Dr Carol Priestley, Griffith University, [email protected], August 29, 2012
The expression of potential event modality
in the Papuan language of Koromu
1. Introduction to Koromu (Kesawai)
•
Welcome: Wao, Koromu sakine eseahe! ‘Welcome, listen to Koromu talk!’
People: about 700 speakers, in hamlets associated with about 6 main centres of population
Location: middle Ramu Valley, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea (PNG).
Linguistic affiliation: Rai Coast, Madang group, Trans New Guinea language,
one of about 800 Papuan languages (not a genealogical unit, see Ross 2005:15).
• Other name: Kesawai, in Z’agraggen 1980 • Key typological features (cf. other Papuan languages)
o serial verb constructions (SVC) and impersonal experiencer object constructions,
o clause chaining and switch reference
o grammaticalized uses of the verb u ‘say (quote form)/do’
• Expression of modality (cf. other Papuan languages):
o verbal inflectional morphology,
o phasal (aspectual) and/or modal verbs in serial verb constructions
o particles and adverbs
• Data sources: natural speech in texts and conversations
o life in Kesawai1975-1976, 1978-1980, 1986
o linguistic fieldwork in 2000, 2004, 2010.
o analysis of the language in MA and PhD theses, 2002a, 2008, forthcoming
• Some comparisons here with: English; Amele, Bargam, Kalam, Tauya (Madang languages);
Mangap-Mbula (Austronesian language, PNG); Ungarinyin (Australian)
• Explications in English and some Koromu:
reductive paraphrase, using semantic primes and their combinatorial properties in the natural
semantic metalanguage (NSM) (Wierzbicka 1996, Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002, Goddard 2008)
(1) Introduction to Koromu (Kesawai)
(6) The hortative use of the future tense
(2) Theories of modality
(7) Intentive modality
(3) Methodology for semantic description
(8) Desiderative modality
(4) Background: Koromu clauses, verbal structures (9) Prescriptive action/imminent modality
(5) Imperative modality
•
•
•
PRIESTLEY
2. Theories of modality
Timberlake (2007) in Shopen’s Language Typology and Syntactic Description (2007)
Modality:
“consideration of alternative realities mediated by an authority” (p.315)
“how we come to know and speak about the world, how the world
came to be as it is, whether it might be other than it is, what needs
to be done to the world to make it what we want” (p.315)
“many ways in which a situation can be less than certain and real” (p.316).
• epistemology, “…knowledge about events and the world” (p.316);
• directive/jussive/so-be-it modality, “the responsibility for the state of the world is
transferred from one authority to another” (p.318);
• causation and contingency, a situation is “responsible for the existence of another
situation”, e.g. in conditional constructions (pp.321-322).
Palmer in Mood and Modality (2001): modality, unlike tense and aspect, “does not refer
directly to any characteristic of the event, but simply to the status of the proposition” (p.1).
• Propositional (epistemic/evidential) modality:
“speaker’s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition” (p.24).
• Event modality: “events…not actualized, events that have not taken place but are
merely potential” (p.70).
o Deontic modality: conditioning factors “external to therelevant individual” (p.9,
70), “generally dependent on some kind of authority” (p. 70, cf. Timberlake 2007),
e.g. obligation, permission, direction…“trying to get someone to do something”,
includes ‘commissive’ or guaranteeing “that the action will take place” (p.70).
o Dynamic modality: conditioning factors are ability or willingness internal to the
relevant individual (the speaker or someone else).
 can be based on general circumstances that make the action possible or
impossible (pp.70, 76-80).
 though their status is “a little more obscure” wants, desires, preferences
also relate to “unrealized events” (p.13, cf. Timberlake 2007:319)
~2~
PRIESTLEY
3. Methodology for semantic description
Problems for semantic description:
How can we avoid relying on terms in one language to describe modality in another?
How can we show similarities/differences of components of meaning cross-linguistically?
How can we test results/findings with native speakers in their own language?
Wierzbicka 1987:37 Modality terms themselves need to be clearly defined in simpler terms.
Wierzbicka 1996, Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002, Goddard 2008, 2011
Explications in reductive paraphrase with semantic primes (see English, Koromu and Tok Pisin
exponents, Appendix 2) and their combinatorial properties in natural semantic metalanguage
The most common semantic primes in Koromu potential event modality:
Notes:
Allolexy, where a prime has more than one form, is represented by a tilde ~.
