Download - Chapter 3 Syncretisms involving clusivity proofs S Y Chapter 3 Syncretisms involving clusivity Michael Cysouw Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Theinclusive and exclusive

1st proofs

U N C O R R E C T E D P R O O F S

© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

Chapter3

Syncretisms involving clusivity

MichaelCysouwMaxPlanckInstituteforEvolutionaryAnthropology

Theinclusiveandexclusivearecommonlyconsideredtobekindsofthefirstpersonplural.Inthischapter,Iwillinvestigatewhethertheydeservethisnamebylookingatsyncretismsbe-tweenclusivityandotherpersonmarkers.Suchsyncretismsarerare,butathoroughinvesti-gationhasresultedinalargeenoughsampletoallowforsomeconclusions.Theresultisthattheexclusiveisoftensyncreticwiththefirstpersonsingular,andcanthusindeedbeconsid-eredakindoffirstpersonplural.Incontrast,theinclusivecannot.Further,theoftenclaimedlinkbetweeninclusiveandsecondpersoninspurious.Thisclaimprobablyonlyarosebe-causeofselectedattentionforthosesyncretismsarguingforsuchaconnection,butdisre-gardingallothersyncretismsthatargueagainstit.Inthissurvey,allpossiblesyncretismsareconsideredresultingintheobservationthattheinclusive/secondpersonsyncretismdoesnotoccurmoreoftenthanothers.

Keywords:syncretism,secondperson,thirdperson,minimal/augmented,clusivity

1. Introduction

Thecommonlyusednamefortheinclusiveis‘inclusivefirstpersonplural’andfortheexclusive‘exclusivefirstpersonplural’.Suchlongnamesarenotonlycumber-some,butitisalsoquestionablewhethertheydescribethecorrectapproachtothelinguisticcategoriesinquestion.Itisnotatallclearwhetherinclusivesandexclu-sivesareakindoffirstperson.Semantically,aninclusivereferstobothfirstandsec-ondperson,soitcouldjustaswellbeanalysedasakindofsecondperson.Anexclu-sivereferstobothfirstandthirdpersonandcouldthusjustaswellbeconsideredathirdperson.

It is regularlyclaimed in the literature, inparticularwithreference toAlgon-quianlanguages,thatsomelanguagesconsidertheinclusivetobeakindofsecondperson(e.g.Zwicky1977:720–3;Plank1985:141–3;Hewson1991:862–5;Noyer1992:155–7).Suchlanguagesarethencontrastedtothewidespreadstructureshow-ingapronoun we,inwhichinclusivereferenceispartoffirstperson(becausethemeaningofEnglishwecanbeinterpretedasbeingbothinclusiveandexclusive).In this argumentation, there are two possibilities for human language: either aspeaker-centeredperspective(asinEnglish)oranaddressee-centeredperspective(asinAlgonquian).Inthischapter,Iwillpresentatypologicalargumentshowingthatthisoppositionismisled.Itiswell-knownthattheEnglish-typewepronoun

1st proofs



84 MichaelCysouw

isextremelycommonamongtheworldslanguages.Inconstrast,IwillshowthattheAlgonquian-typeinclusive/secondpersoncombinationisextremelyrare.Ifthisrarityisconsideredofcentralimportanceforourtheoryoflanguage,thanotherraritiesshouldalsobetakenintoaccount.Forexample,itturnsoutthatinclusive/thirdpersoncombinationsarejustascommonastheAlgonquiantypeinclusive/secondpersoncombination.

Inthisarticle,Iwillpresentalargecollectionofexamplesinwhichtheinclusiveortheexclusiveisexactlyaliketoanotherpersonmarkerinthesameparadigm.Ifaparticularlanguageusesthesamemorphemeforvariousapparentlyunrelatedfunctionsormeanings,itispossiblethatthevariousmeaningshaveaccidentallymerged.Ortheyhaveacommonorigin,butthesynchronicusagesaretoodifferenttowarrantaunifiedanalysis.Inanycase,thepropernull-hypothesisshouldbethatformallyhomophonousmorphemesinalanguagehaveaunifiedmeaning—un-tilreasonsarefoundthatprovethishypothesiswrong.Thisorderofexaminationiscrucialfortheempiricalbasisoflinguisticanalysis.Twomeaningsmightlookdif-ferentfromourcurrentunderstandingoflinguisticstructure,yetthisunderstand-ing could be wrong—or short-sighted. Apparently accidentally homophonousmorphemesinanylanguagecanbeusedtoempiricallytestourunderstandingoflinguisticstructure.Iftwomeaningsturnouttobehomophonousinlanguageafterlanguage,thenthisisanargumenttoreconsidertheoriginalanalysis.

Fromthepresentcollection,itturnsoutthattheexclusiveisregularlyhomoph-onouswiththefirstpersonsingular.Incontrast,theinclusiveishardlyfoundtobehomophonouswiththefirstpersonsingular.Sothereappearstobesomecor-respondancebetweenthefirstpersonandtheexclusive,butnotbetweenthefirstpersonandtheinclusive.Further,thereareexampleinwhichtheinclusiveishom-ophonouswiththesecondpersonandexamplesinwhichtheexclusiveishomoph-onouswiththethirdperson—bothoptionsthatappeartomakesensesemantically.However,thesesemanticallytransparentsyncretismsarejustasfrequentlyattestedasthecontrastingopaquesyncretisms,viz.inclusivewiththirdpersonandexclu-sivewithsecondperson.Thereisthusnoreasontoassumeaspecialconnectionbe-tweenanyofthesecategories.Specifically,theinclusivedoesnothaveaspecialrela-tionshiptothesecondperson.

Thisarticlewillbeoutlinedasfollows.InSection2,Iwilldiscusssomemethodo-logicalconsideration.TheSections3to6aretheheartofthepresentarticle.Ineachofthesesections,alonglistofcaseswithaparticularsyncretisminvolvingclusivityispresentedanddiscussed.Section3discussessyncretismsbetweenclusivityandfirstperson.Section4discussessyncretismsbetweenclusivityandsecondperson.Section5discussessyncretismsbetweenclusivityandthirdperson.Alltheoreti-callypossiblesyncretismsareattested,thoughonlytheonebetweenexclusiveandfirstpersonseemstobefrequentenoughtobetypologicallyworthoffurthercon-siderations.Finally,Section6discussessomespecialsyncretismsbetweeninclusiveandexclusive.ThecharacteristicsofallthesecasesaresummarisedandanalysedinSection7.Iwillarguetherethatthereistypologicallynoreasontogivethesyn-

1st proofs



85Syncretismsinvolvingclusivity

cretismbetweentheinclusiveandthesecondpersonaspecialstatus.Thisparticu-larsyncretismmightmakesensesemantically/cognitivelyasitputstheaddresseeatthecentreofthepersonmarking,yetthissyncretismisjustasrarelyfoundasothersyncretisms,whicharesemantically/cognitivelyintransparant.InSection8,Iwilldiscusssomeattemptsfromtheliteraturetomakesenseofthevarioussyncretisms.Iwillcriticisetheappealtopurportedlywidespread(orevenuniversal)linguisticcharacteristicstoexplainahighlyexoticandprobablyjustincidentalsyncretism.Explanationsshouldbeonthesamelevelofgeneralisaationasthephenomenonthattheytrytoexplain.Commonphenomenaneedmoresweepinggeneralisations,while incidental phenomena should be approached with a situation-specific ex-planation.

2. Methodological musings

Thischapterconsistsofacollectionoflanguagesinwhichthemorphemethatisusedforinclusiveorexclusivereferenceisalsousedforotherpersonreference.Thelikelinessbetweenthemarkingofthesedifferentreferentialvaluesshouldnotbemerelyapproximately,butthematchhastobeexactwithinthephonologicalstruc-tureofthelanguageinquestion.Theproblemwithapproximatelikelinessisthatitisnotoriouslydifficulttohandle.Shouldthenumberofphonemesthataredifferentbecounted,ormaybethenumberofphonemesthatareidentical,orboth?Shouldthephoneticlikelinessofthedifferingmorphemesbevalued?Evenifonewouldfindasuitablequantificationofapproximatelikeliness,thenitisstillquestionablewhetherthismeansanything.Iftwomorphemesinalanguagedifferinonlyonephoneme(e.g.Englishme, we, heandshe),thentheyareofcoursecloselyalike,butthedifferenceisstillsalientforthespeakersofalanguage.Toavoidthismethodo-logicalmuddle,Ihavedecidedtorestrictmyinvestigationtocasesofexactlikeli-ness(liketheEnglishyou-singularandyou-plural).

Themainbodyofthischapterwillbearatherdrysurveyoflanguagesthatdis-tinguishbetweenaninclusiveandanexclusivemorpheme,yeteitherofthosemor-phemesisexactlyhomophonouswithanothermarkerinthesamepersonparadigm.Morphologicallyseparatisticnumbermarkersarenotconsideredaspartoftheper-sonparadigminthischapter.Iincludeexamplesofsyncretismfromallavailablekindsofpersonmarking,whetheritareindependentpronouns,inflectionalorcliticpersonmarking,orpronominalpossession.Ididnotincludeexamplesinwhichtheoverlapofmarkingisfoundinaninflectionalparadigmforonlyoneverbclass(ornounclass).Thehomophonyshouldminimallybepresentinallinstantiationsofaparticularparadigm—thoughitcan(andoftenwill)notbefoundthroughoutallparadigmsofpersoninthewholelanguage.

Combinationofcategoriesinaparadigmcanbecalledastructuralambiguity,asyncretism,orsimplyahomophony.Iwillusethetermsyncretism,whichisin-tendedasaneutralempiricalcover-termforallobservedcases(cf.Luraghi2000).

1st proofs



86 MichaelCysouw

Also,Idonotdistinguishlanguagesinwhichthissyncretismisameaningfulambi-guity,whichreflectstheconceptualisationofrealityofaparticularspeechcommu-nity,fromthosecasesinwhichthesyncretismisonlyanincidentalresultofphono-logicalmerger.Evenwhenasyncretismisanincidentalmerger,thenitisstillpartofthesynchronicstructureofalanguage,whichisusedbysomehumancommu-nityofspeakers.Thesimple,yetarduoustaskthatIhavesetmyselfistocollectallcasesthathavesuchasyncretismandthentoanalysethesecasessynchronicallyanddiachronically.Twoquestionswillbeaskedforeverylanguagethatwillbede-scribedinthischapter.First,isthereanyobligatorilywayinwhichthesyncretismisdisambiguated?Itturnsoutthatinmanycasesthereisnoobligatoryinstrumentinthelanguagestructurethatdisambiguatesthepossiblemeaningsofthesyncre-tism.Onlyinthosecasesinwhichthereisobligatorymarkingtodisambiguatethesyncretism,thisstrategywillbeexplicitlynotedinthischapter.Ifthereisnoobliga-torilydisambiguation,thiswillinmostcasessimplynotbementioned.Thesecondquestionthatwillbeaskedforeverylanguageiswhetherthesyncretismcanread-ilybearguedtobetheresultofa(recent)historicalmerger.If,forexample,aphono-logicalmergercausedtwoerstwhiledifferentmorphemestobecomeidentical,theresultingsyncretismcanreadilybearguedtobeanincidentaleffect.Aproblemisthattherearenohistoricaldataavailableformostlanguagesthatwillbediscussedinthischapter.Toinvestigatethehistoryofthesyncretismsattested,Iwilldraweitheroncloserelatives(asincomparativereconstruction)or,incidentally,onlan-guage-internal(ir)regularities(asininternalreconstruction).

Thepresentcollectionofcasesisaresultofratherad hocsampling.Theproblemwithaconsistentsamplingstrategy(cf.RijkhoffandBakker1998)isthatthekindofsyncretismsthatIaminterestedinisuncommonamongtheworld’slanguages.Inastandardtypologicalsample,thesesyncretismswouldnotevenappear,oronlyasexceptions.Thistouchesonacentralproblemwithstrictsamplingproceduresintypology.Asamplecanshowwhichlinguistictypesarecommonamongtheworld’slanguages,butitcannotbeusedtoanalyseatypethatispossible,yetuncommon.Itisgoodpracticetoamendeachlarge-scaletypologywithadetailedinvestigationofuncommontypes.Afineexampleofthismethodisthechapterongender/numbermarkingbyPlankandSchellinger(1997).Thischapterstartswiththewell-knownGreenbergianuniversals,whichstatethatgenderdistinctionsinthepluralimplygenderdistinctionsinthesingular.However,theauthorsthenshowthat,oncloserinspection,alargesetof‘counterexamples’exists.Bycollectingthese‘exceptional’examplesadeeperunderstandingofthepossiblevariabilityofhumanlanguagecanbereached.

Likewise,forthischapterIstartedfromalarge-scaletypologicalinvestigationofpersonmarking(Cysouw2003)inwhichsyncretismsbetweenclusivityandotherpersoncategoriesturnedouttoexist,yettobeuncommon.Tofurtherinvestigatethepossiblevariabilityofhumanlanguage,Iamendedtheexamplesfromthatstudywithcasesdescribedinotherpublicationsandaskedcolleaguesforanyexamplestheyhappenedtoknowof.ThenIcloselyinvestigatedthefamiliesandlinguistic

1st proofs




areasinwhichthesesyncretismswereattested.Clusivityisknowntobeanarealphenomenon(Jacobsen1980;Nichols1992;Cysouwforthcoming),soinvestigat-ingareasknowntoshowclusivityispronetoturnupmoreexamples.Bycyclicallyquestioningspecialistandinvestigatingspecificlinguisticareasand/orfamilies,Iwasabletoexpandthecollectiontothepresentsize.However,itshouldnotbefor-gottenthat,notwithstandingtheratherlargecollectionofcasesthatwillbepre-sentedshortly,theoccurrenceofasyncretismbetweenclusivityandotherpersoncategoriesistypologicallyuncommon.

3. Clusivity and first person

3.1. Introduction

Traditionally,inclusiveandexclusivemarkingareseenasspecificationsofthefirstpersonplural.Inthissection,Iwilltestthistraditionalapproachempiricallybysearchingforsyncretismsbetweentheinclusiveandthefirstpersonsingular(Sec-tion3.2)andbetweenexclusiveandfirstpersonsingular(Section3.3).Ifinclusiveandexclusiveareindeedakindoffirstperson,thenIexpecttofindlanguagesthatshowaformalsimilaritybetweenthosecategories.Themostextremeformofsimi-larityiscompleteidentity,assurveyedinthischapter.Suchcompleteidentitydoesnotoccurfrequently,butitispossibletofindsomeexamplesamongthewidevar-ietyofstructuresamongtheworld’slanguages.Theresultofthissurveyisthatex-amplesofinclusive/firstpersonsyncretismsaremuchrarerthanexamplesofanex-clusive/firstpersonsyncretism.Thisshowsthattheexclusiveisindeedakindoffirstperson,buttheinclusiveisnot(cf.Daniel,thisvolume).

3.2. Inclusive=firstperson

AsfarasIhavebeenabletofind,thereisonlyonelanguagethathasaregularsyn-cretismbetweenaninclusiveandthefirstpersonsingular.Intheso-called‘PastIIstative’paradigminBinandere,aGoilalanlanguagefromNewGuinea,thesuffixesforbothfirstpersonsingularandinclusiveare-ana.Incontrast,theexclusivesuffixis-ara.Allothertense/aspectparadigmsshowexactlythesamesyncretism(Capell1969:16–31).Thissyncretismisprobablyarelativelyrecentadditiontothepara-digm,astwocloserelatives,OrokaivaandKorafe,haveexactlythesameformofthesuffixes,yetwithoutaninclusive/exclusiveopposition.The‘indicativeMidPastB’fromOrokaivahasafirstpersonsingular-anaandafirstpersonplural-ara(Healeyetal.1969:62).ThepresentindicativefromKorafehasafirstpersonsingular-enaandafirstpersonplural-era(FarrandFarr1975:747–9).ThestructureofBinan-dereisquitepossiblytheresultofanextensionofanoriginalfirstpersonsingularreferenceof-ana.However,thefactthatBinandereistheonlypresentlyknownex-ampleofacompleteidentitybetweeninclusiveandfirstpersonsingularindicates

1st proofs



88 MichaelCysouw

thattheinclusivecannotsystematicallyberegardedasakindoffirstperson.Incon-trast,thelonglistofexamplesofexclusive/firstpersonsyncretisms,tobepresentednext,showsthattheexclusiveisakindoffirstperson.

