Possession (linguistics)
asymmetric relationship between two constituents in the context of linguistics
In linguistics, possession is an asymmetric relationship between two constituents, the referent of one of which (the possessor) in some sense possesses (owns, has as a part, rules over, etc.) the referent of the other (the possessed).
Possession may be marked in many ways, such as simple juxtaposition of nouns, possessive case, possessed case, construct state (as in Arabic and Nêlêmwa), or adpositions (possessive suffixes, possessive adjectives). For example, English uses a possessive clitic, 's; a preposition, of; and adjectives, my, your, his, her, etc.
Predicates denoting possession may be formed either by using a verb (such as the English have) or by other means, such as existential clauses (as is usual in languages such as Russian).
Some languages have more than two possessive classes. In Papua New Guinea, for example, the Anêm language has at least 20 and the Amele language has 32.
Alienable and inalienable
There are many types of possession, but a common distinction is alienable and inalienable possession. Alienability refers to the ability to dissociate something from its 'parent'; in this case, a quality from that to which that quality applies.
When something is inalienably possessed, it is usually an attribute. For example, John's big nose is inalienably possessed because it cannot (without surgery) be removed from John; it is simply a quality that he has.
“Possession (linguistics)” enters the record as asymmetric relationship between two constituents in the context of linguistics. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Possession, linguistics and asymmetric can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Possession (linguistics)” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Possession, linguistics and asymmetric provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3543662. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Possession (linguistics)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Possession (linguistics) primary sources, Possession (linguistics) archive and Possession research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Possession (linguistics)”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Possession (linguistics)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.