Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 24:1 (2026) ► pp.31–62
Possessive construction in the Kurdish language
A cognitive perspective
Published online: 2 April 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00181.deh
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00181.deh
Abstract
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.
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
References (28)
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.
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.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive
Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
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.
Hasar, R. V., & Naghshbandi, Z. (2021). “A comparative study of possessive construction in Kurdish and Hungarian from a cognitive perspective.” Acta Linguistica Academica 68(3), 318–349.
Heine, B., & Claudi, U. (1986). On
the rise of grammatical categories: Some examples from Maa (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik
13). Berlin: Reimer.
Heine, B. (1997). Possession:
Cognitive forces, sources, and
grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hengeveld, K. (1992). Non-verbal
predications: Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series,
15.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On
some principle of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches
to
grammaticalization, 11, 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Labrada, J. E. R. (2023). Beyond
alienability: Factors determining possessive classes in
Piaroa. Linguistics, 61(6), 1447–1490.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations
of Cognitive
Grammar (vol. 21). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
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. (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.
Richards, C. J., & Richard, W. S. (2010). Longman
dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. London: Pearson Education.
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.
(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].
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.
Taylor, J. (1996). Possessives
in English. An exploration in Cognitive
Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vattukumpu, T. (2020). On
possessive, existential and locative clause types in the Haisla Language. Northern Language
Studies, 101, 255–274.
