THE DIACHRONIC SURVEY OF ANALYTIC, SYNTHETIC AND ADJECTIVAL MEANS OF EXPRESSING POSSESSION AND THEIR SYNCHRONIC COMPARISON IN ENGLISH & CZECH 1. Three basic formal types of expressing the possessive relation: a. Adnominal – Mary’s petticoat. My bacon. A property of the family. b. Predicative – Mary has a petticoat. I own a piece of bacon. c. External – (?) I looked her tenderly at the petticoat. (marginal in ModE) ENGLISH 2. In Modern English, the adnominal possession can be expressed by two forms of “genitive” constructions: a. synthetic genitive in the form of a nominal “ending” -‘s (Mary’s petticoat.) or the respective pronominal form (My bacon.) b. analytic prepositional phrase with of (A property of the family.) ¾ As possessive relation can be expressed by other means, so can genitive constructions express other relations besides that of possession (see 3.b.ii.-ix., 3.n. and 3.u. below) ¾ The terms “ending” and “genitive” may not be quite accurate (see 3.y. below) 3. History of the s-genitive: OE genitive sg. pl. OE Strong masc. & neut. -es -a a. realised by three different endings in sg. (-es, -an, -e) and two in pl. (-a, -ena) Strong feminine -e -a b. the main syntactic-semantic roles of the OE genitive: Weak (all genders) -an -ena (after Mitchell & Robinson)
i. possessive – Hæstenes wif (Hæsten’s wife) ii. subjective – þæs cyninges bebod (i.e. the king Person Singular Plural Dual commanded) st 1 mīn ūre uncer iii. objective – metodes ege (i.e. we fear the Lord) 2nd þīn ēower incer iv. descriptive – an lamb anes geares (i.e. a lamb of his hiera one year of age) 3rd hire heora v. partitive – þreora sum (one of three) vi. adverbial – dæges ond nihtes (by day and night) vii. adjective-complement – þæs gefeohtes georn (eager for the fight – “chtivý-boje”) viii. verb-object – hie þæs fægnodon (they rejoiced at that) ix. after some prepositions (tō, þurh, wiþ) c. there are no obvious semantic restrictions on the animacy of the possessor or on topicality d. the genitive can either precede or follow the NP (contrast e.g. i. and iv.) e. the possessive relation can be also expressed by pronominal genitive; notable are esp. 1st & 2nd pers. pronouns that can be declined like strong adj. to be congruent with their NP (mīnne cræft / mīn scip) – the pronouns thus declined are often termed possessive adjectives f. mainly the non-possessive roles can be also expressed by the of-genitive (see 4.b. below) g. the ending of the possessive genitive is usually attached to each noun and split genitives G-NP-G are not uncommon (see 3.m. below) ME
h. the -(e)s ending replaces most other endings, though there are still genitives in –e by the end of ME period and also many formally unmarked adnominal NPs appear that can be classed as either genitives or adjectives that lost its formal inflection i. during the ME period, the s-genitive is in many of its roles largely supplemented by the analytical of-genitive and the two genitives start specialising in the possessive role; the former opposition of three genders seems to be replaced by the opposition of animate vs. inanimate or personal vs. impersonal (see also 3.t. below) j. esp. in the descriptive or identification role (3.b.iv. above), the synthetic genitive seems often to be replaced by an unmarked NP that can, however, alternate with a synthetic genitive without any obvious preference – this prepares the ground both for the revival of compounding and for the seamless adjectival conversion of ModE (see 3.x. below) k. the pronominal synthetic genitive does not seem to be replaced by the analytic form to any great degree, most probably because personal pronouns embody the qualities that give preference to the synthetic genitive (see 6.a.-h. below)
l.
