LCRC seminar — 22 March 2017 Remarkable imperatives in Yalaku

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, LCRC 1 Imperatives and commands: a preamble i. In every language one can make a statement, ask a question or tell someone what to do. This is the essence of three major types of speech acts — declarative, interrogative, and imperative.

FIGURE 1 MAJOR SPEECH ACTS Declarative mood = statement Interrogative mood = question

Imperative mood = command (directive speech act) A command corresponds to the imperative mood. Just as there can be covert questions, one can express a command without using a dedicated form. This is what we refer to as 'command strategy'.

A negated imperative is referred to as 'prohibitive'. All imperative forms may form one paradigm. In some traditions, there are special terms for • commands to first person: hortative or adhortative • commands to third person: jussive This is only justified if the imperatives do not form one paradigm.

We now turn to a few key properties of imperatives across the world's languages.

i. Imperatives and directives in general reflect reflect relationships between Speech Act Participants in the first place — 'me' (the speaker) and 'you' (the addressee).

The most straightforward command is that directed to the addressee. An imperative always implies a command to second person. Such addressee-oriented, or 'canonical', imperatives may stand apart from other verbal forms in a language. They are commonly expressed by the bare root, or stem of the verb. The shortest word in Latin, i! 'you (sg) go!' is the second person singular imperative of the verb i @re 'go'. Such short and snappy forms may give an impression of superficial simplicity — as if the imperatives were, in some sense, poor relations of their declarative and interrogative counterparts.

Imperatives may be oriented towards other persons — first person and third person. In agreement with Aikhenvald (2010), I call them 'non-canonical' imperatives (or 'non-addressee oriented').

ii. Imperatives may stand apart from other sentence types in the meanings of person/number: since imperatives imply interaction between speaker and addressee, inclusive meanings (you+me) are often expressed in imperatives (even if they are not expressed in personal pronouns or other verbal forms)

iii. Imperatives may give a false impression of overall simplicity: in many languages, few if any verbal categories (tense, aspect, modality, evidentiality) can be expressed in imperatives. Alternatively, markers of aspects, modalities and motion may have special meanings once they appear in imperative forms.

The most frequently attested tense distinction in imperatives is that of immediate versus delayed, or future (in agreement with the prediction by Lyons 1977: 746-7). This seemingly simple binary opposition contrasts with a wider range of possibilities for future meanings grammaticalised in declarative clauses.

2

Imperatives may have categories of their own: these include urgency and strength of commands. An example from Yalaku, a Ndu language from ESP, PNG, illustrates three options for imperative. (1a) exemplifies an urgent command (do right now!), (1b) shows a command that is neutral, and (1c) shows a delayed command — for the action to be done later.

(1a) saika Yalaku: immediate imperative wait:IMPV 'Wait (right now)! (1b) me-saika Yalaku: nondelayed imperative NON.IMMEDIATE.IMPV-wait:IMPV 'Wait (no immediacy implied)' (1c) puri saika Yalaku: delayed imperative DELAYED.IMPV wait:IMPV 'Wait (later on when people come)

iv. Following a general tendency to express fewer categories under negation, there are typically fewer categories expressed in prohibitives than in positive imperatives.

v. There may be semantic restrictions on imperative formation: in many languages, verbs which describe an uncontrolled action or a state cannot be used in commands or form an imperative. In Bagvalal, a North-east Caucasian language, verbs which refer to physical states (such as 'tremble', 'die', 'sob'), to emotional and mental states, and uncontrolled verbs of perception typically cannot form imperatives (Dobrushina 1999: 321-2). Imperatives cannot be formed on non-volitional verbs in Arapaho (Cowell 2007) and Haida (Enrico 2003). Verbs of perception — 'see' and 'hear' — typically acquire telic meanings of 'look' and 'listen' when used in an imperative context, as in Tayatuk (§2 of Chapter 10), in agreement with Aikhenvald and Storch (2013).

As Nerida Jarkey (2017) puts it in §4.1, 'the first key criterion for the use of an imperative form in Japanese is that the action or event can be conceived of as volitional'. As a consequence, there are no imperatives of adjectives, or state verbs. Restrictions on the use of commands may be not more than a tendency. In Lao (§4 of Enfield 2017), commands tend only to occur with verbs that are controlled, and 'if they are used with non-controlled verbs, they coerce a controlled reading'.

vi. Imperatives and prohibitives tend to have a whole appear to be fairly uniform in their scope. Serial verb constructions are always within the scope of imperatives: having one mood specification per construction is one of the definitional properties of serial verbs. In clause-chaining languages, the complete chain is within the scope of an imperative. Some scholars (e.g. Whaley 1997: 237) claim that imperative forms 'by definition' cannot occur in non-main clauses, or have just the non-main clause within its scope (without scoping over the main clause, that is, the whole sentence).

vii. A non-imperative form can be used in a command, as a 'command strategy'. Imperative forms can have non-command meanings: they may develop into discourse markers, or used as a causative strategy.

viii. Imperative forms and categories are highly diffusible in language contact.

