the genitival -'s can attach to both complex and plural possessors. In the following cases, however, a postnominal construction is normally used (even if the possessor has a high identification value):

(i) There's an apposition describing the possessor:

      (25) daughter of John Neville, a Dublin merchant

(ii) There's a relative clause describing the possessor:

      (26) the help of Dr Blackwell, who needed a moral support now

(iii) The possessor is rather long:

      (27) the future of new director general John Birt

(iv) The possessor is coordinated with another possessor:

      (28) the names of the newly elected Mayor and the officials appointed by him

In Slovene, on the other hand, the complexity and the grammatical number of the possessor seem to be crucial: as soon as the possessor is complex or plural (dual) in form, the derivation of a possessive adjective is not possible. An attempt was made in the study to associate even these two factors with inherent topicality. The fact that personal names and kinship terms are used almost exclusively as prenominal possessors indicates that they tend to be simple in form. This tendency can be understood as a reflection of their topicality: as highly topical entities they do not need further description in order to be conceptualized by the hearer. Other types of nouns denoting people, which are slightly lower in topicality, are more often modified, the syntactic consequence being their use as postnominal possessors. The need for modification and topicality are obviously related.

It is worth noting at this point that topicality is also connected with semantic classes of nouns that can(not) serve as derivational bases for possessive adjectives: most of the nouns that have a low degree of inherent topicality cannot perform this function. This is a reflection of the fact that the reference-point function of all prenominal possessors originates in the function of a prototypical possessor, i.e. the single, human, definite and mentally accessible owner of a particular thing. The analogy with the prototype seems to be so strong that the derivation of possessive adjectives is restricted mostly to nouns denoting people, i.e. nouns that are compatible with the function of a prototypical possessor.

3. Possessors with low identification values are normally used in postnominal constructions.

The only exception seems to be the type of construction generally known as possessive compounds, where the function of the possessor is classifying: the possessor does not function as a prototypical reference point but merely states the type (class) of the possessee (e.g. a [boy's school]). Representing a considerable extension from the prototype, possessive compounds may be excluded from the above generalization.

3. Conclusion

For both languages, the findings confirm the hypothesis that the prenominal possessor has the reference-point function by default (H1). This makes the prenominal possessive construction a perfect device for introducing new concepts into the discourse: a new entity is introduced through an entity that has already been conceptualized by the hearer. Using the prenominal construction, the speaker makes it explicit to the hearer that the possessor is able to perform the reference-point function and thus facilitate the identification of the possessee.

The findings also confirm the hypothesis that the choice between prenominal and postnominal constructions depends primarily on the identification value of the possessor (H2). At first sight it seems that in the case of Slovene constructions this factor is overridden by the complexity and the grammatical number of the possessor; in addition, a possessive adjective cannot be derived from any semantic class of noun. As proposed in the study, even these factors can to some extent be explained in terms of identification value, namely (inherent) topicality.

Finally, the findings confirm the universal nature of some basic concepts and constructions. The fact that the reference-point analysis of the possessive construction may be applied to languages as different as English and Slovene suggests the potential for further application of the reference-point model to cross-linguistic studies.

WORKS CITED

  • Delsing, Lars Olof. "Possession in Germanic", Possessors, Predicates and Movement in DP, Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.

  • Dikken, Marcel den. "(Anti-)agreement in DP", Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988 (1998a).

  • Dikken, Marcel den. "Predicate Inversion in DP", Possessors, Predicates and Movement in DP, Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998b.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. "Explaining article - possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax", Language 75 (1999): 227-243.

  • Hudson, Richard. "Does English really have case?", Journal of Linguistics 31 (1995): 375-392.

  • Langacker, Ronald W.. "Possession and possessive constructions", Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, John R. Taylor & E. MacLaury (eds.). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.

  • Lipovšek, Frančiška. Svojilniške zgradbe v angleščini in slovenščini. Doctoral dissertation (MS). Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 2002.

  • Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP, 1977.

  • Plank, Frans. "Possessives and the distinction between determiners and modifiers (with special reference to German)", Journal of Linguistics 28 (1992): 453-468.

  • Quirk, Randolph et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

  • Taylor, John R.. Possessives in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

  • Vidovič-Muha, Ada. "Pomenski preplet glagolov imeti in biti - njuna jezikovnosistemska stilistika", Slavistična revija 46 (1998): 293-323.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Part of my doctoral dissertation (Lipovšek 2002).

[2] Pronounced /’fi:da/.

[3] For more information see http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc.

[4] For more information see http://www.fida.net.

[5] The examples are listed in Lipovšek 2002.


>