¾
a peculiar development starts in SW Midlands in LME period when the possessive genitive is sometimes replaced by a possessive pronoun “his”; this becomes more general for a time in EModE (see 3.q. below) m. the word order is varied, similar to the OE period, more parallel nouns in apposition can appear in genitive (He wes Uðeres þas aðelen kinges – It was the noble king Uther’s) and they can be interrupted by the possesum or modification (for the Lordes love of hevene – for the love of the Lord of heaven) n. beyond the roles under 3.b.vi.-ix. above, the synthetic genitive is used mostly with superlative adjectives (læðest alre ðinge – most hateful of all things); with adverbials, esp. those of time (þu fliȝst niȝtes – you fly at night); in early texts also with in the partitive role after numerals and occasionally with adjectives EModE o. only the –s ending survives after the ME period, while some words (esp. of native origin and/or ending in sibilants) may appear formally unmarked (your deare frend deth – your dear friend’s death) p. the apostrophe in spelling comes in the 17th c. for sg. and in the 18th c. for pl., in pronunciation the genitive pl. formally disappears q. esp. after words ending in sibilants “his” is used in EModE (Mr. Crux his bond be set up) and by analogy “her” is occasionally supplied for feminine NPs (According to heighe pallas her command); the reason for this formal mark of the genitive may also lie in a general EModE tendency to mark syntactic relations increasingly by analytic means for the sake of clarity r. the synthetic genitive is now restricted to the prenominal position and the parallel genitives (as in 3.m. above) are now replaced by group genitives attaching the genitive –s marker at the end of the NP rather than to all nouns or to the specific possessor (King desires the King of Denmarkes sister in Marriage) if the –s marker were a traditional ending, the King would want the sister of Denmark for a spouse (see 3.y. below) s. by the EModE the genitive is replaced in roles under 3.b.vi.-ix. above by prepositional constructions t. the possessive pronouns undergo a formally independent development and a new possessive pronoun “its” is created by analogy for the neuter, separating it formally from the masculine paradigm, which can be seen as another step towards the new animate vs. inanimate opposition (see also 3.i. above) ModE u. CGEL sums the syntactic-semantic roles of the synthetic genitive into 8 categories that roughly correspond to the roles under 3.b.i.-v. above (the difference in number is caused by the arbitrariness of the syntactic-semantic typology); some of the roles mentioned under 3.n. above are still used, but with more restrictions: the genitive occurring with superlatives has to be locative (the world’s best universities) and the numerals have to be ordinals or general ordinals (Paganini’s last performance) v. the main development seems to lie in frequency and preferences: although all these roles allow both types of the genitive, in some of them the selection of the particular genitive is either semantically or stylistically marked (possessive role) and in cases of ambiguity one of the roles may be seen as more prototypical for the particular genitive – e.g. the synthetic genitive is seen prototypically in a subjective role (the family’s support – the family supports, rather than the family is supported), while the analytic genitive in an objective role (the examination of the fire department – the fire department was examined, rather than the fire department examined) w. although the genitive has been used as a definite determiner during the preceding stages of the development of English, only one determiner is now acceptable in a given NP (it was still acceptable in EModE to have NPs like: all this my taulke); this seems to promote the use of a “double genitive” construction that has been around since EME, but mostly in a partitive role – now it allows a double determination of an NP(this goodness of yours) or a possesive genitive with an indefinite NP (a friend of mine) x. in some cases the genitive works as a modifier, rather than a determiner and thus allows both a determiner and a genitive in a single NP, this goes hand in hand with the notion mentioned in
4.