3.3. Exclusive=firstperson

Asyncretismbetweenexclusiveandfirstpersonsingularisparticularlyprominentamongtheworld’slanguages.Thereareafewcleararealclustersofthissyncretism.ItisfoundinafewrestrictedareasamongnativeAmericanlanguagesandamongthePapuanlanguagesofNewGuinea.Exceptforthesetwomacro-areas,therearevariousincidentalexamples.

Allexamplesofanexclusive/firstpersonsyncretisminNorthAmericaareat-testedinprefixalpersonparadigms.Inallthesecases,theexclusiveisdisambiguatedfromthefirstpersonsingularbyanumberaffix.ThispatternisfoundthroughouttheCentralandEasternbranchesofAlgonquian,e.g.inEasternOjibwa(Bloomfield1956:44),SouthwesternOjibwe(SchwartzandDunnigan1986:305),Menomini(Bloomfield1962:36–40),Cree(Wolfart1996:399–400)andPassamaquoddy-Mal-iseet(Leavitt1996:9–10).Theexclusive/firstpersonismarkedbyaprefixn(i)- incontrasttoaprefixk(i)-fortheinclusive(thisinclusiveisinturnidenticaltothesecondperson,cf.Section4.2).Anotherexampleofanexclusive/firstpersonsyn-cretismisfoundinWinnebago,aSiouanlanguage.InWinnebago,the‘agentive’in-clusiveismarkedbyaprefixhi-whilethefirstpersonandexclusivearebothmarkedbyaprefixha-.Thissyncretismcanbedisambiguatedbytheuseofanumbersuffix

-wi’.1ThissyncretismappearstobeasingularityamongtheSiouanlanguages.MostotherSiouanlanguagesusethesameprefixforbothinclusiveandexclusiveincon-trasttoadifferentprefixforthefirstpersonsingular(e.g.inMandan,Mixco1997:8;seealsoSection6.3below).However,thesamesyncretismasinWinnebagoisalsofoundintheCaddoanlanguages,whichmightbedistantlyrelatedtotheSiouanlanguages(Chafe1976).InCaddo,theinclusiveismarkedbyaprefixyi-andtheex-clusive/firstpersonismarkedbyaprefixci-.Again,theexclusiveandfirstpersonsingulararedisambiguatedbynumberaffixes(Chafe1976:65–70;1990:66–7).ThesamesyncretismisalsofoundintheCaddoanlanguagesWichita(Rood1996:600)andPawnee(Parks1976:164–75).

InMesoamerica,afewexamplesofanexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismareat-testedinindependentpronouns.IntheMixtecanlanguages,thereisanongoingdevelopment inwhichtheexclusive independentpronoun(andthesecondper-sonpluralpronoun)isreinterpretedasanhonorificpronoun,usedforhumbleself-reference.ThischangecanbeinferredfromthevariationamongtheMixtecanlan-guages.Insomelanguages,thereisaclearexclusivepronoun,apparentlywithouthonorificusage(e.g.JamiltepecMixtec,Johnson1988:114–16;AyutlaMixtec,Hills1990:209–10). Insome languages, thispronouncanbeused forexclusive refer-enceandforhumbleself-reference(e.g.CoatzospanMixtec,Small1990:413–14;SilacayoapanMixtec,Shields1988:406–7).Finally, thereareafewlanguages, in

1st proofs




whichtheformerlyexclusivepronounissolelyusedforhumbleself-referenceandnotforexclusivereferenceanymore(e.g.ChalcatongoMixtec,Macaulay1996:138–43;OcotepecMixtec,Alexander1988:263–4;YosondúaMixtec,Farris1992:134–5;Diuxi-TilantongoMixtec,KuiperandOram1991:341).Theinclusivepronounisnotaffectedbythischange.Inthislastsetoflanguages,theformerlyfirstpersonsingularpronounisnowusedbothfortheexclusiveandforthefirstpersonsingu-lar.Thisexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismintheindependentpronounscanbedis-ambiguatedbyotherlinguisticmeans,butthatdoesnotappeartobeobligatory.Forexample,Macaulay(1996:81)remarksonChalcatongoMixtecthat:“plurals...maybemarkedbyadditionoftheprefixká-totheverbstemwhenthesubjectisplural,and/orbyvarioussyntacticmeans.”Anexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismisalsofoundinChocho,aPopolocanlanguage(Veerman-Leichsenring2000:325–7).2OtherPopolocanlanguagesdonotshowthissyncretism.ThePopolocanlan-guagesareonlydistantlyrelatedtoMixtecan(botharepartofOto-Manguean),buttheChocholanguageisspokeninthedirectvicinityoftheabovementionedMix-tecanlanguageswithanexclusive/firstpersonsyncretism(inthewesternpartoftheMexicanstateofOaxaca).ThesyncretisminChochoisthusprobablyaresultoflanguagecontact.AlsoinMesoamerica,inflectionalexclusive/firstpersonsyncre-tismsarefoundinSierraPopoluca,aMixe-Zoquelanguage(FosterandFoster1948:17–19;Elson1960:207)andinHuave,aHuaveanlanguage(StairsandHollenbach1969:48–53;seealsoSection5.2).Inbothlanguages,numbersuffixesdisambiguatetheexclusivefromthefirstpersonsingular.

InSouthAmerica,theexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismisattestedasanarealfea-tureincentralPeru.ItisfoundinallCampalanguages,asubgroupoftheArawakanfamily,bothintheindependentpronounsandintheverbinflection(e.g.Ashen-inca,ReedandPayne1986:324–7;Nomatsiguenga,Wise1971:647;Caquinte,Swift1988:61–2).Thesamesyncretism,bothinpronounsandinflection,isalsoattestedinJaqaru(Hardman1966:79)andthecloselyrelatedlanguageAymara(Hardman2001: 105–19). Surrounded byAymara-speaking population, the closely relatedlanguageUruandChipayahavethesamesyncretismintheirpronominalprefixes(Crevels&Muysken,thisvolume).Afurtherexampleofthisstructureistheinflec-tionfromTarmaQuechua(Adelaar1977:89–93,127–8).InHuallagaQuechua,acloserelativeofTarmaQuechuawithinsubgroupIoftheQuechuanlanguages,theexclusiveisdisambiguatedfromthefirstpersonsingularbytheobligatoryadditionofthenominalpluralmarking-kuna.Thearealdistributionoftheselanguagesisstriking.AllareallspokeninclosevicinityofeachotherincentralPeru,extend-ingeastwardsintoBolivia.Thepronominalsystemsoftheselanguagesarestronglyalike:theyareall‘4-person’systems,consistingoffirst,second,thirdperson(with-outsingular/pluraldistinction)andaseparateinclusive.Withineachoftheirgen-eticfamilies,theselanguagesareuniqueinhavingsuchastructure.Theirsimilarityisthusclearlytheresultofarealinfluence.AlsoinSouthAmerica,butoutsidethisareainPeru,anexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismisalsofoundintheindependentpronounsandverbalinflectionofCanela-Kraho,aGélanguagefromBrazil(Popjes

1st proofs



90 MichaelCysouw

andPopjes1986:175)andintheinflectionofMaká,Mataco-GuaicuruanlanguagefromParaguay(Gerzenstein1994:83–97).

InNewGuinea,theexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismisattestedregularlyamongindependentpronouns.InNimboran(Anceaux1965:167)andintheBorderlan-guagesImonda(Seiler1985:44)andAmanab(Minch1991:31–2)thefirstpersonsingularpronounisalsousedwithexclusivereference,butthereisadifferentpro-nounforinclusivereference.InNimboran,theverbinflectionhasthesamesyncre-tism,althoughtherearenumberaffixesthatdisambiguatetheexclusivefromthefirstpersonsingular(Anceaux1965:83–91).3TheselanguagesareallspokeninanareaaroundtheborderbetweenIrian-JayaandPapuaNewGuineaonthenorthernsideoftheIsland.

Moreexamplesoftheexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismareattestedamongtheTannalanguages,asubgroupofAustronesianspokeninVanuatu.ThefiveTannalanguages,Kwamera,Lenakel,NorthTanna,SouthwestTannaandWhitesands,allhavethesameprefixforfirstpersonandexclusive.Bothmeaningsareregularlydif-ferentiatedbynumberaffixes(Lynch1967;1978:45;LindstromandLynch1994:10).OtherlanguagescloselyrelatedtoTannadonothavethissyncretism(e.g.Ura,Crowley1998:21;seealsoSection5.2).

Anexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismisalsofoundinTiwi,alanguagespokenonalittleislandnearAustralia.Thesubjectprefixintransitiveconstructionsisngi(mpi)-forfirstpersonsingularandforexclusivereference(Osborne1974:38;Lee1987:173).InWarrwa,aNyulnyulanlanguagefrommainlandAustralia,theactorprefixnga/ka- isusedbothforfirstpersonandexclusive,incontrasttoaprefixya-forin-clusive(McGregor1994:41).ThissyncretismisarecentmergerbecauseinBardi,acloserelativeofWarrwa,theformsforfirstpersonsingularŋa- andexclusiveaŋ- arestilldifferentiated(Metcalfe1975:123).InNyulnyul,anothercloserelativeofWarrwa,theinclusiveandexclusivemarkinghasmerged,usingtheformerlyinclu-siveprefixya-(McGregor1996:40–1;seealsoSection6.3below).

Finally,threegeographicallyscatteredcaseswithanexclusive/firstpersonsyn-cretismarethesubjectprefixesfromSvan,aSouthCaucasianlanguage(Tuite1997:23,disambiguatedbynumbersuffixes),thesubjectprefixesfromNgiti,aNilo-Sa-haranlanguage(KutschLojenga1994:190–3,220)andtheindependentpronounsfromChrau,aMon-Khmerlanguage.Thefirst-personpronouninChrau“maybeusedaspluralwithoutmodification...butpluralityisoftenindicatedbypreposingkhaorkhay”(Thomas1971:138).Inallthesescatteredcases,closerelativesdonotshowaninclusive/firstpersonsyncretism.

3.4. Summary

Thereisaclearasymmetrybetweenthetwopossiblesyncretismsreviewedinthissection. Judging from the high amount of exclusive/first person syncretisms at-tested,theexclusivecanindeedbeseenasaspecialkindoffirstperson.Incontrast,thesolitaryexampleofaninclusive/firstpersonsyncretismindicatesthattheinclu-

1st proofs




siveisnotakindoffirstperson.However,theinclusivemightbeakindofsecondperson.Thisoptionwillbetakenupinthenextsection.

4. Clusivity and second person

4.1. Introduction

Inthissection,examplesofsyncretismsbetweenclusivityandsecondpersonarepresented.First,inSection4.2,thepossibilityofasyncretismbetweeninclusiveandsecondpersonisdiscussed.Thereareindeedsuchsyncretisms,yetthenumberofexamplesisnotoverwhelming.InSection4.3,someapparentcasesofaninclu-sive/secondpersonsyncretismaredismissed,becausetheinclusiveformsarecom-binationsoffirstandsecondpersonmarking.Finally,inSection4.4,asurveyispresentedofsyncretismbetweenexclusiveandsecondperson.Fromasemanticpointofview,theexistenceofsuchsyncretismsisstrangebecauseexclusiveandsecondpersondonothaveanyreferentialoverlap.Still,suchsyncretismsexistandareaboutasfrequentasinclusive/secondpersonsyncretisms.

4.2. Inclusive=secondperson

Thenotoriouslyrecurringexampleintheliteratureofasyncretismbetweeninclu-siveandsecondpersonistheAlgonquianfamily(e.g.Zwicky1977:720–3;Plank1985:141–3;Hewson1991:862–5;Noyer1992:155–7).ThecrucialphenomenoninAlgonquianistheoccurrenceofapersonprefixki-forbothinclusiveandsecondperson.ThisisfoundthroughouttheCentralandEasternbranchesofAlgonquian,e.g.inEasternOjibwa(Bloomfield1956:44),SouthwesternOjibwe(SchwartzandDunnigan1986:305),Menomini(Bloomfield1962:36–40),Cree(Wolfart1996:399–400)andPassamaquoddy-Maliseet(Leavitt1996:9–10).Thepronominalpre-fixescanbereconstructedforProto-Algonquian(Bloomfield1946:97–9;Goddard1990:108)andprobablytheinclusiveusageofki-aswell(RichardRhodes,p.c.).Incontrast,thesyncretismisnotattestedinBlackfoot,whereki-isonlyusedforsec-ondpersonandnotforinclusivereference(Frantz1991:22).Itisimportanttoreal-isethatthissyncretisminAlgonquianisalwaysdisambiguatedbyvariousnumbersuffixes,alsodistinguishingsomepersoncategories(seetheendofsection4.3foradiscussionoftheimplicationsoftheexistenceofthesesuffixes).

BesidestheAlgonquianlanguages,itturnsouttoberatherdifficulttofindgoodexamplesofasyncretismbetweeninclusiveandsecondperson.4Thefollowingex-amplesareallincidentalcaseswithintheirlinguisticfamily.AparticularlyfinecaseistheindependentpronounparadigmfromSanuma,aYanomamlanguagefromVenezuela/Brazil.InSanuma,thepronoun(ka)maköisusedforbothinclusiveaswellassecondpersonpluralreference.Thecontrastingpronounsamaköisusedforexclusivereference(Borgman1990:149).Thereisnoverbalinflection,norany

1st proofs



92 MichaelCysouw

otherlinguisticdevicethatdisambiguatesthissyncretism.AlsoinSouthAmerica,thoughindependentfromSanuma,aninclusive/secondpersonsyncretismsisalsoattestedintheindependentpronounsandtheverbalprefixesofItonama,anisolatefromBolivia(Camp&Liccardi1965:332,375;Crevels&Muysken,thisvolume).AfurtherexampleofthissyncretismisfoundinLavukaleve,anEastPapuanlanguagefromtheSolomonIslands.Thepronominalprefixme-isusedbothforinclusiveandsecondpersonplural(Terrill2003:242–4).Thissyncretismisprobablytheresultofarecentmerger.ThecloselyrelatedlanguageSavosavodifferentiatesbetweenaninclusivemaiandasecondpersonpluralme(Todd1975:813).Fourth,thesecondpersonpluralagentpronominalprefix-bà fromKiowa,aTanoanlanguagefromNorthAmerica,isalsousedtomarkinclusive(Watkins1984:113).Thecloselyre-latedlanguageSouthernTiwadoesnotmarkclusivity(AllenandFrantz1978:11).Fifth,theKiranti(Tibeto-Burman)languageKulunghasadualsuffix-ci,justasallotherKirantilanguages.However,inKulung,theinclusiveandthesecondpersondualarenotmarkedbyanyothermorphologicaldevice,leavinganinclusive/sec-ondpersonsyncretism(Tolsma1997:107).Finally,thedirectobjectprefixesfromthenon-Pama-NyunganlanguageTiwiinAustraliauseaprefixmani-bothforin-clusiveandsecondpersonplural(Osborne1974:39;Lee1987:180)

Therearetwomorelanguageswithasyncretismbetweeninclusiveandsecondperson.Inboththeselanguages,thesyncretismisattestedinaphonologicallyre-ducedvariantofthepersonalpronouns.Thesyncretismisnotattestedinthefullforms,sothesyncretisminthereducedformscanreadilybeinterpretedasexampleofanongoingmerger.ThefirstcaseisDiola-Fogny,anAtlantic(Niger-Congo)lan-guagefromSenegal.Inthislanguage,verbshaveprefixalboundpronouns.Theshortversionsoftheseprefixesshowaprefixu-forbothinclusiveandsecondpersonsin-gular.5However,theinclusivemeaningisobligatorilydisambiguatedfromthesec-ondpersonsingularbyasuffix-a(e)(Sapir1965:90–1,seealsoSection5.3).Thesec-ondcaseofaninclusive/secondpersonsyncretisminreducedpronounsisattestedinAcehnese,aChamiclanguagespokeninNorthernSumatra(Indonesia).Thefullforms of the independent pronoun clearly distinguish an inclusive (geu)tanyoefromasecondperson(informal)gata.However,thecorrespondingcliticsareiden-tical,eitherta-asaprefixor-teu(h) asasuffix(Durie1985:117).