What makes imperatives in Yalaku remarkable (both within the context of its language family and typologically)?

A. Firstly, there are three imperatives — as we saw under (1). Imperatives express categories not found in declaratives: see (i).

3

B. Secondly, more meanings and forms are distinguished for canonical than for non-canonical imperatives: in contrast with canonical imperatives, non-canonical ones (first and third-person oriented) have only two: non-delayed and delayed (see (ii)).

C. And so do prohibitives (in agreement with Aikhenvald 2010: : prohibitives share features with non-canonical imperatives) (see (iv)).

D. Non-canonical first-person-oriented imperatives have inclusive distinctions, absent from elsewhere in the grammar (see (i)).

E. Imperatives and prohibitives cannot be formed on stative verbs (nor nouns or adjectives) (v).

F. Imperatives (but not prohibitives) have remarkable scope effects, and there appears to be an explanation for this which lies in contact-induced change (vi, viii).

2 The Yalaku language: background information 2.1 General information Yalaku belongs to the Ndu language family.1 It is spoken by about 300 people in the village of Yalaku off the Sepik river; slightly different (but mutually intelligible) dialects are spoken by c. 360 people in in each of Kumajuwi and Hambukaini, in the vicinity of the Sepik river in the Ambunti district: see Map 1. The position of Yalaku within the Ndu family is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Ndu language family Proto-Ndu

Boiken Gala Iatmul Abelam/Wosera Manambu Yalaku

Yalaku has been, and continues to be, in intensive contact with the unrelated Kwoma (Kwoma-Nukuma family). Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008, 2016, forthcoming) is the closest relative of Yalaku. Appendix 1 addresses the phonological system of the language. All speakers of Yalaku are bilingual in Tok Pisin (the Lingua Franca of PNG); c. 70% have good competence in Kwoma and also in Manambu. Many men have competence in other Ndu languages.

2.2 Typological profile of Yalaku In terms of the expression of grammatical relations, Yalaku is nominative-accusative (this is a general feature of Ndu and neighbouring languages). Grammatical relations are expressed through cross-referencing on verbs and case on nouns (with differential case-marking: Aikhenvald 2015; total number of eight cases). The language is synthetic and predominantly suffixing, with just two

1 The original name of the language and the people is Yelahambura. The language was formerly called Yelogu (Bowden 1997; Laycock 1965). It is called Kaunga by the Kwoma (hence this alternative name cited in Bowden 1997). The language has never been previously described. Invaluable information on Yalaku ethnic history and their contacts with the neighbouring Kwoma comes from Bowden (1997). An outline of Yalaku grammar by Laycock (1965: 139-43) is replete with mistakes and misinterpretations, and contains an offensive remark: it says that the material was obtained 'in the course of a single evening and the following morning, particularly from a young and not very intelligent informant named Avareka'. (The late Ambareka was a respectable elder and was a brother in-law of Yafa Mark, one of the oldest story tellers among the Yalaku.) There is a brief preliminary phonological description done by the SIL (Nayau n/d) (however, a translation project never got off the ground).

4

prefixes: one productive: me-/mV- 'second person imperative'; the other one not productive: he- 'causative-manipulative'. This feature is shared with other related languages: Manambu, Abelam-Wosera, Iatmul and Boiken. Open word classes in Yalaku are nouns, verbs and adjectives. Verbs cross-reference person, gender and number of the subject (A/S). Further verbal categories include mood (declarative, imperative), tense (present/non-future, past, future), aspect (-ketSi 'completive, do fully', -fose- 'random action,' -foku 'exhaustive action', -yatSe- 'do properly, all S/O', -sotSi- cessative: stop doing', -tSufu- 'phasal meaning 'finish''), modality (-ket 'desiderative', -k 'purposive', yeka-yi-impossibilitive ('hard to do something'), -fitSi 'frustrative: do in vain', -net 'apprehensive'), -se 'all S/O', directionals, and complex negation marking. Just like in many other languages, root reduplication can be used to differentiate word classes: with nouns, it has a distributive meaning; with verbs it has a repetitive meaning, and with adjectives it has an intensifying meaning. Verbs divide into stative and non-stative (they differ in terms of category marking). Transitivity classes are: transitive (majority S=A ambitransitive, hardly any S=O ambitransitive), intransitive, and a few ditransitive (including hoi- 'give', wokotSi- 'show'). Copula verbs are a separate subclass. features the structure of a positive declarative predicate. Note that clitics cross-referencing A/S are used with the non-stative verbs in present/non-future. Non-stative verbs in future and completed past and all stative verbs take only cross-referencing suffixes. The 'stative' pattern is also used for non-verbal predicates. Cross-referencing is not used on negative verbs. There is a special paradigm for habitual aspect. Non-indicative modalities do not occur with any tenses or aspects.