1
3.j. above – some genitives are acquiring a distinct adjectival character (a ship’s doctor) often bordering with a compound (a bull’s eye) y. the fact that the synthetic genitive can form group genitives (3.t. above) and that the genitive can itself be determined as in my daughter’s table indicate that the –s marker does not attach to a noun, but rather to an NP and as such can be hardly termed an ending; CGEL suggest the term clitic (a kind of affix that works on a phrase, rather than word level), this approach may be seen as partly problematic, because it seems that the speakers’ choice between the synthetic and analytic genitives also depends on the morphology of the nouns to which the synthetic genitive might be attached (see 6.d. below), therefore working on a word level, rather than on a phrase level z. the head of the superordinate NP in a genitive construction may be omitted if the context makes it easily identifiable (My car is faster than John’s) or if the genitive is local, referring to premises or establishment (We’ll meet at Bill’s; Let’s have a dinner at Tifanny’s); this type of local genitives may be reinterpreted as plural by time, esp. in case of well known enterprises, which may in turn lead to a confusion in a number concord (Harrods is/are very good for clothes) History of the of-genitive: a. the preposition of, an unstressed variant of OE æf comes probably from the same source as Sanskrit prefix apa- and Latin prep. ab with a similar meaning of “away, from” that has been preserved in the spelling off (originally the same word) b. the first instances of the of-construction seems to best fit into the genitive roles of origin, reference or description, which also seem to be closest to the original meaning of the preposition, but its advance into all the other positions of the synthetic genitive is not completely clear c. one of the most quoted reasons for the spread of the analytic genitive is a foreign influence, esp. in translation of French de and Latin dē for which purpose, the prep. of became to be nearly universally used; this surely must have helped the diversification of its functions, but internal causes might also be detected that helped it in replacing the synthetic origin in many of its functions and these might be divided into morphological and syntactic: i. the morphological reasons for the spread of the analytical genitive are based on the accumulation of functions on a single formal marker –s throughout the OE and ME periods (all the paradigms’ genitives, plural, later abbreviated form of is/has) ii. the syntactic reasons are based on the difficulty of interpreting the roles of the synthetic genitive in the OE period; esp. the subjective and objective roles were easily confused, because the word order became increasingly fixed with the genitive directly preceding its head making thus the decision between the two roles completely dependent upon the context ; the general tendency towards the SVO structure seems to manifests itself in the need to place the objective genitive after its head – as it became difficult and confusing to do so with the synthetic genitive (Karitas, þat is, godes luue and mannes – Charity, that is, the love of God and men), the of-construction was a good candidate; hence probably the preferences noted under 3.v. above d. it is generally difficult to quantify the rise of the analytical genitive and generalising from secondary sources is dangerous, because the methods of quantification differ widely, esp. concerning the inclusion or exclusion of the pronominal category; as far as it is possible to consider the data accumulated from the secondary sources, it seems that the 9th c. is the culmination point of the synthetic genitive (Curme); Thomas gives occurrence 0.5% of the analytic genitive (of all genitives) in the OE period as a whole, while he reckons that it rises to 6.3% in the 12th c., to 31.4% in the early 13th c. and to 84.4% by the end of the 14th c. Altenberg states that about 30% of animate genitives were synthetic in the 17th century and 90% of inanimate genitives (though I was unable to find out, how numerous were these two groups to estimate the general figure for the analytic genitive). Fries then gives 94.8% of the analytic genitive for the beginning of the 20th century (with pronouns excluded – he gives 3% as the proportion of analytical pronominal genitives). If we attempt to estimate the comparable data from Hinrichs & Szmrecsanyi, who worked on mainly journalistic corpora, we get roughly 70% of analytic genitive in 1960s and 60% in 1990s1 (see fig. 3)
The data are estimates because H&S work mostly with “interchangeable” genitives only and differentiate between US and UK. Their statistics conclude with ratios of interchangeable synthetic genitive (1961:1991) of 36.2% : 53.2% in the US corpora and 37.4% : 45.8% in the UK corpora
e.
¾ 5.
based on this data and other secondary literature, it seems that the analytic genitive was on a general increase from the end of the OE period till some point between the late 17. and the beginning of the 20th c.; whatever the precise time of the culmination period, it seems that the synthetic genitive is currently spreading and the most difficult task is to say why and how Several questions should be considered as regards the previous point: What are the restrictions for an unequivocal preference of one of the genitives? (mainly H&S criteria for interchangability)
a.
