Semantic and Syntactic Characterization of the ...

Semantic and Syntactic Characterization of the 'Genitive + esse' Construction Concepción Cabrillana (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela)

1. Problems of the subject of study. Objectives Among the problems affecting the subject of this study, two questions arise: (i) the semantic interpretation of the genitive + esse construction and (ii) how we consider the copula. I will deal with both of them mainly in this first section. 1.1. Semantic interpretation of the 'Genitive + esse' Construction From the traditional grammar until now, denominations or labels that take the lexical content of the terms implied in a genitive NP as a reference point have been used to refer to the different uses of the genitive + esse construction. Among these denominations of semantic nature, handbooks have basically recognised notions of Description or Quality, Possession or Belonging, and the so-called Partitive genitive and genitive of Price and Value. The classifications basically differ in how they consider these constructions: they are seen as copulative in the majority of traditional grammars as well as in the particular studies of G.Serbat (1983), who included the genitive construction in the group where the copula has 'signifié zero' (versus existential esse), and Ch.H.Kahn

' Cf., among others, Kiihner-St. 19124, Π, 1: 210, 412 ff„ 452-458, Ernout-Thomas 19537: 40, 43-44, 53-55, 257, A.W. de Groot 1956: 30-32, E.C.Woodcock 1959: 50 ff., Hofmann-Szantyr 1965,1: 50-56, or A.Forcellini dictionary 1940, IV, s.u.: 588-589.

Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/16/16 6:18 PM

Concepción CabrUlana

44

(1972: 161; 168-169), the latter with reference to Ancient Greek 2 . They are considered as non-copulatives, among others, by H.Happ's valency grammar (1976: 462; 560) 3 and in Syntaxe Latine by Ch.Touratier (1994: 352), who holds that the genitive of these structures derives from the locative construc4

S

tion . More specific works have dealt with the possible possessive notion that in some cases can be recognised in the structure 'genitive + esse1 versus 'dative + esse'. In general terms, the research on this question has different and, in some cases, contrasting views: while some authors 6 admit that both constructions are alternatives for expressing possession, others restrict this possibility either to constructions with genitive (e.g. A.M.Bolkestein 1983) or, more exactly, to the dative one (E.Benveniste 1952: 55-56, B.Bortolussi 1998), or deny 7 g such a semantic relation for any of these structures . In the framework of FG (cf. H.Pinkster 1995: 28), the adverbal genitive with sum is generally sheltered under the same syntactic function as a traditional Attribute: Subject Complement. The elements taking up this function are included among the arguments

7 " For Ch.H.Kahn the possessive use is expressed by the dative case; it would be a noncopulative use of the verb. 3

H.Happ 1976 illustrates what he understands as a notion of belonging with the traditional clause haec domus pal ris est. Moreover, this author distinguishes four more uses of sum: 'to exist', 'to have' (mihi liber est), 'to be somewhere' and 'to cause something*

(curae maiori est). 4

A view already held, for instance, in J.Lyons 1967: 390; 1980: 417, as well as other authors. Ch.Touratier includes the locative construction in the group formed by those which have need a complement to be grammatical - in contrast to the existential structures. 5

For the Latin language, cf. A.M.Bolkestein 1983, B. García-Hernández 1992; 1995, B.Bortolussi 1998, etc.

6

Cf. Hoffman-Szantyr 1965,1: 51, 90, Ernout-Thomas 19537: 40, 73.

7

In this sense, e.g. B.García-Hernández 1995: 160, 161.

8

The complexity and width of this subject demand an independent investigation.


Characterization of the 'Genitive + esse' Construction

45

of the predication. However, none of the semantic functions proposed for the 9

arguments is assigned to the Subject Complement. The genitive, on its part, is given a function of description (Pinkster 1995: 187-188), a specification of value and price (Pinkster 1995: 51; 68) and, in an indirect way, of possession (Pinkster 1995: 338-339)'°. None of these notions appears among the semantic functions of the arguments. 1.2. Consideration of the copula The reason for this absence seems to derive from how the attribution" (of quality) constructions are considered: the copula is perceived as a whole with ρ the Subject Complement However, in that same frame, (semantic) distinctions are recognised depending on the specific type of element complementing the Subject: Quality attribution (meaningless copula), Identification and Location in space (in a two-place structure)13. Even acknowledging the advantages of understanding the copula as supportive, this opinion is not unanimous: Mackenzie-Hannay (1982: 47, 55, 57) point out the restrictions to the universality (in languages and constructions) of the copula support theory. On his part, Bortolussi (1998: 90) underlines, rightly I think, the fact that the same relations occurring with different verbs14 can support the theory of the genitive being independent from the copula . However, at the same time, it is also understood that the different genitives complete and specify the scarce or nearly void se-

' Cf. H.Pinkster 1995: 19-20: Agent, Patient, Cause, Recipient, Addressee, Direction, Place and the Zero function assigned to the Subject of traditional copulative constructions. 10

A.M.Bolkestein 1983 upholds that the adverbal genitive is able to have a possessive notion, not so the dative. " I use this concept in the sense stated in C.Cabrillana 1998. 12

E.g. erat rex Macedonum in Alexander erat rex Macedonum (Pinkster 1995: 2, n. 4).

" Cf. H.Pinkster 1995: 1-2. 14

Cf. also Ch.Touratier 1995: 319-320.