4.3. Dismissingotherapparentinclusive/secondpersonsyncretisms

There are a few languages for which an inclusive/second person syncretism isclaimedintheliterature,butIwillarguethatthesesyncretismsareonlysuperfi-cialphenomenafortwodifferentreasons.First,thereareafewlanguagesthathaveanumbermarker,whichhappenstobefoundonlyintheinclusiveandinthesecondpersonplural.Thismightlooklikeaninclusive/secondpersonsyncretism,butthesyncretismisnotfoundinthepersonmarking,butinthenumbermarking.Thisis,forexample,thecaseinQuechua.Mannheim(1982:147)claimsaninclusive/sec-

1st proofs




ondpersonsyncretismforQuechua.Thereisindeedanidenticalsuffix-cisbothintheinclusiveandinthesecondpersoninsomeoftheQuechuanlanguages(cf.Pot-tier1963;vandeKerke1996:120–5).However,thisisneitherasyncretismofthecompletepersonmarkers(theinclusivesuffixis-ncisandthesecondpersonpluralsuffixis-nkicis),norisitfoundinallQuechuanlanguages.Originally,thesuffix -cis wasusedasaninclusivemarker,whichhasbeencombinedwiththesecondpersonsingular-n-kitoformthesecondpersonplural-n-ki-cis.Thesuffix-ciscanprobablyberelatedhistoricallytoaparticleindicatingabundance(CerrónPalomina1987:271).Anotherexampleofanumbermarkerthatisattestedonlyintheinclusiveandthesecondpersonisthesuffix-VmufromMuna,aWesternMalayo-Polyne-sianlanguagefromSulawesi(vandenBerg1989:51,53,81).Thisisnotcountedasasyncretismherebecausetherealpersonmarkersareprefixes,thesuffix-Vmube-ingprobablybestanalysedasanumbersuffix,whichonlyhappenstobeusedintheinclusiveandthesecondperson.ThepersonprefixeswillappearlateroninSection5.2,becausetheseprefixeshaveasyncretismbetweeninclusiveandthirdperson.

Thesecondreasonwhysomeclaimsforaninclusive/secondpersonsyncretismfromtheliteraturearenotincludedhereisthattheapparentsyncretismis,oncloserinspection,onlypartofthestory.Theproblemisthatinclusivemarkinginsomelanguageisacombinationoffirstandsecondpersonmarking.Aclearexampleofsuchacombinationistheinclusivepronounyumi—madefromtheEnglishpro-nounsyouandme—asattestedinTokPisinandsomeotherEnglishbasedCreolesinthePacific(Mühlhäusler1986:161).Thisisofcoursenosyncretismbetweenin-clusiveandsecondperson.Itcouldjustaswellbecalledasyncretismbetweenin-clusiveandfirstperson.Infact,theinclusivemeaningisestablishedneatlycompo-nentiallybycombiningfirstandsecondpersonmorphologyintooneword.

Therearenumerousvariantsonthistheme.Amoredetaileddiscussionofthisphenomenonispresentedundertheheading‘hybridinclusives’insection8ofDan-iel(thisvolume).Hearguesthattherearedifferentkindsofcomponentialityin-volved,ananalysiswhichIsubscribe.However,afiner-graineddifferentiationdoesnotlessenthepointthattheseinclusivesuseacombinationoffirstandsecondper-sonmarkers(howevercomplicatedthesemanicdetails),andcanthusjustaswellbeconsideredakindoffirstpersonasakindofsecondperson.Theycannotbeusedtoargueforaspeciallinkbetweeninclusiveandsecondperson.

AniceillustrationofacomponentialconstructionistheinclusivemarkingfromMaybrat,aWestPapuanlanguagefromIrianJaya.Toexpresstheinclusive,thesec-ondpersonpluralindependentpronounanuisused,soitmightlooklikethereisaninclusive/secondpersonsyncretism.Actually,theinclusive“isexpressedbyusingthefreepronounanufollowedbyaverbthattakesafirstpersonpluralpersonprefixp-”(Dol1999:70),asillustratedin(1).Theinclusiveismarkedbyacombinationofsecondandfirstpersonmarking,sothereisnospecialconnectionbetweeninclu-siveandsecondperson.

1st proofs



94 MichaelCysouw

(1) Maybrat(Dol1999:71)anu p-kias ania2pl.pron1pl-tellrecip

“You(and)we,wetelleachother.”

ThisproblemisofimportanceforthecaseofKhoekhoe(=Nama/Damara),aKhoelanguagefromNamibia.6Inthislanguage,itappearsasiftheso-called‘pronominalroot’saashowsasyncretismbetweeninclusiveandsecondperson.Iwillarguethatthisisnotthecase(incontrasttoanearlierclaiminCysouw2001:151).Thecen-tralproblemisthatsaaonlyhastheinclusiveinterpretationincombinationwithafirstpersoncliticattachedtoit.Inthiscombination,theinclusivemeaningcanbeconstructedcomponentiallyfromtheconstitutingparts‘you’+‘we’,justastheTokPisininclusiveyumiconsistsoftheparts‘you’+‘I’.Themeaningofsaaisonly‘you’andtheapparentsyncretismwiththeinclusiveisaresultofthecombinationwithafirstpersonclitic.IwillpresenttwoargumentsforthisanalysisofKhoekhoe,asyn-chronicandadiachronicone.

For the synchronic argument, it is important to understand the structure ofKhoekhoepersonmarking.ThemaindeviceforpersonmarkinginKhoekhoeisthepronominalclitic(called‘person-gender-numbermarker’(PGN)byHagman1977;but‘nominaldesignant’(Nd)byHaacke1977).Thesecliticsdonotmarkclu-sivity.Thepronominalroots(amongthemsaa)onlyoccursparingly,andiftheyoc-cur,theyarealmostalwaysfollowedbyapronominalclitic.Theonlyconstructionsinwhichtherootsarenotfollowedbyacliticiswhenmarkingpronominalposses-sion,andthentheonlypossiblereferenceofsaaissecondpersonsingular(Hagman1977:36;Haacke1977:47–8).Theonlywaytogetinclusivereferenceisbyacom-binationofsecondpersonsaa withafirstpersonnon-singularclitic(Hagman1977:43–4).

ForthediachronicargumentitisimportanttorealisethatKhoisanisnotagen-eticunit.Atthepresentstageofknowledge,itconsistsatleastofthreefamiliesandafewisolates(GüldemannandVossen2000).Asexplainedabove,KhoekhoeispartoftheKhoefamily(formerly‘CentralKhoisan’).Thepronominalcliticscanbecon-fidentiallyreconstructedforproto-Khoe(Vossen1997:377).Thereconstructionofthepronominalrootsislessstraightforward(Vossen1997:368).However,itisclearthatclusivityisnotpartofthereconstructedpronominalrootsinproto-Khoe—itisaninnovationofKhoekhoe.Güldemann(2002:51–3)arguesthatclusivity inKhoekhoeisborrowedfromalanguageofthe!Ui-Taafamily(‘SouthernKhoisan’).Followingthisproposal, theonlypronominalroots tobereconstructed forpro-to-Khoeare*tiiforfirstpersonand*saaforsecondperson(GüldemannargueshereagainstVossen1997:368).Khoekhoehasborrowedtheexclusiveroot*siifrom!Ui-Taa,usingitsownsecondpersonroot*saatogetherwiththepronominalcliticstoformthemissinginclusive(asdescribedabove).

Itturnsoutthatrealinclusive/secondpersonsyncretismisonlyattestedintheAlgonquianfamilyandinafewincidentalcases.However,theAlgonquiancaseis

1st proofs




notbeyonddoubt.IntheAlgonquianlanguages,theinclusive/secondpersonsyn-cretismintheprefixesisobligatorilydisambiguatedbysuffixesforallnon-singu-larcategories.Thesesuffixesmightbeconsideredpluralsuffixes,astheyonlyoc-curinthenon-singular.However,theyhavedifferentformsforfirst(-min),second(-m)andthirdperson(-wak)plural.TakingthehistoryoftheKhoekhoepersonmarkingasanguide,onemightspeculatethatclusivitywasnotpartofproto-Algic(justasitisnotfoundintheothermajornorthernAmericanfamiliesSalish,Atha-bascan,andEskimo-Aleut).Itshistorycouldhavebeenasfollows.Firsttherewerepersonsuffixeswithoutmarkingclusivityandlaterthepersonprefixes,alsowith-outclusivity,wereinnovated.Thenewinclusivecategorywasmadebycombiningthesecondpersonprefixwiththefirstpersonsuffix.Thereasonforthisinnova-tionmighthavebeencontact(e.g.withtheIroquoianlanguages,whichallhaveaclearinclusive/exclusiveopposition).Inthisinterpretation,theAlgonquianinclu-siveisasemanticallytransparentcombinationoffirstandsecondpersonmarkers,andIwouldnotconsideritacaseofinclusive/secondpersonsyncretism.However,the comparative details ofAlgonquian person marking have to be investigatedmorecloselytobackupthisspeculation.Untillacleardecisiontothecontrary,IwillinterprettheAlgonquianprefixesasacaseofaninclusive/secondpersonsyn-cretism.

To summarise, inclusive/second person syncretisms exist among the world’slanguagesbutthenumberofexamplesisnotoverwhelming.Thequestionnowre-mainshowfrequentothertheoreticallypossiblesyncretismsinvolvingclusivityare.AsIwillshowbelow,theotherpossibilitiesareatleastascommonastheinclusive/secondpersonsyncretism.

4.4. Exclusive=secondperson

Syncretism between exclusive and second person are particularly prominentamongAustronesian languagesonandaroundthe islandTimor. Invarious lan-guagesoftheTimorsubgroupofCentralMalayo-Polynesian,thesubjectprefixm-isusedforexclusiveaswellasforsecondpersonsingularandplural.ThisisfoundinLamalera(Keraf1978:74–6),Dawanese(Steinhauer1993:133),Kisar(Blood1992:3),Sika(LewisandGrimes1995:605)andRoti(FoxandGrimes1995:615).ThissyncretismisprobablyanaccidentalmergeroftheprotoCentralMalayo-Poly-nesianprefixesma- forexclusive,mi-forsecondpersonpluralandmu-forsecondpersonsingular(Blust1993:258–9).Theseprefixesare,forexample,stilldifferenti-atedinKola(Takata1992:54).

Asyncretismbetweenexclusiveandsecondpersonpluralisalsofoundinvari-ousWesternOceanic(alsoAustronesian)languages.Itisfoundinthesubjectprefixa-fromYabem(Ross1995:707),thesubjectprefixm-fromSobei(Sterner1987:37),theobjectsuffix-miandthepossessivecliticamiafromMekeo(Jones1998:150–1,208–10,230)andtheinalienablepossessivesuffix-min fromCentralBuang(Hoo-ley1995:734). Interestingly,thereisalsooneWesternOceaniclanguageinwhich

1st proofs



96 MichaelCysouw

the syncretism between exclusive and second person is found in independentpronouns,namelyinNehan(Todd1978:1183–6).Thepronounforexclusiveandforsecondpersonpluralisingam.ThismightseemaratherdifferentconstructionasintheAustronesianlanguagesmentionedsofar.However,thefirstandsecond-personpronounsofNehanappeartobeconstructedonthebasisofarooting-.Thesyncretismthusconsistsonlyofthesuffix-am.ThisisprobablythesamemergerastheotherAustronesiansyncretismsthathavebeendiscussed.IntheRemoteOce-aniclanguageBuma,thesubjectprefixesshowanexclusive/thirdpersonsyncre-tismbothinthedual(-ba)andintheplural(-pi/pe).Thesamesyncretismisalsoat-testedintheMicronesianlanguagesUlithianandTrukese.InUlithian,thesubjectpronounxacanbeusedforreferencetotheexclusiveaswellastothesecondpersonplural(SohnandBender1973:42,101–5).InTrukese,thecomparablesyncretedsubjectpronounisjëwy(Dyen1965:12).FollowingthetraditionofMicronesiandescriptions,thesemarkersarecalled‘(short)subjectpronouns’,buttheyseemtobeobligatorilypresentbeforeeachverb,sotheyareprobablybetternotinterpretedasindependentpronouns,butasproclitics,ormaybeevenasprefixes.

OutsideoftheAustronesianstock,therearethreeexamplesofasyncretismbe-tweenexclusiveandsecondperson.Thefirstoftheseisfoundinthesoutherndia-lectofUdihe(calledBikin),aTungusiclanguagefromRussia,inwhichthesuffix-umarksforbothpersoncategories(NikolaevaandTolskaya2001:212).InanoldersurveyoftheTungusiclanguages,Benzing(1955)doesnotfindthissyncretisminanyTungusiclanguage.HedifferentiatesforUdihebetweenasuffix-uforexclusiveandasuffix-huforsecondpersonplural(Benzing1955:1078).However,accordingtoNikolaevaandTolskaya(2001:51),thereisnophonemic/h/insouthernUdihe.InnorthernUdihe,theoriginal/h/isconservedasapharyngealisationofthefol-lowingvowel,sointhisvariantthereisstilladifferencebetweenaplain-ufortheexclusiveandapharyngealised-uforsecondpersonplural.InsouthernUdihe,thepharyngealisedvowelshavebecomelongvowels,butvowellengthisbeinglost,es-peciallyword-finally,leadingtothesyncretismoftheexclusiveandthesecondper-sonplural(I.Nikolaeva,p.c.)

Thefinalcasesofanexclusive/secondpersonsyncretismarefoundamongthenon-Pama-Nyungan language from northern Australia. The first is attested inBurarra.Theintransitiveprefixesnyirri-(fordual)andnyiburr-(forplural)markbothforexclusiveandsecondperson(Glasgow1984).Inthecloselyrelatedlan-guageNdjébbana(McKay2000:240),theexclusiveandsecondpersonaredistin-guished,butthedifferenceconsistsonlyofaninitiallamino-palatalnasalfortheexclusive(njirri-forunitaugmentedandnjarra-foraugmented)versusaninitialapical-alveolarnasalforthesecondperson(nirri-forunitaugmentedandnarra-foraugmented).ThesetwosoundsappeartohavemergedinBurarra,leadingtothepresentsyncretismbetweenexclusiveandsecondperson.TheotherexampleisTiwi,whichpresentlyhasnoknowncloserelative.TheintransitiveprefixesfromTiwiareidenticalforexclusiveandsecondpersonplural:ngimpi-fornon-pastandnginti-forpast(Osborne1974:38;Lee1987:173).

1st proofs




4.5. Summary

AsshowninSection4.2,itisnotverycommon,outsidetheAlgonquianlanguages,for inclusivesandsecondpersontobe identical.Amongthe fourteencasespre-sented,thebestcasesareSanumaandItonama,inwhichthesyncretismisattestedintheindependentpronouns.Thereareafewexamples,discussedinSection4.3,which,oncloserinspection,donotturnouttobeexamplesofrealsyncretismbe-tweeninclusiveandsecondperson.Acentralargumenttodisqualifyapparentsyn-cretismisthefactthattheinclusiveisacombinationoffirstandsecondpersonmarkers.

ThesixteencasespresentedinSection4.4showthatitnotatallunheardofthatthere is a syncretismbetweenexclusiveand secondperson.Among thesecases,there is evenone language (Nehan) that shows this syncretism in its independ-entpronouns.Allexamplesappeartobecasesofrelativelyrecentmerger,becausecloselyrelatedlanguagesdonothavethesamesyncretism.OnlyintheTimorfam-ily,various(butfarfromall)closelyrelatedlanguagesshowthesamesyncretedper-son-markingstructure.However,evenifallexamplesarehistoricalcoincidences,thisstillleavesopenthequestionwhythesemanticallyratherdisparatecategories‘exclusive’and‘secondperson’arenotdisambiguated.Apparently,thereisnoabso-luteneedtodoso.

Comparingthetwocollections,thereappearstobenoreasontoconsidertheinclusive/secondpersonsyncretismtobemore‘regular’thantheexclusive/secondpersonsyncretism.Forbothsyncretisms,almostallexamplesareinflectional,butincidentalexamples(Sanuma/ItonamaandNehan,respectively)showthatitisalsopossibleforindependentpronounstohaveeithersyncretism.Further,bothsyncre-tismsaregenerallyfoundinisolatedcases(meaningthatcloserelativesdonothavethesamesyncretism),exceptforonegeneticgroupforeithersyncretismsinwhichthesyncretismiswidespread(AlgonquianandTimor,respectively).

