2005Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln)Requires access

The role of animacy in the nominal possessive constructions of Modern Low Saxon

Jan Strunk

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

The dialects of modern Low Saxon dispose of multiple nominal constructions to express possession. The noun phrases in (1) – (4) exemplify these four different constructions. \n \n(1) sien Huus \n his house \n "his house" \n \n(2) Anna ehr Huus \n Anna her house \n "Anna's house" \n \n(3) Oma's Huus \n grandma=POSS house \n "grandma's house" \n \n(4) dat Huus vun de CDU \n the house of the CDU \n "the house of the Christian Democrats" \n \nAfter establishing these four constructions as a case of syntactic alternation using authentic examples taken from a one million word corpus of Low Saxon texts, I discuss the role of animacy in the domain of nominal possessive constructions. I examine animacy per se and several additional factors that have been connected to animacy in the literature such as concreteness, person, and number. Moreover, I also take a look at the possessive relation between possessor and possessum and discuss how it is connected to animacy. \n \nMy research shows that animacy plays a very important role for the choice of possessive construction in Low Saxon and that the animacy level of the possessor is much more important than the animacy level of the possessum. The three prenominal constructions (1) – (3) in which the possessor phrase precedes the possessum phrase are generally used with more animate possessors than the postnominal construction in (4). This is in line with the few comments on these constructions given in descriptive grammars on Low Saxon, e.g. Saltveit (1983), and with results of previous studies on the possessive alternation in English (eg. Leech et al. 1994 and Rosenbach 2002). The fact that the prenominal possessive constructions in (1) – (3) pattern more closely together than each does with the postnominal possessive construction in (4) lends further support to Rosenbach's theory for English that the influence of animacy on the choice of possessive construction is based on the different linear order of possessor and possessum. However, I will also show that there are some differences between the prenominal constructions regarding the role of animacy.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The dialects of modern Low Saxon dispose of multiple nominal constructions to express possession. The noun phrases in (1) – (4) exemplify these four different constructions. \n \n(1) sien Huus \n his house \n "his house" \n \n(2) Anna ehr Huus \n Anna her house \n "Anna's house" \n \n(3) Oma's Huus \n grandma=POSS house \n "grandma's house" \n \n(4) dat Huus vun de CDU \n the house of the CDU \n "the house of the Christian Democrats" \n \nAfter establishing these four constructions as a case of syntactic alternation using authentic examples taken from a one million word corpus of Low Saxon texts, I discuss the role of animacy in the domain of nominal possessive constructions. I examine animacy per se and several additional factors that have been connected to animacy in the literature such as concreteness, person, and number. Moreover, I also take a look at the possessive relation between possessor and possessum and discuss how it is connected to animacy. \n \nMy research shows that animacy plays a very important role for the choice of possessive construction in Low Saxon and that the animacy level of the possessor is much more important than the animacy level of the possessum. The three prenominal constructions (1) – (3) in which the possessor phrase precedes the possessum phrase are generally used with more animate possessors than the postnominal construction in (4). This is in line with the few comments on these constructions given in descriptive grammars on Low Saxon, e.g. Saltveit (1983), and with results of previous studies on the possessive alternation in English (eg. Leech et al. 1994 and Rosenbach 2002). The fact that the prenominal possessive constructions in (1) – (3) pattern more closely together than each does with the postnominal possessive construction in (4) lends further support to Rosenbach's theory for English that the influence of animacy on the choice of possessive construction is based on the different linear order of possessor and possessum. However, I will also show that there are some differences between the prenominal constructions regarding the role of animacy.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The dialects of modern Low Saxon dispose of multiple nominal constructions to express possession. The noun phrases in (1) – (4) exemplify these four different constructions. \n \n(1) sien Huus \n his house \n "his house" \n \n(2) Anna ehr Huus \n Anna her house \n "Anna's house" \n \n(3) Oma's Huus \n grandma=POSS house \n "grandma's house" \n \n(4) dat Huus vun de CDU \n the house of the CDU \n "the house of the Christian Democrats" \n \nAfter establishing these four constructions as a case of syntactic alternation using authentic examples taken from a one million word corpus of Low Saxon texts, I discuss the role of animacy in the domain of nominal possessive constructions. I examine animacy per se and several additional factors that have been connected to animacy in the literature such as concreteness, person, and number. Moreover, I also take a look at the possessive relation between possessor and possessum and discuss how it is connected to animacy. \n \nMy research shows that animacy plays a very important role for the choice of possessive construction in Low Saxon and that the animacy level of the possessor is much more important than the animacy level of the possessum. The three prenominal constructions (1) – (3) in which the possessor phrase precedes the possessum phrase are generally used with more animate possessors than the postnominal construction in (4). This is in line with the few comments on these constructions given in descriptive grammars on Low Saxon, e.g. Saltveit (1983), and with results of previous studies on the possessive alternation in English (eg. Leech et al. 1994 and Rosenbach 2002). The fact that the prenominal possessive constructions in (1) – (3) pattern more closely together than each does with the postnominal possessive construction in (4) lends further support to Rosenbach's theory for English that the influence of animacy on the choice of possessive construction is based on the different linear order of possessor and possessum. However, I will also show that there are some differences between the prenominal constructions regarding the role of animacy.

Key concepts: Animacy, Possessive, Linguistics, Noun phrase, Genitive case, Possession (linguistics), Phrase, Construction grammar

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The role of animacy in the nominal possessive constructions of Modern Low Saxon — Research Paper | ScholarLens