Concepción Cabriliana

46

mantic content of the copulative verb, together with the data provided by the specific contextual or situational factors. Taking this into account and as a consequence of methodological reasons rather than of a real identification of the nature of this structure, the verb object of study will be considered as equivalent to other verbs concerning its functioning at nuclear predication level. The primary aim of this paper is the identification of the semantic relations that the adverbal genitive can establish in copulative structures, making use of some procedures that FG has put forward as functional identification criteria: essentially, the coordination, apposition and juxtaposition criteria. As former studies have shown", procedures are effective not only in the identification of functions at a syntactic level but also at a semantic level'6. From this first research, we will see if the distinction established can be more precisely characterized through the combined study of other basic criteria describing predicative frames of verbs. 2. Choice, peculiarities and restrictions of the corpus The basic corpus selected for this study belongs to Livy's historical writings which were chosen, among other reasons, for their coherence with the studies done on other structures that sum is able to form , and allow for possible comparison between the facts studied and the results obtained. On the other hand, I have tried to work on grounds which would provide the most examples possible 18

of these seldom occurring constructions . The whole of these forms come in figures 1 and 2, where you can appreciate and compare the totals (figure 1) and the relative frequency of the genitive + esse construction in every verbal form (figure 2). The forms have been ordered according to their number of occurrences. 15

16

Cf. E.Vester 1983: 1; passim or M.E.Torrego 1989; cf. also H.Pinkster 1995: 39. About the functionality of coordination at pragmatic level, cf. H.Rosén 1990.

" Cf. C.Cabrillana 1998; 2001; C.Cabrillana-M.Díaz de Cerio 2000. 18

Therefore, I have included present and perfect infinitives -plus some isolated form of the future infinitive, which has very few occurrences- and the third person of the indicative and subjunctive verbal tenses of the whole of Ab Vrbe condita. All the forms of sum have been looked through in Livy 1-4.



47

Figure 1 and Figure 2 see below p.67f. According to the data revealed by these figures, forms that occur frequently in the corpus, seldom show the genitive structure: of 15799 occurrences of esse forms, only 314 can be counted. In this sense, I must highlight the great number of occasions in which the present indicative forms appear as auxiliary in passive constructions. For this reason, the occurrences of autonomous functioning are reduced greatly in regard to their proportion. To calculate the frequency of occurrence in adverbal genitive structures, we will have to consider this fact. The occurrence frequency of constructions studied as a whole is stated in table 1: Table 1: Global quantities of analysed forms and relative frequency of Genitive + esse' Constructions Ν. of verbal forms

N. of constructions

Frequency of occurrences

Total

15.799

314*

1 :0,019

Except Pres. Ind.

11.201

285

1:0,025

* The addition of the quantities shown in figure 1 is 308 constructions; we must add six more which refer to forms not included in the analysis of the whole corpus, but only in Liu. 1-4. The quantities show that the adverbal genitive construction is among the scarcest in the structures that sum can form, perhaps comparable only to the Exis19

tential-locatives , whose limited occurrence has already been established (cf. Ch.H.Kahn 1973: 157). This difficulty justifies that, at least at this time, the corpus of study is not presented as thoroughly as it could be20. Only in some precise moments of the analysis will I make use of other authors (Plautus and Terence) to comment secondary aspects.

19

Cf. C.Cabrillana-M.Díaz de Cerio 2000: 59: once the conditioned cases have been excluded (see infra), the total number of sequences in which all the constituents are lexically expressed in Liu. 1-4 are 23, while in the same amount of corpus and under the same conditions, there are 20 cases of the genitive + esse construction. 20

I will study possibilities of contrast among different corpora and chronological stages in other papers. Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/16/16 6:18 PM

Concepción Cabrillana

48

In the first part of this paper I have excluded from study those occurrences in which esse (i) possesses a nominal function, (ii) forms lexicalized or formulaic expressions and (iii) appears in structures that are ambiguous in themselves or might lead to an ambiguous interpretation due to morphological causes 3. Semantic analysis I. In the corpus analysed, I have verified a first group of occurrences where there is an adjective expressing quality coordinated [(l)-(2)], asyndetically juxtaposed [(3)] or in apposition [(4)] to an adverbal genitive, both (adjective and genitive) referred to the same subject 22 : (1) ille {Cato)... . Asperi procul dubio animi et linguae acerbae et immodice liberae fuit, sed inuicti a cupiditatibus animi, rigidae innocentiae, contemptor gratiae, diuitiarum (Liu. 39.40.10) (2)

sed erat adeo nudus tumulus et asperi soli, ut... (Liu. 25.36.5)

(3) (ad praedam)..., quae ingens omnis generis fuit (Liu. 26.46.10) (4) in apparatu morati tertio die centum nauibus, quorum septuaginta tectae, ceterae apertae, minoris omnes formae erant, profecti Phocaeam petierunt (Liu. 36.43.9) In (4) the constituents in apposition are the complement to different Subjects, although the Subject of the genitive construction is co-referent with the Subjects complement to the preceding adjectives. Coordination can also take place in NPs where adjective and noun combine; establishing an attribution of quality relation is not problematic. This fact is dealt with in Cabrillana 1998: 230; cf. Liu. 1.7.14; 1.26.12; 1.40.3; 1.58.8, etc.

21

Thus, genitives or datives belonging to the first, second and fifth declensions; plural

genitive of the personal pronoun and neuter nominative and accusative of the possessive

adjective, etc. Cf., e.g. Liu. 23,7,2: ut suae leges, sui magistratus Capuae essent. 22

No distinction is appreciated among them, whether entity coding of the Subject is ani-

mate [(1)] or inanimate [(2)].



