Why Plurality of the Possessor Matters in Mandarin Chinese Inalienable Possession

Open access


In this paper, I first introduce what inalienable possession structure (IPS) is cross-linguistically as well as how to form an IPS in Mandarin Chinese, i.e., pronoun + body part or kinship term, etc. With the help of postverbal IPS, I relate the lack of plural pronominal possessor in IPS, which is never discussed in the literature, to the prohibition of distributivity over distributivity, i.e., the semantic anomaly of distributive plural possessor over the stubborn distributivity inherent to Chinese IPS nouns. I also argue that the requirement of a plural pronominal possessor seen in the IPS of public places, spatial directions, and professional titles is a result of stubborn collectivity shared by these nouns. In the end, I discuss the association between the distinction of inalienable and alienable nouns and that of active and stative verbs.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Achimova Asya Peter Staroverov Viviane Déprez & Julien Musolino. 2015. Pair-list answers in naïve speakers and professional linguists. In Peter Arkadiev Ivan Kapitonov Yury Lander Ekaterina Rakhilina & Sergei Tatevosov (eds.) Donum semanticum: Opera linguistica et logica in honorem Barbarae Partee a discipulis amicisque Rossicis oblata 21–34. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture.

  • Aikhenvald Alexandra. 2013. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.) Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology 1–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Barker Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Beghelli Filippo & Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.) Ways of scope taking 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publications.

  • Biber Douglas Susan Conrad & Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Chappell Hilary & William McGregor.1989. Alienability inalienability and nominal classification. In Kira Hall Michael Meacham & Richard Shapiro (eds.) Proceeding of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 24–36. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

  • Chappell Hilary & William McGregor. 1996. Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.) The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation 3–30. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Cheng Lisa. 1995. On dou-quantification. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(3). 197–234.

  • Cheng Lisa & Elizabeth Ritter. 1988. A small clause analysis of inalienable possession in Mandarin and French. In James Blevins & Juli Carter (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Northeast Linguistic Society (NELS 18) 65–78. Amherst MA: GLSA.

  • Cheng Lisa & Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 509–542.

  • Chierchia Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405.

  • Chierchia Gennaro. 2015. How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. In Audrey Li Andrew Simpson & Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai (eds.) Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective 147–178. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Diem Werner. 1986. Alienable und inalienable possession im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 136(2). 227–291.

  • Diesing Molly. 1992. Indefinites (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 20). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Dikken Marcel den. 2011. Phi-feature inflection and agreement: An introduction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(4). 857–874.

  • Dragunov Aleksandr A. 1961. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik der Modernen Chinesischen Sprache trans. by Wolfgang Lippert. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

  • Duanmu San. 2000. The phonology of standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Duanmu San. 2012. Word-length preferences in Chinese: A corpus study. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21(1). 89–114.

  • Fillmore Charles. 1992. “Corpus linguistics” vs. “computer-aided armchair linguistics”. In Jan Svartvik (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings from a 1991 Nobel symposium on corpus linguistics 35–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Greenberg Joseph (ed.). 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Guéron Jacqueline. 1985. Inalienable possession PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Jacqueline Guéron Hans-Georg Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.) Grammatical representation 43–86. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Guéron Jacqueline. 2006. Inalienable possession. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Rienmsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax 589–638. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

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

  • Hatcher Anna Granville. 1944. Il tend les mains vs. il tend ses mains. Studies in Philology 41(3). 457–481.

  • Heine Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources forces and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hoffmann Sebastian Stefan Evert Nicholas Smith David Y. W. Lee & Ylva Berglund Prytz. 2008. Corpus linguistics with BNCWeb: A practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • Huang James Audrey Li & Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Iljic Robert. 1994. Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two markers of plurality. Linguistics 32(1). 91–116.

  • Joh Yoon-kyoung. 2008. Plurality and distributivity. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania dissertation.

  • Kayne Richard. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Kim Young-Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interaction between lexical and syntactic levels of representation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University dissertation.

  • Klimov Georgij. 1977. Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo Stroja [The typology of active languages]. Moscow: Nauka.

  • Klimov Georgij. 1983. Principy Kontensivnoj Tipologii [Principles of contentive typology]. Moscow: Nausea.

  • Kratzer Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.) The generic book 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Krifka Manfred. 1995. Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.) The generic book 398–412. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • 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.

  • Li Charles & Sandra Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley CA: The University of California Press.

  • Liao Wei-wen Roger & Yuyun Wang. 2015. The same difference: Comparative syntax-semantics of English same and Chinese tong/xiang-tong. In Audrey Li Andrew Simpson & Dylan Tsai (eds.) Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective 128–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lichtenberk Frantisek. 1983. A grammar of Manam. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.

  • Liu Feng-hsi. 2014. Quantification and the count-mass distinction in Mandarin Chinese. In C.-T. James Huang & Feng-his Liu (eds.) Peaches and plums 153–180. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

  • Liu Haiyong. 2002. The co-occurrences of Dou with DPs and Yiwencis in Mandarin Chinese. In Liu Feng-hsi (ed.) Proceedings of the 14th North American Conference on Chinese Linguisitcs (NACCL-14) 250–267. Los Angeles: GSIL Publications University of Southern California.

  • Longobardi Giuseppe. 1993. Reference and names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4). 609–655.

  • Maling Joan & Soowon Kim. 1992. Case assignment in the inalienable possession construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1(1). 37–68.

  • Michael Lev. 2013. Possession in Nanti. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.) Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology 149–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Modini Paul. 1981. Inalienable possession and the “double subject” constructions in East Asian. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 9(1). 5–15.

  • Nevins Andrew & Neil Myler. 2014. A brown-eyed girl. In Carson T. Schütze & Linnaea Stockall (eds.) Connectedness: Paper by and for Sarah VanWagenen (UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 18) 243–258. Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.

  • Nichols Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In William Shipley (ed.) In honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics 557–609. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Nichols Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Schlüter Norbert. 2006. How reliable are the results? Comparing corpus-based studies of the present perfect. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54(2). 135–148.

  • Schwarzschild Roger. 2011. Stubborn distributivity multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In Suzi Lima Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society vol. 2 661–678. Amherst MA: GLSA.

  • Teng Shou-hsin. 1974. Double nominatives in Chinese. Language 50(3). 455–473.

  • Tsunoda Tasaku. 1996. The possession cline in Japanese and other languages. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.) The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation 565–632. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Vergnaud Jean-Roger & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4). 595–652.

  • Zhu Dexi. 1962. Shuo de [On ‘de’]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 12. 1–15.

  • Zhu Dexi. 1981. Yufa jiangyi [Lectures on Chinese grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan [The commercial press].

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 78 78 22
PDF Downloads 98 98 30