Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 11:2 (2024) ► pp.370–401

What can the taxonomy of predicative possession in Malwai Punjabi tell us?

A cognitive linguistics approach

ORCID logo | University of Arizona
The study aims to examine the syntactic and semantic behaviors of predicative possession (i.e., have-possessive constructions) in Malwai Punjabi, an underdocumented dialect within the Indo-Aryan language family. Data were collected from longitudinal online interviews with native speakers as consultants, with audio recordings for transcribed target sentences. The results revealed that all the alienable possession, either permanent/temporary or abstract/concrete, could be marked by the postposition koḷ ‘near/with’, whereas inalienable possession, such as whole-part relation and kinship, could not be encoded using koḷ. The prototypicality model and schema-based metaphors explained why koḷ was widely used to express alienable possession in Malwai Punjabi. The analysis of companion and proximity schemata also justified the extended semantics of predicative possession, suggesting a metaphorical mapping of accompaniment and location onto possession. From a typological angle, the case study can not only provide further evidence for the existence of split possession but also contribute to a cognitive understanding of predicative possession in relation to other languages.
Keywords: predicative possession, Malwai Punjabi, metaphor, prototypicality, postposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background of Malwai Punjabi
  • 3.Literature review
    • 3.1Previous studies on predicative possession
    • 3.2Theoretical framework
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Subjects
    • 4.2Design
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Transcription and coding
  • 5.The distribution of predicative possessive constructions in Malwai Punjabi
    • 5.1Five possessive notions
      • 5.1.1Physical possession
      • 5.1.2Temporary possession
      • 5.1.3Permanent possession
      • 5.1.4Inalienable possession
      • 5.1.5Abstract possession
      • 5.1.6Inanimate inalienable possession
      • 5.1.7Inanimate alienable possession
    • 5.2 Aikhenvald’s (2013) three possessive categories
      • 5.2.1Ownership (of property)
      • 5.2.2Whole–part relations
      • 5.2.3Kinship relations
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Prototypical possessive pattern
    • 6.2Schemata of possession
      • 6.2.1 possessor is accompanee, possessum is companion
      • 6.2.2 transferable possession is spatial proximity (location)
    • 6.3Typological implication
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22002.lu
References (42)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2013). Possession and ownership: A cross linguistic perspective. In Alexandra, A. Y. & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allbritton, D. W. (1995). When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (1), 33–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, I., Herslund, M., & Sørensen, F. (2001). Dimensions of possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhardwaj, M. (2016). Panjabi: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, T. K. (1993). Punjabi: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chappell, H., & Creissels, D. (2019). Topicality and the typology of predicative possession. Linguistic Typology, 23 (3), 467–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., & Bickel, B. (2015). The Leipzig rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. (2022). Existential predication and predicative possession in Arabic dialects. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 75 (4), 583–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory: Volume 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (2013). The world Atlas of language structures online. Available online at [URL], accessed on 2022-01-23.
Gotah, S. (2019). Comparative syntactic analysis of predicative possession and transitive ‘need’. MA thesis. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Retrieved from [URL]
Grković-Major, J. (2011). The development of predicative possession in Slavic languages. In M. Nomachi (Ed.), The Grammar of possessivity in south Slavic languages: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 35–54). Hokkaido: Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
Gulyás, N. F. (2020). Predicative possession in Permic. In G. Dalmi, J. Witkoś & P. Cegłowski (Eds.). Approaches to predicative possession: The view from Slavic and Finno-Ugric (pp. 186–201). London: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haldar, G. (2000). Languages of India. Translated by T. Bagchi. India: National Book Trust.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (1997a). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997b). Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Ways of explaining possession. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Dimensions of possession (pp. 311–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Y. (1970). A note on possessive constructions in Hindi-Urdu. Journal of Linguistics, 6 (1), 37–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaur, A., Singh, P., & Kaur, K. (2017). Punjabi dialects conversion system for Majhi, Malwai and Doabi dialects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation (pp. 125–128). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keen, I. (2013). The language of possession: Three case studies. Language in Society, 42 (2), 187–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kilian-Hatz, C., & Stolz, T. (1992). Comitative, concomitance, and beyond: On the interdependency of grammaticalization and conceptualization. Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (2013). Speaking Punjabi: Heritage language socialization and language ideologies in a Sikh education program. Heritage Language Journal, 10 (1), 36–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. P., Gary, F. S., & Charles, D. F. (Eds.). (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas: SIL InternationalGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, L. F. (2017). Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. Folia Linguistica, 51 (1), 1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammadirad, M. (2020). Predicative possession across Western Iranian languages. Folia Linguistica, 54 (3), 497–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J., & Bickel, B. (2013). Possessive classification. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at [URL]. Accessed on 2013-03-14.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shackle, C. (2003). “Punjabi”. In G. Cardona, & D. Jain (Eds.), Indo-Aryan languages (pp. 581–621). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Singh, A., & Singh, P. (2015). Punjabi dialects conversion system for Malwai and Doabi dialects. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8 (27), 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. (2009). Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T. (2001). To be with X is to have X: Comitatives, instrumentals, locative, and predicative possession. Linguistics, 39 (2), 321–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T., Kettler, S., Stroh, C., & Urdze, A. (2008). Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T., Stroh, C. & Urdze, A. (2006). On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanyam, D. (2011). From location to possession: A case study of Hindi ke pās. BA Paper: Yale University.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teng, S. F.-C. (2014). Grammaticalization of predicative possession in Nanwang Puyuma and as a basis for reconstruction in PAn. Oceanic Linguistics, 53 (1), 136–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolstaya, N. I. (1981). The Panjabi language: A descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar