In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon
  • Lars Johanson
Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology. Ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. (Explorations in linguistic typology.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xxii, 319. ISBN 9780199660223. $125 (Hb).

This collection of essays about possession and ownership aims at combining linguistic and anthropological concepts concerning the relation between language, culture, and modes of thinking, particularly the ways in which culture and cognition are manifested in grammar. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald’s opening essay, ‘Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective’, is a lucid introduction that defines, explains, and exemplifies all conceivable aspects of the topic.

Chs. 2–11 address the ways that linguistic structures reflect cultural patterns, attitudes toward possession, and effects of change. Isabelle Bril analyzes the complex system of ownership relations in the Oceanic language Nêlêmwa of New Caledonia. Gloria J. Gravelle investigates patterns of possession in Moskona, an East Bird’s Head language of West Papua, Indonesia. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald deals with possession and ownership in Manambu, a Ndu language of the Sepik area of Papua New Guinea. Alan Dench analyzes possession in Martuthunira, once spoken in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Lev Michael discusses Nanti, spoken in Peru, in the context of other Arawak languages. Mark W. Post deals with possession and association in the Tibeto-Burman Galo language and its culture. Yongxian Luo examines possessive constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Anne Storch studies possession in Hone, a Jukonoid language of Nigeria. Felix K. Ameka deals with possessive constructions in Likpe (Sɛkpɛlé), a Kwa language of Ghana. Zygmunt Frajzyngier discusses possession in Wandala, a Chadic language of Cameroon and Nigeria.

The last two chapters focus on indigenous conceptualization of ownership and its changes in the modern world. Michael Wood discusses the Melanesian understanding of possession as observed in Kamula, spoken in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea. Rosita Henry deals with ownership among speakers of Temboka in the Western Highlands of Papua New Guinea. With a special focus on Australian languages, especially Dyirbal, R. M. W. Dixon discusses comitative and privative patterns of predicative possession, the problem of the head in appositional constructions of inalienable possession, and indigenous concepts of possession, ownership, and control.

In her introduction, Aikhenvald presents the theoretical principles of analysis and sums up a number of insights on the basis of her own studies, investigation of numerous grammars, and the findings suggested in the succeeding chapters. In the following, the main tenets of this detailed crosslinguistic account of the wide range of possessive structures is briefly outlined.

Possessive constructions vary depending on the nature of the possessor, the possessee, and the possessive relationship. They realize a set of recurrent core meanings: (i) ownership, (ii) whole-part relations, for example, between a body or a plant and its parts, and (iii) kinship, that is, consanguineal and affinal relations. Many languages use essentially the same constructions for the core meanings. All combinations of the types are, however, found across the world’s languages. The degree to which possession is conceived as ‘the same’ differs from one society to another and is reflected in linguistic structures.

Possession can be expressed with possessive noun phrases. Some languages have dedicated phrase types that cover the core meanings (Moskona, Manambu, Martuthunira, Nanti, Hone). Others represent possessive meanings through more general associative noun phrases. The expression of possession may be viewed as a realization of a broader concept of association (Nêlêmwa, Galo, Mandarin, Likpe, Temboka, Wandala).

Kinship possession and whole-part relationship reflect close links between possessor and possessee, the intimate relationship of ‘inalienable possession’. Culturally important objects may fall [End Page 277] into this class. Some languages treat consanguineal kinship and sacred or treasured objects as inalienable. The semantic content varies, and the composition of the classes may change over time, for example, when body-part terms are grammaticalized as spatial relators (Nêlêmwa, Nanti, Moskona, Manambu, Likpe, Wandala). Nouns designating inalienably possessed...

pdf

Share