The Description of Possessive Phrase Structure in Malay from a Morphosyntactic and Pragmatic Perspective

Main Article Content

Hasmidar Hassan
Norsofiah Abu Bakar
Lalu Nurul Yaqin

Abstract

This study examines the structure and interpretation of possessive noun phrases in Malay from both morphosyntactic and pragmatic perspectives. It focuses on three principal possessive constructions: the N + N construction (e.g., rumah saya [my house], basikal saya [my bicycle]), the clitic-nya construction (e.g., basikalnya [his/her bicycle], rumahnya [his/her house]) and the lexical possessive marker punya (own). The analysis is based on corpus data extracted from the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) corpus database, providing empirical evidence of naturally occurring possessive usage in Malay discourse. A total of 338 concordances of basikalnya and 100 concordances of rumahnya were generated from texts across all genres and decades. For the N + N possessive pattern, 259 relevant concordances were identified from the first 2,000 corpus hits of the structure exemplified by rumah saya, as documented in Tatabahasa Dewan. In addition, data on the lexical marker punya were extracted, yielding 14,393 concordances from the DBP corpus, reflecting its widespread use in possessive constructions. Methodologically, the study employs a morphological-syntactic analysis grounded in transformational generative grammar, drawing on the Minimalist Program to account for the internal composition and syntactic derivation of possessive noun phrases. While this structural analysis captures the formal properties of possession, it does not fully explain how Malay speakers interpret possessive meaning in constructions lacking overt genitive morphology. To address this, the study incorporates Relevance Theory as a pragmatic analytical framework, highlighting the role of inferential processes, contextual assumptions and cognitive optimisation in meaning interpretation. The findings show that Malay speakers systematically recover possessive meaning through pragmatic inference, relying on contextual cues and shared knowledge even in the absence of explicit morphological marking. This study contributes to the understanding of Malay morphosyntax and pragmatics by elucidating how possession is structurally represented and cognitively inferred in a language without overt genitive marking.

Article Details

How to Cite
The Description of Possessive Phrase Structure in Malay from a Morphosyntactic and Pragmatic Perspective. (2026). KEMANUSIAAN The Asian Journal of Humanities, 33(1), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.21315/kajh2026.33.1.7
Section
Articles

References

Abney, S.P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Anagnostopoulou, E. and Sevdali, C. 2020. Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 987–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09465-z

Asmah Omar. 2015. Nahu Melayu mutakhir. 5th Ed. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Alexiadou, A. 2003. Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289821471_6_ Some_notes_on_the_structure_of_alienable_and_inalienable_possessors (accessed 20 June 2025).

Bartos, H. 1999. Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció. A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere. PhD diss., Eötvös University.

Bernstein, J.B. 2006. On the morpho-syntax of possessive constructions. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 34: 55–75. https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1364

Bernstein, J.B. and Tortora, C. 2005. Two types of possessive forms in English. Lingua

: 1221–1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.03.002 Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Coene, M. and D’hulst, Y., eds. 2003. From NP to DP volume 2: The expression of

possession in noun phrases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dékány, É. 2015. The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 1121–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00023-X.

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 2025. Carian kata punya. Retrieved from https://sbmb. dbp.gov.my/korpusdbp/Researchers/Search2.aspx. (accessed 23 Jun 2025).

Espanõl-Echevarrĩa, M. 1997. Inalienable possession in copulative contexts and the DP-structure. Lingua 101(3–4): 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00023-X.

Givón, T. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company

Guéron, J. 1984. Inalienable possession, pro-inclusion and lexical chains. In Grammatical representation, eds. J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer and J.Y. Pollock, 43–86. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112328064-004

Ke, A.H. 2023. Syntax and semantics of NPs in Chinese possessive topic constructions. Journal of East Asian Linguist 32(2): 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-023-09254-w

Lee-Schoenfeld, V. 2016. The syntax of external and internal possessor variation in German inalienable possession. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 69(1): 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0005

Lin, C.J.C. 2003. The syntax of possessive arguments in Mandarin Chinese. Retrieved from https://lacl.sitehost.iu.edu/att/LinWorkshoponArgumentRealization.pdf (accessed 15 May 2025).

Nik Safiah Karim, Farid M. Onn, Hashim Musa and Abdul Hamid Mahmood. 2015.

Tatabahasa dewan. 3rd Ed. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Niu, F. 2015. Nominal possession in Mandarin Chinese. PhD diss., Queen Mary University of London.

Öztürk, B. and Taylan, E.E. 2016. Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua 182: 88–

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.008

Radiah Yusoff. 2014. Penanda kasus. In Pendekatan Kontrastif dan Komparatif Bahasa-bahasa di Malaysia, eds. Noriah Mohamed and Radiah Yusoff, 29–36. Pulau Pinang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language 17(1–2): 3–23.

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.