‘You plural’ is not a semantic prime.
• substantives
I, YOU, SOMEONE, SOMETHING~THING (I, NE, ATO, NA)
• determiner
THIS (MO)
• the quantifier
SOME (ASAO)
• mental predicates
THINK, KNOW, WANT (URUNU, SIPAMU, URUNU~-APESI)
• speech word
SAY (SA~U)
• action word
DO (HARU~U)
• BE (specificational) (MENE)
• logical concepts
NOT and BECAUSE (TAI, U SEI).
Other semantic primes used for this topic in Koromu are:
• the substantives
PEOPLE, BODY (AHAROPU, METE)
• the determiner
THE SAME (ATEREI)
• evaluators
BAD, GOOD (WARIKAU, ETAMAU)
• the event verb
HAPPEN (AIRI)
• the mental predicate FEEL (ORU~URUNU)
• the time exponents AFTER, A SHORT TIME (EPONO, SA HANE)
• the space exponent INSIDE (ORU PA).
Exponents can be
• tested further with native speakers as part of semantic fieldwork
• used to provide language-specific definitions in Koromu and other languages
• may highlight language-specific characteristics of a semantic domain
The natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) and modality in other languages
• Wierzbicka semantics of English modality in an earlier version of NSM (1987)
• Wierzbicka English epistemic phrases and adverbs, English: Meaning and Culture (2006)
“from the speaker’s point of view, adverbs of this kind refer to thinking
and knowledge… rather than to truth” (cf. Timberlake 2007:316 above)
• Goddard
study of modals of necessity in English (forthcoming)
• Bugenhagen modality in Mangap-Mbula (1989) (cf. Bugenhagen on irrealis in
Austronesian languages (1993)
~3~
PRIESTLEY
4. Background: Koromu clauses, dependent and independent verbs
• Modal adverbs/particles: certainty, uncertainty, ability in verbal/non-verbal clauses
• Final verb morphology: potential events cf. Roberts 1990 on other Papuan languages)
Verbal clauses have either a dependent (medial) verb or an independent (final) verb.
Independent final verbs: tense-subject-number inflections (future/non-future).
Optional present tense-aspect, object, reciprocal and/or habitual aspect inflections.
Finite verbs/serial verb constructions express realis mood in simple declarative clauses.
(1)1 ..naere wamte
te
sa
amkoru
pate ho
-s
-a.
snake (snake.type) PNP road middle
S /L
bite -O1s -3s
‘…in the middle of the road a snake (death adder) bit me.’ (T1.6.1)
Present tense-aspect: moment of speaking/time earlier the same day:
(2)
“Naere ho
-se
-r
-a
=mo”, o
re
-pe…
snake bite -O1s -PRES -3s
=BM2 say
PUT3 -SR
‘ “A snake bit me”, I said (to him)’ (T1.6.6)
Future tense-subject person-number:
(3)
Weti pa
eno
pa
poho ni
-hi
house G/L over.there
G /L
sit
STAY -F1s
‘I will sit at the house over there.’ (T1.6b.5)
=mo.
=BM
Dependent verbs have no, or partial inflections, for tense-subject person-number and aspect.
• A subsequent, partially inflected dependent verb, or fully inflected independent verb,
indicates subject referent, tense, aspect, mood (cf. other Papuan languages, Roberts 1997)
• A series of dependent verbs followed by an independent verb forms a clause chain
Koromu switch reference inflections on medial dependent verbs indicate whether:
• the subsequent verb has the same or a different subject referent
• sequential (close succession), overlapping, or loosely related events (cf. Roberts 1997)
• mood is realis or irrealis with a different subject referent following (cf. Roberts 1997).
(4)
…a mi
-pe, weti pa
airi ta
-i.
