On possessive semantics in privative verbs (the evidence from English and Ukrainian)

possessive semantics privative verb

Various questions of possessive semantics have been continuously explored for several decades (Lyons, 1967; Christie 1970; Clark, 1978; Golovacheva, 1989; Heine, 1997; Grkovic-Major, 2011; Farkas, 2016). The scope of the issues discussed includes not only regular grammatical means of expressing possessive relations in the language (Alieva 1998), but also miscellaneous questions which belong to the sphere of syntax (Clark, 1978), nominal (Golovacheva, 1989) and verbal (Lynch, 1973) semantics - the latter represent a particular interest for the present research.

It is noteworthy that the most productive studies have been carried out on the corpuses of nonIndo-European languages such as for example Indonesian (Alieva, 1998), Mandarin Chinese (Luo, 2013), Nanti (Michael, 2013), Hungarian (Farkas, 2016), etc. Such scientific prolificacy can be easily explained by the languages grammatical structure which demonstrates distinctive possessive character, i. e. the languages have grammatical categories represented by regularly reproduced flexions with possessive semantics. Nevertheless, Indo-European languages, to which English and Ukrainian belong, also have means of expressing possessive semantics (grammatical, morphological, syntactic, and word-building) (Golovacheva, 1989; Grkovic-Major, 2011; Milenkovska, 2011; Moloshnaja, 1989).

The above brief overview of the theoretical issues involved gives possibility to state that possessives have been subject to a considerable number of studies. However, the vast majority of papers concentrate either on grammatical or morphological, or syntactic means of expressing possessive relations leaving out the lexical ones.

The present paper analyses English and Ukrainian privative verbs (hereafter PVs) in which possessive semantics is represented not with formally expressed means (i. e. word-building or wordchanging morphemes) but lies in the verbs' deep semantic structure which becomes possible to decode with the help of semantic interpretation formulae.

e. g. Eng. to amputate, to steal, to chip off, to fine, to rob;

Ukr.ампутувати, красти, відколювати, штрафувати, грабувати.

The study is based on the corpus obtained by continuous sampling from lexicographic sources (947 units in English and 1015 units in Ukrainian).

The research aims at analysing English and Ukrainian PVs in terms of their possessive semantics: a) determining what elements of the PVs semantic structure belong to possessive ones; b) developing principles for the PVs' comprehensive classification which will take into account all the elements singled out on the previous stage; c) stratifying the corpus in both languages according to the principles developed; d) defining iso- and allomorphic features for the languages under analysis.

The methodology of the research is characterised by complex approach and includes general scientific methods among which are analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, systematization, and generalization, as well as linguistic methods which include continuous sampling, definition, compo- nential analysis, interpretation formulae, comparative and descriptive methods, statistics.

Theoretical background

Privative verbs, which are studied in the paper, represent a complex semantic unity which comprises three universal fundamental linguistic categories: causative and possessive semantics and implicit negation.

Care should be taken not to confuse the term `privative' used to denote a particular semantic type of the verb semantics (Ivanov, 1995; Kaliuscenko, 2000; Mel'cuk, 1998) with the term used in phonology to denote one of the phonetic opposition types (Trubetzkoy, 2001) and the term used in derivatology to denote negative prefixes (Mazzon, 2004).

The verb, being the centre of the utterance, forms the core of the sentence opening potential roles (represented in the sentence either explicitly or implicitly) for its participants, thus creating the so-called `situation' (Tesniere 2015). The term `situation' (i. e. `causative situation') becomes crucial within the theory of causatives (Nedyalkov 1969, Shebatani 1976, 2002) as it allows to build a pattern according to which causative verbs function in the speech and bring to the fore the elements of the causative situation.

Following the ideas and methods of structural linguistics (Apresian, 1966), it proves to be productive to represent the PVs semantics through interpretation formula which allows to visualise the elements of basic privative situation (see fig. 1):

Fig. 1 Basic interpretation formula of the privative situation

The paper views causative and possessive relations as microsituations entering privative macrosituation, and any situation is known to be constituted by semantic actants (participants of the situation), which are termed as `subject' and `object'. Thus, the semantic roles of the actants are distributed in the following way:

A - the causer, i. e. the subject of the causative situation;

B - the possessor, i. e. the object of the causative situation and at the same time the subject of the possessive situation;

C - the possessee, i. e. the object of the possessive situation;

V1 - causative relation between the causer (A) and the possessor (B);

V2 - possessive relation between the possessor (B) and the possessee (C).

