---

Question 1 (Consolidate)

We saw in Section 4.4 that phrases with the possessive -s inflection are used to indicate relationships other than simply possession (for instance, duration, as in a hard day’s work). Using the examples below, identify further uses of this inflection. (You may find some examples overlap.)

yesterday’s prices
New Zealand’s mountains
the school’s ethos
the scientists’ discovery
Toni Morrison’s fiction
the Queen’s coronation
an idiot’s course of action

Answer/discussion

yesterday’s prices
As well as indicating duration, the possessive form can also indicate a specific point in time.

New Zealand’s mountains, the school’s ethos
In these two examples the possessive form denotes a kind of possession, but the ‘owners’ are inanimate.

the scientists’ discovery, Toni Morrison’s fiction
These possessives indicate the source or originator. Also, if reworked into simple sentences, the scientists and Toni Morrison would be in subject position as the ‘doers’ of the action (the scientists made a discovery; Toni Morrison wrote fiction).

the Queen’s coronation
Here, the possessive form indicates who was crowned. This usage is in contrast to the previous two examples. In an equivalent sentence, the Queen would either be in the subject position of a passive sentence (the Queen was crowned) or in the object position of an active sentence (the Archbishop crowned the Queen). In both cases, the Queen would be in a ‘receiving’ rather than a ‘doing’ role.

an idiot’s course of action
Here, the possessive form has a descriptive role: the course of action is being described as ‘idiotic’.

---

Question 2 (Consolidate)

We also noted in Section 4.4 that an of-construction can be an alternative to the use of a possessive inflection. However, sometimes one option is preferred to the other. Look at the following examples. For each pair, are both options acceptable, or is one preferred to the other? Do any options seem completely unnatural? Can you come up with an explanation for your decisions? (You may like to add some examples of your own to help you with this.)

noun	possessive -s	of-construction
kitchen	the kitchen’s door	the door of the kitchen
car	the car’s performance	the performance of the car
university	the university’s status	the status of the university
mercury	mercury’s weight	the weight of mercury
mind	the mind’s eye	the eye of the mind
Britain	Britain’s oil industry	the oil industry of Britain
Susan	Susan’s brother	the brother of Susan
dog	the dog’s dinner	the dinner of the dog

Answer/discussion

The choices are not entirely fixed or predictable, as the following comments show. However, there are identifiable trends in the use and distribution of these structures.

Susan’s brother, the dog’s dinner
The common feature of these two examples, where speakers are far more likely to use the possessive -s, is that Susan and the dog are clearly animate, conscious beings. (Compare the lifespan of a slug with ?a slug’s lifespan.) The equivalent of-construction could possibly occur in some rare contexts (such as the fixed expression hair of the dog), but generally Susan’s and the dog’s are more natural options.

the car’s performance, the university’s status, Britain’s oil industry
In the examples where both options are acceptable, the nouns car, university and Britain have a close connection with the lives and activities of human beings. A car is often talked of as animate too. The of-constructions also sound natural, but are likely to be used in more formal contexts. Place names in general can occur with possessive -s.

the door of the kitchen, the weight of mercury
As inanimate items, kitchen and mercury are far more likely to occur in an of-construction. We noted in Section 4.4 that the kitchen’s door would not occur, but examples such as the kitchen’s design and the kitchen’s cleanliness could well sound acceptable to some speakers. The probable reason for this is that human activity is implied in both those phrases.

the mind’s eye
Although the noun mind clearly has a connection with human existence, this is a fixed metaphorical phrase, which is why it wouldn’t occur in the form the eye of the mind. A comparable phrase such as the workings of the mind would be perfectly natural, probably more so than the mind’s workings!

---

Question 3 (Explore)

Some linguists argue that the possessive -s should be treated not as an inflection but as a clitic. In English, this is chiefly a contracted word form such as n’t in didn’t (from did not) and ’m in I’m (from I am) which has to be attached to a host word. Using the following examples as your starting point, consider the reasons for and against treating possessive -s as a clitic rather than an inflection. (You may find it helpful to draw comparisons with the plural examples which have also been included.)

three successive kings of Spain (plural)
the king’s daughter
the King of Spain’s daughter
Kathy and Andrew’s daughter (ie, the daughter of both Kathy and Andrew)
the woman next door’s daughter
the runners-up (plural)
the runner-up’s prize

Answer/discussion

The possessive -s is certainly not a typical inflection and there is some evidence to support the argument that it should be treated differently. The -s plural noun inflection has to be attached to the noun it refers to (as in kings of Spain), whereas possessive -s can also be attached at the end of a complex noun phrase (the King of Spain’s, the woman next door’s) or a coordinated noun phrase (Kathy and Andrew’s). (See Section 5.3 for more on noun phrases.) Although the possessive -s is a noun inflection, it can sometimes be attached to lexical items other than nouns, as in the compound noun runner-up’s, where its host is an adverb. (Compare the plural form runners-up.) Inflections are word-specific, but in the phrase Kathy and Andrew’s daughter, the -s applies to both Kathy and Andrew.

On the other hand, there is a historical reason for including possessive -s in the set of present-day inflections given their shared origin in Old English. (See Section 13.10.) However, if we knew nothing about the history of English or simply chose to maintain a synchronic view of the language, the possessive -s would seem notably problematic. A stronger argument for maintaining its status as an inflection is that, in English, other clitics are reduced forms of existing words (not, am and so on), normally reduced for informal and phonological purposes. Possessive -s has no whole-word counterpart.

---