Possessors in switch-reference

Abstract

Some languages with switch-reference use same-subject markers in structures where the internal possessor of one subject corefers with another subject, but the subjects do not corefer with each other. We analyse such patterns as a type of non-canonical switch-reference (Stirling 1993; de Sousa 2016) and show that languages differ in what types of possessive relations license same-subject marking. Languages that allow alienable possessive relations in switch-reference also allow inalienable relations to license same-subject marking, but not vice versa. In addition, alienable, but not inalienable possessive relations, must be morphosyntactically expressed when licensing same-subject marking. Adopting a modified version of Stirling's (1993) approach, we derive these implicational relations from anaphoric conditions licensing non-canonical switch-reference.

The Forms and Functions of Switch Reference in A’ingae

“…Having hunted repeatedly, he brings them back to his Mom, and his parents pluck them, butcher them, cook them and eat them' (Blaser and Umenda 2008, p. 173) The one clear exception we have noted is with body part terms, where both same subject and different subject morphemes are possible to indicate the relationship between an individual and their body part (cf. Bárány and Nikolaeva (2019) for a detailed investigation of inalienable possession and SR). This exception does not appear to extend to other kinds of part-whole relationships (e.g., a singular and a plural that includes it), and we therefore leave it to future work to investigate the difference between SS and DS in this environment.…”