49

(5) itaque longius certiusque et ualidiore ictu quam Baliaris funditor eo telo usi sunt. Et est (sc. funda) non simplicis habenae, ut Baliatico aliarumque gentium funda, sed triplex scutale, crebris suturis duratum (Liu. 38.29.6) Juxtaposition and coordination is very scarce among different NPs whose distinctive characteristic is the semantic content of the genitive terms, concerning 'value-price': (6) ceterum praeda oppidi parui pretti rerum fuit, supellex barbarica ac uilium mancipiorum (Liu. 21.60.8) The type of text employed determines the scanty occurrence of these concepts, while they are familiar in other contexts; however, coordination occurrences are more frequent in verbs like habeo: (7) ne tu habes seruom graphicum et quantiuis preti (Plaut. Epid. 410) (8) agrum / meliorem neque preti maioris nemo habet (Ter. Haut. 63-64) The difference between these examples and the preceding ones [(l)-(5)] lies only in the type of lexis employed, much more restricted in the second group, and belonging to a specific field; in both, however, the genitive expresses a quality of the Subject. Regarding the small number of occurrences in Livy, it is not possible to offer a quantitative analysis that studies both these groups in a comparative way. Nevertheless, if we leave out the specific quality assigned (value or price), there are no visible differences that can justify taking this second group in a completely independent way; therefore, I think there is no reason why we cannot recognize them as a (lexical) subgroup of the genitive expressing the assignment of a specific quality to the corresponding Subject23. II. Albeit in a smaller proportion, one set of examples may be classified under the common semantic notion that expresses the constituent 'complementing' the Subject: they are those in which a semantic relation of Class-inclusion is ex-

23

This being animate [(7)] or inanimate [(8)].


50

Concepción Catulliana

pressed. Thus, one notices that the lexical factor24 is again determinant in the distinction of the special semantic relation we are dealing with: (9) litteris Eurylochi admoniti propinqui amicique et qui eiusdem FACTIONIS erant (Liu. 35.34.7) (10) PARS maxima captiuorum ex Latinis atque Hernicis fuit, nec hominum de plebe, ut credi posset mercede militasse, sed principes quidam iuuentutis inuenti (Liu. 6.13.7) (11) liberos esse iusserunt, ita ut nemo eorum ciuis Ronumus aut Latini NOMINIS26 esset (Liu. 26.34.7) III. The largest group of examples is connected to a very complex notion: the one present in the so-called 'possessive genitive'. It is not the aim of this paper to make a theoretical analysis of such concept, but rather to study the possibility of expressing that semantic content, and its coding through a specific syntactic structure. It is necessary, however, how understand the concept of possession. In spite of the fact that this traditional label is, in many cases, inadequate the

There frequently appear nouns such as factio, consilium, corpus, pars, nomen or concilium in the corpus. 25

Here, class-inclusion is conveyed by pars in the first part of the clause, plus the prepositional phrase (ex...); the whole clause is coordinated with hominum which, in its turn, is specified by another prepositional phrase; the association of genitive and prepositional phrase indicates the class where they are included. 26

The NP nominis Latini meant the confederation of Latin peoples. Certainly, the use of this genitive NP seems to be "compulsory', as it was practically the only way to refer to the members of this league; at least, it is so in the analysed corpus: cf., e.g. etsi defectio sociorum nominisque Latini haud dubia erat (Liu. 8,3,8); duodeuiginti milia Romani erant, socium nominis Latini uiginti, auxilia praeterea Cenomanorum (Liu. 21,55,4); nominis Latini qui erant securi percussi, Romani in crucem sublati (Liu. 30,43,13); donee et ipse (Q. Fuluius Gillo) quinqué milia socium ac nominis Latini effecisset (Liu. 31,8,8). Similar examples appear in Liu. 31,8,10; 34,56,12; 38,44,4; 40,36,8-9; 41,5,5; 41,9,9; 42,4,4; 43,9,4; 43,12,3; 43,12,7; 44,21,6; 44,41,5 and 45,43,7.



51

terms 'possessive'-'possession' will be used here in a wide, generic way for methodological reasons. As a starting point, I will assume some of the theses and working hypotheses put forward by H.Seiler (1983: 4) that will be clarified further on: 1. "Linguistic POSSESSION consists of the representation of a relationship between a substance (POSSESSOR) and another substance (POSSESSUM). (...)". 2. "Semantically, the domain of POSSESSION can be defined as bio-cultural. It is the relationship between a human being and his kinsmen, his body parts, his material belongings, his cultural and intellectual products. In a more extended view, it is the relationship between parts and whole of an organism". In this level I include what Seiler (1983: 4) calls 'Valence', a relation covering some of the most distant cases from prototypical possession: "it is the relationship between an action or process or state and its participants". The notion of possession is understood, therefore, as prototypical. As a consequence, I assume that the degree of prototypicality in a specific expression depends on a series of features (cf. B.Heine 1997: 89.) linked to the notion of possession: [±alienability]27, [¿abstraction], [±animateness], [±'timeness'], [¿control]28. To clarify the first of these features, it may be useful to take into account the main qualities attached to it and its antonym (cf. B.Heine 1997: 10): Table 2 Qualities of the Inalienability/Alienability categories Inalienable category - intimate - inherent - inseparable - 'abnormal'