Figure 2. The structure of a positive declarative predicate

NON-STATIVE: general nonfuture =A/S.cross-referencing clitics VERB(-all.S/O-aspect-PRED)

completed/past pu verb- all.S/O-aspect-A/S cross referencing suffix

future puri verb-all.S/O-aspect-k-A/S cross referencing suffix

STATIVE: present/nonfuture verb-A/S.cross-referencing suffix(-PRED)

future puri verb-A/S cross-referencing-suffix

Closed classes include demonstratives, interrogatives, quantifiers, time words, and locationals. There are no productive word-class changing derivations. A member of any word class can occupy the intransitive predicate slot (with limited possibilities for non-verbs). Verbs cannot serve as arguments (they then have to be relativised, or form a compound with -boko 'thing'). Single-word contiguous serial verb constructions are highly productive, and may involve two to three verbs, e.g. -keña-ha- (break-eat) 'break-eat', hara-yatSi- 'get and throw', hara-ya-yakwa-yi- (get-come-feed-go) 'get for oneself and feed for for a long time'. Complex predicates are of three types (i) V-modality marker hor (take) 'be about to V', (ii) non-verbal form + copula, and (iii) modal (e.g. héña 'be able to') +verb. Table 1 contains a list of verbal cross-referencing markers (clitics and suffixes) used in declarative main clauses, and independent personal pronouns. Bound pronouns are the result of grammaticalization of free independent pronouns (as is the case in many other Ndu languages).

5

Table 1 Verbal cross-referencing (A/S) clitics and suffixes in declarative main clauses and personal pronouns Person/number/gender A/S suffixes A/S clitics Personal pronouns (nominative case) 1sg -wuní/uní =wuni wúni 2masc.sg -mení =meni méni 2fem.sg -ñiní =ñini ñíni 3masc.sg -d(e) =de te 3fem.sg -l(e) =le le 1du -an(i) =ani áni 2du -bin(i) =pini píni 3du -ber(e) =pere peré 1pl -ñen(i) =ñeni ñéni, ñáni 2pl -kun(i) =kuni kúni 3pl -tSi =tSi, =tSe tSi Clause types are: main clauses (verbal, verbless, copular clauses), relative clauses, simultaneous clauses, and sequencing clauses (switch-reference sensitive). Similar to many Papuan languages (and especially other Ndu), there is extensive clause-chaining with switch-reference (same subject/different subject) marking: See Table 2, and examples (2a,b). Clauses are in square brackets. Clause chaining is the main means of putting clauses together.

Table 2 Switch-reference marking in Yalaku Relative tense Same Subject Different Subject Completion-neutral -te -person/gender/number suffix-ka-te Non-completed -ta -person/gender/number suffix-ka Completed -tat(e) -person/gender/number suffix-tat(e)

(2a) [te-re ve-ta] [ukwa=de wo-k] same subject 3masc.sg-ACC see-SS.NON.COMPL thus=3masc.sg say-PRED 'Seeing him, he said thus' (2b) [le-re ve-de-ka] [ukwa=le wo-k] different subject 3fem.sg-ACC see-DS.NON.COMPL thus=3fem.sg say-PRED 'When he saw her, she said thus' Imperatives have their own cross-referencing and marking patterns.

3 Imperatives: meanings and marking Canonical and non-canonical imperatives in Yalaku differ in their forms and in meanings. (Imperative forms are in bold in the examples that follow). 3.1 Canonical (or addressee-oriented) imperatives Table 3 Canonical imperatives Person/gender sg dual pl fem masc Immediate/urgent ø marking (root form) Non-immediate/neutral me-/mV-root

Delayed puri root

puri-ñina root puri-mena root puri-bena root puri-kuna root

6

Properties of canonical imperatives: 1. They distinguish three forms (as we saw in (1)). • The least formally marked root form has the meaning of an urgent command, to be followed immediately. (3) kai-r kaya! urgent imperative house-ALL go.down.IMPV.IMM 'Go down to the house immediately!' In terms of frequency of type, it appears in about 20% of conversations/stories. • The non-immediate 'neutral' command is the most frequent one. It does not presuppose immediate compliance. (4) kair me-kaya! nonimmediate imperative house-ALL IMPV.NON.IMM-go.down 'Go down to the house!' The final vowel undergoes truncation in monsyllabic roots and bisyllabic roots swith non-identical vowels in rapid register, e.g. (5) me-ve --> me-v 'Look!' IMPV.NON.IMM-look/see (6) me-yi --> me-y 'Go!' IMPV.NON.IMM-go (7) me-yatSi --> me-yatS 'Throw away!' IMPV.NON.IMM-throw.away The imperative of the verb ya 'come' is maya with vowel assimilation (see below). If the root starts with w, the vowel of the prefix is u, e.g. me-wore --> mu-wor 'go up!' • The delayed imperative consists of puri followed by the verb root; the command is to be performed later. (8) kair puri kaya! delayed imperative house-ALL IMPV.DEL go.down 'Go down to the house later!' A delayed imperative in a sequence of eventswhereby the addressee is instructed to do something after something else has happened: note that in (9) puri is used as a future marker in the first clause (see Figure 2), and as the marker of delayed imperative in the third clause: (9) [habay puri ve-ke-men yobu-bu] [ve-ta] snake FUT see-FUT-2masc.sg road-LOC see-SS.NONCOMPL [puri yatSi u-bere wure pre-r] delayed imperative IMPV.DEL throw.away that-du string.bag du-ACC 'You will see a snake on the road, having seen (it), you then (delayed imperative) throw two stringbags (onto it)'