However, as it is seen from the interpretation formula the relation between B and C is complicated by one more seme - the seme of negation - which is represented in the PVs semantics on the implicit level. So, PVs express not global negation related to the whole utterance (Ivanov, 1995) but a local one, which as a result turns the situation of possession into the situation of deprivation.

Thus, out of five components of the PVs' semantic structure three belong to the sphere of possessive relation: the possessor (B), the possesse (C), and the possessive relation between them (V2).

A comprehensive semantic analysis of English and Ukrainian PVs becomes possible, only on condition that all three components are taken into account which brings us to three stages necessary for the PVs stratification. One of the basic notions within the theory of possessivity is the division of possessive relations into inalienable and alienable (Konig, 2001; Ogawa, 2001), so on the first stage of

the corpus stratification it is but natural to single out two corresponding types of English and Ukrainian PVs. On the second stage, within the two types the semantics of the possessor is analysed, which demonstrates greater variety (human, animal, plant, concrete object, abstract notion). Finally, on the third stage, within the possessor groups the possessee semantics is analysed, which can be even more varied.

Results

As it has been stated above, the methodology of the analysis procedure applied presupposes three stages.

On the first stage of the analysis, the empiric corpus in both languages expectedly demonstrates a universal division into two types a) inalienable possession (Eng. 442 PVs / 46.7 %; Ukr. 551 PVs / 54.3 %); b) alienable possession (Eng. 505 PVs / 53.3 %; Ukr. 464 PVs / 45.7 %), where in English verbs with the alienable possession prevail and in Ukrainian with the alienable one. The inalienable possession proves to be of primary character as it demonstrates much more developed system of the possessor and the possessee semantics (see 3.2. and 3.3.).

On the second stage, the possessor semantics study shows that the highest degree of semantic density is observed within the type of PVs with inalienable possession relation which are represented by 2 subtypes: a) animate possessive subject (a human, an animal) (Eng. 46,6 %, Ukr. 28,7 %) and b) inanimate possessive subject (a concrete object, a plant, an abstract notion) (Eng. 53,4 %, Ukr. 71,3 %). The dominating semantic type of the possessive subject in English and Ukrainian PVs is represented exclusively by an animate noun (a human).

In their turn, the possessor semantics in PVs with alienable possession relation are limited to humans only as property relations in their legal sense can exist only between the human being (occasionally animal) and objects belonging to their personal sphere.

The third stage of stratification demonstrates that the possessee semantics represents the most interest from the contrastive point of view as it is only within this layer that allomorphic features are found.

Inalienable possession.

The most detailed nomination of the inalienable possessee is found in the group of PVs with the animate possessor:

1) possessee - body part (Eng. 131 PVs / 63.9 %; Ukr. 115 PVs / 72.8 %):

• skin cover (Eng. to scale `to remove scale from fish', Ukr. стригти`to cut hair');

• inner organs and tissues (Eng. to flesh `to remove muscles', Ukr. тельбушити`to remove bowels');

• reproductive organs (Eng. to geld `to castrate a horse', Ukr. каструвати`to castrate');

• skin (Eng. to spade `to remove skin from a whale', Ukr. білувати`to remove skin from an animal');

• limbs (Eng. to dislimb `to remove limbs', Ukr. ампутувати`to amputate');

• an eye (Eng. to poach `to take out an eye', Ukr. виштрикувати`to poach');

• head (Eng. to behead `to remove the head', Ukr. обезголовлювати`to remove the head');

• a tooth (Eng. to pull `to take out a tooth', Ukr. екстрагувати`to take out a tooth');

• blood (Eng. to bleed `to remove blood', Ukr. знекровлювати`to remove blood')';