5. Clusivity and third person

5.1. Introduction

Asshownintheprevioussection,itispossiblefortheinclusiveandfortheexclu-sivetobeidenticaltothesecondperson.Thelogicalnextquestioniswhetheritisalsopossiblefortheinclusiveorexclusivetobeidenticaltothethirdperson.Aswillbeshowninthissection,itisindeedpossibletohaveeitheraninclusive/thirdper-sonsyncretism(Section5.2)oranexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretism(Section5.3).Further,thenumberofcasesandthegeneralstructuralcharacteristicswillturnouttobemuchalikeinbothsyncretisms.Theempiricalevidenceforthesetwosyncre-tismswilleventurnouttobecomparabletothesyncretismswithsecondpersonassurveyedintheprevioussection.Allfourtheoreticalpossibilitiesareroughlyequallycommonandshowacomparableworld-widedistribution.

1st proofs



98 MichaelCysouw

5.2. Inclusive=thirdperson

Asyncretismbetweeninclusiveandthirdpersonisconsistentlyfoundinthesub-jectprefixesoftheTannalanguagesfromVanuatu.Genetically,theselanguagesbe-longtotheCentral-EasternOceanicbranchof theAustronesianstock.ThefiveTannalanguages—Kwamera,Lenakel,NorthTanna,SouthwestTannaandWhite-sands—allhaveasyncretismbetweentheinclusiveandthethirdpersonnon-sin-gular,usingaprefixk-forbothreferentialcategories(Lynch1967:46–8;LindstromandLynch1994:10–12;Lynch1978:45).TheTannalanguagesareasubgroupoftheSouthernVanuatufamilyandforProto-SouthernVanuatu,Lynch(1986:274)reconstructsanoppositionbetweenaninclusiveprefixk(V)-andathirdpersonpluralprefixγ-.ThisoppositionisstillattestedinUra,anotherlanguagefromtheSouthernVanuatufamily,wheretheinclusiveprefixis(g)ur-andtheprefixforthirdpersonplural(γ)ir-(Crowley1998:21).ThesyncretismintheTannalanguagesisthusarelativelyrecentmerger.However,thissyncretisminthepersoninflectiondoesnotcausetheindependentpronounstobeusedfordisambiguation.Forex-ample,LynchnotesaboutLenakelthatthereisa“homophonybetweenk-‘firstin-clusive’,andk-‘thirdnon-singular’;whichoftheseisactuallypresentisalmostal-waysdeterminedbythecontext”(Lynch1978:45).ThesamemergerisalsoattestedinAtchin,alanguagefromtheNorthandCentralVanuatufamily,showingthatthismergerisnotasingularityoftheTannalanguages.InAtchin,thesuffixforinalien-ablepronominalpossessionis-rforboththeinclusiveandthethirdpersonplural.Thepossessivepronounsthatareusedforalienablepossessionarederivedfromthesesuffixesandconsequentlyshowthesamesyncretism(CapellandLayard1980:55–6).

StillwithinOceanic,thissyncretismisfoundinNalik,aWesternOceaniclan-guagefromNewIrelandandinBuma,aRemoteOceaniclanguagefromtheSantaCruzislands.InBuma,thesubjectprefixesshowaninclusive/thirdpersonsyncre-tismbothinthedual(-la)andintheplural(-li/le).InNalik,theprefixalsubjectmarkerdi(a)-isusedforbothinclusiveandthirdpersonplural(Volker1998:47–51).ThespeakersofNalikarewellawareofthissyncretism,whichisprovenbythefactthatthesyncretismistakenoverbysomespeakersintotheirvariantofTokPi-sin,replacingtheTokPisininclusiveindependentpronounyumibytheTokPisinthirdpersonpluralpronounol(Volker1998:48).Anotherexampleofthissyncre-tismisfoundinMuna,aWesternMalayo-PolynesianlanguagefromSulawesi(In-donesia),distantlyrelatedtothepreviouscaseswithintheAustronesianstock.InMuna,thesubjectprefixdo-isusedforbothinclusiveandthirdpersonplural(vandenBerg1989:53).Thepotentialambiguitydoesnotresultinanobligatorilyusedpersonalpronoun:“thepersonalpronounsareoptionallyused...toemphasisethesubjectofaverbalpredicate,inadditiontothesubjectmarker”(vandenBerg1989:82).Roughlywithinthesamearea,yetgeneticallyunrelatedtothepreviouscases,thissyncretismisalsoattestedinHatam,aWestPapuanlanguagefromtheBird’sHead(IrianJaya).Boththesubjectprefixi(g)-(Reesink1999:51)andtheprefix

1st proofs




i(p)-forinalienablepossession(Reesink1999:48)areusedforinclusiveaswellasforthirdpersonplural.

Attheothersideoftheworld,asyncretismbetweeninclusiveandthirdpersonisattestedinthepronominalprefixesfromHuave,aHuaveanlanguagefromMex-ico.Thereismassiveallophonyinthesepronominalprefixes,butinallallophonestheinclusiveisidenticaltothethirdperson.Thisindicatesthatthesyncretismisnotarandommerger,thoughthereisnocomparativeinformationtoshedlightonthehistoryofthisstructure.Thesyncretismisobligatorilydisambiguatedbyvarioussuffixesthatmarknon-singular(StairsandHollenbach1969:48–53).

AspecialcaseistheextinctlanguageTupínambá,aTupílanguagefromBrazil.Weonlyknowaboutthis languagebecausetwomissionariesdescribedit inthe16thand17thcentury.Fromthesedescriptions,Rodrigues(1990)extractsthefactthatthesubjectprefixesya-ando-canbeusedbothforinclusiveandforthirdper-sonreference,yetonlyintransitiveclauses.Nosyncretismisfoundinintransitiveclauses,ya-isconsistentlyusedforinclusiveando-forthirdperson(Rodrigues1990:396).Inthisusage,theprefixesareidenticaltothereconstructedactivepre-fixesfromProto-Tupí-Guaraní(Jensen1990:120).However,intransitivesentencesinTupínambá,boththeseprefixescanbeusedforinclusiveaswellasforthirdper-son.Thepreciseinterpretationofthetransitiveuseoftheseprefixesremainssome-whatmysterious,thoughRodriguesarguesthatitisrelatedtothemarkingoffo-cus.NocontemporaryTupílanguagehasbeendescribedtoshowthissyncretism,sotheoldTupínambágrammarsaretheonlysourceofinformation(seeSection7forasummaryoftheanalysisbyRodrigues).TheindependentpronounsfromTupínambáshowexactlythesamereferentialstructureastheprefixeswiththesamesyncretismbetweeninclusiveandthirdperson(Rodrigues1990:396,402).

Finally,mentionhastobemadeoftheKiranti(Tibeto-Burman)languageinthiscontext.ThedualintheKirantilanguagesismarkedusingasuffix-ci(e.g.Athpare,Ebert1997a:23–38;Camling,Ebert1997b:16–24)or-ti(e.g.Dumi,vanDriem1993a:95–9).Theexclusivesuffixisgenerallyexplictilymarkedincontrasttotheotherpersons(inAthparewith-ciŋa,inCamlingwith-ckaandinDumiwith-ti).Asaresult,theinclusivedualsuffixisidenticaltoboththesecondandthirdpersondual.Thesecondpersondualisdisambiguatedbyrootchangesandaprefix(t)a-(exceptforKulung,seeSection3.2).ThereremainsacompletesyncretismbetweentheinclusivedualandthethirdpersondualinAthpare,CamlingandDumi(seevanDriem1993b;1997;1990foracomparativeanalysisoftheKirantipersonmarkers).

5.3. Exclusive=thirdperson

AsyncretismbetweenexclusiveandthirdpersonisattestedintheCaribanlanguageWaiWai.Thepronominalprefixforbothexclusiveandthirdpersonisn(î)-,asop-posedtotheprefixforinclusive,whichist(î)-(Hawkins1998:178–9).Thesyncre-tismbetweenexclusiveandthirdpersonisregularlydisambiguatedbytheuseofanexclusiveindependentpronounamna.Exactlythesamestructureisalsofoundin

1st proofs



100 MichaelCysouw

thecloselyrelatedlanguageHixkaryana(Derbyshire1979:146–9).InasurveyoftheCaribanfamily,Derbyshire(1999)notesthatasyncretismbetweenexclusiveandthirdpersonappearstobetheruleintheCaribanfamily:“exceptforMakushiandKuikúro,the[exclusive]prefixisidenticalinformandfunctionwiththirdperson,andafreepronounana(orcognate)isalwayspresent[tomarkexclusivereference,M.C.]”(Derbyshire1999:32).7Thelanguagesthathaveanexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretisminthissurveybyDerbyshireareKariña(=Carib),Tiriyó(=Trio),Cari-jona,Kashuyana,WaiWai,Hixkaryana,Waimiri-Atroari,Arekuna,Akawaio,Way-ana,Dekwana,BakairíandTxikão.8TheexceptionstothisCaribanidiosyncrasy,MakushiandKuikúro,bothhaveinnovatedspecialisedmarkingfortheexclusive.TheseinnovationshavebeenindependentdevelopmentsbecausetheselanguagesareneithercloserelativeswithinCaribannorspokenineachother’sneighbour-hoodandtheinnovativeexclusivemorphemesarenotcognate.ThelanguagePan-arealsodoesnothavethissyncretismbecausetheinclusive–exclusivedistinctionhasbeenlostintheprefixes(Gildea1989;Derbyshire1999:32–3).Thelossofclu-sivityhasresultedinanevenmoreextensivesyncretismasthealreadysyncretedex-clusive/thirdpersonprefixhasexpandeditsmeaningtocoveralsoinclusiverefer-ence.ThesamedevelopmenthastakenplaceinKapónandPemón(S.Gildea,p.c.).

BesidestheCariblanguages,thereareafewincidentalcasesthatalsoshowasyn-cretismbetweenexclusiveandthirdperson.Itis,forexample,foundinShuswap,aSalishlanguagefromCanada.NoneoftheotherSalishlanguageshasanoppositionbetweeninclusiveandexclusive,anditisconsequentlynotpartofareconstructionofthepronominalelementsofProto-Salish(Newman1980:156;Davis2000).InShuswap,however,thethirdpersonsuffix-əsisalsousedfortheexclusive;theinclu-siveismarkedby-ət,theequivalentoftheProto-Salishfirstpersonpluralsuffix*-at.Thesyncretismbetweenexclusiveandthirdpersoncanoptionallybedisambigu-atedbythemorphologicallyindependentelementkwəxwfortheexclusive(Kuipers1974:45,59).9Theoriginofthisconstructionisnotyetconclusivelyresolved.vanEijk(thisvolume)arguesthattheexistenceofclusivityinShuswapistheresultofinfluencebyneighbouringAlgonquianlanguages.VanEijkproposesthattheinde-pendentelementkwəxwisrelatedtotheproto-Salishsecondpersonsubjectclitic

*kəxw.ThisclitichasbeenreanalysedasafirstpersonmarkerkwuinKalispelandOkanogan.InShuswap,thecombinationofthispersonmarkerwithathirdpersoninflectedverbresultsinanexclusivereference.10Anotherexampleofthissyncre-tisminAmericaisattestedinKiowa,aTanoanlanguageofSouthwesternUSA.InKiowa,theexclusiveagentprefixè- isidenticaltotheinversethirdpersonmarking(Watkins1984:113).InthecloselyrelatedlanguageSouthernTiwa,whichdoesnotmarkclusivity,thefirstandthirdpersonnon-singularareidentical(in-fordualandi-forplural,AllenandFrantz1978:11).ThiscorrespondenceisanalysedbyWat-kins(1984:127–8)asasignofthehistoricalrelationshipbetweenthelanguages.

TwootherexamplesofthissyncretismcomefromNewGuinea,yet fromop-positecornersofthislinguisticallydiverseisland.First,itisattestedinBinandere,a Goilalan language from southeastern New Guinea. There are many different

1st proofs




tense-aspectvariantsoftheverbalpersonsuffixesinthislanguage,butinalltheseparadigms,theexclusiveisidenticaltothethirdpersonplural.Thelargevarietyofparadigmsshowingthissyncretisminthislanguageindicatesthatitisnotarecentmergerbutastructuralpropertyofthelanguage(Capell1969:16–31;seealsoSec-tion3.2).Twocloselyrelatedlanguages,Orokaiva(Healeyetal.1969:62)andKo-rafe(FarrandFarr1975:747–9),bothhaveacomparablesyncretismbetweenfirstpersonpluralandthirdpersonpluralbutwithoutaseparateinclusive.Second,asyncretismbetweenexclusiveandthirdpersonsingularisattestedinHatam,aWestPapuanlanguagefromtheBird’sHead,thenorthwesternendofNewGuinea.Theinalienablepossessionprefixforbothexclusiveandthirdpersonsingularreferenceisni(p)-.Theverbalsubjectprefixesarealmostidenticaltotheseprefixesforinalien-ablepossession,yetthethirdpersonsingularonverbsiszero,sothattheexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretismisnotfoundinthesubjectprefixes(Reesink1999:48,51).

Finally,Iknowoftwocaseswithanexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretisminAfrica.InDiola-Fogny,anAtlantic(Niger-Congo)languagefromSenegal,verbshavepre-fixalboundpronouns(cf.Section4.2above).Theshortversionsoftheseprefixesshowaprefixa-thatisusedforbothexclusiveandthirdpersonsingular.Thisrecentmergerisnotdisambiguatedbyanyotherlinguisticmaterial(Sapir1965:90–1).InBuduma,aChadic(Afro-Asiatic)languagefromChad/Nigeria,boththeexclusiveandthethirdpersonpluralaremarkedwiththeprefixyə-andthissyncretismisnormallynotdisambiguatedbythelinguisticmarking(Awagana2001:62–3).SuchasyncretismisnotfoundinanyotherChadiclanguage.

5.4. Summary

Therearefifteenexampleswithasyncretismbetweentheinclusiveandthethirdperson,asdescribedinSection5.2.Amongthese,thereisonenarrowgeneticfam-ilyinwhichallmembershavethesamesyncretism(theTannalanguages).Insomeofthefifteenlanguages,thesyncretismisobligatorilydisambiguated(inparticularinHuave),butinmostcasesthisdoesnotseemtobethecase.InNalik,thissyncre-tismappearstobeacompletelynormalandacceptedpartofthelinguisticaware-nesswithinthespeechcommunity.ThiscanbeconcludedfromthefactthatthesamesyncretismistakenoverintotheirdialectofTokPisin.Ingeneral,thesyncre-tismbetweeninclusiveandthirdpersonisjustascommonandnormalastheinclu-sive/secondpersonsyncretismthathasbeendiscussedinSection4.2.

Thesetofsyncretismsbetweenexclusiveandthirdperson,asdescribedinSec-tion5.3,hasthesamecharacteristics.Thereareslightlymoreexampleswiththissyncretism(nineteenlanguages)duetoitswidespreadoccurrenceintheCaribfam-ily.IntheCaribanlanguages,thesyncretismisregularlydisambiguatedbyuseofanindependentpronounfortheexclusive.However,thesyncretismisnotobligatorilydisambiguatedintheremainingfourexamples,whicharefoundwidelydispersedthroughouttheworld’slanguages.Tosummarise,thereseemstobenotypologicalreasontoconsidereithertheinclusive/thirdpersonortheexclusive/thirdperson

1st proofs



102 MichaelCysouw

syncretismtobemorecommonthantheotherormorecommonthantheprevi-ouslydiscussedsyncretismsinclusive/secondpersonandexclusive/secondperson.