Alienable category - non-intimate - accidental - acquired - transferable - 'normal'

27

Cf., among others, H.Seiler 1983: 20-22; 65-71, A.Ramos 1998: 681, B.Heine 1997: 33-40; 172-185. 28

According to R.D.Bugenhagen 1986: 128, possession can be described, on one hand, with reference to the degree of control the possessor has over the possessed entity; on the other, with reference to the length of time during which the possessee is close to the possessor. Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/16/16 6:18 PM

Concepción Cabriliana

52

On the basis of the different parameters mentioned, the notions that intervene in the characterization of Possession can be described with reference to the properties established by J.R.Taylor (1989: 202-203): I. The possessor is a human being II. The possessee is a concrete item III. The possessor has the right to make use of the possessee IV. Possessor and possessee are in spatial proximity V. Possession has no conceivable temporal limit The way in which these properties correlate with the different notions implied in Possession appears in table 3: Table 3

Correlation of the properties of prototypical possession

Physical

Temporal

Permanent

Inalien.

Abstract

Inam.inal.

An.alien.

I

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

π

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

in

+

+

+

+/-

-

-

-

IV

+

+

+

+/-

+

+

+

V

-

-

+

+

+/-

+

-

According to the above mentioned categories and parameters, the prototypical characterization of the notion of Possession is represented by B.Heine (1997: 40) as shown in figure 3 Figure 3 see below p.68. Consequently, we understand that if permanent Possession is the inner core in a prototype29, Physical, Temporal and Inalienable Possession have a lower degree of prototypicality, while the lowest degree is attached to Abstract and Inanimate Possession. Once these conceptual coordinates have been established, we will proceed to examine what the corpus of this study shows. One of the facts that the analysis confirms is the relatively frequent coordination and juxtaposition of

">9 As table 3 shows, the notion of permanent possession is the only one of the five properties established by Taylor 1989: 202-203 present.



53 30

constructions with genitive and possessive pronouns or adjectives in what we would take as cases of permanent (12), temporal (13) or abstract possession (14) respectively: (12) tuae potestatis semper tu tuaque omnia sint (Liu. 22.39.21) (13) donee inspecte aere alieno initaque ratione minuendi eius sciat unus quisque quid sui, quid alieni sit (Liu. 6.27.8) (14) denique utrum tandem populi Romani an uestrum summum imperium est? (Liu. 4.5.1) On the one hand, these examples underline the homofunctionality of both complements at a syntactic level: adjective(+noun) and genitive establish the same relation of complementation with regard to the Subject; on the other hand, it is possible to put forward a comparison of semantic functionality. This comparison has been illustrated by E.Vester (1983) and M.E.Torrego (1991) who uses this procedure to distinguish between subjective and objective genitives. But some scholars (García-Hernández, 1995: 323) question the possessive notion of meus, tuus, suus, claiming that these, rather than possessive adjectives, are personal; in a parallel way, they consider possessive notion as specifically transitive and capable of being expressed mainly by verbs like habeo, teneo or possideo. Certainly, in a prototypical consideration of possession we do not use - in an absolute sense - a privative opposition (+possessive/ -possessive), but rather consider the existence of degrees of possession. However, we find examples 3> that back the possibility of such adjectives expressing a permanent pro-

30

A similar parallelism takes place in Theme-constructions, in which the Subject of the

Theme and the nuclear predication are co-referent: si, quae uestra nunc est fortuna deum benignitate et uirtute uestra, ea Perseifuisset... (Liu. 45,23,1). 31

In this case, I am making use of comedy speech: there are a greater variety and number of examples expressing a semantic relation of possession in this literary genre.


54


totypical possessive meaning32, as in (15) - scarce in the type of text researched-, physical and temporal [(16)] or abstract [(17)]: (15) em quoi te et tua, quae tu habeas, commendes uiro (Plaut. Merc. 702) (16) ecquem esse dices in mari piscem meum? quos cum capio, siquidem cepi, mei sunt; habeo pro meis, nec manu adseruntur neque illinc partem quisquam postulat. In foro palam omnes uendo pro meis uenalibus (Plaut. Rud. 971-974) (17) sibi sua habeant regna reges, sibidiuitias diuites, sibi honores, sibi uirtutes, sibi pugnas, sibiproetia: dum mi abstineant inuidere, sibi quisque habeant quod suom est (Plaut. Cure. 178-180) Thus, for expressing possession, be this temporal or permanent, physical or abstract, we can use (a possible linguistic mark attached to different types of possession will be dealt with in the next section.): (i) the adjective which, in turn, appears in constructions parallel to the genitive: (18) Lys.— Nunc, mulier, ne tu frustra sis, mea non es, ne arbitrere.

32

Obviously, this adjectival function does not exclude other functions: cf. J.P.Maure! 1993, A.Orlandini 1995, M-D.Joffire 1998. 33

The sequence cepi-mei sunt-habeo pro meis - referred to the same entity (pisces)shows the possessive notion of the adjective (i) as a result of the action of capio, (ii) reasserted in its juxtaposition with habeo, and (iii) in the comparison of the possessed item with relation to masters and slaves; this relation was a proper legal possession in the Roman world. In this sense, depending on the culture of different societies and ages, we can say that certain entities can be considered in some as permanent possessions, but not in others. In the Classical world - and especially in Rome- the patria potestas allowed the citizen to be his own master and his wife and children's master: (i) he wielded a power on life and death, (ii) a power to emancipate, abandon or marry off his children, and (iii) a power to found and determine his own family, cf. B.Heine 1997: 11.



