‘s construction vs of –construction Abstract : This report first poses an important challenge to poss

essive put forward by traditional grammar. Then it makes analysis of two basic possessive structure ‘s (apostrophe) construction and of –construction (also referred as ‘s genitive and of-genitive) by using cognitive grammar. Finally, to compare these two structures, some decisive factors are introduced: definiteness, affectedness and informativity.

Key words: ‘s genitive , of-construction , cognitive gr

ammar

The possessive relationship juxtaposition : 他老师

‘s construction （ also ’s genitive )

of-construction (also of genitive)

Taylor (1996:1) refers (‘s or ‘) as the possessive morpheme and denote it by mnemonic abbreviation POSS. Phonologically, POSS is realized by /ez/,/z/,/s/, or zero.

Introduction

In Chomsky’s Government and Binding Theory (GB Theory), the morpheme POSS is considered the overt marker of genitive case.

徐烈炯（ 1988,290-291 ） proposed two ways in which possessive case came into being by using Chomsky’s theory .For example, in the deep construction :

[destruction [the city]] , the N “destruction” attach an Inherent Case to the NP “ the city”. In the corresponding surface structure (1), the possessive case can be forme

d in two ways: (1) a. the city’s destruction ---------“POSS-Insertion”. b. destruction of the city -------“Of- Insertion”

Traditional View In traditional generative approach, neither ‘s or of is

assigned a central role or any semantic content—they are assumed to be empty markers inserted for purely grammatical purposes.

This approach conflicts with the claims and assumptions of cognitive grammar, which does not permit syntactic derivations from underlying structures. Moreover, their treatment of ‘s and of violates a basic tenet of the framework: the so called “ grammatical markers” always have some kind of conceptual import.

‘s construction What does the possessive morpheme

(‘s) really mean? A ‘s construction like the city’s destruction always have two participants, the possessor and the possessee. What’s the relationship between them ?

Poutsma (1914-16:41) identifies the following types of genitives (as he called them): genitive of possession : my brother’s books, the earth’s

crust genitive of origin: the pheasant’s nest ， nature’s work the subjective genitive 1: Elizabeth’s reign, the horse’s b

reathing the objective genitive 2: Gordon’s murder, their kingdo

m’s loss the genitive of measure: an hour’s interval, a shilling’s w

orth the genitive of apposition 3: Tweed’s fair river, treason’s

charge

Weakness This taxonomic approach received criticism for it fails to

offer any explanation of how one and the same morpheme comes to express such likely diverse semantic relations.

Though certain kinds relationships can be regarded as prototypical, including part/whole, kinship, and ownership relations— it is doubtful that all the others are motivated solely as metaphorical extensions from these. We might also ask what part/whole, kinship, and ownership relations have in common—why should these particular relations cluster as prototypical values of the same construction? Both considerations encourage us to seek a more abstract characterization of possession.

One proposal One proposal is that any kind of association cou

nts as a possible possessive relationship. This analysis is clearly abstract enough to handl

e all the data, but it is probably too extreme. In particular, it offers no basis for the asymmetr

ies observable in possessive relations. The girl’s neck vs * the neck’s girl the boy’s knife vs * the knife’s boy

Fig 1 The Reference Point Model

W stands for the world,

C for the conceptualizer

T for the target, i.e. the object that the conceptualizer seeks to locate.

R for reference points

D for dominion

Abstract possession

universal cognitive principles : a whole is more salient than its parts; a physical object is

more salient than an abstract entity; and a person has maximal cognitive salience.

the girl’s neck vs. * the neck’s girl the boy’s knife vs. * the knife’s boy the cat’s fleas / the flea’s cat

Jill’s knife (an example of ‘s genitive )

Of- construction (Traditional view ) Like the apostrophe, the tradition of treating of as a semanticall

y empty element, with the sole purpose of being kicked around by syntactic rules, was continued by Chomsky (1970:202, 211), who proposed the derivations in

(2)a. John’s picture ----- the picture of John’s b. the picture of John----- John’s picture c. [[ several [ John] N’’] Spec [[proofs]N [the theorem]N’’]

N’]N’’----- several of John’s proofs of the theorem

This pattern of of-abuse has persisted. For instance, Hudson (1984: 136, 143, 147) has stated that of is a word “ without any independent semantic structure” , that it does “not contribute any distinct meaning of its own”, that it is “an empty word”.

Cognitive grammar about of By constrast, central claims of cognitive grammar lead dire

ctly to the expectation that of will prove meaning that of exhibits in a number of its basic uses: it profiles a relationship between two entities such that one of them ( the trajector) constitutes an inherent and restricted subpart of the other( the landmark). Straightforwardly accommodated by this characterization are expressions like

(3) the bottom of the jar a kernel of corn

Further support was offered in Langacker (1987: 227) :

(4)a. the tip (of / *in) my finger b.the splinter (in/ *of) my finger(5) a. the (color/center/edge/growth) of the law

n b. that brown spot (in/ * of ) the lawn

6(6)a. the chirping of birds; the consumption of alcohol;

the destruction of Iraqi army b. a ring of gold; a book of matches; a man of integrity c. the state of California; the crime of shoplifting; a

distance of 10 miles d. an acquaintance of Bill; the chief of this tribe; the

father of the bride

Value of Of Like most other expressions, of must therefore be regarded as polysemo

us. The value described previously, wherein of profiles an inherent-and-restricted subpart relationship between its trajector and landmark, holds for only some of its uses, though it is reasonably considered prototypical. This sense is sketched in Figure 3.1 (a), where the double line represents an intrinsic relationship.