6. Mixes of inclusive and exclusive

6.1. Introduction

Thefinalvariantsofsyncretisminvolvingclusivitytobediscussedinthischapteraresyncretismsbetweeninclusiveandexclusivereference.ThemostobviouskindofsuchasyncretismisamorphemesliketheEnglishpronounwe,whichisusedforallinclusiveandallexclusivereference.Suchsyncretismsarecommonandwillnotfurtherbeconsideredherebecausethereissimplynoclusivitymarkedatall.Inthissection,caseswillbeconsideredinwhichthereisclusivitymarkedinsomesense,butthedifferencebetweenthevariousmorphemesinvolveddonotfollowalongthestandarddivisionbetweeninclusiveandexclusive.11Thebestwaytoap-proachthesecuriousdivisionsisbystartingfromaminimal-augmentedpersonmarkingsystem.Inaminimal-augmentedsystem,therearethreedifferentformsfor‘we’.First,thereisthe‘minimalinclusive’,whichisonlyusedwithreferencetothespeech-actdyadofspeakerandoneaddressee—alsocalled‘dualinclusive’.Sec-ond,thereisthe‘augmentedinclusive’,whichisusedforallotherinclusivereference.This‘pluralinclusive’isusedwithreferencetothreeormoreparticipants,includ-ingatleastthespeakerandtheaddressee.Thethirdformfor‘we’inaminimal-aug-mentedsystemistheexclusive.Suchadivisioniswell-attestedworld-wide(Cysouw2003:139–40).Onthebasisofthistripartitedivision,twodifferentkindsofsyncre-tismcanbecharacterised.Ontheonehand,therearelanguagesinwhichthemin-imalinclusiveiscombinedwiththeexclusiveintothereferentialvalueofonemor-pheme;adifferentmorphememarksfortheaugmentedinclusiveonly(Section6.2).Ontheotherhand,therearecasesinwhichtheaugmentedinclusiveiscombinedwithexclusive,incontrasttoaseparatelymarkedminimalinclusive(Section6.3).

6.2. Minimalinclusive=exclusive

ThebestdescribedcaseofasyncretismbetweenminimalinclusiveandexclusiveisattestedinGooniyandi,anon-Pama-NyunganlanguagefromnorthwesternAus-tralia.Theminimal-inclusive/exclusivepronounisngidiandtheaugmentedinclu-sivepronounisyaadi(McGregor1989;1990:167–73).McGregorusestheterms‘re-stricted’and‘unrestricted’,respectively,torefertothesecrosslinguisticallyunusualcombinationsofreferentialvalues.ExactlythesamedistinctionifattestedinthecloselyrelatedlanguageBunaba(Rumsey2000:70–2).InBunaba,theminimal-in-clusive/exclusivecombinationisexpressedbythepronounngiyirri.Thetwodiffer-entmeaningsofthispronounareoptionallydisambiguatedbyadualsuffix-wayorapluralsuffix-yani.ThepronounforaugmentedinclusiveinBunabaisyaarri.

1st proofs




InbothGooniyandiandBunaba,theverbalinflectionshowsthesamesyncretism(Rumsey2000:80–8;McGregor1990).

TheGooniyandi-type syncretism is rarecross-linguistically,yet it isnotcom-pletelyunheardof.AnotherexampleofthissyncretismisfoundinYaouré,aMandelanguagefromIvoryCoast.TherearetwodifferentformsforthefirstpersonpluralwithadivisionofmeaningthatisaliketotheoneinGooniyandi:“kàà,whichhasaninclusivereference(thespeakerandagroupoflisteners)andkʊ̄,whichhaseitheradualreference(youandI)oranexclusivereference(theothersandI)” (Hop-kins1986:192).Thepronounkààistheoddoneout,asitsmorphophonologicalbehaviourisdifferentfromallotherpronouns.Probably,thispronounisarecentadditiontothepronominalparadigm.ThesyncretismasfoundinYaouréisasin-gularityamongtheMandelanguages—noothercaseispresentlyknowninthisfamily(V.Vydrine,p.c.).However,therearesomeotherMandelanguagesthathavea(non-syncreted)minimal-augmentedparadigm,viz.Dan(Doneux1968:45–7)andNorthernLooma(V.Vydrine,p.c.;cf.Greenberg1988:2,citingProst1967).

AlsoinAfrica,thoughcompletelyunrelatedtotheMandelanguages,thissamestructureisfoundintwoneighbouring,butunrelated,languagesinsouthernChad.Theoccurenceofthisunusualstructureinthesetwolanguagesmakesagoodargu-mentforarealinfluence.BothTumak(aChadiclanguage,belongingtotheAfro-Asiatic stock)andSar (aSara-Bagirmi language,belonging to theNilo-Saharanstock)havetwodifferentpronounstobetranslatedintoEnglishaswe.InTumak,thepronounnàisglossedas‘nous(duelouexclusif)’andthepronoundìisglossedas‘nous(inclusif)’(Caprile1975:31).Thefirstpronounisusedforalldualreferenceandallexclusivereference,whichboilsdowntothesamethingthathasbeencalledminimal-inclusive/exclusivesyncretismhere.Thesecondpronounisprobablyonlyusedforinclusiveswithmorethanthreepersons(althoughthesourceisnotexplicitinthispoint).InSar,thepronounjìiisglossedasinclusiveandthepronounjììasex-clusive,thoughitisaddedthatalldualreferenceisdonewiththeexclusivepronoun(Palayer1989:202).Thedistinctionbetweenthetwoformsismadeevenmoreexpli-citinthediscussionoftheverbalinflection,whereitissaidthattheprefixj-isusedforthedualinclusiveandallexclusivereference,andthecircumfixj-. . .-iisusedfortheinclusiveplural,therebeingthreeormorereferents(Palayer1989:208).

Finally,thesameminimal-inclusive/exclusivesyncretismisalsofoundinthein-dependentpronounsfromKunimaipa,aGoilalanlanguagefromthesoutheasterntipofPapuaNewGuinea.Inthislanguage,therearetwodifferentformsfor‘we’.Thepronoun reiisusedforthecombinationminimalinclusiveandexclusive.Thepronounrariisusedfortheaugmentedinclusive(Pence1968;Geary1977:17–18).Thereisanoptionalsuffix-pi,adual/trialmarker.Thecombinationrari-piisanin-clusivetrial.However,thisnumbersuffixcannotbeusedfordisambiguationofthedifferentmeaningsofthepronounreiasthepronounrei-pihasonlydualreference(bothminimalinclusiveandexclusivedual,Geary1977:17).Thisbivalentdual/trialusageofthesuffix-piindicatesthatthereisarelationtoaso-calledunit-augmentedparadigm,withthesuffix-pimarkingunit-augmented(cf.McKay1978).Thisis

1st proofs



104 MichaelCysouw

confirmedbythecloselyrelatedlanguageWeri,whichhasaunit-augmentedtypeparadigmwithasuffix-ipmarkingunit-augmented(Boxwell1967:36).Thepar-ticularsyncretismofKunimaipaisprobablytheresultofamergerofanerstwhileminimal-augmentedparadigm.

6.3. Augmentedinclusive=exclusive

Greenberg(1988:9)wasthefirsttoexplicitlynotethepossibilityofacontrastbe-tweenminimalinclusive(‘Iandyou’)ontheonehandandasyncretismofaug-mentedinclusive(‘I,youandother’)andexclusive(‘Iandothers’)ontheotherhand.Hecalledthisstructurethe‘Assiniboine-type’aftertheSiouanlanguageinwhichheobservedthisphenomenon.InAssiniboine,thesyncretismisproducedbythespe-cialusageofthepluralsuffix-pi.Thepronominalprefixu̹k- isusedforallfirstper-sonpluralreference.Thepluralsuffix-piisnormallyusedtogetherwithu̹k-,ex-ceptincaseofminimalinclusivereference(Levin1964:31–2).TheindependentpronounsofAssiniboinearemadefromthesameaffixesandshowthesamestruc-ture(Greenberg1989:457).ThesituationisidenticalinthecloselyrelatedSiouanlanguageLakhota.Boththeverbalinflection(RoodandTaylor1996:465)aswellastheindependentpronouns(VanValin1977:74–5;cf.RoodandTaylor1996:454)showthisparticularsyncretism.AlsotheprefixesfromIoway/Otoshowthesamestructure(Whitman1947:242).Themainpointofdoubtremainsabouttheoblig-atorinessandreferenceofthecrucialnumbersuffix-pi.Forexample,Rood(1996:469)notesthatthesuffix-piinLakhotaisusedwithobjectreferenceintransitiveconstructions.Ifthissuffixisnotobligatorilycoreferentialwiththepersonprefixes(andthesourcesarenotveryexplicitinthisrespect),thentheseexamplesarenotprimecasesofanaugmentedinclusive/exclusivesyncretism.

Even if the Siouan cases would be disqualified, there are still some other ex-amplesofthissyncretismattestedintheworld’slanguages.Theclearestcasesarefoundamongthenon-Pama-NyunganlanguagesinnorthwesternAustralia.IknowofexamplesinTiwi(Tiwian),Burarra(Burarran)andinvariousNyulnyulanlan-guages.InTiwi,theindependentpronounmuwaisusedforminimalinclusiveandthe pronoun ngawa is used for the combination augmented inclusive/exclusive(Lee1987:101).InthedescriptionofTiwibyOsborne(1974:54),apronounngaghaisobservedforaugmentedinclusive.Thedifferencebetweenthetwodescriptionsmightbeaccountedforbydialectaldifferencesoritcouldbetheresultofrecentchanges.Inyoungpeople’sspeech(asdescribedbyLee1987),thelossofthemark-ingofclusivityhasprogressedevenfurther.Theminimalinclusivemuwahasbeenlostaswell,whichresultsinacompletelossofanymarkingofclusivityintheinde-pendentpronouns(Lee1987:101–3).InBurarra,theminimalinclusivepronounisngarripa.Thereferentialstructureofthecombinedaugmentedinclusive/exclusivepronounissomewhatcomplicatedbytheexistenceofaunit-augmentedseriesintheparadigm(cf.McKay1978).Thecombinationunit-augmented-inclusive/exclu-sive-dualismarkedbythepronounnga-tippaandthecombinationaugmented-in-

1st proofs




clusive/exclusive-plural is marked by the pronoun nga-yburrpa (Glasgow 1964:110–11;1984:15).ThissyncretisminBurarraisdisambiguatedbytheuseofper-sonprefixes.However,theseprefixeshaveasyncretismbetweenexclusiveandsec-ondperson(seeSection4.4above).ComparisonwiththecloselyrelatedlanguageNdjébbana(McKay2000:171,203)showsthatthissyncretismprobablyaroserela-tivelyrecentlybyamergerofalamino-palatalandadorso-velarnasal.

OthercasesofthissyncretisminAustraliaareattestedintheNyulnyulanlan-guages.TheclearestcaseisthesubjectprefixesfromBardi.InBardi,theminimalin-clusiveprefixisa-andtheprefixforthecombinationaugmented-inclusive/exclu-siveisaŋ-(Metcalfe1975:123).Thissyncretismcanoptionallybedisambiguatedbytheuseofindependentpronouns,whichshowacompleteminimal-augmentedparadigm(Metcalfe1975:49–50,203).12Thisparticularsyncretismisindirectlyat-testedinthelanguageNyulnyul,inwhichthemarkingisstructurallyidenticaltotheexamplesoftheSiouanlanguagesasdiscussedabove.InNyulnyul,thepronom-inalprefixesthemselvesdonotshowthesyncretism—theprefixya-simplymarksforallfirstpersonpluralreference(McGregor1996:40–1).ButMcGregornotesthatthepluralmarkingcanbeleftoutforminimalinclusivereference:“[ya-]oc-casionallyoccurswithoutthenumbermarkingprefix[-rr-]whenitreferstothespeaker-hearerdyad:thatis,whenreferenceismadetothe1&2minimalcategory”(McGregor1996:40).However,judgingfromtheexampleshownin(2),itisnotob-ligatoryforpluralmarkingtobeleftoutwithminimalinclusivereference.Thissyn-cretismisnotattestedinyetanotherNyulnyulanlanguage,Warrwa.Inthislanguage,thereisaregulardifferencebetweenaninclusiveya-andanexclusivenga/ka-prefix(McGregor1994:41,seealsoSection3.2).

(2) Nyulnyul(McGregor1996:42)ngay a juy ya-li‑rr-jid derby-ung1sg.pronconj2sg.pron1pl-irr-pl-goplace-all“YouandImightgotoDerby.”

Further,therearetwocasesofthissyncretisminNewGuinea.Oneexampleisat-testedinKunimaipa,aGoilalanlanguagefromSoutheasternPapuaNewGuinea.Intheimperfect,asuffix-painemarksforminimalinclusiveandasuffix-kamarksforthecombinationaugmentedinclusive/exclusive.Thesamesyncretismisalsoat-testedintheperfectsuffixes,yetherethereferentialvaluesofthesuffixesareevenmoremessedup(Pence1968:110;Geary1977:26).TheotherexampleisfoundintheindependentpronounsofHatam,aWestPapuanlanguagefromtheBird’sHead(thewesternmostpartofNewGuinea).TherearetwopronounstobetranslatedintoEnglishasweinHatam.InReesink(1999:40–1),thepronounsa(ni)issimplyglossedas‘dual’withoutfurtherspecification,butinReesink(2002:3)itisexplicitlynotedthatthispronounisonlyusedfordualinclusive.Theremainingcombinationofaugmentedinclusiveandexclusiveismarkedbythepronounnye(ni).

ThefinalexamplesofthiskindofsyncretismcomefromAmerica.InGuató,aMacro-GélanguagefromBrazil, thepronominal inflectionisamixofpre-and

1st proofs



106 MichaelCysouw

suffixes.Clusivityismarkedbytwoprefixes,theprefixga-forminimalinclusiveandtheprefixdʒa- fortheremainingcombinationofaugmentedinclusiveandexclu-sivereference.Theindependentpronounsconsistofthesamepersonmarkersaffi-gatedtoaroot-ó(kó)-andshowthesamesyncretism(Palácio1986:366–70).ThisstructureofGuatóappearstobeasingularitywithintheMacro-Gélanguages(Ro-drigues1999:186–7).Finally,inPech,aChibchanlanguagefromHonduras,thepronounpatàsisglossedas“dual”andthepronoununtàsas“plural”(Holt1999:40).However,inthediscussionoftheverbalinflection,itismadeexplicitthatthegloss

“dual”isonlyashorthandfor“first-person-dual-[inclusive]”,13whichmeansthattheotherpronounprobablyhasacombinedaugmentedinclusive/exclusivereference(Holt1999:49).

6.4. Summary

Therearesixlanguagespresentlyknowntomeofthepeculiarsyncretism,whichcombinesthereferenceofminimalinclusive(‘youandI’)withthereferenceofex-clusiveintothemarkingofonemorpheme.Theotherstructure,combiningaug-mentedinclusivewithexclusive,islikewiseuncommon—elevenexamplesareat-tested.However,bothsetsoflanguagesaregeographicallyandgeneticallydiverse,whichwarrantstheconclusionthatbothsyncretismsarerealpossibilitiesofhumanlanguage,albeitrareones.

Incontrasttothesyncretismbetweenclusivityandsecond/thirdperson,therearemanyexamplesofindependentpronounsamongthepresentedmixesofinclu-siveandexclusivereference.Fiveoutofsixlanguageswiththeminimal-inclusive/exclusivemixhavethissyncretismintheirindependentpronouns.Theothersyn-cretismisattestedinindependentpronounsinsevenoutofelevenlanguages.

7. Analysis of the syncretisms attested

Intotal,122casesofasyncretisminvolvingclusivityhavebeendiscussedinthischapter,assummarisedinTable1(seetheappendixforacompletelisting).How-ever,manyoftheselanguageshavebeenmentionedtwice(viz.theAlgonquianlan-guages,theTannalanguages,Huave,Binandere,Kiowa,Diola-Fogny,Burarra,Buma,andKunimaipa),onelanguagehasbeenmentionedthreetimes(Hatam)andonelanguagehasevenbeenmentionedfourtimes(Tiwi).Subtractingthese,thereareninety-ninedifferentlanguagesthathave(atleast)oneofthesyncretismsdiscussed.Relativetothe6,703languagesasmentionedinthethirteentheditionoftheEthno-logue(Grimes1996:955),thisamountsto1.5%oftheworld’slanguages.IexpecttheretobemorecasesamongtheAustronesianlanguagesandamongthenon-Aus-tronesianlanguagesofNewGuinea.AlsointheTibeto-BurmanfamilyandamongthenativelanguagesofMesoamericaIexpectmorelanguageswithsyncretismstoexistthanhavebeensummarisedhere.Myinformedguessisthatthekindofsyn-

1st proofs




cretismsthatwerediscussedinthischapteraretobefoundinabout2to3percentoftheworld’slanguages.Thislowproportionindicatesthatthephenomenonre-viewedinthischapteristypologicallyrareamongtheworld’slanguages.Still,2to3percentoftheworld’slanguagesrepresentahighnumberofcases.Thisindicatesthatitisnotatallimpossibleforahumanlanguagetohaveanyofthesesyncretismsreviewed.Evenstronger,giventhatonlyabout40%oftheworld’slanguageshavesomekindofclusivity(cf.Nichols&Bickel,thisvolume;Siewierska&Bakker,thisvolume),thepresentninety-ninecasesare3.7%ofalllanguageswithsomekindofclusivity.Incorporatingafactortwoforallyetunknownorundescribedcases,thisamountstoabout7%ofthelanguageswithsomekindofclusivity.Suchpropor-tionsareatleastworththeestablishmentofasub-class.

