Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:01:36.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The language of possession: Three case studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2013

Ian Keen
Ian Keen*
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, AustraliaIan.Keen@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Anthropologists often construe “property” in terms of rights, obligations, and interests, or use “property” in a largely undefined way. The use of the language of rights as a metalanguage is questionable for it is culturally specific, having developed in the Early Modern period in Europe in the context of the spread of market relations and the growth of contract law. One might ask, how are “rights” expressed and constituted in the indigenous languages? The article examines the role of language in the constitution of possession relations with reference to three case studies: ownership of land by Kaiadilt people of Bentinck Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria, possession more generally among Navajo of the southwest United States, and family/household “property” of the Southern Song dynasty of China. It focuses on the constitution of possessors, possessions and connections between them, and the expression of norms entailed by relations between possessor and possessum. (Property, possession, rights, Kayardild language, Navajo language, Southern Song dynasty, metalanguage)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 187 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agha, Asif (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alchian, Armen A., & Demsetz, Harold (1973). The property rights paradigm. The Journal of Economic History 33(1):16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1971). The grammar of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, Raymond D. (2007). Navaho courts and Navaho common law. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation. Online: http://gradworks.umi.com/32/54/3254698.html.Google Scholar
Bagshaw, Geoff (1998). Gapu dhulway, gapu maramba. In Peterson, Nicholas & Rigsby, Bruce (eds.), Customary marine tenure in Australia, 154–77. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Ball, Christopher (2011). Inalienablity in social relations: Language, possession, and exchange in Amazonia. Language in Society 40:307–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, Alan, & Woodburn, James (1991). Introduction. In Ingold, Tim, Riches, David, & Woodburn, James (eds.), Hunters and gatherers, vol. 2, 4–31. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Baron, Irène; Herslund, Michael; & Sørensen, Finn (eds.) (2001). Dimensions of possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, Sieghard (2008). Deontic norms, deontic reasoning and deontic conditions. Thinking and Reasoning 14(4):5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, Ronald M. (1965). Law and order in Aboriginal Australia. In Berndt, Catherine H. & Berndt, Ronald M. (eds.), Aboriginal man in Australia, 167–206. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar
Birge, Bettine (2002). Women, property, and Confucian reaction in Sung and Yüan China (960–1368). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brightman, Marc (2010). Creativity and control: Property in Guianese Amazonia. Journal de la Société des Americanistes 96(1):135–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappel, Hilary, & McGregor, William (eds.) (1996). The grammar of inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, T. S., & Shyrock, J. K. (1932). Chinese relationship terms. American Anthropologist 34(4):623–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve V. (1978). Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax, 85–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Margaret, & Naffine, Ngaire (2001). Are persons property? Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
De Donatis, Cecilia (2001). “They have a story inside.” Madness and healing in Elcho Island (northeast Arnhem Land). Casuarina: Charles Darwin University dissertation.Google Scholar
Ebrey, Patricia B. (1984a). Family and property in Sung China: Yüan Ts'ai's Precepts for social life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ebrey, Patricia B. (1984b). Conceptions of the family in the Sung Dynasty. Journal of Asian Studies 4(2):219–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensminger, Jean, & Knight, Jack (1997). Changing social norms. Current Anthropology 38(1):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas D. (1995). A grammar of Kayardild with historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas D. (1998). The Kaiadilt people: Anthropologist's report to the Carpentaria Land Council, Queensland. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior 25(2):63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, & Sikkink, Kathryn (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4):887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language 68:553–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Michael A. (1999). An introduction to literary Chinese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Garner on language and writing. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward (1965). Yankee kinship terminology: A problem in componential analysis. American Anthropologist 67(5):259–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Robert W. (1995). Paradoxical property. In Brewer, John & Staves, Susan (eds.), Early Modern conceptions of property, 95–110. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haile, Berard (1954\1968). Property concepts of the Navajo Indians. St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michaels Press.Google Scholar
Hechter, Michael, & Opp, Karl-Dieter (eds.) (2001). Social norms. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
; Hechter, Michael, Opp, Karl-Dieter; & Wippler, Reinhard (eds.) (1990). Social institutions: Their emergence, maintenance and effects. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd (1997). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd (2001). Ways of explaining possession. In Baron et al. , 311–28.Google Scholar
Herslund, Michael, & Baron, Irène (2001). Introduction: Dimensions of possession. In Baron et al. , 1–26.Google Scholar