55

Pas.- Die igitur quaeso, quoia sum ? (Plaut. Merc. 528-529) [Pasicompsa is a courtesan belonging to a certain leno importunus, dominus eiius mulieris (Plaut. Merc. 44), as young Carinus calls him]. (ii) the genitive, which in turn, appears in constructions parallel to habeo: (19) pro non dubio paulo ante, si diis placet, legati Eumenis sumebant, quae Antiochi fuerunt, Eumenem aequius esse quam me habere (Liu. 39.28.5) (20) summa legionum trium et uiginti ita per prouincias diuisa: binae consilium essent, quattuor Hispania haberet, binas tres praetores, in Sicilia et Sardinia et Gallia, duas C. Terentius in Etruria, duas Q. Fuluius in Bruttiis, duas Q. Claudius circa Tarentum et Sailentinos, unam C. Hostìlius Tubulus Capuae; duae urbanae ut scriberentur (Liu. 27.36.12-13) Thus, from a general point of view, we can basically establish three semantic relations in the genitive + esse' constructions: (i) (Attribution/Assignment of) Quality, (ii) Class-inclusion and (iii) Possession. Having made these distinctions of a semantic character, we can question if this differentiation is at a certain extent verifiable at some other levels. In this respect, some implications have been established in studies from a typological perspective - more specifically those that deal with the relation of Possession (cf. E.V.Clark 1978). I will refer to this implication further on (4.2) 4. Application of characterizing criteria 4. 1. Constituent order and animateness To verify the possibility of a distinction other than semantic/lexical between these groups, we can take into consideration (i) possible differentiations in the encoding of the terms implied, such as constituent order, or (ii) the features present in such terms. With respect to this point, we can question whether a feature such as [±animateness] has a distinctive function in the different values adopted by the genitive. This feature is linked to conditions of selection and differentia34 tion of predicates in general, and particularly of the one studied here . To ana-

34

Cf. E.V.Clark 1978: 101.


56


lyse the first of the proposed factors we must distinguish those in which word order is at some extent conditioned 35 (table 4). In the analysis only data of nominal terms are shown (Nominative36 [ΛΓ| and Genitive [G]), because they are the ones which encode the elements whose features can be examined (table 5): Table 4

Total number of constructions according to the distinguished semantic relations

Quality Class-inclusion Possession Totals

Conditioned Cases 33 33 93 159

Non-conditioned Cases 30 18 107 155

Total 63 51 200 314

Table 5 Nominal constituent order

Quality Class-inclusion Possession Totals

GN 11 (36,67%) 4 (22,23%) 33 (30,85%) 48 (30,97%)

NG 19 (63,33%) 14 (77,77%) 74(69,15%) 107 (69,03%)

Total 30 18 107 155

The percentages show a certain parallelism in the tendencies of constituent ordering, in such a way that this factor, by itself, doesn't allow the establishing of formal differences among the three groups studied.On the other hand, when we apply the animateness feature to the corpus, these majority sequences follow:

35

Sequences (i) in which some/any term is coded by relative/interrogative pronouns; (ii) with constituents gapped or in disjunction; (iii) with formulaic or lexicalized expressions. These cases are excluded from analysis attending to the reliability of the study. 36

Accusative when an Acl construction appears, or Infinitive if it functions as the Subject of the clause.



57

Table 6 More frequent sequences according to [±animateness] More frequent sequences [-anim] - [-anim] [+anim] - [+anim] [-anim] - [+anim]

Quality (attribution) Class-inclusion Possession

Quantity 18 (60,00%) 17 (94,44%) 81 (75,70%)

Among the three types established, these data make evident a distinction. This distinction is attached to a difference of sequences concerning the animateness in each term. Nevertheless, except for the case of 'Class-inclusion' genitives, the quantities reveal a wide margin of possibilities, eminently superior in the case of genitives assigning quality: since it is an extremely wide field with much fewer lexical restrictions than the ones implied in the other two groups, it is logical that the possibilities will be much more diversified. Thus, although quality has to be [-anim], there is no restriction in any way respecting the Subject. However, frequency of the feature [±animateness] will instead depend on the type of text researched: the possibility of deviation affects, then, only the first term. The situation is more complex in the cases that express a semantic relation of possession because of the complexity and width of the notion. In this sense, the more prototypical structures are included in the cases whose elements are ordered according to sequence [-anim]-[+anim]. This datum is complementary to that shown in table 5 on the order of constituents -where the majority sequence is NG - : on the one hand, in the more prototypical structures, the pos38

sessor is [+human] ; on the other, the tendency to be in the initial position is clear on the part of the elements coding the Subject. Thus, the possibilities are as follows:

37

It must be pointed out, however, that the number of sequences with GN ordering is

significant; we have to tum to contextual, pragmatic and word-class factors for identifying possible causes of this ordering and its relation with the sequence according to the [animateness] feature. 38

This is the first of the five properties established by Taylor 1989: 202-203; cf. supra.