Thereisaclearasymmetrybetweentheinclusive/firstpersonandtheexclusive/firstpersonsyncretism.Theinclusive/firstpersonsyncretismonlyoccursinonein-cidentalcase.Incontrast,theexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismisrelativelywide-spread.Itisattestedinfourtylanguagesbelongingtotwenty-onedifferentlinguis-ticfamilies.Thisindicatesthattheexclusivecanbeseenasakindoffirstperson,buttheinclusivecannot.Theexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismisevenattestedinthein-dependentpronounsoffifteenlanguages.Iassumethatspeakersofalanguagearemuchmoreconsciouslyawareoftheirindependentpronounsthanoftheirinflec-tionalpersonmarking.Underthisassumption,theubiquityofexclusive/firstper-sonsyncretismsamongindependentpronounsemphasisestheconclusionthattheexclusiveisakindoffirstperson(cf.Daniel,thisvolume).

Theoccurrencesofthenextfoursyncretisms(inclusive/secondperson,exclu-sive/secondperson, inclusive/thirdpersonandexclusive/thirdperson)arestrik-ingly similar. Each of these syncretisms is attested in about fifteen languagesbelongingtoabouteightfamilies.Theyoccurthusclearlylessoftenthantheexclu-sive/firstpersonsyncretism.Still,allfoursyncretismsoccurinvariouscases,welldispersedthroughouttheworld’slanguages.Foreachsyncretism,thereisalsoat

Table 1. Summaryofexamplesdiscussed

No.offamilies

No.oflanguages

Independentpronouns

Inflectionalmarking

Inclusive=firstperson 1 1 0 1Exclusive=firstperson 21 40 15 32Inclusive=secondperson 9 14 2 13Exclusive=secondperson 7 16 1 15Inclusive=thirdperson 8 15 1 15Exclusive=thirdperson 7 19 0 19Minimalinclusive=exclusive 5 6 5 4Augmentedinclusive=exclusive 8 11 7 9Total 66 122 31 109(Multipleoccurrencessubtracted) (46) (99) (31) (91)

1st proofs



108 MichaelCysouw

leastonegroupofgeneticallyrelatedlanguagesinwhichthesyncretismiswide-spread,whichindicatesthatallfoursyncretismsarenotnecessarilydiachronicallyinstable.Finally,almostallexamplesarefoundininflectionalparadigms—theex-amplesamongindependentpronounsareincidentalcases.Theimportantconclu-sionthatcanbedrawnfromtheseoccurrencesisthatthesemanticallytransparentcombinations(inclusive/secondpersonandexclusive/thirdperson)arenotdiffer-entfromthesemanticallyopaquecombinations(inclusive/thirdpersonandexclu-sive/secondperson).

Thelasttwosyncretismsdiscussedshowanunusualcombinationofcharacter-istics.Theyarebothreallyrare,justafewexamplesbelongingtoafewfamiliesareattested,yetthesefewexamplesarefoundinallcornersoftheworld.Thereasonsforboththesesyncretismsarethusmorethanincidental.Thefactthatbothsyncre-tismsareratheroftenattestedamongindependentpronounsstressesthefactthatthesesyncretismsarearealpossibilityoflinguisticstructure,albeitrareones.InthenextsectionIwilldiscussthevariousexplanationsthathavebeenbroughtforwardfortheexistenceofthesesyncretisms.

8. Explaining the anomalies

Thequestionnowremainswhytheuncommonsyncretismsexist.AsIhaveshown,variouskindsofsyncretismsinvolvingclusivityareuncommon,yettheyexistinmorethanonecase(soitisnotenoughtoinvokecoincidencetoexplaintheexist-ence)invariousgeographicallydispersedpartoftheworld(soonecannotresorttocontactforanexplanation).Toexplaintheexistenceofthevarioussyncretisms,itispossibletouseadiachronicorasynchronicperspective.

Fromadiachronicperspective,anexplanationamountstoclarifyinghowasyn-cretismarose.Amongthesyncretismsreviewedinthischapter,byfarthemostori-ginatedbyanaccidentalmerger(whendiachronicorcomparativedataisavailableatall).Onlyafewexamplesgivesomeindicationofotherpossiblesourceofasyn-cretism.ForCaddo,Chafe(1990)arguesthattheinclusivewasoriginallyadefocus-ingmarker.Asthismarkerwasreanalysedasaninclusive,theformerlyfirstpersonmarker(usedforbothsingularandplural)wasreducedtoonlythefirstpersonsin-gularandtheexclusiveusage.Thedevelopmentresultedisanexclusive/firstper-sonsyncretism.FortheMixtecanlanguages,Iargued(seeSection3.2)thatthefor-merlyexclusivepronounwasreanalysedasafirstpersonhumblemarker.Thefirstpersonsingularextendeditsmeaningtoincludeexclusivereference,leadingtoanexclusive/firstpersonsyncretism.ForCarib,Meira(2002:257)andS.Gildea(p.c.)proposethatthefirstpersonpluralpronounwasoriginallyanoun,whichhadthirdpersonagreementonverbs.Asthisnoungrammaticalisedtobecomeanexclusivepronoun,itretainedthethirdpersonagreement.Thisresultsinanexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretismintheCaribverbalinflection.However,thisproposalfortheor-iginoftheexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretisminCaribisnotbasedonanycompar-

1st proofs




ativeevidence.ItisaspeculationaboutapossiblestructureinPre-Proto-Caribtoexplainthecurrentsyncretedstructure.Finally,onecouldspeculatethatapartofanerstwhiletransparentcombinationlosesitsperson-markingstatus.Forexample,therearevariousexamplesofafirstandasecondpersonmarkerforminganinclu-sive(seeSection4.3).Ifthefirstpersonmarkerwouldloseitsperson-markingvalue,aninclusive/secondpersonsyncretismremains.SuchahistorymightbefruitfultoexplaintheoriginoftheAlgonquianinclusive/secondpersonsyncretism.

Irrespectiveoforigin,itisalsoaninterestingquestionwhataparticularsyncre-tismsynchronicallymeansforthespeakerofalanguage.Thecommonoccurrenceoftheexclusive/firstpersonsyncretismcanreadilybeexplainedsemantically.Anexclusivecanbeanalysedasanassociativeplural,inwhichthefirstpersonisthefocalreferent.The‘others’,whichareincludedinthereferenceoftheexclusivearenon-focalparticipantsinthespeechact.Itissemanticallypossible—andempir-icallywidespread—foralanguagetoreducethemarkingoftheexclusivetoitsfo-calreferentonly,i.e.thefirstpersonsingular.Inthesamevein,itistemptingtopro-posesemanticreasonsforthetransparentinclusive/secondperson(cf.Daniel,thisvolume)andexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretisms.However,theempiricalstatusofthesesyncretismsismuchmoredoubtfulcomparedtotheexclusive/firstpersonsyncretism.Assetoutabove,thereareclearlylesscasesandtherearealmostnoexamplesofindependentpronounsshowingthesesyncretism.However,themainreasontoobjecttoasemanticanalysisofthesecombinationsisthatthenon-trans-parentsyncretisms(inclusive/thirdpersonandexclusive/secondperson)arejustasfrequentasthesemanticallytransparentones.

Rodrigues(1990)searchedforanexplanationoftheinclusive/thirdpersonsyn-cretism,whichhedescribedforTupínambá.Heanalysedthecorrespondencebe-tweeninclusiveandthirdusingthenotion‘nocontrastbetweenspeakerandhearer’.Boththeinclusiveaswellasthethirdpersontreatspeakerandaddresseealike,byeitherincludingboth(inclusive)orexcludingboth(thirdperson).Incombinationwithanotionoffocus,Rodriguesclaimstobeabletoexplainthesyncretismat-testedinTupínambá:

Theverbalpersonmarkero-meansthatthirdpersonisinfocusandthatthereisnocontrastbetweenthespeakerandthehearer;thatistosay,itmeans{(you,I,andhe)+f}aswellas{he+f}.Analogously,ya-meansthatthirdpersonisoutoffocusandthatthereisnocontrastbetweenthespeakerandthehearer;itmeans{(youandI)+f

andhe-f}. (Rodrigues1990:402)

Althoughthisreasoningis interesting, it isquestionablewhethersuchageneralsemantic explanation is the right approach. If this explanation makes sense forhumanlanguage,thenwhyisthissyncretismnotattestedmuchmorecommonlyamongtheworld’slanguages?ThesameproblemoccurswiththeexplanationputforwardforthespecialsyncretismofGooniyandi(seeSection6.2)byMcGregor(1996).14Heproposesthattheparticulardifferencebetweenyaadiandngidi canbeexplainedasaspecialkindofinclusive/exclusiveopposition,withthedifference

1st proofs



110 MichaelCysouw

thattheinclusive(yaadi)hastoincludemorethanoneaddresseeandtheexclusive(ngidi)onlyexcludesgroupsofmorethanoneaddressee,butstillincludesreferencetooneaddressee:

Thusthesystemcanberegardedasaninclusive/exclusiveone.Whatisdifferentfromthetraditionalorclassicalinclusive/exclusivesystemliesinthenaturetothethingthatisincludedorexcluded:inthetraditionalsystemitisthehearerorad-dressee;intheBunabansystemitisthehearers,anaugmentedgroupofaddressees.Inthetraditionalinclusive/exclusivesystemyou-singularisthe‘pivot’;intheBuna-bansystemitisyou-non-singular,oryou-augmented. (McGregor1996:166)

Againmycriticism:ifitisindeedpossibleforhumanlanguagetoinvokethecross-linguisticallywidespreadsemanticcategoryof‘you-non-singular’todefinethein-clusive/exclusiveopposition,thenwhyisthisnotmoreregularlyattestedamongtheworld’slanguages?

Toconclude,explanationsshouldalwayshavetherightlevelofgeneralisation.Typological research is indispensable for determining the level of explanation,whichisneededtoexplainaparticularphenomenoninaparticularlanguage.Ifthephenomenonisrarecross-linguistically,thentheexplanationshouldnotinvokeuniversalcharacteristics,butuseidiosyncraticreasonsfromtheculturalorlinguis-tichistoryofthelanguageanditsspeakers.Onlyifaphenomenoniscommoncross-linguistically,generalsemantic,functionalorstructuralexplanationsmakesense.

Acknowledgements

ThebasicworkonthischapterhasbeenconductedwhileIwasattheZentrumfürallgemeineSprachwissenschft(ZAS)inBerlin.Further,IamverygratefultoHeinSteinhauer,whofirstdirectedmyattentiontothestrangesyncretisminKisar.Thisexampleurgedmetolookfurther,ultimatelyresultinginthepresentcollection.Mi-shaDanielreadearlierversionsofthischapterwithgreatcare,asIdidwithhischapterinthisvolume.Wediscussedourdifferencesofopinionextensively,withtheresultthatnotmuchofthemremained.Further,Ithank(inalphabeticalorder)GeorgevanDriem,JanvanEijk,AonevanEngelenhoven,ElenaFilimonova,SpikeGildea,TomGüldemann,SérgioMeira,EdithMoravcsik,IrinaNikolaeva,RichardRhodes,andValentinVydrineforhelpwiththemanydetailsofthepresentchapter.Notwithstandingtheirimportantinput,thepresentcontentremainscompletelymyownresponsibility.

Notes1. ItremainsunclearfromthedescriptionbyLipkind(1945)whethertheWinnebagoin-clusiveprefixisonlyusedfortheminimalinclusiveoralsofortheaugmentedinclusive(cf.Section6.3forotherSiouanlanguagesthatmakethisdifference).Greenberg(1988:4–5,cit-ingSusman1943)claimsindeedthattheinclusiveprefixcanbeusedforbothkindsofin-clusive.

1st proofs




2. Veerman-Leichsenring(2000)doesnotusetheterm‘inclusive’.Sheprobablydecidedtousetheterm‘collective’instead,becausethis‘inclusive’isnotafirstpersonpluralinChocho,butaseparatecategoryofperson(p.322).Thisiscompletelyinconcordwithmyargumen-tation.However,Iholdontotheterm‘inclusive’andaddthataninclusiveisnotnormallyakindoffirstpersonplural.3. Notethat‘theforms[withinclusiveinflection]aresimilartothoseofthethirdpersonmasculinedual...butdifferfromtheminmanycasesbyalwayshavinganaccentontheaoftheactormorpheme’(Anceaux1965:85–6).4. FromthesurveybyVoorhoeve(1975:438–9)oftheSouthBird’sHeadfamily(partofthepurportedTransNew-Guineastock),itappearsasifthelanguagePuragihasanindepend-entpronounididithatisusedbothforinclusiveandforsecondpersonplural.However,thisappearstobeanerror.Intheoriginalsource(Cowan1953:22),thesecondpersonpluralisthesameasinVoorhoeve’ssurvey(thoughwrittenidjidji),butthe inclusiveturnsouttobenidjidji.Probably,themissinginitialnasalisaprintingerrorinVoorhoeve’sarticle.5. TheoccurrenceoftheshortversionoftheprefixesinDiola-Fognyisanalysedasfollows:‘Thefullformisused...whentheverbisneithercontingentnornegative,andwhenitdoesnottakeasecondpositionprefixortheverbalprocliticconnectivesmanandban.Inallothersituationsthestrippedformisused....Thestrippedformmaysubstituteforthefullformdependingonthecontext.Thistransformationindicatesanimperative,aninterrogativeorthefactthatemphasisisplacedonthesubject’(Sapir1965:90–1).6. Khoekhoe is the new name that the speakers themselves chose instead of the formerdoublenameNama/Damara.Ratherconfusingly,thenameKhoekhoeisusedforthelan-guageandKhoeforitslinguisticfamily,formerlycalledCentralKhoisan.7. ThesyncretismbetweenexclusiveandthirdpersonissoubiquitousamongtheCaribanlanguagesthatitissometimestakenforgrantedbythespecialistinthefield.Somedescrip-tionsdonot,oronlycovertly,notethesyncretism.Itisnotnotedatall,forexample,byGildea(1998),norinapaperonTiriyóbyMeira(2000a:202–4),thoughinanotherpaper(Meira2000b:62),heconfirmsthatthereisanexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretisminTiriyó.Inapa-peronthereconstructionoftheproto-Caribindependentpronouns,thesyncretedinflec-tionismentionedinafootnote(Meira2002:257,n.3).InthedescriptionofthelanguageCarib(=Kariña)byHoff,theexistenceofthesyncretismisalsohiddenawayinafootnote(Hoff1968:164,n.44).8. Derbyshire(1999)alsoincludesApalaiinhislistofCaribanlanguageswithanexclusive/thirdpersonsyncretism.However,thedescriptionbyKoehnandKoehn(1986:108)men-tionstwodifferentforms,viz.exclusiveynan(y)-andthirdpersonn(y)-.9. Thelabialisation,asindicatedbythesuperscriptwiswrittenasasuperscriptcircleintheoriginalsourceonShuswapbyKuipers(1974).10. IftheShuswappronounkwəxwcanbeanalysedasbeingoriginallyafirstpersonmark-ing,thentheexclusivereferenceinShuswapismarkedbyasemanticallytransparentcom-binationoffirstandthirdpersonreference.Thiswouldthennotcountasanexclusive/thirdsyncretism,justliketransparentinclusives(madefromacombinationoffirstandsecondpersonmarkers)weredismissedinSection4.3.11. Thereareafewcasesinwhichclusivityismarkedinarestrictedpartoftheperson-mark-ingparadigmonly.Thesewillnotbeconsideredhereasexamplesofsyncretism.Clusivityintheplural,butnotinthedualisfoundintheindependentpronounsfromGugu-Yalanji

1st proofs



112 MichaelCysouw

(Pama-Nyungan,Australia,OatesandOates1964:7),Jiarong(Tibeto-Burman,China,Bau-man1975:131–2,276),Tuaripi(Eleman,PapuaNewGuinea,Wurm1975:515),Guhu-Sa-mane(Binanderean,PapuaNewGuinea,Richard1975:781)andKorafe(Binanderean,Pa-puaNewGuinea,FarrandFarr1975:734–5).Therearealsoafewcasesinwhichclusivityismarkedinthedual,butnotintheplural.ThisisfoundintheindependentpronounsfromSamo(CentralandSouthNewGuinea,PapuaNewGuinea,Voorhoeve1975:391–2)andinthepronominalprefixesfromtheextinctlanguageCoos(CoastOregon,USA,Frachten-berg1922:321).12. Greenberg(1989),afterdiscussingthecaseofBardi,alsonotesthesamestructureinalanguagecalled“Dampierland”(citingCappell1956:87).Thisappearstobethesamelan-guageasBardi.13. Infact,thereisanerrorinthesourcehere,asitliterallysays“thefirst-person-dual-exclu-sivemorpheme...indicates‘youandI(butnotthey)’”(Holt1999:49).Thesecondpartofthesentencemakesitclearthattheword‘exclusive’shouldberead‘inclusive’.14. ThisexplanationforGooniyandiisproposedbyMcGregortoreplacehisearlierattemptsatanexplanation(McGregor1989;1990).