6.
unequivocal preference for the synthetic genitive (simple transformation is impossible) i. independent genitives – i.e. genitives with an omitted element as those under 3.z. and the synthetic part of double genitives ii. idiomatic expressions (Murphy’s law) iii. any construction whose NP is modified by “own” (the president’s own agenda) iv. works with a creator in genitive that would require a by-construction, rather than an ofconstruction (Steinbeck’s of Mice and Men) b. unequivocal preference for the analytic genitive i. constructions with an indefinite possessum ii. constructions with such a rich postmodification of the NP that would lead to an extremely unwieldy synthetic group genitive iii. constructions expressing measure (a pound of flesh) – though not of time iv. idiomatic expressions (the University of Mississippi) What are the criteria for choosing one of the genitives in case their use is interchangeable? (mainly after H&S analysis, see fig. 3)
a.
animacy (CGEL introduces a gender scale from the most personal to the inanimate), beside humans and animals, collectives are also considered animate; it is generally assumed and well documented that the synthetic genitive is associated with animate possessors to a much higher degree that the analytic one, though this certainly does not work exclusively; H&S analysis suggests that the synthetic genitive has become more associated with inanimate possessors over time, though this does not significantly contribute to the overall rise of the synthetic genitive (see fig. 4) b. the text frequency of the head; H&S show that the probability of choosing the synthetic genitive increases with the frequency of its head in the given text (according to the analysis the average head frequency is 3.8 per text for the analytical genitive and 5.9 per text for the synthetic g.) c. information status/topicality/thematicity – if the head occurs near before the genitive construction, it can be considered a thematic element and according to H&S nearly 10% more synthetic genitives were identified as thematic than the corresponding analytic genitives d. final sibilant in the possessor seems to discourage the use of synthetic genitive because of pronunciation difficulties and clarity; H&S show that 15% more analytic genitives end in sibilant, which is significant e. the principle of the end-weight suggests that the synthetic genitive should prefer shorter possessor & longer possessum and vice versa for the analytic genitive; H&S confirmed this, while showing that the synthetic genitive is more restricted in its choice of a possessor and that this tendency seems to be falling and the length of the constituents has become more similar between the two genitives since 1960s f. persistence/repetition – by this principle, the particular genitive type is to be more probably of the same type as the preceding genitive construction; according to H&S 50.4% of synthetic genitives are directly preceded by another synthetic genitive, while only 37.5% of the analytic genitives are g. nesting – if the possessor phrase contains another genitive, it can be supposed that such nesting of two synthetic genitives would be difficult to parse and therefore an analytical genitive would be preferred (compare the bride’s father’s recent death with the recent death of the bride’s father); only 0.4% of the synthetic genitives in H&S corpora embed another synthetic genitive, while 4,4% of the analytical do; it is interesting to note that the analytical genitive embedding a synthetic genitive has increased in frequency over time in journalistic corpora, probably because it offers an excellent way of nominal condensation; the nesting of the analytical gen. does not seem to be significantly differentiated h. type-token ration and “nouniness” – the hypotheses are that the higher type-token ratio and therefore denser lexically the text is, the more probable is the choice of a more compact of the
i.
j.
7.
two genitives (the synthetic one), similarly, the higher the ratio of nouns in the text, the denser lexically the text and more synthetic genitives are again to be expected; both these hypotheses were confirmed by H&S and it has been also shown that both the type-token ratio and the nouniness have been increasing over the time, while the American corpora are lexically denser than the British possessive/non-possessive roles – Rosenbach has shown that independently from animacy and topicality, the two basic semantic roles are important in the choice of the genitive with the possessive role clearly favouring the synthetic genitive, only in case of inanimate non-topical construction, the possessive role was slightly favoured by the analytic construction (see fig. 1). we could assume that subject/object roles also form an important criterion (as noted in 3. v. above), but none of the studies tries to quantify or even verify this claim
Some general questions based on Vachek’s ideas: a. What is the word-class status the synthetic genitive in ModE? b. What is the structural position of ModE possessive pronouns? c. Does the synthetic genitive mark plural in ModE? d. What are the functional reasons for the splitting/differentiation of the two genitives? e. How does the ModE system of adnominal possessives compare to the Czech system?
ČEŠTINA 8.
