LEADER 05620nam 2200673 a 450 001 9910463190603321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a1-283-97084-8 010 $a90-272-7300-6 035 $a(CKB)2670000000328483 035 $a(EBL)1111903 035 $a(OCoLC)826856128 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000820117 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11444266 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000820117 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10857523 035 $a(PQKB)10574112 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1111903 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1111903 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10648807 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL428334 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000328483 100 $a20120913d2012 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aMorphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession$b[electronic resource] /$fedited by Kersti Bo?rjars, David Denison, Alan Scott 210 $aAmsterdam ;$aPhiladelphia $cJohn Benjamins Pub. Co.$d2012 215 $a1 online resource (353 p.) 225 1 $aLinguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today,$x0166-0829 ;$vv. 199 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-5582-2 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aMorphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Introduction*; Dealing with postmodified possessors in early English; 1.1 Introduction; 1.1.1 The corpora; 1.2 Old English; 1.2.1 Split genitives in Old English; 1.2.1.1 Extraposed material in the genitive case; 1.2.1.2 Extraposed prepositional phrases; 1.2.1.3 Extraposed relative clauses; 1.2.1.4 Summary of split genitives in Old English; 1.3 The beginnings of the group genitive; 1.3.1 Changes in Middle English; 1.3.2 Separated genitives 327 $a1.4 Split and group genitives in Middle and Early Modern English 1.4.1 Split genitives with prepositions; 1.4.2 Group genitives; 1.4.3 Marking; 1.4.3.1 Split genitives; 1.4.3.2 Group genitives; 1.4.3.3 Possessive phrases without heads; 1.4.4 Marking: Summary; 1.5 Split vs. group; 1.5.1 Prepositions and thematic roles; 1.5.2 Complexity of the possessor phrase; 1.6 Conclusion; Variation in the form and function of the possessive morpheme in Late Middle and Early Modern English; 2.1 Introduction; 2.2 The material; 2.3 Typical use of the possessive construction; 2.4 Morpho-syntactic structures 327 $a2.5 Possessor types 2.6 The possessive morpheme marker; 2.7 Placement of the possessive morpheme; 2.8 Conclusion; appendices; appendix a.; appendix b: sources; LETTERS; Letter collections used:; HISTORY; SERMONS; The great regression; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 The history of genitive variation in English: an overview; 3.3 Data; 3.4 The variable context; 3.5 Genitive frequencies over time: An overview; 3.6 Conditioning factors; 3.6.1 Semantics: Genitive relation; 3.6.2 Semantics: Possessor animacy; 3.6.3 Processing: Possessor length and possessum length 327 $a3.6.5 Information status: Possessor givenness 3.6.6 Text linguistics: Possessor thematicity; 3.6.7 Text linguistics: Lexical density; 3.6.8 Language-internal conditioning factors: Interim summary; 3.7 Environmental factors: On the impact of changing input frequencies; 3.7.1 Model fitting and model simplification; 3.7.2 Model evaluation and model discussion; 3.7.3 Environmental factors: Interim summary; 3.8 Changing genitive grammars; 3.8.1 Model fitting and model simplification; 3.8.2 Model evaluation and model discussion; 3.8.3 Changing genitive grammars: Interim summary 327 $a3.9 Discussion and conclusion Nominal categories and the expression of possession; 4.1 Introduction; 4.2 The broader context; 4.3 A corpus study of the English possessive alternation; 4.3.1 What factors drive the alternation?; 4.3.2 Finding the envelope of variation; 4.3.3 What should be excluded?; 4.3.4 How were examples coded?; 4.3.4.1 Weight; 4.3.4.2 Animacy; 4.3.4.3 Discourse status; 4.3.5 Initial results and a confound; 4.3.5.1 Initial results; 4.3.5.2 A conundrum regarding the confound; 4.3.5.3 Interpreting regression results; 4.4 The Monolexemic possessor construction 327 $a4.4.1 The grammaticalization of optimal weight 330 $aIn this paper we compare two ways of expressing possession in the Indo-Aryan language Urdu. While the genitive case marker can be analyzed as a clitic in a relatively straightforward way, the ezafe construction poses a challenge when it comes to its classification as either a phrasal affix or clitic. Samvelian (2007) analyzes Persian ezafe as a phrasal affix that is generated within the morphological component, rejecting a postlexical analysis. After taking a look at the data for both constructions, we challenge Samvelian's view of ezafe and explore the possibilities for 410 0$aLinguistik aktuell ;$vBd. 199. 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xPossessives 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xMorphosyntax 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xPossessives. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xMorphosyntax. 676 $a415 701 $aBo?rjars$b Kersti$0621890 701 $aDenison$b David$f1950-$0220815 701 $aScott$b Alan$g(Alan K.)$0904638 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910463190603321 996 $aMorphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession$92289652 997 $aUNINA