AppendixSurveyoftheexampleswithasyncretisminvolvingclusivityasdiscussedinthischapter.Withinthevariouskindofsyncretisms,thelanguagesaregroupedbygeneticfamilyrela-tionship.Differentfamiliesthatbelongtothesameoverarchinggeneticunitarecountedseparatelywhentheredoesnotappeartobeasharedoriginofthesyncretism(e.g.variousbranchesofAustronesianarecountedseparatelybecausethesyncretismsareprobablyinde-pendentdevelopmentsinthesebranches).Somelanguageshavethesamesyncretismbothintheirindependentpronounsandintheirinflectionalmarking(e.g.AshenincaCampa).Suchlanguagesareonlycountedonce.Incontrast,somelanguageshavedifferentkindsofsyncre-tismintheirpersonmarking(i.e.theyappearindifferentsections,e.g.TiwiorHatam).Suchlanguagesarecountedmorethanonce.

Inclusive = First person (Section 3.2): Found in 1 family (1 language)Independent:-Inflectional:Binandere(Central&Southeastern,TransNewGuinea)

Exclusive = First person (Section 3.3): Found in 21 families (40 languages)Independent:ChalcatongoMixtec,OcotepecMixtec,YosondúaMixtec,Diuxi-Tilantongo

Mixtec (allMixtecan,Oto-Manguean);Chocho (Popolocan,Oto-Manguean);Aymara,Jaqaru(Aymaran);Canela-Kraho(Gé);Asheninca,Nomatsiguenga,Caquinte(allCampa,Arawakan);Nimboran(Nimboran,Trans-NewGuinea);Imonda,Amanab(bothBorder,Trans-NewGuinea);Chrau(Mon-Khmer,Austro-Asiatic).

Inflectional:Winnebago(Siouan);Wichita,Caddo,Pawnee(allCaddoan);Menomini,Cree,Fox,EasternOjibwe,SouthwesternOjibwe,Passamaquoddy-Maliseet(allAlgonquian);Huave (Huavean); Sierra Popoluca (Mixe-Zoque); Maká (Mataco-Guaicuruan); Ay-mara,Jaqaru(Aymaran);Uru,Chipaya(Uru-Chipayan);Canela-Kraho(Gé);TarmaQue-chua(Quechuan);Asheninca,Nomatsiguenga,Caquinte(allCampa,Arawakan);Nimbo-ran(Nimboran,Trans-NewGuinea);Kwamera,Lenakel,NorthTanna,SouthwestTanna,

1st proofs




Whitesands(allTanna,Austronesian);Tiwi(Tiwian);Warrwa(Nyulnyulan);Svan(SouthCaucasian);Ngiti(CentralSudanic,Nilo-Saharan).

Inclusive = Second person (Section 4.2): Found in 9 families (14 languages)Independent:Sanuma(Isolate),Itonama(Isolate)Inflectional: Menomini, Cree, Fox, Eastern Ojibwe, Southwestern Ojibwe, Passamaquo-

ddy-Maliseet (all Algonquian); Kiowa (Tanoan); Lavukaleve (East Papuan); Tiwi (Ti-wian);Acehnese(Sundic,Austronesian);Diola-Fogny(Atlantic,Niger-Congo);Kulung(Kiranti);Itonama(Isolate).

Exclusive = Second person (Section 4.4): Found in 7 families (15 languages)Independent:Nehan(WesternOceanic,Austronesian).Inflectional:Lamalera,Dawanese,Kisar,Sika,Roti(allTimor,Austronesian);Yabem,Sobei,

Mekeo,CentralBuang(allWesternOceanic,Austronesian);Buma(RemoteOceanic,Aus-tronesian);Ulithian,Trukese(bothMicronesian,Austronesian);SouthernUdihe(Tungu-sic);Burarra(Burarran);Tiwi(Tiwian).

Inclusive = Third person (Section 5.2): Found in 8 families (15 languages)Independent:Tupínambá(Tupí).Inflectional:Kwamera,Lenakel,NorthTanna,SouthwestTanna,Whitesands(allTanna,Aus-

tronesian);Atchin,Buma(RemoteOceanic,Austronesian),Nalik(WesternOceanic,Aus-tronesian), Muna (Sulawesi, Austronesian); Hatam (West Papuan); Athpare, Camling,Dumi(allKiranti,Tibeto-Burman);Huave(Huavean);Tupínambá(Tupí).

Exclusive = Third person (Section 5.3): Found in 7 families (19 languages)Independent:-Inflectional: Kariña, Tiriyó, Carijona, Kashuyana,WaiWai, Hixkaryana,Waimiri-Atroari,

Arekuna, Akawaio, Wayana, Dekwana, Bakairí, Txikão (all Carib); Kiowa (Tanoan);Shuswap(Salish);Binandere(Goilalan);Hatam(WestPapuan);Diola-Fogny(Atlantic,Niger-Congo);Buduma(Chadic,Afro-Asiatic).

Minimal inclusive = Exclusive (Section 6.2): Found in 5 families (6 languages)Independent:Bunaba,Gooniyandi(bothBunaban);Yaouré(Mande);Sara(Sara-Bagirmi,

Nilo-Sagaran);Kunimaipa(Goilalan,Trans-NewGuinea).Inflectional: Bunaba, Gooniyandi (both Bunaban); Sar (Sara-Bagirmi, Nilo-Saharan); Tu-

mak(Chadic,Afro-Asiatic).

Augmented inclusive = Exclusive (Section 6.3): Found in 8 families (11 languages)Independent:Assiniboine,Lakhota(bothSiouan);Hatam(WestPapuan);Burarra(Burar-

ran);Tiwi(Tiwian);Pech(Chibchan);Guató(Macro-Gé).Inflectional:Assiniboine,Lakhota,Iowa(allSiouan);Bardi,Nyulnyul(bothNyulnyulan);

Hatam (West Papuan); Kunimaipa (Central & Southeast, Trans-New Guinea); Pech(Chibchan);Guató(Macro-Gé).

1st proofs



114 MichaelCysouw

ReferencesAdelaar,W.F.H.1977.TarmaQuechua:Grammar,texts,dictionary.Ph.D.dissertation,Uni-

versityofAmsterdam.Alexander, R.M. 1988. A syntactic sketch of Ocotepec Mixtec. In: C.H. Bradley & B.E.

Hollenbach(eds),Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages,151–304.ArlingtonVA.:SummerInstituteofLinguistics[Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguis-tics83].

Allen,B.J.&Frantz,D.G.1978.VerbagreementinsouthernTiwa.InJ.J.Jaegeretal.(eds),Pro-ceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,11–17.BerkeleyCA:BerkeleyLinguisticsSociety,UniversityofCalifornia.

Anceaux,J.C.1965.The Nimboran language: Phonology and morphology.TheHague:Nijhoff[Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde44].

Awagana,E.A.2001.Grammatik des Buduma: Phonologie, Morphologie, Syntax.Münster:LIT[Beiträge zur Afrikanistik13].

Bauman,J.J.1975.PronounsandpronominalmorphologyinTibeto-Burman.Ph.D.disser-tation,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.

Benzing, J. 1955. Die Tungusischen Sprachen:Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik.Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozial-wissenschaftliche Klasse11:955–1049.

Bickel, B. & Nichols, J. This volume. Inclusive/exclusive as person vs. number categoriesworldwide.

Blood,C.1992.Subject-verbagreementinKisar.InD.A.Burquest&W.D.Laidig(eds),De-scriptive studies in languages of Maluku,1–20.Jakarta:UniversitasAtmaJaya[NUSA34].

Bloomfield,L.1946.Algonquian.InH.Hoijeretal.(eds.,Linguistic structures of native Amer-ica,85–129.NewYork:VikingFund[Publications in Anthropology6].

Bloomfield,L.1956.Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical sketch, texts and word list.AnnArborMI:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Bloomfield,L.1962.Menomini language.NewHavenCT:YaleUniversityPress.Blust,R.1993.CentralandCentral-EasternMalayo-Polynesian.Oceanic Linguistics32(2):

241–93.Borgman,D.M.1990.Sanuma.InD.C.Derbyshire&G.K.Pullum,G.K.(eds.),Handbook of

Amazonian languages, Volume 2,15–248.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.Boxwell,M.1967.Weripronounsystem.Linguistics29:34–43.Bradley,D.(ed.).1997.Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics 14: Tibeto-Burman languages of

the Himalayas.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsA86].Camp,E.L.&Liccardi,M.R.1965.Itonama.InE.Matteson(ed.),Gramáticas Estructurales de

Lenguas Bolivianas,223–383.Riberalta:InstitutoLingüísticodeVerano.Capell,A.1969.ThestructureoftheBinandereverb.Papers in New Guinea linguistics,1–32.

Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsA18].Capell,A.&J.Layard.1980.Materials in Atchin, Malekula: Grammar, vocabulary and texts.

Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsD20].Caprile,J.-P.1975.Lexique Tumak-Français (Tchad).Berlin:Reimer[Marburger Studien zur

Afrika- und Asienkunde A5].CerrónPalomina,R.1987.Laflexiondepersonaynúmeroenelprotoquechua.Indiana11:

263–76.Chafe,W.L.1976.The Caddoan, Iroquoian and Siouan languages.TheHague:Mouton[Trends

1st proofs




in Linguistics: State-of-the-art reports3].Chafe,W.L.1990.UsesofthedefocusingpronominalprefixesinCaddo.Anthropological Lin-

guistics32(1–2):57–68.Cowan,H.K.J.1953.Voorlopige Resultaten van een Ambtelijk Taalonderzoek in Nieuw-Guinea.

TheHague:Nijhoff.Crevels,M.&Muysken,P.Thisvolume.Inclusive–exclusivedistinctionsinthelanguagesof

central-westernSouthAmerica.Crowley,T.1998.Ura.München:Lincom[Languages of the World/Materials240].Cysouw,M.2001.Theparadigmaticstructureofpersonmarking.Ph.D.dissertation,Univ-

eristyofNijmegenCysouw,M.2003.The paradigmatic structure of person marking.Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press[Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory].Cysouw,M.Forthcoming.Inclusive/exclusiveinindependentpronouns.InM.Haspelmath,

M.Dryer,D.Gil&B.Comrie(eds),World atlas of language structures.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Daniel,M.Thisvolume.Understandinginclusives.Davis,H.2000.Remarksonproto-Salishsubjectinflection.International Journal of Ameri-

can Linguistics66(4):499–520.Derbyshire,D.C.1979.Hixkaryana.Amsterdam:NorthHolland.Derbyshire,D.C.1999.Carib.InR.M.W.Dixon&A.Y.Aikhenvald(eds.),23–64.Derbyshire,D.C.&Pullum,G.K.(eds).1986.Handbook of Amazonian languages,Volume 1.

Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.Dixon,R.M.W.&Aikhenvald,A.Y.(eds).1999.The Amazonian languages.Cambridge:Cam-

bridgeUniversityPress.Dixon,R.M.W.&Blake,B.J.(eds).2000.Handbook of Australian languages.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.Dol,P.H.1999.AgrammarofMaybrat:AlanguageoftheBird’sHead,IrianJaya,Indonesia.

Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofLeiden.Doneux,J.L.1968.Esquisse Grammaticale de Dan.Dakar:UniversitédeDakar[Documents

Linguistiques15].Durie,M.1985.A grammar of Acehnese: On the basis of a dialect of North Aceh.Dordrecht:

Foris[Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde112].

Dutton,T.E.(ed.).1975.Studies in languages of Central and South-East Papua.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsC29].

Dyen, I.1965.A sketch of Trukese grammar.NewHavenCT.:AmericanOrientalSociety[American Oriental Series].

Ebert,K.1997a.A grammar of Athpare.München:Lincom[Lincom Studies in Asian Linguis-tics 1].

Ebert,K.1997b.Camling (Chamling).München:Lincom[Languages of the World/Materials103].

Elson,B.1960.SierraPopolucamorphology.International Journal of American Linguistics26(3):206–23.

Farr,J.&Farr,C.1975.SomefeaturesofKorafemorphology.InT.E.Dutton(ed.),731–70.Farris,E.R.1992.AsyntacticsketchofYosondúaMixtec.InC.H.Bradley&B.E.Hollenbach

(eds.),Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages,1–172.ArlingtonVA.:SummerInsti-tuteofLinguistics[Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics111].

1st proofs



116 MichaelCysouw

Foster,M.L.&Foster,G.M.1948.Sierra Popoluca speech.WashingtonDC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice[Smithsonian Institution Publications8]..

Fox,J.J.&Grimes,C.E.1995.Roti.InD.T.Tryon(ed.),611–22.Frachtenberg,LJ.1922.Coos.InF.Boas(ed.),Handbook of American Indian languages, Vol-

ume 2,297–430.WashingtonDC:BureauofAmericanEthnology.Frantz,D.G.1991.Blackfoot grammar.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.Geary,E.1977.Kunimaipa grammar.Ukarumpa:SummerInstituteofLinguistics[Workpa-

pers in Papua New Guinea Languages23].Gerzenstein,A.1994.Lengua Maká: Estudio descriptivo.BuenosAires:UniversidaddeBue-

nosAires[Archivo de Lenguas Indoamericanas].Gildea,S.1989.SimpleandrelativeclausesinPanare.MAthesis,UniversityofOregon.Gildea,S.1998.On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress[Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics18].Glasgow,K.1964.FourprincipalcontrastsinBurerapersonalpronouns.InR.Pittman&H.B.

Kerr(eds),Papers on the languages of the Australian aborigines,109–17.Canberra:Aus-tralianInstituteofAboriginalStudies[Occasional Papers in Aboriginal Studies 3].

Glasgow,K.1984.Burarrawordclasses.Papers in Australian linguistics1–54.Canberra:Aus-tralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsA68].

Goddard,I.1990.Algonquianlinguisticchangeandreconstruction.InP.Baldi(ed.),Linguis-tic change and reconstruction methodology,98–114.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter[Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs45].

Goddard,I.(ed.).1996.Handbook of North American indians.WashingtonDC:SmithsonianInstitution.

Greenberg,J.H.1988.Thefirstpersoninclusivedualasanambiguouscategory.Studies in Language12(1):1–18.

Greenberg, J.H.1989.Onametalanguage forpronominal systems:Areply toMcGregor.Studies in Language13(2):452–8.

Grimes,B.F.(ed.).1996.Ethnologue.Dallas:SummerInstituteofLinguistics.Güldemann,T.2002.DieEntlehnungpronominalerElementedesKhoekhoeausdem!Ui-

Taa.InT.Schumann,M.Reh,R.Kießling&L.Gerhard(eds),Aktuelle Forschungen zu af-rikanischen Sprachen,43–61.Köln:Köppe.

Güldemann,T.&R.Vossen.2000.Khoisan.InB.Heine&D.Nurse(eds),African languages: An introduction99–122.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Haacke,W.H.G.1977.Theso-called‘personalpronoun’inNama.InA.Traill(ed.),Khoisan linguistic studies43–62.Johannesburg:AfricanStudiesInstitute.

