Possessive Markers Research Articles

Possessive Markers in Hawaiian

Possessive Markers in Hawaiian

Historical Overview of Central Pacific Possessive Markers

Historical Overview of Central Pacific Possessive Markers

On the Origins of the Possessive Markers in Central Pacific Languages

This paper's original impetus was to attempt to find the morphosyntactic origins of the well-known Polynesian o and a possessive-markers, and the origins of the phonologically and grammatically similar Rotuman markers ?o and ?e. In exploring these origins, some contribution is made to the development of the Oceanic possessive system in Proto-Central Pacific as a whole, and especially within the Fiji dialect chain. In particular, evidence is adduced to suggest that the Polynesian and Rotuman systems resemble those of Kadavu and Gone Dau more than those of Lau, and that this suggests that Geraghty's (1983) Tokalau-Polynesian may require some reassessment. 1. INTRODUCTION. Proto-Polynesian (PPn) and Rotuman both have possessive-marking systems that appear not to continue directly the Proto-Oceanic (POc) or Proto-Central Pacific (PCP) systems but that, on the surface at least, look very similar to each other. The well-known alo distinction, which is not found outside Polynesia/Rotuma, has received a great deal of attention in the linguistic literature. But almost all of this attention has focused on the semantics of a- and omarking. It is somewhat surprising that there has not been much discussion on the morphosyntactic history of these two markers. In this paper, I attempt to outline the historical development of the Polynesian and Rotuman possessive-marking systems, and also to cast some light on developments within Fiji itself. In so doing, I will suggest that the Central Pacific linkage may well be part of the Southern Oceanic linkage, most closely related to the languages of Northern Vanuatu.I 2. SUBGROUPING HYPOTHESES. The Central Pacific subgroup of Oceanic consists of the Fijian dialect chain, Rotuman, and the Polynesian languages. As far as external relationships are concerned, Pawley's (I972) Oceanic hypothesis (figure I) suggested that the closest relatives of Central Pacific are the languages of North and Central Vanuatu.2 Pawley subsequently withdrew the Southeast Solomonic group from Eastern Oceanic, and renamed the

Dein Mandarin

In Mandarin, there is an elementdewhich has for years been the subject of analysis. Li and Thompson (1981) and Ross (1983 and 1984) have tried, with little success, to provide a unified treatment of this element. Li and Thompson (1981) claim that there are severalde’s in Mandarin: a possessive marker, an adjectival marker and a nominalization marker. But the structural properties of thesede’s and the similarities among them are ignored.Using the Government and Binding framework (Chomsky 1981), I will provide an analysis which accounts for the structural and functional similarities and differences among the variousde’s in Mandarin. First, I will state the theoretical assumptions relevant to the discussion ofde. Second, I will present the non-controversial evidence showing thatdeis a head-final complementizer in relative clauses. Third, I will present further data exemplifying a head-finaldein other constructions. Fourth, I will demonstrate the impossibility of having a head-finaldecomplementizer in resultative clauses. Finally, I will propose that there are twodecomplementizers in Mandarin, one head-final, the other head-initial.

Syntaxe, Morphologie Et Genese De La Forme Dite "Hypothetique" Du Palau

The so-called "Hypothetical" Form (L.S. Josephs, 1975) is one of the enigmas of the Palauan language. 1) It can be interpreted, syntactically, as a form of the predicate which is not oriented towards one of the participants but towards the process itself; 2) morphologically, a) the subject prefix which characterizes that form is an ancient Possessive Personal Marker (cf. ponapean); b) the change in the verb stem which is the other characteristic of the "H" Form constitutes by itself the mark of the change of orientation (cf. tagalog). Finally the almost omnipresent a morpheme, an other enigma, is derived from an ancient General-Classifier (cf. ponapean language).

YANYUWA CONCEPTS RELATING TO “SKIN”

Yanyuwa1 of the Northern Territory are among the Australian Aboriginal ethnic groups which refer to their subsection or semimoiety groups2 by the term skin. If a Yanyuwa meets a fellow-Aborigine from the Northern Territory (or certain areas further afield) who does not understand his Yanyuwa language but to whom he wishes to relate, his question in English will be, What is your skin? And from the answer, the two will be able to identify the equivalent social groups to which they belong, establish kin relationship, and be ready to communicate as kinsmen. This usage of is comprehensible to these two but may well mislead a non-Aboriginal speaker of English into thinking that there is some relationship between in this sense of social and in its literal sense. The usage of English certainly fails to convey the understood meaning that is in the mind of the Yanyuwa speaker. The purpose of this paper is to distinguish between the two Yanyuwa concepts of translated by a single English word, and to discuss some of the Yanyuwa connotations of as it relates to social groups. Inalienable possession is recognized and marked linguistically by the Yanyuwa.3 A person's family is an inalienable possession and kinship terms are marked by possessive marker sets. The parts of a person's body are also an inalienable possession but of a different kind and so these are marked with a separate set of possessive prefixes. A person's name and also his social are classified as being possessed in the same way as parts of his body. And so as a body covering and skin group share the same possessive

Toward Standard English through Writing: An Experiment in Prince Edward County, Virginia

The overall objective of this project is to make available to the teachers at Prince Edward County High School relevant English-as-a-seconddialect (ESD) theory, methods and materials. Particuar goals include the determination of (1) linguistic items which deviate from SE, (2) optimal ranking and sequencing of these items, and (3) procedures which are optimal given the cultural and linguistic context of Prince Edward County. Since written variants are more easily controlled by amateur ESD teachers, it was decided that the corpus of non-SE forms would be obtained by a random selection of written samples (in-class themes, etc.). The occurrences of all linguistic items which are suspected of deviating from non-SE are recorded and ranked as to frequency. (For instance, unique expressions are classed as idiosyncratic and are not passed on for consideration by the faculty.) Characteristic non-SE forms such as (1) omission of past tense markers (occurring particularly whenever the sentence contains adverbs which indicate past tenseness) and (2) omission of the possessive markers can then be reinforced by the entire English staff as well as other members of the faculty. It is expected that by the end of this academic year favorable results will continue since (1) teachers and students are working toward specific linguistic goals which are realistic and appropriate in terms of their educational objectives, (2) the acquisition of SE through writing involves less emotional stress than when approached through speech and requires less skill on the part of the instructors, and (3) the program maximizes both the teachers' and students' time since the materials are so carefully tailored to region, age, ability, and interest.