V současné češtině se posesivní adnominální vztah vyjadřuje genitivem a přídavným jménem (zájmenem) přivlastňovacím (poses. adj. je specifikum slovanských jazyků) 9. Genitiv je (podle Enc. slov. češtiny) prostředek vyjádření sémanticky nespecifikovaného závislostního vztahu jména na jiném jménu (je to strukturní pád u subst.). Rozlišuje se - podle velmi heterogenních kritérií – několik sémantických typů: a. původce děje (agentní): zpěv ptáků, g. cíle děje/ b. zasaženého předmětu (patientní): rozbití vázy, c. přivlastňovací (posesivní): zahrada našeho souseda, d. nositele vlastnosti: směnitelnost koruny, g. vlastnosti: člověk veselé mysli, e. autorský: román Milana Kundery, g. produktu: autor románu Žert, f. vysvětlovací (explikativní): korálky zubů, g. definující: povinnost vděčnosti, g. dedikační (čestného názvu): most Palackého, g. stupňovací (augmentativní, hebrejský): kniha knih, h. kvantifikovaného předmětu (partitivní): kus cukru, i. zobrazovaného předmětu: obraz prezidenta, j. časový: narození 5. ledna. ¾ Jednotlivé významy, které jméno v g. jako složka NP vyjadřuje, nevyjadřuje ovšem morf. g., nýbrž buď vyplývají z významu obou jmen (je-li jádro NP de-verbativní nebo deadjektivní jméno, které dědí po slovese a adj. aktanty a jejich sémantické role - ptáci (agens) zpívají- zpěv ptáků (agens); krotit lvy (patiens) - krocení lvů (patiens); týrání vojáků (agens, n. patiens), nebo jsou jména v g. interpretována na základě významu tohoto jména a významu jádra NP a znalostí světa, k němuž NP referuje (není-li řídící jméno deverbativum n. deadjektivum): obraz Václava Havla (autor, n. vlastník, n. zobrazovaný předmět); most Václava Havla (autor, n. vlastník, n. čestný název). 17. Přídavná jména přivlastňovací lze zařadit do širší skupiny adjektiv relačních desubstantivních. Dělí se na individuální a druhová: a. Individuální vyjadřují především posesivní vztah k jedné osobě/zvířeti a tvoří se od životných subst. podle vzoru otcův (maskulina) a matčin (feminina), netvoří se od středního rodu, deadj. subst. a od některých vzorů jako dělnice, nebo umělkyně. b. Druhová relace je sémanticky širší a tvoří se sufixy –í, a –cí převážně od názvů zvířay a sufixem – ský/-ký/-ovský od názvů osob. Pro vztah k místu sufixy –ní, -ský, -ký, případně pro vztah původu i sufixy –ový, -ěný/-ený a –ný. Druhová relace je mnohem blíže kategorii adjektiv a často se nepovažuje za podskupinu adj. přivlastňovacích, ale za samostatný druh relačních adj. (obecně je rozdělení relačních adj. velmi rozrůzněné). 18. Zájmena přivlastňovací, které lze rozdělit na:
zájmena spíše povahy indexu než proformy, kam spadají přivl. zájm. 1. a 2. osoby můj, tvůj & náš, váš– tato zájmena jsou bezrodá, ale rodově kongruentní se svou NP a plně ohebná, ukazuje pak na přímé účastníky komunikace; b. dále na zájmeno povahy bližší proformě, tedy 3. osobu jeho/její – ta rozlišuje rod maskulinum/neutrum proti femininu (viz OE), ale kongruentní a ohebná je jen femininní forma její (viz dále), zastupuje skutečně NP a ne účastníka komunikace (proto „potřebuje“ rozlišit rod); c. a konečně na zájmeno reflexivní svůj (které nebudeme rozebírat) ¾ Zvláštnosti v morfologii 3. os. lze vysvětlit diachronně tak, že tato forma vznikla z genitivu osobního zájmena (on, jeho) a morfy rozlišující rod u její jsou složeny sekundárně z je- + genitivu osobního zájmena (ona, jí)– analogicky tedy: bál se jeho – jeho bratr, bál se jí/jich – její/jejich bratr (od přivlastňovací formy jeho se také gen. os. zájm. liší formami ho/něho). 19. Jaká jsou kritéria pro výběr mezi genitivem a zájmenem přivlastňovacím? a.