58 Table 7

Sequences according to [±animateness] in structures with a semantic relation of Possession

Possible sequence 'clusters' I. More frequent sequence: [-anim]-[+anim] II. Deviations in the first term: [+anim]-[+anim] III. Deviations in the second term: [-anim]-[-anim] IV. Deviations in the first and second term: [+anim]-[-anim]

Quantity 81 (75,70%) 8 (7,47%) 15(14,03%) 3 (2,80%)

I. Among the majority sequences, we count the cases of: (i)

Permanent possession, where the possessed item is the possessor's property, and typically the possessor has a legal right to it:

(21) casa illa conditoris est nostri (Liu. 5.53.8) (ii) Physical possession, also understood as momentaneous (cf. G.A.MillerP.NJohnson-Laird 1976: 565), in which possessor and possessum are physically associated at reference time: (22) prora iam Tarentinorum esset (Liu. 26.39.17) (ili) Inalienable possession, in which possessum is conceived typically as being inseparable from the possessor; it is normally the one assigned to possession with respect to the body parts, relatives, etc. Examples of this kind of possession would be number (12) and (15). However, other properties have been also considered such as inalienable, physical or mental conditions, and properties such as shadow, smell, etc.: these properties do not clearly possess the feature [+concrete]: (23) ánimos, qui nostrae mentis sunt, eosdem in omni fortuna gessimus gerimusque (Liu. 37.45.12)

39

For the description of the different types of possession, I take those offered by B.Heine 1997: 34-35. G.A.Miller-P.N.Johnson-Laird 1976: 565 call this kind of possession 'inherent'; nevertheless, I think that this name is more suitable for the possession considered here 'inalienable'.


Characterization of the 'Genitive + esse1 Construction

59

40

(iv) Temporal possession , in this kind of relation, the possessor can have the possessum available for a limited time and cannot be considered the real owner of the possessum: (24) Aemilius, [tum] cuius fasces erant, collegam dietato rem dixit (Liu. 8.12.13 II. The cases in which both terms are animate, the degree of prototypicality of the possessum can be linked to factors of a social-cultural sort: thus, cases of legal possession as in example (18) may appear, as well as cases of "being under the authority o f ' -which could be included in temporal possession: (25) his uocibus instincta plebes cum iam unius hominis esset (Liu. 6.14.9) (26) Dolopes numquam Aetolorum fuerant, Philippi erant (Liu. 38.3.5) III-IV. The sequences that can occur in cases ΠΙ and IV move away from the notion of prototypical possession as has been described above (cf. figure 3) because they lack the majority of properties that Taylor (1989: 202-203) established for prototypical possession; thus, possession cases are: (v) Inanimate inalienable, normally referred to the relation between the part and the whole, both entities -possessor (inanimate) and possessum- are thought to be inseparable: (27) Rhodii Peraean —regio est continentis aduersus insulam, uetustae dicionis- repetebant

eorum

(Liu. 32.33.6)

(vi) Inanimate alienable, the relation in which the possessor is inanimate, but contrary to class (v), possessor and possessum are separable: (28) ea (sc. Lyciam Cariamque

usque ad Maeandrum

amnem) ut ciuitatis

Rhodiorum essent (Liu. 37.55.5-6)

40

'Accidental possession' or 'temporary control' in the classification of G.A.MillerP.N.Johnson-Laird 1976: 565.



60

(vii) Abstract, the semantic relation which is furthest from the prototypical notion; it is characterized by the quality of the possessum, which is neither 41 visible nor tangible. Numerous examples appear in the corpus : (29) habere igitur interregnum eos; consulatum unum certe plebis Romanae esse; populum liberum habiturum (Liu. 22.34.11) (30) qua perpetrata temere caede subit extemplo animum, in se nimirum re42 ceptam labem, quae Euandri fuisset (Liu. 45.5.11) It is clear, then, that the progressive separation from the characteristics of majority sequence and the properties that make up the notion in a prototypical manner, comes to establish semantic relations referring to possession in a very broad sense. 4.2. Definiteness The analysis can be completed with the examination of a feature that has also been linked in a general way to the structure characterization, and in a very particular way to those expressing notions like Possession: it is the 43

[±definiteness] feature. In a parallel way, this feature is also developed in the Definiteness Hypothesis, where it is considered to be a distinctive 44 feature between Locative (hoc) and Existential-locative (ExL) constructions . From a ty-

41

Among them, the cases in which the Subject function is coded by an Infinitive plus, possibly, its complements. 42

The context contributes in a different degree to identify the kind of relation between 'possessor' and 'possessum', as is the case of labem and Euandri: it refers to the true suspicion of an attempt of killing King Eumenes by Evander in Delphos; it is here compared by Perseus to his own action: having secretly killed Evander in Samothracia. 43

And its relation to the Topicalicality of the constituent dealt with in every case, and therefore, to its pragmatic conditions. Cf. E.V.Clark 1978, A.M.Bolkestein 1983: 56-59, A.Ramos 1998:681,686. 44

Concerning the results in the application of the Definiteness Hypothesis to Ancient Greek and Classical Latin, cf. C.Cabrillana-M.Díaz de Cerio 2000.