7

Special cross-referencing markers can be used to disambiguate the gender and the number of the addressee of the delayed imperative, if these are not clear from the context — see (10):

(10) [me-hobwi tSongi] [puri-bena ha] IMPV.NON.IMM-cook/make yam.soup IMPV.DEL-2dual eat 'You (singular addressee) make the yam soup, (then) you dual eat (it)!'

2. In many languages, canonical imperatives develop non-command functions, and are used as discourse markers or within speech formulae. Only the non-delayed imperative marked with the prefix me-/mV- is the one used in speech formulae, e.g. a departure formula in (11):

(11a) heruay me-y said by a person staying behind to person leaving well IMPV.NON.IMM-go(truncated) 'Go well!' (verb yi 'go') (11b) heruay me-t said by a person leaving to a person staying behind well IMPV.NON.IMM-go(truncated) 'Stay well!' (verb te 'stay') The non-immediate imperative ma-ya is used in the meaning of 'come on' (an encouragment formula). The non-immediate imperative formed on ve- 'see. look', me-v(e) 'look here, see, hey', is used as an attention getting device (similar to many European languages, including English, but not closely related ones). In questions, me-ve is used in the meaning of 'what about it, what do you want from it' (e.g. yawi ha-boko me-v? garden eat-thing IMPV.NON.IMM-see/look 'what is it about the garden that you want?').

We are thus faced with a mismatch between formal markedness and functional markedness, as the root imperative is the least formally marked.

3.2 Non-canonical imperatives: first person First person-oriented non-canonical imperatives lack first person singular (which is a cross-linguistically common 'gap': see Aikhenvald 2010: ). They distinguish inclusive and non-inclusive forms — in contrast to personal pronouns, suffixes and clitics which do not (incidentally, the Yalaku rarely use the first person inclusive form yumi in their Tok Pisin either; cf. Romaine 1992).

Table 4. Non-canonical imperatives: first person Person/gender sg dual pl 1p inclusive — -kok 1 p non-inclusive — -pa 1p delayed inclusive — puri root-kok 1p delayed non-inclusive — puri root-pa

Properties of first person imperatives are as follows.

1. They distinguish an inclusive form, referring to 'you and me' (Speech Act participants), and a non-inclusive form — 'us' in general:

(12) yæy ha-kok inclusive paternal.grandmother eat-1incl.IMPV 'Granny, let's you and me eat'

8

(13) seri i-pa púri kane-de non-inclusive tomorrow go-1nonincl.IMPV now night=3masc.sg 'Let's go (more than two people), it is night now' 2. They distinguish only two forms — nondelayed and delayed (in contrast to canonical imperatives which have three forms).

The nondelayed form (see (12) and (13)) is by far the most frequent. The delayed form is used to refer to an action which is subsequent to another action, as in (14)-(15). (14) [Homuy vya-tate], [asenoke puri hari-ya-ke-ñini] fish kill-SS.COMPL all FUT carry-come-FUT-2fem.sg

[ane-bu puri hora-ha-pa] here-LOC IMPV.DEL get-eat-1nonincl.IMPV

[tu-te] puri ha-pa ya-buku] cook.in.fire-SS.NON.COMPL IMPV.DEL get-eat-1nonincl.IMPV fire-LOC.SPEC 'Having killed the fish, you will bring all (of them) here, let's (then) eat here, as we cook

(them), let's eat, from the fire' (15) [ñini veri-bu tada] [puri i-pa kair you.fem.sg canoe-LOC sit.down.IMM.IMPV IMPV.DEL go-1nonincl.IMPV house-ALL 'You sit down in the canoe, let's then go home' David Kwaibori insisted that we all go to church to pray later that day and said: (16) lotu-r puri i-pa church-ALL IMPV.DEL go-1nonincl.IMPV 'Let's (all of us) go to church' 2. The non-inclusive form has a specific overtone: it can be used in questions with intentional meaning. There seems to be a contradiction here add Hannah Manambu (17) madekara horu-pa how do-1nonincl.IMPV 'What are we going to do?' (lit. How are we going to do?) (18) he-bo re-pa? INTER-LOC sit-1nonincl.IMPV 'Where shall we sit? ' It has a modal meaning if used with the modal word heña 'be possible', as in (19). (19) heña kriseke-pa be.possible write/carve-1nonincl.IMPV 'It is possible to write down' A delayed form can be used as a warning:

9

(20) puri vækere-pa IMPV.DEL fall-1nonincl.IMPV 'We might fall' (a comment by Aseneta to my suggestion that we both sit down on a log) 3. First person nondelayed imperatives can occur with (mV-ya IMPV.NONDEL-come) in its meaning 'come on', encouraging the speaker and the addressee(s) to do something, e.g. 'go' as in (21): (21) Endate ukwa=de wo-k ñomose maya i-kok then thus=3masc.sg say-PRED younger.sibling IMPV-come go-1inclIMPV 'Then younger brother said, come on, let's (two of us) go!'