• a tail (Eng. to tail `to cut away the tail', Ukr. купірувати`to cut away the tail or make it shorter');

• horns (Eng. to dishorn `to remove horns', in the Ukrainian language PVs with this semantics are not found);

• ears (Eng. to round `to remove ears', in the Ukrainian language PVs with this semantics are not found);

• a foetus (in the English language PVs with this semantics are not found, Ukr. зганяти `to remove a foetus');

2) possessee - abstract notion (Eng. 75 PVs / 36.1 %; Ukr. 43 PVs / 27.2 %) which are in their turn are stratified into

• a) possessee of internal character: psychological state (Eng. to deface `to deprive of love, faith, etc.', Ukr. обезнадіювати`to deprive of hope'), physical condition (Eng. to alleviate `to deprive of pain', Ukr. знеболювати`to deprive of pain'), quality (Eng. to dishearten `to deprive of courage', Ukr. обезчестити`to deprive of honour'), habit / skill (Eng. to cure of `to deprive of a habit', Ukr. відзвичаювати`to deprive of a habit'), destiny in the English language PVs with this semantics are not found, Ukr. обезталанювати`to deprive of destiny');

• b) possessee of social character: social changes (Eng. to disentitle `to deprive of a title', Ukr. скорочувати`to deprive of a job'), right (Eng. to disfranchize `to deprive of the voting right', Ukr. денатуралізувати`to deprive of the citizenship'), idea / thought (Eng. to lift `to illegally appropriate somebody else's thoughts and ideas, in the Ukrainian language PVs with this semantics are not found).

PVs with the possessor-inanimate object can be divided into three groups which coincide in both languages of the research: a) possessor-concrete object; b) possessor-plant; c) possessorabstract notion.

The biggest group is constituted by the PVs with possessor-concrete object (Eng. 135 PVs / 30.6 %; Ukr. 327 PVs / 59.4 %). This group also gives two possibilities of further stratification, i. e. without naming the object these verbs can: a) not have any further specification of the possessee semantics (Eng. 60 PVs / 44.3 % - to shear `to separate'; Ukr. 89 PVs / 27.3 % - відокремлювати`to separate') or b) have semantic features providing details about the possessee

• size (Eng. to nibble `to bite off with small pieces'; Ukr. відшматовувати`to separate in big pieces');

• location (Eng. to truncate2 `to cut off the top'; Ukr. вирізувати`to cut off the inner part');

• quality (Eng. to trim `to remove the unnecessary parts'; Ukr. підчищати`to remove the unnecessary parts';

• or combine the above features (Eng. to chip `to remove small parts, esp. on the edges', Ukr. підстругувати`to cut away small parts, esp. on the edges'.

PVs with the possessor-plant can be stratifies into the following groups:

1) the possessee is a constituent part of the possessor (Eng. 56 PVs / 68.3 %; Ukr. 27 PVs / 49.1 %):

• branches (Eng. to lop away `to remove branches', Ukr. відчахувати`to remove branches');

• leaves / buds (Eng. to disbud `to remove buds', Ukr. збезлистити`to remove leaves');

• reproductive organs / fruit (Eng. to pluck `to collect fruit', Ukr. пасинкувати`to remove shoots');

2) the possessee - outer layer of the possessor (Eng. 26 PVs / 31.7 %; Ukr. 28 PVs / 50.9 %):

• a tree or a bush bark (Eng. to bark `to remove the bark', Ukr. корувати`to remove the bark');

• the outer layer of a fruit (Eng. to pulp `to remove the outer layer of a cocoa bean', Ukr. лущити`to remove the outer layer of a fruit').

The least productive are PVs with the possessor-abstract notion which prove to be not homogeneous and can be distributed into:

• the possessee is the possessor's constituent part (Eng. 13 PVs / 68.4 % - to dock `to deduct a part of the money from somebody's salary'; Ukr. 7 PVs / 63.6 % - відраховувати`to take away a part of the sum');

• the possessee is the possessor's quality (Eng. 6 PVs / 31.6 % - to rob of `to deprive of some quality'; Ukr. 4 PVs / 36.4% - знебарвлювати`to deprive of colors').