Characterization of the 'Genitive + esse'' Construction

61

pological perspective both types of structures (locative and possessive) have been connected by a relation of implication (=»). Clark's proposals (1978: 99101) about the question here analysed -also backed by a great number of languages- can be summed up as follows: Table 8

Summary of E.V.Clark's theses (1978: 99-101)

1. Basic constituent order in constructions expressing Possession: 2. Constituent order and [±definiteness]: G [+drf] Ν ( Η Μ )

GVN/GNV (—¥ GN)

3. Sequence in [ianimateness]: [+anim] [-anim] 4. Implicational universal (Existential-locative [ExL\ and Possession constructions):

ExL:Locative-Nominative Loc: Nominative-Locative ExL: Nominative-Locative

=>

GN GN

Let us proceed now to the behaviour of [±definiteness] in the constructions analysed, in order to verify the statements that Clark's position includes. In a first sample I will offer the data of the three genitive groups differentiated, but the analysis will be performed specifically on genitives expressing a possessive notion, because of their pertinence to this section. This criterion

presents both

difficulties in application and theoretical ones which cannot be dealt with here; however, the discussion of these difficulties as well as a comparative study of this criterion in classical and late Latin, may be seen in C.Cabrillana (forthc.)· The study of the definiteness feature in the corpus reveals that the possible sequences are organized as shown in table 9:

These particulars make sometimes difficult the quantifying of a term definiteness with respect to another. So, there may be cases in which both terms are in a very similar degree of (in)definiteness; to solve these problems we can take into account the context in a more or less broad margin.



62

Table 9 Quality Class-inclusion Possession Totals

Sequences according to [±definiteness] [+def) [-def] 18 (60,00%) 15 (83,33%) 75 (70,09%) 108 (69,67%)

[-def] [+defj 12 (40,00%) 3 (16,67%) 32 (29,91%) 47 (31,33%)

Totals 30 18 107 155

The quantities still leave a significant percentage of cases (almost 1/3) that do not follow the usual trends of discourse processing . The particular study of these cases verifies the existence of factors of different nature that are not selfexcluding, which, in a higher or lower degree, have a causal incidence in the sequence inversion. This is proportionally more frequent in constructions with a notion of possession. Of all the cases examined, only five do not seem to have a linguistic or pragmatic explanation; they would correspond to the author's freedom and style, because the language allows for these structures without hurting the processing of the discourse. The extent of the study does not allow for the explanation of these cases in detail. Therefore, I will only make an exemplified account of such factors by frequency order: 1. The Subject of the clause has an abstract notion as referent, and is frequently coded by an infinitive and its complements: (31) ita inritatis militum animis subdere ignem ac materiam seditioni non esse aetatis, non prudentiae eius (sc. dictator Papirius) (Liu. 8.32.16) 2. The focused term moves to the first place in the clause: (32) Bruttiorum proxime fuerat ager (Liu. 35.40.6)3. Syntactic parallelism: (33) Nolae, sicut priore anno, senatus Romanorum, plebs Hannibalis erat (Liu. 23.39.7) If we now take into account the global data of the analysis, we could compare them with those proposed by Clark (1978):

46

Especially in the cases of genitives expressing Quality.



63

Table 10 Clark's theses

Research results (corpus)

1. GVN/GNV (-> GN)

NGV/GNV (-> NG/GN)

2. G[+def] N[-def]

N[+def] G[-def]

3. [+anim] [-anim]

[-anim] [+anim]

ExL: Locative-Nominative 4.

Loc: Nominative-Locative ExL: Nominative-Locative

=> GN A

ExL: Nominative-Locative => NG

NG

As we can appreciate in Classical Latin the situation is completely different from that which Clark states as valid in general, except for the sequence of the animateness feature. Universal implication dependent on the constituent order of Existential-locatives even occurs; such implication is rejected by Clark 47

(1978: 99) . On the other hand, the data are coherent with the previous analysis on Existential-locative constructions, and back the argument about the importance of literary conventions in word order . Thus, factors of communicative nature that should act as a counterbalance do not have a determinant influence here, as may happen in other languages which are more sensitive to this kind of factors. 5. Conclusions The following conclusions are deemed to be the most relevant: 1. From a methodological point of view, this analysis confirms a certain validity of the coordination, juxtaposition and apposition criteria in the identification of semantic relations. Thus, for the genitive + esse construction -syntacti47

"Any language with the order Loc Nom in the existential has a possessive construction -Clark distinguishes possessivei ('have' constructions) and possessive2 ('be' constructions)- with the order Pr Pd, but the reverse does not hold", where Pr = Possessor (G) y Pd = Definite Possessum (N). 48

i.e., the strong tendency on the part of the Subject to occupy the first position in the clause.


Concepción CabrUlana

64

cally considered as Subject Complement- the corpus allows us to establish Quality, Class-inclusion and Possession relations. The latter is considered to be a notion of prototypical nature. This view of Possession affords an adequate frame for the distinction of different relations between possessor and possessed entity. 2. Concerning the characterization of these three relations, there are no distinctive linguistic marks; the distinction comes rather from the lexical factor and 49

its implications on the features of the terms . This fact may support the mainly relational character of the constructions studied. 3. Finally, the study reveals that Latin in its classical stage does not confirm the characteristics assigned to it by the typological proposal for constructions with a possession content. Instead there exist certain particular situations coherent with other classical constructions, where the strength of literary conventions neutralize, to a certain extent, the incidence of communicative factors.

References Benveniste, Émile (1952), "La construction passive du parfait transitif', BSL 48, 52-62. Bolkestein, Α. Machtelt (1983), "Genitive and dative possessors in Latin", in: S. C. Dik (ed.). Advances in Functional Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, 55-91. Bortolussi, Bernard (1998), "Esse + Datif et esse + génitif en latin", in: Alain Rouveret (ed.), "Être" et "Avoir". Syntaxe, Sémantique, typologie, Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, Saint-Denis, 67-94. Bugenhagen, Robert D. (1986), "Possession in Mangap-Mbula: Its syntax and semantics", Oceanic Linguistics 25, 1/2, 124-166. Cabrillana, Concepción (1998), "Structures of Identification and Attribution with sum", in: B. García-Hernández (ed.), Estudios de lingüística latina, I, Ediciones Clásicas, Madrid, 217-233. Cabrillana, Concepción (2001), "Locative Structures in Constructions with sum", en C. Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina nouae quaestiones, Peeters, Leuven, 275-290.