3.3 Non-canonical imperatives: third person

Table 5. Non-canonical imperatives: third person Person/gender sg dual pl feminine masculine root-kwa-ber

Regular root-kwa-l root-kwa-d root-kwa-ber root-kwa-j(i) Delayed puri root-kwa-l root-kwa-d puri root-kwa-ber puri root-kwa-j(i)

Indirect puri root-k

Properties of third person imperatives are as follows.

1. They distinguish three sets of forms: regular, delayed, and indirect. Only regular and direct imperatives distinguish three numbers and two genders in the singular. Indirect imperative does not.

Regular imperative expresses command to a third person which has to be performed immediately:

(22) ya-kwa-ber come-IMPV.3p-du 'May they two come; let them two come', they two come!' (23) [ñini aka puri ho] [how aka tu-kwa-d] 2fem.sg here IMPV.DEL sleep/lie hole here stay-IMPV.3p-masc.sg 'You (woman) sleep here (later), let/may the hole stay here'

The delayed third person imperative refers to a command to be performed later, as in (24):

(24) [yi tetela-te] [te-de] fire light/up-SS.NONCOMPL stay-REL.LINKING [ane kai puri yanu-kwa-d] this house IMPV.DEL burn-IMPV.3p-masc.sg 'After the fire had lit up, this house will burn down' The subject of the regular imperative can be animate or inanimate.

2. The indirect imperative is used only with human subject. It expresses a wish, as in (25) (addressed to the Lord):

10

(25) Mafui ñina-way puri te-k big you.fem.BOUND-COMIT IMPV.DEL.INDIR stay-PRED 'May our Lord (lit. Big (one)) be with you' (produced spontaneously; also in a text message) 3. The regular third person imperative has additional uses. Firstly, it can be used as a causative strategy — this is typical for many Papuan languages without a morphological causative, including Karawari (Lower Sepik: Telban 2017) and Manambu (Ndu Aikhenvald 2016).

(26) mo-ujeri le-r ya-kwa-l IMPV.NON.DEL-call 3fem.sg-ACC come-IMPV.3p-fem.sg 'Call her getting her to come' (lit. Call her she may come/let her come) It can also be used in temporal clause linking (Dixon 2009):

(27) hepita saika-pa wari tela-kwa-d some.time wait-1nonincl.IMPV rain stop-IMPV.3p-masc.sg 'Let's wait for some time until the rain stops' (lit. Let's wait for some time, may/let the rain

stop' 4 Prohibitives Prohibitives can be formed only on canonical (addressee-oriented) imperatives. The suffix -tukwak attached to the verbal root. There are no person/number/gender marking on the verb. Personal pronouns can be used for disambiguation. Prohibitives distinguish a non-delayed form and a delayed form, which contains puri — see Table 6. Table 6. Prohibitives in Yalaku: second person addressee only Person/gender sg dual pl Non-delayed root-tukwak Delayed puri root-tukwak Non-delayed prohibitive has overtones of immediacy or a general prohibition:

(28) wanegete yi-tukwak noise go/make-PROH 'Don't make noise!' (now or in general) (29) [one hara-tukwak] [aywa-na-d] that get-PROH mother-GEN-3masc.sg 'Don't get that one, it is Mother's' A delayed prohibive refers to something not to be done later: (30) [kuni ane tuwa puri ha-tukwak] you.pl this moran.snake DEL.IMPV eat-PROH

[Apatepa tu une tuwa ha-da-de] [astekere tSe keseke-k] all man that moran.snake eat-3pl-REL petrified.wood they turn turn-PRED

[kuni ha-tukwa-k] you.pl eat-PROH

11

'You all don't eat this moran snake later (when it gets killed), all men who ate that moran snake turned into petrified wood, you don't eat (it)'.