Alienable possession.

Property relationship is believed to be a derivative one as for the indispensable possession expressed by alienable possession the evidence of which in English and Ukrainian is a) the possessor is always expressed by an animate-being; b) the vast majority of PVs have no further concretisation neither of the possessor nor the possessee (Eng. 354 PVs / 63.9 %; Ukr. 387 PVs / 72.8 %) and differentiate due to causative semantics; c) additional semantic features are limited to three only; d) the possessee semantics is limited to 4 common objects, one unique object in English and two unique objects in Ukrainian.

PVs of alienable possession predominantly do not contain any indication to the possessee semantics (Eng. 239 PVs, Ukr. 294 PVs), however some of the verbs (Eng. 115 PVs, Ukr. 93 PVs) contain additional semantic features which can indicate to the possessee's:

• location (Eng. to shoplift `to steal in the shops', Ukr. бомбити`to steal at a place');

• quantity (Eng. to pilfer `to steal, esp. in small quantities', Ukr. награбувати`to steal a lot of something');

• the possessor's subjective assessment of the possessee (Eng. to filch `to steal something not valuable', Ukr. стріляти`to ask for some trifles').

The number of alienable possession PVs which indicate to the possessee semantics is rather limited in both languages (Eng. 151 PVs / 36.1 %; Ukr. 77 PVs / 27.2 %) and is confined to the following objects:

• money (Eng. to solicit `to ask for money', Ukr. стягати`to make somebody pay the debt');

• clothes / footwear (Eng. to tear off `to violently take off somebody's clothes', Ukr. роззувати`to take off somebody's footwear');

• land (Eng. to escheat `to take somebody's land when the owner is absent', Ukr. обезземелювати`to deprive of land');

• weapons (Eng. to spoil `to take off or steal from a dead person, esp. from a defeated enemy's weapons or armour', Ukr. обеззброювати`to deprive of weapons');

• an animal (Eng. to poach `to illegally trespass on somebody's territory with the intention to steal game or fish', in the Ukrainian language PVs with this semantics are not found);

• food / beverages (in the English language PVs with this semantics are not found, Ukr. об'їдати`to eat too much of something at somebody's');

• a vehicle (in the English language PVs with this semantics are not found, Ukr. угнати`to steal a vehicle').

Conclusion

Complex approach to the study of English and Ukrainian PVs, which among others (see Introductory notes) include the method of building semantic interpretation formulae proves to be most productive as it allows to build a model of the PVs semantics and brings to the fore their semantic components.

The elements of possessive semantics in PVs are represented by 3 components: the possessor (B), the possessive relation between the possessor and the possessee (V2), and the possessee (C). The possessive situation in PVs is characterised by the presence of one more component (implicit negative seme) which transforms the situation of possession into the situation of deprivation.

Comprehensive semantic stratification of English and Ukrainian PVs presupposes three stages of analysis (according to the number of the possessive microsituation components): a) possessive relation between the possessor and the possessee; b) the possessor semantics; c) the possessee semantics.

Universally, according to the possessive relation the corpus in both languages is stratified into a) inalienable and b) alienable possession, where in English the second type prevails, whereas in Ukrainian it is the first one.

The possessor semantics shows that within the group of inalienable possession it is much more varied (a human, an animal, a concrete object, a plant, an abstract notion) then within the group of the alienable possession where only possessor-human is observed. Further semantic gradation based on the possessive object semantics reveals high degree of variability and heterogeneity in the contrasted languages with developed system of the possessee nomination in English and Ukrainian. Overall, the languages largely show isomorphic character, when the major types, groups and subgroups coincide; allomorphic characteristics are observed only on the level of individual lexemes and constitute an insignificant part of the empiric corpuses in both languages.

References

1. Alieva, N. F. (1998) Tipologicheskie aspekty indonezijskoj grammatiki. Analitizm i sinte- tizm. Posessivnost'. [Typologial aspects of Indonesian grammar. Analytism and synthesism. Posses- sivity]. Moscow: Fond “Novoe tysjacheletie”.