49

In a complementary way contextual and situational factors afford data for a clearer identification of some specifics of concrete cases; this function is carried out primarily in the distinction of the cases with a possessive semantic relation.



65

Cabrillana, Concepción (forth.), "Definiteness Strategies and Word Order in Existentiallocatives and Locatives in Late and Vulgar Latin", paper presented in Sextus Conuentus intemationalis Latinitatis Vulgaris et posterioris, 08-09/2000, Helsinki. Cabrillana, Concepción-Díaz de Cerio, Mercedes (2000), "Orden de constituyentes y Definición en las construcciones locativas con 'einai' y esse: reconsideración de la Hipótesis de la Definición", Linguistica 40,1, 57-73. Clark, Eve V. (1978), "Locationals: Existentials, Locative and Possessive Constructions", in: J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, IV. Syntax, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 87-126. Ernout, Alfred-Thomas, François (1953), Syntaxe Latine, reimpr. 1989, Klincksiek, Paris. Forcellini, Aegidius (1940), Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, IV, Typis Aldianis, Padova. García-Hernández, Benjamín (1992), "El dativo con sum y la vulgarización de la noción de posesión", RSEL 22, 2, 325-337. García-Hernández, Benjamín (1995), "La expresión de la noción verbal de posesión del Latín al romance", in: Louis Callebat (ed.), Latin Vulgaire-Latin tardif V, OlmsWeidmann, Hildesheim, 323-336. Groot, Albert W. de (1956-57), "Classification of the uses of a case illustrated on the genitive in Latin", Lingua 6, 8-66. Happ, Heinz (1976), Grundfragen einer Dependenz-Grammatik des Lateinischen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Heine, Bernd (1997), Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hofmann, Johann Β. & Szantyr, Anton (1965), Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, I, Beck, München. Joffre, Marie-Dominique "Les possesifs des personnes 1 et 2: un moyen de faire surgir dans l'énoncé l'un des acteurs de l'énonciation", in: B. García-Hernández (ed.), Estudios de Lingüística latina, I, Ediciones Clásicas, Madrid, 405-417. Kahn, Charles H. (1973), The verb 'be' in Ancient Greek , vol. 6 of 'The verb "be" and its synonyms: philosophical and grammatical studies', M. Verhaar (ed.), = Foundations of Language, Suppl. Ser. 16, Reidei Publishing Company, Dordrecht. Kühner, Raphael & Stegmann, Carl (1914), Ausfiirliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, II, reimpr. 1992, Verlag Hansche Buchhandlung, Hannover. Lyons, John (1967), "A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences", FoL 3, 390-396. Lyons, John (1980), Semántica, Teide, Barcelona. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan-Hannay, Mike (1982), "Prepositional predicates and Focus constructions in a Functional Grammar of English", Lingua 56,43-57. Maurel, Jean-Pierre (1993), "Des adjectifs de relation", IG 58, 23-26.


66


Miller, George Α.-Johnson-Laird, Philip Ν. (1976), Language and perception, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Orlandini, Anna (1995), Il riferimento del nome, CLUEB, Bologna. Pinkster, Harm (1995), Sintaxis y Semántica del Latín, Ediciones Clásicas, Madrid. Ramos, Agustín (1998), "Consideraciones sobre la expresión de la posesión externa en latín", in: Β. García-Hernández (ed.). Estudios de lingüística latina, I, Ediciones Clásicas, Madrid, 673-688. Rosén, Hannah (1990), "La coordination asymmétrique come critère de fonction syntaxique en latin", IG 46, 34-37. Seiler, Hansjakob (1983), Possession as an operational dimension of language, Narr, Tiibingen. Serbat, Guy (1983), "Le verbe Sum: Syntaxe et Sémantique", VL 73, 8-12. Taylor, John R. (1989), Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Torrego, M. Esperanza (1991), "The genitive with verbal nouns in Latin: a functional analysis", in: R. Coleman (ed.), New Studies in Latin Lingusitics, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 281-293. Touratier, Christian (1995), "Le cas est-it une unité fonctionelle?: Le génitif latin", in: De Vsu. Études de syntaxe latine offertes à Marius Lavency, Peeters, Louvain-taNeuve, 307-328. Touratier, Christian (1994), Syntaxe Latine, Peeters, Louvain. Vester, Elseline (1983), Instrument and Manner Expressions in Latin, Van Gorcun, Assen. Woodcock, Eric Charles (1959), "The functions of the Genitive Case", in: E. C. Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax, reimpr. 1987, Classical Press, Bristol, 50-70.


The 'Genitive + esse' Construction

67

Figure 1 Totals of analysed forms and Genitive + esse' Constructions

• 89

•

108

W

10 πσ •23~ •26~

I S37 1 1002 I 1082

• 1707

P2S•35-

I

• •

I

Total number of occurences Total number of 'Genitive + esse' Constructions


68


Figure 2 Frequency of Genitive + esse* Constructions in the analysed forms

• OÄ J 0Μ /4 3

0Μ2

I 0441 I 0024 I 00,24

) OX

7

Π 0 )1β

Figure 3 A prototypical representation of possessive notions