Non-canonical imperatives do not have a special prohibitive form. Meanings like ''Let's not go' have to be expressed with two clauses, as in (31). (31) [i-pa!] [heketS] go-1non.incl.IMPV NEG.EXISTENTIAL 'Let's go! No!' 5 Contrasting canonical and non-canonical imperatives Canonical and non-canonical imperatives share the following features: 1. No imperatives or prohibitives can be formed on stative verbs. Forming an imperative on a verb with uncontrolled meaning imparts a controlled reading to it, e.g. yauveke- 'hear, listen', me-yauveke! 'listen!', ve- 'see, look', me-ve 'look!'. A few stative roots can occur as imperatives, but with a different meaning, e.g. heruay 'well, be well' (11), me-heruay! (IMPV.NON.IMM-well) 'correct!'. 2. There is one imperative and prohibitive per serial verb construction (see (14)). 3. Imperatives and also prohibitives can occur with personal pronouns, for disambiguation, as in (23) and (30), for disambiguation of the referent. 4. Imperatives and prohibitives are typically contextualised, as in (13), (23), (29), either stating a consequence, or a reason, or information as to what else is to be done. Canonical and non-canonical imperatives differ from each other in meanings expressed — Table 8.

Table 8. Contrasting canonical and non-canonical imperatives in Yalaku

Property Addressee-oriented (canonical) imperative

First-person oriented noncanonical imperative

Third person oriented noncanonical

imperative Meanings immediate

non-immediate delayed

nondelayed delayed

nondelayed delayed indirect

Inclusive no yes no Prohibitive yes: non-delayed and delayed no

Functionally unmarked terms within each person value are those which have additional, not command-related meanings: A. Canonical imperative: the non-immediate imperative marked with prefix me/mV- : used in speech formulae; some verbs lexicalised as discourse markers B. First-person oriented: non-inclusive imperative: used in modal constructions C. Third-person oriented: nondelayed imperative: used as causative strategy and in clause linking 5 The scope of imperatives The scope of imperative in most languages is over the whole sentence. A striking property of Yalaku imperatives is a further option, available only for two canonical imperatives: the non-immediate imperative marked with prefix me-/mV- and the delayed imperative marked with puri.

Depending on the placement of the imperative prefix me- the whole clause chain, or just the main final verb may be within the scope of an imperative. In (32), the non-immediate imperative marker has scope over the whole sentence:

12

(32) me-{[hara-ta] [ve]} — me/mV- on a clause chain IMPV.NON.IMM-get-SS.NONCOMPL look 'Get (it) and have a look!' In (33), it has scope over just the main clause: (33) [hara-ta] [me-ve] — me-mV- on the main verb get-SS.NONCOMPL IMPV.NON.IMM-look Having got it (first), have a look!

(33a) is not grammatical — if the clause chain takes the imperative marker, the main verb cannot be in a non-imperative form.

(33a) *me-hara-ta meni=ve IMPV.NON.IMM-get-SS.NONCOMPL you.masc=see/look ?'Having got it you have a look' —?

(34) is an additional example of me-/mV- on a clause chain, followed by me-/mV- on the main verb, with a semantic difference:

(34) [me-ve-te re] [hefimaka ve-te] [me-re] IMPV.NON.IMM-look-SS stay bad see-SS IMPV.NON.IMM-stay 'Sitting look (or: stay looking), seeing (that it is) bad, stay!' If there a constituent intervenes between clauses, me-/mV- can occur on the predicate of same-subject marked clause and on that of the main clause: (35) [tepa-lufu me-yatek-ta] [aka me-hari-ya] coconut-leaf IMPV.NON.IMM-cut-SS.NONCOMPL here IMPV.NON.DEL-carry-come 'Cut the coconut leaf and bring it here' (lit'As you imperative- cut the coconut leaf, bring it here' The delayed canonical imperative marked with puri allows for similar scope effects. In (35), puri has the scope over the verb in the main clause: (36) [me-ha] [ha-ta] [puri ho] IMPV.NON.IMM-eat eat-SS.NONCOMPL IMPV.DEL lie(down) 'Eat, having eaten lie down (later)' In (37), purí 'delayed imperative' has a whole clause chain in its scope: (37) [wuna-ka-kete wurupuñi-mene puri seke-tate] [hoi] 1sg.OBLIQUE-DAT-DES liver-ONLY IMPV.DEL cut-SS.COMPL give 'Later cut and give just the live for me!' (lit. later having cut give) If the clauses marked with switch reference happen to be non-contiguous, the imperative marker is repeated, as in (38) (an instruction by a Manambu chief how the Yalaku people should attack the Japanese):

13

(38) [[Hundi wo-de] ve-ta], talk say-REL see/witness-SS.NONCOMPL [aka puri hara-ta], here/thus IMPV.DEL get-SS.NONCOMPL [aka hore-de ve-ta] here/thus do-REL see-SS.NONCOMPL [tSer aka puri vya] 3pl+ACC here/thus IMPV.DEL hit 'As you see him (the Manambu chief Vakinap) say the words, then you subsequently get

(the knife) (imperative), having seen (him) do (this: make a sign), subsequently you future-imperative hit them ( the Japanese)'

• Non-immediate and delayed imperatives with scope effects (over the whole clause chain or over the main clause only) are limited to clause chains with same subject. •• There are no similar scope effects in prohibitives: only the main clause will be within the scope of a prohibitive.