(především podle Kopáčkové)
a.
¾
¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
Vztahují-li se na určitého jedince, na osobu nebo na živočicha, a to vyjádřeného holým živ. fem./mask. substantivem; např.: bratr – bratrův dům; Genitiv místo adjektiva: dům bratra, je pociťován jako nepřirozený. V biblickém rčení ve jméno Otce, Syna i Ducha svatého jsou genitivy Otce a Syna vlivem náležitého genitivu Ducha svatého (viz 19.d.), tvarovým vyrovnáním. b. Přivlastňuje-li se jedinci jako zástupci druhu, kladou se přivlastňovací zájmena zřídka. Místo nich se užívá přivlastňovacího genitivu; např.: povinností muže, učitele, ženy, je… // povinností mužovou, učitelovou, ženinou je… nebo adjektiv druhových/relačních, a to na -í, -ský…; např.: dívčí tvář, kněžská tvář…; i. Jde tu o přivlastňování druhové, podle smyslu vlastně množné (viz 19.e.): povinnost každého muže, povinnost všech mužů… Proto se vyjadřujeme jinak než při přivlastňování jednotlivém. ii. Genitiv je přirozenější také v přístavcích typu: paní XY, žena (choť) učitele, ředitele, lékaře…, nikoli učitelova… Jde sice o ženu určitého jedince, ale v přístavku se vyjadřujeme druhově = žena muže z kruhů učitelských…, žena jednoho z učitelů…, „učitelská žena“. c. Je-li posesor výrazem rozvitým, užívá se zpravidla genitivu: bratrův soused – dům bratrova souseda; podob. syn mé sestry; spisy Otakara Březiny; dvůr Karla Čtvrtého atp. V knižním jazyce se vyskytuje adjektivum v případech typu „básně V. Dykovy, spisy F. X. Šaldovy, S. K. Neumannovy“, protože se křestní jméno nečte plně, nýbrž zkratkově: básně vé Dykovy, spisy ef ix Šaldovy, es ká Neumannovy. Ve starším jazyce se tu adjektivum kladlo, a to jednak v prvním nebo v druhém členu výrazu, jednak v obou členech: krev Abelovy spravedlivého (= krev spravedlivého Abela); dvór králóv Václavóv // králóv Václava // krále Václavóv (= dvůr krále Václava) – viz OE. d. Vztahuje-li se na substantivum s přivlastňovacím přídavným jménem vztažné nebo osobní zájmeno, přirozenější je genitiv: dovolával se slov básníkových, který praví // …slov básníka, který…; dům sousedův a jeho sourozenců // dům souseda… e. Přivlastňuje-li se několika jedincům, přirozenější je genitiv: bratři a sestry – dům bratrů a sester. Podobně jako v angličtině je rozdíl mezi posesivními formami také v určenosti – referent nominální fráze s individuálně posesivním adj. nese příznak určenosti, zatímco nominální fráze s genitivem je bezpříznaková: Lékařův bílý plášť se mihl chodbou a zmizel za dveřmi ordinace (plášť onoho lékaře) // Bílý plášť lékaře se mihl chodbou a zmizel za dveřmi ordinace (bílý lékařský plášť). Variace gen./poses. adj. se uvádí jako volná v bulharštině a makedonštině, přičemž v bulharštině je frekvence poses. adj. poměrně nízká – jedná se o jediné slov. jazyky, které mají člen. Frekvence indiv. poses. adj. se v průběhu vývoje češtiny snižovala (vrchol zhruba ve 13. stol.?), avšak od 19. stol. dochází opět k jejímu zvýšení – zřejmě původně snahou obrozenců (viz Fig. 5) Vývoj rel. adj. šel od velkého počtu sufixů s podobnou funkcí k redukci forem významové specializaci. Konkurence gen. a indiv. poses. adj. se projevuje zhruba od 14. a 15. stol, ale až v nové češtině dochází na specializaci, kdy převažuje užití indiv. poses. adj. ve vztahu subj. a naopak genitivu ve vztahu obj. Zároveň indiv. poses. adj. opouští postpozitivní pozici a je v ní nahrazováno genitivem. Užití postpozitivní se zdá být funkčně archaizující.