[I had said I'd be blogging weekly, but that didn't happen when I had to travel for family reasons. I have
got(ten) back to it, not that you'll always notice. I've decided that my goal is to *write* for the blog each week, but not necessarily to publish. So, I started writing this one last week, finished this week.]
I'm doing a lot of reading about the genitive case at the moment.
Grammatical case is some kind of marking (e.g. a suffix) that shows what 'job' a noun is doing in a sentence. You might know a lot about case if you've studied German or Latin or Finnish (or some other languages), which have case suffixes on nouns. You'll know a little about case from being an English speaker who knows the differences between
they, them, and
theirs. Modern English marks pronouns for case, but not other nouns, except...
Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had a robust case system, which it got from the ancestor it shared with German. The case suffixes pretty much died during Middle English. (English lost a lot of other
kinds of suffixes over the centuries too, in part because suffixes are the kinds of things that get swallowed up in speech and in part becuase they're the kind of thing that become vulnerable when different languages come into contact—as happened for English and Norman French nearly 1000 years ago.) But one English case suffix, rather than disappearing, morphed into something else, and that something is the scourge of English spelling, the apostrophe-
s:
's.
So in the Old-English poem
Beowulf, you can read about
Grendles guðcræft. That
-es on the name of the monster Grendel is the forebear of
's. We can translate it as something like 'Grendel's power' or 'Grendel's warcraft'. That (masculine, singular)
genitive case marker says that there's a very close relation between Grendel and the
guðcræft. Grendel is the power's source or its possessor.
But when that poem gets translated into Modern English, the translators sometimes translate the -
es as an
's and sometimes not:
the might of Grendel (Francis Gummere)
Grendel's power of destruction (Seamus Heaney)
That's because something else happened in Middle English: English started using
of in the way that French uses
de to express genitive relations—because French got all up in English's business at that point. Because of that change,
of occurs only 30 times in Beowulf (where it has its original meaning of 'away from' or 'off'*), but over 900 times in Gummere's translation of it (where it means next to nothing).
So English has ended up with two ways of expressing those kinds of relations. We tend to talk about them as being 'possessive' relations and of the
X in
X's Y or
the Y of X as 'the possessor'. But the relation is not necessarily possessive. Think about something like
the theft of the bicycle and
the bicycle's theft: the bicycle doesn't possess the theft. The relations between the nouns in
's/
of expressions are varied and hard to pin down (but they are very close relationships, covering a lot of the same ground as the genitive in Old English).
We don't exactly use
's and
of interchangeably, though, and even where we
can use both we often have preferences for one or the other. One of the strongest predictors of whether it'll be
's or
of is the animacy of the thing in the X position (the 'possessor'). Linguists often talk about an
animacy hierarchy in which expressions that refer to animate things are preferred in certain positions in sentences over non-animate things. In terms of what's animate, humans (
the teacher,
Heidi) come above animals (
the badger,
the parrot) and collectives (
the company,
the union), which come above objects (
the table,
the book). All of the below noun phrases are "grammatical" but the higher up the list we go, the more apt people are to use the
's instead of the
of phrase, all other things being equal:
the teacher's size the size of the teacher
the badger's size the size of the badger
the union's size the size of the union
the table's size the size of the table
A lot is going on in that '
all other things being equal' (a phrase used in both AmE and BrE, but AmE also likes
all else being equal). Some other things that swing a possessive in favo(u)r of
's phrasing rather than
of phrasing are:
- heavier (more syllables/more complex syntax) possessed NPs rather than lighter ones
(the table's dirty and worn-out alumin(i)um edge vs the dirty and worn-out alumin(i)um edge of the table)
- the need for denser texts, as in newspaper headlines
- speech (rather than writing)
- informal writing style (rather than more formal writing styles)
- the dialect being spoken
So, on the last point: English in general used to be a much stronger avoidance of
's on inanimate object names. Inanimate possessors have become more and more accepted in English over the last 200 years or so. But that change has been happening faster in American English than British. This is like a lot (but not all!) of other changes in English (see
The Prodigal Tongue, or if you really like to read about statistical methods,
Paul Baker's book)—the change has roots deep in English's history, but goes faster/slower in different places. In this change's case (like some others), the "newer" form (
's on inanimates) is perceived as less formal and it's more condensed (and therefore quicker to say/read). Both of these properties might characteri{s/z}e some differences between the cultures that maintain the "standard" versions of English in the two countries. AmE tolerates more informality and more brevity in more situations.
So, having been thinking about all this, I did a
Difference of the Day on Twitter, showing these two charts:
Here you can see that North Americans are much more happy than others to say
the book's cover or
the book's title or
the table's edge or
the table's width (or whatever other nouns might go after
book's and
table's). Here's the flipside, the
of versions, which I didn't post on Twitter.
The
table chart goes with what we'd expect to see: BrE doing a lot more with
of than AmE. But the
book table has AmE doing more
of the book than BrE. You know why? Because American talk about books more. No, really:
So that's a lot more detail than you needed in order to see the AmE/BrE difference, but, hey, reading is good for you!
*Why does
off look like
of? Because they used to be the same word!
Some of the things I've been reading that influenced this post:
Carlier, Anne and Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2013. Genitive case and genitive constructions: an introduction. In Carlier and Verstraete (eds.),
The genitive. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carlier, Anne, Michèle Goyens and Béatrice Lamiroy. 2013.
De: a genitive marker in French? Its grammaticalization path from Latin to French. In Carlier and Verstraete (eds.),
The genitive. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Lars Hinrichs. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Terttu Nevalainen, IrmaTaavitsainen, Päivi Pahta, and Minna Korhonen (eds.)
, The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past
and Present. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
Not something I knew till Simon Koppel pointed it out to me, but there are technical terms for those places in the (BrE) pavement/(AmE) sidewalk where the curb/kerb is lower to make it easier to cross the road/street, especially for those using wheels to do so. In AmE these are curb cuts and in BrE dropped kerbs. 
Posts