Using imperatives in non-main clauses is rare — we only know of a handful examples across the world, all from Papuan languages of New Guinea. This was described by Renck (1975: 121) for Yagaria, a Kamano-Yagaria language from the Highlands of Papua (and for the closely related Hua by Haiman 1980: 61-3, 162-3, and unrelated Amele: Roberts 1987: 40). Example (39) shows a medial clause marked for imperative: (39) eli-ga-ta'a-o elemi-s-u'-agi Yagaria take-DS-1dual-IMPV go.down-1FUT-1dualIMPV-EMPH Take it, and let us two go down! (lit. After you take! it, let us two go down) An imperative can appear in a same subject and different subject medial clause in Korowai (see example (20d) from §3.6 of de Vries 2017).

(40) le-mén=daxu [noxu lép-telo-xai=xa] noxu eat-2pl:IMP=SS we ill-be[non1sg]-IRR=CONN 1pl mano-pa-mon=do xi-telo-fon=è good-CAUS-2pl:IMP=DS healthy-be-1pl:IMP=EXCL ‘You must eat it and if we fall ill, cure us and let us be healthy’.

However, there are no examples of an imperative marker having different scope effect — as in Yalaku.

6 The history of Yalaku imperatives, and the impact of contact-induced change

Table 9 summarises the marking of canonical imperatives in Ndu languages.

Yalaku is innovative in a number of ways:

• No other Ndu language has delayed imperatives (as far as we know).

• No other Ndu language has a three-fold distinction in canonical imperatives (as in (1)).

Appendix 2 features the etymologies of third-person and first-person non-canonical imperatives, and of the prohibitive.

14

Table 9 Marking canonical imperatives in Ndu languages2 I Prefix a- II Particle/prefix mV(-) III Base stem of verb

+verbal stem +final stem vowel truncation

+verbal stem +final vowel truncation

• Yangoru Boiken • Brugnowi Iatmul: all verbs • Korogo Iatmul (monomoraic roots)

• Manambu •Ambulas particle mé • Hanga Hundi (Wosera) particle mé (occurs prefixed to monosyllabic roots) • Yangoru Boiken prefix ma- • Kwusawn Boiken prefix m- with motion verb ya- 'come' • Prefix ma- in Gala • Prefix me- in Yalaku

• Manambu motion verbs 'come', 'go' (synchronically suppletive) • Yalaku motion verb yi 'go' takes prefix ma- and vowel truncation; ya takes me- and vowel truncation; stance verb 'be, stand' takes prefix me- and vowel truncation

• Iatmul (nonmonomoraic roots) • Yalaku (nonmonomoraic roots) • Kwusawn Boiken

The non-immediate canonical imperative me-/mV- in Yalaku has cognates across the whole family.

The imperative particle me in Ambulas (see Figure 1) precedes the verb, as in (41) (Wilson 1980: 163-7).

(41) dé-rét mé wa Ambulas he-DAT/ACC IMPV say 'Say to him!'

It may have the whole sentence within its scope, as in (42), and is then preposed to the whole chain (similar to (32) and the first clause in (34), from Yalaku).

(42) mé {[jaar-e] [gu yaaku-takna]} Ambulas IMPV take.out.of.bag-SS water wash-COMPLETED 'Take (the child) out of the bag and wash (him)' (lit. 'Having taken (the child) out of the bag wash (him)!)'

2 See Staalsen (1965: 8) on Iatmul, Jendraschek (2012: 206) on Korogo Iatmul; Freudenburg (1979: 28) on Yangoru Boiken: Laycock (1965) on Kwusawn Boiken; Wendel (1993: 85-6) on Hanga Hundi (Wosera), and Wilson (1980: 162-70) on Ambulas-Wosera; Yalaku and Gala based on my own data.

15

The imperative particle mé can have just the non-main clause (same-subject and different-subject) in its scope, provided the main clause also contains a command:

(43) [vi nak mé gi-kwe-mén-u] [dawuli r-e] spear one IMPV tie-BEN2-2masc.sg-DS.FUT go.down sit-SS [sayéké viyaa-tiyaa-d-u] [baak-ne] [ka-ké wuné-k] cassowary strike-BEN1-3masc.sg-DS.FUT steam.cook-SS eat-DESID I-DESID 'You go and make a spear for him and let him go down and sit and kill the cassowary and ler

me steam cook and eat (i))' (lit. Imperative you having tied one spear for him, having gone down, having struck a cassoway, I am about/want/am willing to eat (it)'.

Scope effects of mé (similar to what we saw in (34) and other examples in §5 for Yalaku) have not been mentioned by Wilson (1980) for Ambulas. The Ambulas cognate of Yalaku me-/mV- is a particle, while the form in Yalaku is a prefix.

Let's now turn to Kwoma (or Washkuk), a language which is not demonstrably related to Yalaku, but which is in constant contact with it. Kwoma is a larger and a more dominant group (see §1); many Yalaku people know Kwoma.

