Full text: Semantics of ownership

Such a transformation is not always the case. For 
example, where possession might not be disputed because of 
common cereitoriality, reference might not be made to 
acquisition criteria when a property dispute arises. For 
example, in property settlements during divorce proceedings, 
the disputing parties have common territory and presumably 
common possession of objects. Since possession is not at 
issue, means of acquisition may not be referred to and the 
relevant criteria of ownership might be Need, Utility, or 
Aesthetics. Hobart's | (1975) data suggest that married 
couples tend to allot ownership to each spouse on the basis 
of Utility. Other examples might be found in other 
cultures. If the dominant implicit criteria were not Social 
Defensive criteria, but, for example, Need, Utility or 
Aesthetics, then disputes about present situations could 
arise and there would be no need to take recourse to the 
historical past. 
Towards a Model of Ownership 
If the framework of ownership developed in the 
introduction is to become a general model, then it will have 
to be tested and modified on the basis of empirical studies. 
The results and conclusions of this study are relevant to 
gous elements of the framework. First, information was 
generated on the domain of ownable objects and events. The 
vast majority of exemplars were material, inanimate objects.

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.