Horseherder, Nicole (1998). A binding-theoretic analysis of Navajo possessor yi. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. (1974). On be-language and have-languages. In Heilmann, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists: Bolonga-Florence August 28–September 2, 1972, Volume 2, 71–72. Bologna: Societá editrice il molino.Google Scholar
Keen, Ian (1995). Metaphor and the metalanguage: “Groups” in northeast Arnhem Land. American Ethnologist 22(3):502–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, Ian (2004). Aboriginal economy and society: Australia at the threshold of colonisation. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keen, Ian (2011). The language of property. In Musharbash, Yasmine and Barber, Marcus (eds.), Ethnography and the production of anthropological knowledge: Essays in honour of Nicolas Peterson. Canberra: ANU E-Press.Google Scholar
Kluckhohn, Clyde, & Leighton, Dorothea C. (1974). The Navaho. Revised edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul (2007). Inalienable possession and personhood in a Q'eqchi’-Mayan community. Language in Society 36(3):341–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2003). Strategies of clausal possession. International Journal of English Studies 3(2):1–24.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1967). A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3(4):390–96.Google Scholar
McGregor, William (2001). The verb HAVE in Nyulnyulan languages. In Baron et al. , 67–84.Google Scholar
McKnight, Brian E. (2000). Who gets it when you go: The legal consequences of the ending of households (juehu) in the Song dynasty (960–1279 C.E.). Journal of the Economic Society of the Orient 43(3):14–63.Google Scholar
McKnight, Brian E., & Liu, James T. C. (1999). The enlightened judgments Ch'i-ming Chi: The Sung Dynasty collection. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Magowan, Fiona (2001). Waves of knowing: Polymorphism and co-substantive essences in Yolngu sea cosmology. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 29(1):22–35.Google Scholar
Martzloff, Jean-Claude (1997). A history of Chinese mathematics. (Trans. by Wilson, Stephen S.) New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Matthews, Washington. (1897). Navaho legends. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company.Google Scholar
Myers, Fred (1988). Burning the truck and holding the country. In Ingold, Tim, Riches, David, & Woodburn, James (eds.), Hunters and gatherers, vol. 2, 52–74. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain (1999). The modal auxiliaries of possibility in classical Chinese. In Tsao, Feng-fu, Wang, H. Samuel, & Lien, Chin-fa (eds.). Selected papers from the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, 27–52. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Premack, David, & Premack, Ann J. (1994). Moral belief: Form versus content. In Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Mapping the mind, 149–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1991). Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in early Middle Chinese, late Middle Chinese, and early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1995). Outline of classical Chinese grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Rabinovich, Yakov (2010). A concise grammar of classical Chinese. Online: http://www.invisiblebooks.com/CGCC.htm.Google Scholar
Reichard, Gladys A. (1928). Social life of the Navajo Indians. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Reichard, Gladys A. (1951). Navaho grammar. (American Ethnological Society publications 21.) New York: J. J. Augustin.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin (2001). The grammatical category “possession” and the part-whole relation in French. In Baron et al. , 187–200.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan, & Redmond, Anthony (1999). Anthropological and linguistic report on the Wanjina/Wunggurr–Wilinggin (formerly Ngarinyin) native title claim. Derby, Western Australia: Kamali Land Council and Kimberley Land Council.Google Scholar
Schurmann, H. F. (1956). Traditional property concepts in China. Far Eastern Quarterly 15(40):507–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics 1(1):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepardson, Mary, & Hammond, Blodwen (1966). Navajo inheritance patterns: Random or regular. Ethnology 5(1):87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiga, Shuzo (1978). Family property and the law of inheritance in traditional China. In Buxbaum, David C. (ed.), Chinese family law and social change in historical and comparative perspective, 109–50. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2004). “Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus. Current Anthropology 45(5):621–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sripada, Chandra S., & Stich, Stephen (2006). A framework for the psychology of norms. In Carruthers, Peter, Laurence, Stephen, & Stich, Steven (eds.), The innate mind: Culture and cognition, 280–301. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stasch, Rupert (2009). Society of others: Kinship and mourning in a West Papuan place. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn (1984). Subject or object? Women and the circulation of valuables in highlands New Guinea. In Hirschon, Renée (ed.), Women and property: Women as property, 158–75. London: Croom Helm; New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
von Benda-Beckmann, Franz, von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet; & Wiber, Melanie G. (2006). The properties of property. In van Meijl, Toon & von Benda-Beckmann, Franz (eds.), Property rights and economic development, 1–39. London: Kegan Paul International.Google Scholar
Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable possessions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Willie, Mary-Ann (1996). On the expression of modality in Navajo. In Jelinek, Eloise, Midgette, Sally, Rice, Keren, & Saxon, Leslie (eds.), Athabaskan language studies: Essays in honor of Robert Young, 331–47. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Yazzie, Robert (1994). “Life comes from it”: Navajo justice concepts. New Mexico Law Review 24:174–90.Google Scholar
Young, Robert W., & Morgan, William (1980). The Navajo language. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Guogang (2005). Compound family as a characteristic in the Tang dynasty. Online: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-LSYJ200504004.htm.Google Scholar