Hagman,R.S.1977.Nama Hottentot grammar.BloomingtonIN:IndianaUniversityPress[Language Science Monographs15].

Hardman,M.J.1966.Jaqaru: Outline of phonological and morphological structure.TheHague:Mouton[Janua Linguarum, Series Practica22].

Hawkins,R.E.1998.WaiWai.InD.C.Derbyshire&G.K.Pullum(eds),Handbook of Amazo-nian languages,Volume 4,25–224.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Healey,A.,A.Isoroembo&M.Chittleborough.1969.PreliminarynotesonOrokaivagram-mar.Papers in New Guinea linguistics33–64.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsA18].

Hewson,J.1991.PersonhierarchiesinAlgonqianandInuktitut.Linguistics29:861–75.Hills,R.A.1990.AsyntacticsketchofAyutlaMixtec.InC.H.Bradley&B.E.Hollenbach

(eds.),Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages,1–260.ArlingtonVA.:SummerInsti-

1st proofs




tuteofLinguistics[Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics90].Hoff,B.J.1968.The Carib language.TheHague:Nijhoff[Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk

Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 55].Holt,D.1999.Pech (Paya).München:Lincom[LanguagesoftheWorld/Materials366].Hooley,B.A.1995.CentralBuang.InD.T.Tryon(ed.),731–40.Hopkins,E.B.1986.PronounsandpronounfusioninYaouré.InU.Wisemann(ed.),191–

204.Jacobsen,W.H.,Jr.1980.Inclusive/Exclusive:Adiffusedpronominalcategoryinnativewest-

ernNorthAmerica.InJ.Kreiman&A.E.Ojeda(eds),Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society, April 18–19, 1980,326–406.Chi-cago:ChicagoLinguisticSociety.

Jensen,C.1990.Cross-referencingchangesinsomeTupí-Guaranílanguages.InD.L.Payne(ed.),117–60.

Johnson,A.F.1988.AsyntacticsketchofJamiltepecMixtec.InC.H.Bradley&Hollenbach,B.E.(eds),Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages,11–150.ArlingtonVA.:SummerInstituteofLinguistics[Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 83].

Jones,A.A.1998.Towards a lexicogrammar of Mekeo (an Austronesian language of West Cen-tral Papua).Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsC138].

Keraf,G.1978.Morfologi Dialek Lamalera.Ende-Flores:Arnoldus.Koehn,E.&Koehn,S.1986.Apalai.InD.C.Derbyshire&G.K.Pullum(eds),33–127.Kuiper,A.&Oram,J.1991.AsyntacticsketchofDiuxi-TilantongoMixtec.InC.H.Bradley

&B.E.Hollenbach(eds.),Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages,179–08.Arling-tonVA.:SummerInstituteofLinguistics[Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 105].

Kuipers,A.H.1974.The Shuswap language: Grammar, texts, dictionary.TheHague:Mouton.KutschLojenga,C.1994.Ngiti: A Central Sudanic language of Zaire.Hamburg:Köppe[Nilo-

Saharan Linguistic Analyses and Documentation9].Leavitt,R.M.1996.Passamaquoddy-Maliseet.München:Lincom[Languages of the World/

Materials27].Lee,J.1987.Tiwi today: A study of language change in a contact situation.Canberra:Austral-

ianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsC96].Levin,N.B.1964.The Assiniboine language.TheHague:Mouton.Lewis,E.D.&Grimes,C.E.1995.Sika.InD.T.Tryon(ed.),601–9.Lindstrom,L.&Lynch,J.D.1994.Kwamera.München:Lincom[Languages of the World/Ma-

terials 2].Lipkind,W.1945.Winnebago grammar.NewYork:King’sCrown.Luraghi,S.2000.Synkretismus.InG.Booij,C.Lehmann&J.Mugdan(eds.),Morphology: An

international handbook on inflection and word-formation,638–47.Berlin:deGruyter[Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft17].

Lynch,J.D.1967.AcomparativestudyofthelanguagesanddialectsoftheislandofTanna,southernNewHebrides.Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofSydney.

Lynch,J.D.1978.A grammar of Lenakel.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific Linguistics B55].

Lynch,J.D.1986.Theproto-southernVanuatupronominalsystem.InP.Geraghty,L.Car-rington&S.A.Wurm(eds.),Focal II: Papers from the fourth international conference on Austronesian linguistics,259–87.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific Lin-guisticsC94].

1st proofs



118 MichaelCysouw

Macaulay,M.1996.A grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress[University of California Publications in Linguistics127].

Mannheim,B.1982.Person,numberandinclusivityintwoAndeanlanguages.Acta Linguis-tica Hafniensia17(2):139–56.

McGregor,W.B.1989.Greenbergonthefirstpersoninclusivedual:evidencefromsomeAus-tralianlanguages.Studies in Language13(2):437–51.

McGregor,W.B.1990.A functional grammar of Gooniyandi.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins[Studies in Language Companion Series22].

McGregor,W.B.1994.Warrwa.München:Lincom[Languages of the World/Materials89].McGregor,W.B.1996.Nyulnyul.München:Lincom[Languages of the World/Materials88].McGregor,W.B.1996.ThepronominalsystemofGooniyandiandBunaba.InW.B.McGre-

gor(ed.),Studies in Kimberley languages in honour of Howard Coate,159–73.München:Lincom.

McKay,G.R.1978.PronominalpersonandnumbercategoriesinRembarrngaandDjeeb-bana.Oceanic Linguistics17:27–37.

McKay,G.R.2000.Ndjébbana.InR.M.W.Dixon&B.J.Blake(eds.),154–354.Meira,S.2000a.Theaccidental intransitivesplit in theCaribanfamily. InS.Gildea(ed.),

Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 201–30.Amsterdam:Benjamins[Typological Studies in Language43].

Meira,S.2000b.A reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan: Phonology and morphology.München:Lincom[Lincom Studies in Native American Linguistics30].

Meira,S.2002.AfirstcomparisonofpronominalanddemonstrativesystemsintheCaribanlanguagefamily.InM.Crevels,S.vandeKerke,S.Meira&H.vanderVoort(eds.),Cur-rent studies on South American languages255–7.Leiden:CNWS[Indigenous Languages of Latin America (ILLA)3].

Metcalfe,C.D.1975.Bardi verb morphology (Northwestern Australia).Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[PacificLinguisticsB30].

Minch,A.S.1991.EssentialelementsofAmanabgrammar.Ph.D.dissertaion,UniversityofTexas.

Mixco,M.1997.Mandan.München:Lincom[Languages of the World/Materials159].Mühlhäusler,P.1986.ZurEntstehungvonPronominalsystemen.InN.Boretzky,W.Enninger

&T.Stolz(eds.),Beiträge zum 2. Essener Kolloquium über „Kreolsprachen und Sprachkon-takte“, 157–74.Bochum:Brockmeyer[Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 2].

Newman,S.1980.FunctionalchangesintheSalishpronominalsystem.International Journal of American Linguistics46(3):155–67.

Nichols, J.1992.Linguistic diversity in space and time.ChicagoIL:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Nikolaeva,I.&M.Tolskaya.2001.A grammar of Udihe.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter[Mouton Grammar Library22].

Noyer,R.R.1992.Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure.Cam-bridgeMA:MIT[MIT Working Papers in Linguistics].

Oates,W.&Oates,L.1964.Gugu-Yalanjilinguisticandanthropologicaldata.Gugu-Yalanji and Wik-Munkan language studies1–17.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalStudies[Occasional Papers in Aboriginal Studies 2].

Osborne,C.R.1974.The Tiwi Language.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalStudies.Palácio,A.P.1986.AspectsofthemorphologyofGuató.InB.F.Elson(ed.),Language in glo-

bal perspective: Papers in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Summer Institute of Lin-guistics 1935–8,363–72.DallasTX.:SummerInstituteofLinguistics.

1st proofs




Palayer,P.1989.LalangueSar(sudduTchad).Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofTours.Parks,D.R.1976.A grammar of Pawnee.NewYork:Garland[Garland Studies in American In-

dian Linguistics].Payne,D.L.(ed.).1990.Amazonian linguistics.AustinTX.:UniversityofTexasPress.Pence,A.R.1968.AnanalysisofKunimaipapronouns.Kivung1(2):109–15.Plank,F.1985.DieOrdnungderPersonen.Folia Linguistica19:111–76.Plank,F.&W.Schellinger.1997.Theunevendistributionofgendersovernumbers:Green-

bergNos.37and45.Linguistic Typology1(1):53–101.Popjes,J.&J.Popjes.1986.Canela-Krahô.InD.C.Derbyshire&G.K.Pullum(eds),128–99.Pottier, B. 1963. Inclusif et exclusif dans le système personnel du Quichua. Traveaux de

l’Institut d’Études Latino-américaines de l’Université de Strasbourg41(8):533–6.Reed,J.&D.L.Payne.1986.Asheninca(Campa)pronominals.InU.Wiesemann(ed.),323–

31.Reesink,G.P.1999.A grammar of Hatam: Bird’s Head Peninsula, Irian Jaya.Canberra:Aus-

tralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsC146].Reesink,G.P.2002.TheeasternBird’sHeadlanguagescompared.InG.P.Reesink(ed.),Lan-

guages of the Eastern Bird’s Head,1–44.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pa-cific Linguistics524].

Richard,E.L.1975.SentencestructureofGuhu-Samane.InT.E.Dutton(ed.),771–816.Rijkhoff,J.&D.Bakker.1998.Languagesampling.Linguistic Typology2(3):263–314.Rodrigues,A.D.1990.YouandI=neitheryounorI:thepersonalsystemofTupínambá.In

D.L.Payne(ed.),393–406.Rodrigues,A.D.1999.Macro-Jé.InR.M.W.DixonA.Y.Aikhenvald(eds.),164–206.Rood,D.S.1996.SketchofWichita,aCaddoanlanguage.InI.Goddard(ed.),580–608.Rood,D.S.&A.RTaylor.1996.SketchofLakhota,aSiouanlanguage.InI.Goddard(ed.),440–

82.Ross,M.D.1995.Yabem.InD.T.Tryon(ed.),699–718.Rumsey,A.2000.Bunuba.InR.M.W.Dixon&B.J.Blake(eds.),34–152.Sapir,J.D.1965.A grammar of Diola Fogny: A language spoken in the Bass-Casamance re-

gion of Senegal.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress[West African Language Mon-ograph Series3].

Schwartz,L.J.&T.Dunnigan.1986.PronounsandpronominalcategoriesinsouthwesternOjibwe.InU.Wiesemann(ed.),285–322.

Seiler,W.1985.Imonda, a Papuan language.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pa-cific LinguisticsB93].

Shields,J.K.1988.AsyntacticsketchofSilacayoapanMixtec.InC.H.Bradley&B.E.Hollen-bach(eds),Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages,305–449.ArlingtonVA.:Sum-merInstituteofLinguistics[SummerInstituteofLinguisticsPublicationsinLinguis-tics83].

Siewierska,A.&Bakker,D.Thisvolume.Inclusive/exclusiveinfreeandboundpersonforms.Small,P.c.1990.AsyntacticsketchofCoatzospanMixtec.InC.H.Bradley&B.E.Hollenbach

(eds),Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages,261–479.ArlingtonVA.:SummerIn-stituteofLinguistics[Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 90].

Sohn,H.-M.&B.W.Bender.1973.A Ulithian grammar.Canberra:AustralianNationalUni-versity[Pacific LinguisticsC27]..

Stairs,E.F.&Hollenbach,B.E.1969.Huaveverbmorphology.International Journal of Ameri-can Linguistics35:38–53.

1st proofs



120 MichaelCysouw

Steinhauer,H.1993.NotesonverbsinDawanese(Timor).InG.P.Reesink(ed.),Topics in de-scriptive Austronesian linguistics,130–58.Leiden:VakgroepTalenenCulturenvanZui-doost-AziëenOceanië[Semaian11].

Sterner,J.K.1987.“SobeiverbmorphologyreanalyzedtoreflectPOCstudies”.Oceanic Lin-guistics26(1–2):30–54.

Swift,K.E.1988.Morfologia del Caquinte (Arawak Preandino).Lima:InstitutoLingüísticodeVerano[Serie Lingüistica Peruana25].

Takata,Y.1992.WordstructureandreduplicationinKola.InD.A.Burquest&W.D.Laidig(eds.),Descriptive studies in languages of Maluku,47–68.Jakarta:UniversitasAtmaJaya[NUSA34].

Terrill,A.2003. A grammar of Lavukaleve.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter[Mouton Grammar Li-brary 30].

Thomas,D.D.1971.Chrau grammar.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress[Oceanic Linguis-tics Special Publication7].

Todd,E.M.1975.TheSolomonlanguagefamily.InS.A.Wurm(ed.),805–46.Todd,E.M.1978.AsketchofNissan(Nehan)grammar.InS.A.WurmS.A.&L.Carrington

(eds), Second international conference on Austronesian linguistics: Proceedings, 1181–238.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsC61].

Tolsma,G.J.1997.TheverbalmorphologyofKulung.InD.BradleyD.(ed.),103–17.Tryon,D.T.2002.Buma.InJ.D.Lynch,M.D.Ross&T.CrowleyT.(eds),The Oceanic lan-

guages, 573–86.London:Curzon[Curzon Language Family Series1].Tryon,D.T. (ed.).1995.Comparative Austronesian dictionary.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter

[Trends in Linguistics. Documentation10].Tuite,K.1997.Svan.München:Lincom[Languages of the World/Materials139].vandenBerg,R.1989.A grammar of the Muna language.Dordrecht:Foris [Verhandelin-

gen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks139].

vandeKerke,S.1996.AffixorderandinterpretationinBolivianQuechua.Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofAmsterdam.

vanDriem,G.1990.Anexplorationofproto-Kirantiverbalmorphology.Acta Linguistica Hafniensia22:27–48.

vanDriem,G.1993a.A grammar of Dumi.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter[Mouton Grammar Li-brary10].

vanDriem,G.1993b.Theproto-Tibeto-Burmanverbalagreementsystem.Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies56(2):292–334.

vanDriem,G.1997.AnewanalysisoftheLimbuverb.InD.Bradley,D.(ed.),157–73.vanEijk,J.P.Thisvolume.Ontheoriginoftheinclusivevs.exclusiveinShuswap.vanValin,R.D.,Jr.1977.AspectsofLakhotasyntax.Ph.D.dissertation,Berkeley,University

ofCalifornia.Veerman-Leichsenring,A.2000.Popolocanindependentpersonalpronouns:Comparison

andreconstruction.International Journal of American Linguistics66(3):318–59.Volker,C.A.1998.The Nalik language of New Ireland, Papua New Guinea.NewYork:Lang

[Berkeley Models of Grammar4].Voorhoeve,CL.1975.CentralandwesternTrans-NewGuineaphylumlanguages.InS.A.

Wurm(ed.),345–460.Vossen,R.1997.Die Khoe-Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprachgeschichte Afrikas.

Köln:Köppe[Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung12].

1st proofs




Watkins,L.J.1984.A grammar of Kiowa.Lincoln,Nebr.:UniversityofNebraskaPress[Stud-ies in the Anthropology of North American Indians].

Whitman,W.1947.DescriptivegrammaroftheIoway-Oto.International Journal of Ameri-can Linguistics13(4):233–48.

Wiesemann,U.(ed.).1986.Pronominal systems.Tübingen:Narr.Wise,M.R.1971.Identification of participants in discourse: A study of aspects of form and

meaning in Nomatsiguenga.NormanOK.:SummerInstituteofLinguistics[Summer In-stitute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics28].

Wolfart,H.C.1996.SketchofCree,anAlgonquianlanguage.InI.Goddard(ed.),Handbook of North American indians, Volume 17: Languages,390–439.WashingtonDC:Smithso-nianInstitution.

Wurm,S.A.1975.TheEastPapuanphylumingeneral.InS.A.Wurm(ed.),783–804.Wurm,S.A.(ed.).1975.Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene.Canberra:

AustralianNationalUniversity[Pacific LinguisticsC38].Zwicky,ArnoldM.1977.Hierarchiesofperson.InW.A.Beach,S.E.Fox&S.Philosoph(eds.),

Papers from the 13th regional meeting714–33.ChicagoIL:ChicagoLinguisticSociety.

1st proofs