7. To conclude Contact-induced change accounts for cross-linguistically unusual scope effects in Yalaku imperatives. Abbreviations: ACC - accusative; ALL - allative; COMI - comitative; COMPL - completed; DS - different subject; du - dual; fem - feminine; FUT - future; GEN - genitive; IMPV - imperative; IMPV.DEL - delayed imperative; IMPV.IMM - immediate imperative; IMPV.NON.IMM - non-immediate imperative; incl - inclusive; INTER - interrogative root; LOC - locative; LOC.SPEC - specific locative; masc - masculine; NEG - negative; NON.COMPL - non-completed; nonincl - non-inclusive; pl - plural; PRED - predicative; PROH - prohibitive; REL - relative clause marker; sg - singular; SS - same subject.

References Aikhenvald 2010 Aikhenvald 2015 Aikhenvald 2016 de Vries 2017 Dixon 2009 Clause l Enfield Jarkey Sarvasy Romaine, Suzanne, 1992. 'Inclusive/exclusive distinction in Tok Pisin'. Language and Linguistics in

Melanesia 23: 1-11. Telban Whaley

16

Appendix 1 The phonological system of Yalaku is in Tables 1 and 2. There are 22 consonants and 6 vowels (no phonological length), and distinctive stress., e.g. minimal pairs such as héña 'be able to, possible' versus heñá 'day after tomorrow'; té-re (3masc.sg-ACC/ALL) 'him, to him' versus te=ré (3masc.sg=sit) 'he sits', púri 'now' and purí 'future; delayed imperative'. Syllable structure: (C1)(C2)V(C3) (with phonotactic restrictions on each of C1, C2 and C3); CVC syllables often result from elision of the final vowel in normal to rapid register (final vowels which may undergo such apocope are in brackets in some examples).

Table I. Consonantal phonemes in Yalaku bilabial labiodental apico-

dental apico-alveolar

post-alveolar

lamino-palatal

dorso-velar

glottal

voiceless non-labialized stops

p t k

voiced non-labialized prenazalized stop

mb nd ng

voiceless labialized stops

pw kw

voiced labialized prenasalized stops

mbw ngw

voiceless fricatives p/F s h voiced fricatives v voiceless affricate tS lateral trilled rhotic

l r

nasals m n ñ (≠) glides w y (j) 1. Voiced prenasalized stops occur only intervocalically. 2. An important phonological process is voicing on

(a) a clitic boundary, e.g. tada-te (go.down-SS) 'having gone down' versus tada=de (go.down=3masc.sg) 'he went down', and (b) in the middle of a grammatical and phonological word, e.g. tu 'man', TSupa-du (last-man) 'personal name', kay 'house', ayko-gay, aiko-ge 'inside the house'.

Table II. Vowel phonemes in Yalaku front central back high i u middle e o low æ a A feature of normal to rapid (informal) register is the optional final vowel elision, e.g. slow/normal wuna-re (I.NON.NOM-ACC/ALL), normal/rapid wuna-r 'me, to me'. A preferred phonological word is two syllables in length.

Appendix 2 Non-canonical imperative forms and prohibitive in Yalaku: their origins

Third person non-canonical imperative marking shows less homogeneity than canonical imperatives. The marker -kwa-gender/number markers in Manambu has obvious cognates in Yalaku -kwa-, e.g. ya-kwa-de 'may he come!' The third person imperative -kwa may also be related to the third person imperative (or jussive) -ku in Ambulas and/or to the formative -kwa- in yékwak, an additional marker of third person imperative in Ambulas (Wilson 1980: 168-9). In Ambulas, -ku can occur in

17

one clause with mé and is affixed to a pronoun or to mé, as in dé-ku mé r-o (he-JUSSIVE IMPV sit-present) 'let him sit', dé mé-ku r-o 'let him sit'; yékwak does not occur with either, e.g. dé mé ra yékwak 'let him sit'. Another potential cognate is -kwa in just one second person imperative form in Iatmul: ya-kwa (come-IMPV) 'come!'. Non-canonical third person imperatives are marked with the suffix –kwa followed by gender/number markers (a tentative explanation is in Aikhenvald 2016).

The origins of the first person imperative markers are obscure. The non-inclusive -pa could be cognate to Proto-Ndu -ba '1st plural'.

The prohibitive in Yalaku -tukwak is cognate to Manambu -tukwa. This form -tukwa (variant: -tEkwa) may have been derived from a third person imperative of the verb tE- 'be, have, stand', tE-kwa (stand/be/have-IMPV.3p+fem.sg) 'let it stand/be/have', -k 'predicate marker'. This is corroborated by the fact that in Manambu tukwa can be used on its own, as a very brusque command not to do something. This etymology is further supported by a typological analogy — non infrequently, prohibitives come from expressions like 'stop, let it be, leave it' (Heine and Kuteva 2002; Aikhenvald 2010; and similar developments suggested in Dixon 1972: 112).

Map 1. The Manambu and the Yalaku speaking villages in the Ambunti region, East Sepik

Province, PNG (@Alexandra Aikhenvald)