Figure 3.1

Comparison

Taylor (1996:185)stated that the ‘s construction generally have specific reference, and are nearly always compatible with definite reference.

the student’s dictionary the dictionary of the student a dictionary of the student The definiteness and specificity of ‘s construction can be tes

ted by means of a pronoun. (7) I was looking for Mary’s English dictionary, but I didn’t fin

d {it /*one}.

In English indefiniteness of a possessive is expressed in way of combination with of, a friend of mine, some friends of hers.

A principle

---select a reference point which will most effectively guarantee identification of the target.

---questionable sentence: Once upon a time there was a farmer’s aunt.

----there is a unique relation between the reference point and its intended target.

a man’s life

Figure 4 Referent Point Model For ‘s construction

高原 (2006 ： 223) points out that, the target ( possessee) in ‘s construction should also be definite, because its abnormal for the conceptualizer to target an indefinite entity via a definite reference point through a unique mental path. But in of-construction, the definiteness of the NP2 and NP1 are not required. This contrast between this two possessive constructions can account for the felicitous of (7)a. part of the story ,the infelicitous of (7)b.* the story’s part

(7) c The story’s interesting part.

Affectedness constraint avoidance of the cliff or knowledge of the fact rather than *the cliff’s avoidance or *the fact’s knowledge. Why ? Only NPs which designate entities that are ‘affected’ by

the activity denoted by a deverbal noun (nominalization) can serve as pronominal possessors in the ‘s genitive; entities that are not affected are prohibited from the possessor position.

Cuba’s recognition by the U.S. and * John’s recognition by Rred.

Informativity A nominalzed noun like destruction make reference, within t

heir scope of predication, to two schematically characterized entities, i.e. the trajector and the landmark of the unprofiled process. In principle, therefore, there are two ‘ elaboration sites’ in the noun’s semantic structure, each of which is a candidate for elaboration by a possessor nominal. Yet, it generally happens that one of these unprofiled entities is a stronger candidate for elaboration than the other.

Langacker (1993:10) has suggested that it is the subject of the nominalzed verb that preferentially serves as possessor, by virtue of its ‘ greater prominence’ .

The situation, however, is clearly more complex and differentiated. With psychological predicates, it is the Experiencer that obligatorily functions as possessor, whence the impossibility of an objective reading of Louise’s love.

With action predicates, it is preferentially the landmark functions as possessor, but only on condition that the landmark is affected by the action: the city’s destruction, *the cliff’s avoidance. The trajector is normally permitted as possessor only if the landmark is already specified in an of-construction: The enemy’s destruction * (of the city)

This analysis is of great avail to the judgment of the incorrect employment of

* the city ‘s destruction and by contrast justification of the enemy’s city..

This criterion of cue validity is much suitable to the judgment of the cognitive nouns. For example, God’s love always means God loves human, while the love of god can express both the subjective and objective reading. The possessive morpheme ’s according to Erades, often states the relation between a subject and its predicate.

Taylor suggests that the possessor nominal needs to provide reliable cues for the identification of the target. This reminds us of one of a principle of his: Select a reference point which will most effectively guarantee identification of the target. In other words, the cue validity of the possessor is the high informativity of the possessor. This aspect is referred to cue validity to the possessee.

Herbie loves Louise the enemy destroyed the city *the city’s destruction/the enemy’s de

struction

Conclusion To sum up, this paper analysis a common linguistic phenom

enon : possessive construction. Two basic possessive constructions are focused here: ‘s construction and of construction. In traditional grammar , ‘s and of are taken as meaningless element, but in cognitive grammar, they are of great significance. The former poses a reference model between the possessor and possessee. The latter implies an intrinsic relationship between them. On this cognitive analysis , several phenomenon about this two construction are dealt with. Three criteria are introduced upon which we can distinct the ‘s genitive from the of-genitive: Definiteness, affectedness and informativity.

References:

Alexiadou, A.2005. Possessors and (in)definiteness. Lingua 115:787-819. Anttila, A.& V. Fong.2004. Variation, ambiguity, and noun classes in English. Lingua

114:1253-1290 Barker,C. 1995. Possessive Descripitions. Standford: CSLI Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In; Jacobs and Rosenbaum (ed

s.), 184-221. Hudson, Richard A. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Langacker, R.W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol.1. Standford: Standfo

rd University Press. Langacker, R.W. 1991.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.2:Descriptive Applica

tion. Standford: Standford University Press. Langacker, R.W.1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. New York: Mounton de Gru

yter. Taylor, J.R. 1996. Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 徐烈炯 . 生成语法理论 [M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社 . 1988. 高原 . 从认知角度谈 NP2 of NP1 与 NP1’s NP2 的语篇差异 [J]. 现代外语 . 2006(3). 闽菊辉 . 介词“ of” 的哲学观 . 西安交通大学硕士学位论文 .2004.