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Burrow, J. A. and T. Turville-Peter, eds. A Book of Middle English. Blackwell: Oxford, 1991 Brown, Keith (ed. in chief). “Possesion, Adnominal”, “Possesion, Extrenal” and “Possesion, Predicative”. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Elsevier: Oxford, 2006 Curme, George O. “The Development of the Analytic Genitive in Germanic. I” Modern Philology. Vol. 11, No. 2. The University of Chicago Press: Oct., 1913. pp. 145-174 Curme, George O. “The Development of the Analytic Genitive in Germanic. II” Modern Philology. Vol. 11, No. 3. The University of Chicago Press: Jan., 1914. pp. 289-313 Fries, Charles C. “Some Notes on the Inflected Genitive in Present-Day English.” Language, Vol. 14, No. 2. Linguistic Society of America: Apr. - Jun., 1938, pp. 121-133 Gajda, Jiří. Tvoření posesivních adjektiv v češtině 14. a 15. století. (nevydaná magisterská diplomová práce) MU: Brno, 2006 Hinrichs, L. A. R. S. and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. “Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora.” English Language and Linguistics 11 (2007): 437-474 Karlík, P., M. Nekula a J. Pleskalová, J. (Eds.) “Genitiv”, “Adjektivum relační desubstantivní”. Encyklopedický slovník češtiny. Lidové noviny: Praha, 2002 Kopáčková, Lucie. Co říká o posesivních adjektivech odborná literatura a ČNK. (nevydaná magisterská diplomová práce) MU: Brno, 2007 Mitchell, Bruce and Fred C. Robinson. A guide to Old English. 5th ed. OUP: Oxford, 1992 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman: London, 1985 Rosenbach, Anette. Genitive Variation in English. Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Mouton de Gruyter, 2002 Rusínová, Zdenka a Dušan Šlosar. Průřez vývojem slovotvorné soustavy adjektiv. In: SPFFBU, roč. XVI, 1967, A15. Brno: UJEP, 1967, s. 37-64. Scott, Alan, David Denison & Kersti Börjars. Is the English possessive ’s truly a right edge phenomenon? The University of Manchester 2ICLCE: Toulouse, 2 July 2007 Thomas, Russell. Syntactical Processes Involved in the Development of the Adnominal Periphrastic Genitive in the English Language. (unpublished dissertation, quoted from Fries) Vachek, Josef: “Some Less Familiar Aspects Of The Analytical Trend Of English.” Brno Studies in English 3. SPN: 1961, 9-78
a – animacy as personal, common nouns (+) vs. concrete common nouns (excluding geograpical and temporal) (-) t – topicality as second-mention, definite expression (+) vs. first-mention, indefinite expression (-) p – possessive relations as for humans: body parts, kin terms, and permanent legal ownership (+) vs. states and abstract ‘possessions’ (-); for inanimates: part/whole relations (+) vs. nonpart/whole relations (-)
Figure 1 Rosenbach - Analysis of genitive preferences
Figure 2 H&S – Diachronic and diatopic development
Figure 3 H&S - Increase in -2 log likelihood (decrease in model goodness-of-fit) if factor(s)
Figure 5 H&S – Animacy coding scheme and the mean possesor animacy by corpus and
Figure 4 Rusínová & Šlosar – Pokles výskytu posesivních adjektiv v češtině a jejich návrat po národ. obroz. W = Žaltář wittenberský (pol. 14. století, původ 13. století); M = žaltář z Bible Melantrichovy (rok 1480); K = žaltář z Bible kralické (1582); V = žaltář z Bible svatováclavské (1672-1715); Š = novodobý překlad Písma svatého Vladimíra Šrámka (1948)
