Valérie Guérin

Definiteness and Specificity in Mavea

Specificity and definiteness are universal semantic categories, but not all languages express these categories morphologically. In this paper, I present data from Maea a, a language spoken in northern Vanuatu, which show morphological expressions of these two semantic categories. I argue that in Maea the article le denotes specificity, aite encodes indefiniteness, te . . . aite refers to indefinite nonspecific expressions, while the lack of an article expresses definiteness.

Demonstrative verbs: a typology of verbal manner deixis

Abstract This article presents a typological characterization of a class of demonstratives so far neglected in the literature: demonstrative verbs expressing manner. First, the morphological characteristics and syntactic behaviors of these demonstratives are examined to illustrate their verbal properties and to justify categorizing them as verbs. Next, their exophoric and endophoric roles in narratives and interactions are described. As their discourse usages closely replicate that of nominal demonstratives, we argue that demonstrative verbs belong to the class of demonstratives and propose to integrate them in a general typology of demonstratives.

The Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian language family

[Extract] Australia is a fascinating linguistic area. At the time of the European invasion, which began in 1788, there were around 250 distinct languages. Many more than half of them are no longer actively spoken or remembered. No more than a dozen could be said to be in a healthy state, being fully learned by children. From about 120,000 until about 7,000 BP, Australia and New Guinea were one land mass. Archaeologists tell us that the first settlers arrived at least 40,000 years and probably 50,000 years ago. There would have been an initial expansion of people - during which tribes and languages split - until they filled all habitable parts of the land mass. At the end of this period of expansion (which is likely to have taken just a few thousand years), a family tree diagram would have appropriately modelled the relationships between languages.Linguistic typology identifies both how languages vary and what they all have in common. This Handbook provides a state-of-the art survey of the aims and methods of linguistic typology, and the conclusions we can draw from them. Part I covers phonological typology, morphological typology, sociolinguistic typology and the relationships between typology, historical linguistics and grammaticalization. It also addresses typological features of mixed languages, creole languages, sign languages and secret languages. Part II features contributions on the typology of morphological processes, noun categorization devices, negation, frustrative modality, logophoricity, switch reference and motion events. Finally, Part III focuses on typological profiles of the mainland South Asia area, Australia, Quechuan and Aymaran, Eskimo-Aleut, Iroquoian, the Kampa subgroup of Arawak, Omotic, Semitic, Dravidian, the Oceanic subgroup of Austronesian and the Awuyu-Ndumut family (in West Papua). Uniting the expertise of a stellar selection of scholars, this Handbook highlights linguistic typology as a major discipline within the field of linguistics.Linguistic typology identifies both how languages vary and what they all have in common. This Handbook provides a state-of-the art survey of the aims and methods of linguistic typology, and the conclusions we can draw from them. Part I covers phonological typology, morphological typology, sociolinguistic typology and the relationships between typology, historical linguistics and grammaticalization. It also addresses typological features of mixed languages, creole languages, sign languages and secret languages. Part II features contributions on the typology of morphological processes, noun categorization devices, negation, frustrative modality, logophoricity, switch reference and motion events. Finally, Part III focuses on typological profiles of the mainland South Asia area, Australia, Quechuan and Aymaran, Eskimo-Aleut, Iroquoian, the Kampa subgroup of Arawak, Omotic, Semitic, Dravidian, the Oceanic subgroup of Austronesian and the Awuyu-Ndumut family (in West Papua). Uniting the expertise of a stellar selection of scholars, this Handbook highlights linguistic typology as a major discipline within the field of linguistics.Grammatical means for the linguistic categorization of noun referents are found in just about every language of the world. Noun categorization devices range from large sets of numeral classifiers of Southeast Asia to highly grammaticalized closed sets of noun classes and genders in African and Indo-European languages. Further devices include noun classifiers, classifiers in possessive constructions, verbal classifiers and two less known types: locative and deictic classifiers. Classifiers share semantic features of animacy, humanness, shape and function. One language can combine several types of noun categorization devices. In ‘multiple classifier’ languages, the same morphemes occur in several grammatical contexts. Historically, categorization devices of one type can develop from another.

Imperatives and command strategies in Tayatuk (Morobe, PNG)

Commands are pervasive in everyday conversations held in Tayatuk, a Finisterre language of the Morobe province in Papua New Guinea. Imperatives in Tayatuk usually order people around but also frequently express approval. The future and the non-final morphologies can also be recruited as command strategies to express, respectively, a command remote in time and space and an appeal. Formally, imperatives do not constitute a uniform paradigm. Canonical imperatives are expressed by the bare form of the verb (for 2sg) and with dedicated imperative morphology for 2pl and 2du. Non-canonical imperatives (for 1 and 3) borrow morphology from the irrealis paradigm. Negative imperatives form a defective paradigm of their own: a single inflection is used regardless of the person and numbers of the subject. The data suggest that imperatives and prohibitives in Tayatuk form separate clause types.