Universal #1592
Legacy number: 1592
| Number | 1588 |
| Original | Possession cline which represents the degree of closeness/attachedness – physical and/or psychological – between the possessor and the possessee, ranging from inalienable to alienable possession: body part > inherent attribute > clothing > (kin) > pet animal > product > other possessee. |
| Standardized | IF products are among inalienables, THEN so are pet animals; IF pet animals are among inalienables, THEN so are kin terms; IF kin terms are among inalienables, THEN so are clothing items; IF clothing items are among inalienables, THEN so are inherent attributes; IF inherent attributes are among inalienables, THEN so are body parts. |
| Formula | body part > inherent attribute > clothing > (kin) > pet animal > product > other possessee |
| Keywords | possession, alienable, inalienable, kinship, animacy |
| Domain | inflection, syntax, semantics |
| Type | implicational hierarchy |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | absolute |
| Basis | Japanese (Japanese-Ryukyuan), English (Indo-European), Warrungu, Djaru (both Pama-Nyungan) |
| Source | Tsunoda 1995: 576 |
Discussion
Counterexamples
In Mandarin (Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan), Menya (Trans-New Guinea), and Mokilese (Oceanic, Austronesian), the hierarchy of alienability is: kinsmen > body parts > artefacts. (Haiman 1985: 135-136)
Notes
1. The category of kin is bracketed because Tsunoda did not include it in his investigation, and placed it here according to his intuitions, based on Japanese, Djaru and Warrungu. 2. Nichols (#1588), Haiman (#1598), Chappell & McGregor (1989: 26) place body parts and kin together as prototypical inalienables. By contrast, Seiler (1983: 13) suggests that the ranking might be of the order of kinship followed by body parts. On Tsunoda’s cline (this entry) body part is the highest. There are languages where spatial orientation terms appear alone at the top of the hierarchy as the most inalienable category. [...] Hence, it appears that differences between languages as to which categories they treat as inanlienable may not be reconciled in terms of a universal hierarchy. (adapted from Chappell & McGregor 1995: 8)
Log in to join the discussion.
2. Nichols (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1588"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">), Haiman (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1598"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">), Chappell & McGregor 1989: 26: place body parts and kin together as prototypical inalienables. By contrast, Seiler 1983: 13: suggests that the ranking might be of the order of kinship followed by body parts. On Tsunoda's cline (this entry) body part is the highest. There are languages where spatial orientation terms appear alone at the top of the hierarchy as the most inalienable category. [...] Hence, it appears that differences between languages as to which categories they treat as inanlienable may not be reconciled in terms of a universal hierarchy. (adapted from Chappell & McGregor 1995: 8)