2. Apresian, Yu. D. (1966) Idieii i metody sovremiennoy strukturnoy lingvistiki. Kratkiy Ocherk. [Ideas and methods of modern structural linguistics. (a short outline)]. Мoscow: Pro- sviescheniie.

3. Christie, J. J. (1970) Locative, Possessive and Existential in Swahili. Foundations of Language. International Journal of Language and Philosophy. 6(2). 166-177.

4. Clark, E. V. (1978) Locationals: Existential, Locative and Possessive Constructions. Universals of Human Language. Stanford: University Press. 4. 83-126.

5. Farkas, J. & Alberti, G. (2016) The Relationship Between (In)Alienable Possession and the

(Three Potential) Forms of Possessed Nouns in Hungarian.Linguistica.56(1).111-125.

https://doi.org/10.4312/ linguistica.56.1.111-125

6. Golovacheva, A. V. (1989) Kategorija posessivnosti v plane soderzhanija [The category of posessivity in terms of its contents]. Kategorija posessivnosti v slavjanskih i balkanskih jazykah. Moscow: Nauka. 44-111.

7. Grkovic-Major, J. (2011) The Development of Predicative Possession in Slavic Languages. The Grammar of Possessivity in South Slavic Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Hokkaido: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University. 35-54.

8. Heine, B. (1997) Possession. Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Ivanov, Vyach. Vs. (1995) Tipologiia lishytel'nosti (karitivnosti). [Typology of deprivation (caritivity)] Etiudy po tipologii grammaticheskikh kategoriy v slavianskikh i balkanskikh yazikakh. Moscow: Indrik. 5-59.

10. Kaliuscenko, V. D. (2000) Typologie denominaler Verben. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

11. Konig, E. (2001) Internal and External Possession. Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin, N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter. 1. 970-978.

12. Luo, Y. (2013) Possessive Constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Possession and Ownership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 186-207.

13. Lynch, J. (1973) Verbal Aspects of Possession in Melanesian Languages. Oceanic Linguistics. 12(1/2). 69-102.

14. Lyons, J. (1967) A Note on Possessive, Existential and Locative Sentences. Foundations of Language. 3. 390-396.

15. Mazzon, G. A (2004) History of English Negation. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.

16. Mel'cuk, I. A. (1998) Kurs obschey morfologii [A Course of General Morphology]. Moscow, Viena: Yazyki russkoi kultury, Vienskiy slavisticheskiy almanakh. 2.

17. Michael, L. (2013) Possession in Nanti. Possession and Ownership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 149-166.

18. Milenkovska, S. (2011) Possessor and Possessum as Arguments of the Nonpossessive Predicate Realized as Nominative and Accusative NPs in Possessive Relation Body / body Part (Macedonian~Polish). The Grammar of Possessivity in South Slavic Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Hokkaido: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University. 127-138.

19. Moloshnaja, T. N. (1989) Plan vyrazhenija kategorii posessivnosti [Means of expressing the category of possessivity]. Kategorija posessivnosti v slavjanskih i balkanskih jazykah. Moscow: Nauka. 112-215.

20. Nedyalkov, V. P. (1969) Tipoligiya morfologicheskogo i lieksicheskogo kausativov [Typology of morphological and lexical causatives]. Tipologiia kausativnykh konstruktsyi. Morfologicheskiy kausativ. Leningrad: Nauka. 20-50.

21. New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language Retrieved September 12, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/

22. Ogawa, Y. (2001) The Stage / Individual Distinction and (In)Alienable Possession. Language. 77(1). 1-25.

23. Shibatani, M. (1976) Causativization. Syntax and Semantics. N.Y., San Francisco, London: Academic Press. 5. 239-294.

24. Shibatani, M. (2002) The Causative Continuum. The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 85-126.

25. Slovnyk ukrains'koi movy. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from http://sum.in.ua/

26. Tesniere, L. (2015) Elements of Structural Syntax. John Benjamins B.V. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/z.185

27. The Oxford English Dictionary Retrieved August 26, 2018, from https://en.oxford- dictionaries.com/

28. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (2001) Studies in General Linguistics and Language Structure. Durham: Duke University Press.

Размещено на Allbest.ru