Inalienability in North Saami

Lene Antonsen; Laura Janda

doi:10.7557/sda.6708

Authors

Lene Antonsen UiT The Arctic University of Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7927-8536
Laura Janda UiT The Arctic University of Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5047-1909

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7557/sda.6708

Keywords:

North Saami, possessive construction, possessive suffixes, language change, inalienability

Abstract

On the basis of corpus data (9.5M words 1997–2010) we claim that North Saami is developing a grammatical distinction between alienable and inalienable possession. In previous work we documented a language change in North Saami in which the possessive suffix as in girjji-id-easkka [book-acc.pl-3pl] ‘their books’ is being replaced by an analytic construction with the reflexive genitive ieža-form, as in iežaska girjjiid ‘their books’. According to typologists, alienable/inalienable distinctions arise primarily in small languages where a language change takes place, and inalienability is marked by the synthetic construction. North Saami possessive constructions comport with these features, and the possessive suffix tends to mark inalienable possession, as opposed to the more neutral and widespread ieža-form. Statistical analysis shows that word frequency cannot account for the distribution of the possessive suffix vs. ieža-form, justifying focus on semantics. North Saami shows high frequency of the possessive suffix for kinship and body part nouns associated with inalienability cross-linguistically, but there is a strong presence of the possessive suffix with words for “products”: concrete and abstract human artefacts, where the creation is inalienably possessed by its creator. Another important group marked with the possessive suffix associated with inalienable possession are words connected with identity and livelihood. Even though overall the reflexive genitive ieža-form has been taking the place of the possessive suffix the possessive suffix, continues to be productive in use with words signaling products, identity, and livelihood.

References

Antonsen, Lene 2018: Sámegielaid modelleren – huksen ja heiveheapmi duohta giellamáilbmái. Nákkosgirji. UiT Norgga árktalaš universitehta. <https://hdl.handle.net/10037/12884> (15.12.2020).

Antonsen, Lene & Janda, Laura A. 2015: Oamastanráhkadusat davvisámi girjjálašvuođas. – Vuokko Hirvonen, Johanna Johansen Ijäs, Marjatta Jomppanen & Kaarina Vuolab-Lohi (doaimm.), Symposia ávvučála – nostalgiija, naga ja eará gielalaš ja kultuvrralaš fenomenat. Dieđut 2. Guovdageaidnu: Sámi allaskuvla. 9–43. <http://giellatekno.uit.no/publications/Diedut2020152_artihkkalcoakkaldat_antonsen_janda.pdf> (15.12.2020).

Antonsen, Lene & Trosterud, Trond 2017: Ord sett innafra og utafra – en datalingvistisk analyse av nordsamisk. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 35 (2): 153–185. <http://ojs.novus.no/index.php/NLT/article/view/1416> (15.12.2020).

Bally, Charles 1996 [1926]: The expression of concepts of the personal domain and indivisibility in Indo-European languages. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 31–61.

Bybee, Joan 1985: Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, Joan 2008: Diachronic linguistics. – D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (doaimm.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 945–987.

Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William 1989: Alienability, Inalienability and Nominal Classification. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 24–36.

Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (doaimm.) 1996a: The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 3–30.

Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William 1996b: Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 3–30.

Croft, William 1990: Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crowley, Terry 1996: Inalienable possession in Paamese grammar. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 383–431.

Devylder, Simon 2018: Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 29 (2): 313–348. <https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0058> (15.12.2020).

Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward 2010: Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eira, Anders O. 1991: Duottarráfis soahtešilljui. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji.

Evans, Nicholas 1996: The syntax and semantics of body part incorporation in Mayali. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 65–109.

Haiman, John 1983: Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59 (4). 781–819.

Haiman, John 1985: Natural syntax – iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harvey, Mark 1996: Body parts in Warray. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 111–153.

Haspelmath, Martin 2017: Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 36(2): 193–231. <https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2017-0009> (15.12.2020).

Heine, Bernd 1997: Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hosokawa, Komei 1996: “My face am burning!”: quasi-passive, body parts, and related issues in Yawuru grammar and cultural concepts. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 155–192.

Janda, Laura A. & Antonsen, Lene 2016: The ongoing eclipse of possessive suffixes in North Saami: A case study in reduction of morphological complexity. Diachronica 33 (3): 330–366.

Julien, Marit 2014: Vokativar i norsk. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 32 (1): 130–165. <http://ojs.novus.no/index.php/NLT/article/view/161>(15.12.2020).

Langacker, Ronald W. 2000: Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien 1914: L’expression de la possession dans les langues mélanésiennes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 19 (2): 96–104.

Manczak, Witold 1980: Laws of analogy. – J. Fisiak (doaimm.), Historical morphology. New York: Mouton Publishers. 283–288.

McGregor, William 1996: The grammar of nominal prefixing in Nyulnyul. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 251–292.

Mithun, Marianne 1996: Multiple reflections of inalienability in Mohawk. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 633–649.

Nickel, Klaus Peter & Sammallahti, Pekka 2011: Nordsamisk grammatikk. Karasjok: Davvi Girji.

Nichols, Johanna 1988: On alienable and inalienable possession. – W. Shipley (doaimm.), In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 557–610.

Nichols, Johanna 1992: Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Osumi, Midori 1996: Body parts in Tinrin. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 433–462.

Paltto, Kirsti 2007: Ája. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji.

Svonni, Mikael 2019: Davvisámi giellaoahppa. Giron: Rávda Lágádus.

Thompson, Chad 1996: On the grammar of body parts in Koyukon Athabaskan. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 651–676.

Tsunoda, Tasaku 1996: The possession cline in Japanese and other languages. – Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (doaimm.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 565–630.

Turi, Klemet Nilsen 1982: Áiggit rivdet. [Deatnu]: Jår’galæd’dji.