Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 11:2 (2024) ► pp.370–401
What can the taxonomy of predicative possession in Malwai Punjabi tell us?
A cognitive linguistics approach
Published online: 10 October 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22002.lu
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22002.lu
Abstract
The study aims to examine the syntactic and semantic behaviors of predicative possession (i.e., have-possessive
constructions) in Malwai Punjabi, an underdocumented dialect within the Indo-Aryan language family. Data were collected from
longitudinal online interviews with native speakers as consultants, with audio recordings for transcribed target sentences. The
results revealed that all the alienable possession, either permanent/temporary or abstract/concrete, could be marked by the
postposition koḷ ‘near/with’, whereas inalienable possession, such as whole-part relation and kinship, could not
be encoded using koḷ. The prototypicality model and schema-based metaphors explained why koḷ was
widely used to express alienable possession in Malwai Punjabi. The analysis of companion and proximity schemata
also justified the extended semantics of predicative possession, suggesting a metaphorical mapping of accompaniment and location
onto possession. From a typological angle, the case study can not only provide further evidence for the existence of split
possession but also contribute to a cognitive understanding of predicative possession in relation to other languages.
Keywords: predicative possession, Malwai Punjabi, metaphor, prototypicality, postposition
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background of Malwai Punjabi
- 3.Literature review
- 3.1Previous studies on predicative possession
- 3.2Theoretical framework
- 4.Methodology
- 4.1Subjects
- 4.2Design
- 4.3Procedure
- 4.4Transcription and coding
- 5.The distribution of predicative possessive constructions in Malwai Punjabi
- 5.1Five possessive notions
- 5.1.1Physical possession
- 5.1.2Temporary possession
- 5.1.3Permanent possession
- 5.1.4Inalienable possession
- 5.1.5Abstract possession
- 5.1.6Inanimate inalienable possession
- 5.1.7Inanimate alienable possession
- 5.2Aikhenvald’s (2013) three possessive categories
- 5.2.1Ownership (of property)
- 5.2.2Whole–part relations
- 5.2.3Kinship relations
- 5.1Five possessive notions
- 6.Discussion
- 6.1Prototypical possessive pattern
- 6.2Schemata of possession
- 6.2.1possessor is accompanee, possessum is companion
- 6.2.2transferable possession is spatial proximity (location)
- 6.3Typological implication
- 7.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (42)
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2013). Possession
and ownership: A cross linguistic perspective. In Alexandra, A. Y. & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Possession
and ownership: A cross-linguistic
typology (pp. 1–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allbritton, D. W. (1995). When
metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and
Symbolic
Activity, 10(1), 33–46.
Baron, I., Herslund, M., & Sørensen, F. (2001). Dimensions
of possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chappell, H., & Creissels, D. (2019). Topicality
and the typology of predicative possession. Linguistic
Typology, 23(3), 467–532.
Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., & Bickel, B. (2015). The
Leipzig rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology.
Creissels, D. (2022). Existential
predication and predicative possession in Arabic dialects. STUF – Language Typology and
Universals, 75(4), 583–612.
Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic
linguistic theory: Volume 2: Grammatical
topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (2013). The
world Atlas of language structures online. Available online at [URL], accessed on 2022-01-23.
Gotah, S. (2019). Comparative
syntactic analysis of predicative possession and transitive ‘need’. MA
thesis. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Retrieved from [URL]
Grković-Major, J. (2011). The
development of predicative possession in Slavic languages. In M. Nomachi (Ed.), The
Grammar of possessivity in south Slavic languages: Synchronic and diachronic
perspectives (pp. 35–54). Hokkaido: Hokkaido University.
Gulyás, N. F. (2020). Predicative
possession in Permic. In G. Dalmi, J. Witkoś & P. Cegłowski (Eds.). Approaches
to predicative possession: The view from Slavic and
Finno-Ugric (pp. 186–201). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Heine, B. (1997a). Possession:
Cognitive sources, forces, and
grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2001). Ways
of explaining possession. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Dimensions
of
possession (pp. 311–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kachru, Y. (1970). A
note on possessive constructions in Hindi-Urdu. Journal of
Linguistics, 6(1), 37–45.
Kaur, A., Singh, P., & Kaur, K. (2017). Punjabi
dialects conversion system for Majhi, Malwai and Doabi
dialects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Computer Modeling and
Simulation (pp. 125–128).
Keen, I. (2013). The
language of possession: Three case studies. Language in
Society, 42(2), 187–214.
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction:
A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based
models of
language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford: CSLI.
Kilian-Hatz, C., & Stolz, T. (1992). Comitative,
concomitance, and beyond: On the interdependency of grammaticalization and
conceptualization. Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln.
Klein, W. (2013). Speaking
Punjabi: Heritage language socialization and language ideologies in a Sikh education
program. Heritage Language
Journal, 10(1), 36–50.
Lewis, M. P., Gary, F. S., & Charles, D. F. (Eds.). (2016). Ethnologue:
Languages of the world. Dallas: SIL International
Mazzitelli, L. F. (2017). Predicative
possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. Folia
Linguistica, 51(1), 1–60.
Mohammadirad, M. (2020). Predicative
possession across Western Iranian languages. Folia
Linguistica, 54(3), 497–526.
Nichols, J., & Bickel, B. (2013). Possessive
classification. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The
World Atlas of Language Structures. Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at [URL]. Accessed on 2013-03-14.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family
resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive
Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.
Shackle, C. (2003). “Punjabi”. In G. Cardona, & D. Jain (Eds.), Indo-Aryan
languages (pp. 581–621). London: Routledge.
Singh, A., & Singh, P. (2015). Punjabi
dialects conversion system for Malwai and Doabi dialects. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, 8(27), 1–6.
Stolz, T. (2001). To
be with X is to have X: Comitatives, instrumentals, locative, and predicative
possession. Linguistics, 39(2), 321–350.
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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stolz, T., Stroh, C. & Urdze, A. (2006). On
comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of
Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Subrahmanyam, D. (2011). From
location to possession: A case study of Hindi ke pās. BA Paper: Yale University.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic
categorization: Prototypes in linguistic
theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