come move.down -SR
house G/L arrive END -1s
‘…I came down and arrived at the house.’ (T5.20.45)
1
Abbreviations: ALOC: animate locative; APP: apprehensional; BM: boundary marker, common at the end of direct speech; DES: desiderative; DR: different referent following; EMPH: emphatic; F: future; GRD: ground (topic-­‐like element); G/L: goal/locative; HAB: habitual; IMP: imperative; INC: inclusive; INT: intentive; LTD: loose temporal dependency; LV: light verb; NEG: negative; NOM: nominaliser; O: object; ORNT: orientation; p: plural; P: possessive/part of; POS: possibility; PRES: present; PNP: prominent noun phrase; Q: question; s: singular; S/L: source/locative; SR: same referent following; TADJ: temporal adjectiviser; UNC: uncertainty. 2
Boundary marker (BM) indicates end of a discourse (e.g., direct speech) or part of a discourse, in declarative clauses. 3
CAPITALS indicate a phasal/valency verb with grammatical function and lexical meaning. Here/re PUT expresses ‘put’, perfective or valency increase. Ne STAY indicates durative, stative or valency decrease (Priestley 2008:341-­‐402). ~4~
PRIESTLEY
The verb u ‘say (quote)/do’
• follows direct speech or thoughts
• can also occur as a light verb in grammaticized constructions
• can also mean “do”, e.g., with verbs borrowed from other languages.
• becomes o before re PUT as in (2) (see Ablaut rule, Priestley 2008:57)
Direct speech intonation is distinctive and an optional pre-quote formula has a speech verb.
(5)
Wera sau
-pe
“Ya hes
-apesi,”
u
-a
-te
child said.to.3s
-SR water wash -WANT
SAY
-3S
-DR
“The child said to her, ‘(I) want to wash’”.
5. Imperative modality
A verb root with an imperative suffix, V-ae (IMP2s) or V-ahe (IMP2p).
(6)
Io
ahi
-ma te,
GEN1s
mother
-P1s PNP
“Nau
topi
-ae”,
u
-a.
coconut
climb -IMP2s
say
-3s
‘My mother said, “Climb the coconut palm”.’ (T1.4.1)
Discussion
Chung & Timberlake 1986 “the quintessential form of the deontic mode: the speaker is the
source that imposes an event on the addressee” (1985:248).
Palmer (2001:80, cf. Timberlake 2007:316. 318)
Most languages have a specific form that can be identified as Imperative. […] It is clearly directive and usually portrayed as indicating a command. In fact it is often thought to be the strongest of the directives, one that emanates from someone in authority, which therefore, does not expect non-­‐compliance. Gumperz 1982 choices embodied in individual languages reflect “cultural logic”
Wierzbicka 2003[1991], (cf. 2006:45)
Anglo cultural logic of “non-interference” and “avoidance of imposition” on others (p. 60-62)
“Whimperative” expressions:
Would you mind shutting the door?
Will you close the door please? (p. 30-32),
even “impolite”, e.g., Why don’t you shut your mouth?’ (p.60)
The Koromu grammatical category signalled by -ae (IMP2s) and -ahe (IMP2p)
---advice, invitations, offers, suggestions, requests, salutations, commands
---even English: Come in, Don’t worry about it (Palmer 2001:80)
Have a drink. [conventionalised expressions of hospitality]
Timberlake (2007:316) attempts to “persuade (invite, obligate, cajole) an addressee to act…”.
~5~
PRIESTLEY
Examples from Koromu: requests, offers, friendly salutations
A request to an older man is not considered disrespectful (see Priestley forthcoming).
(7)
Yako sau
-pe
"Ho -ae,” u
-r
-i
=mo.
Yako say.to.3s
-SR cut
-IMP2s say -PRES-1s
=BM
‘I said to Yako, “Cut it.”’ (T2.14.18)
A young man requests medicine from an older man who offers him a place to sit down.
(8)
“Sutu
si
-ae.
Marasin
si
-ae.
injection
give.1s -IMP2s medicine
give.1s-IMP2s
Naere ho
snake bite
-s
-a
-O1s -3s
-te
-DR
ka
-r
-i
come -PRES -1s
=mo”, u
=BM say
-i
-1s
=mo.
=BM
(…)“A
werei mo
poho n
-ae.” U
-a
=mo.
Ah
a.little here sit
STAY -IMP2s say
-3s
=BM
‘I said to Bob, “Give me an injection. Give me medicine. A snake bit me and I came.”
(…) “Ah, sit here a moment (a little),” he said.’ (T1.6b.1)
A woman offers something to her friends.
(9)
Poho ne
-pe
kare heti -ahe.
sit
STAY -SR
car
wait -IMP2p
‘Sit and wait for the car.’ (T1.35.13)
Friendly salutations are expressed in conventionalised imperative expressions.
(10) Men -ae!
stay -IMP2s
‘(You) stay!’ (D1.1.6)
Semantic primes in an explication of the Koromu imperative
[A] Verb -ae IMP2s
I say: ‘I want you to do this’ The Koromu version
[AA] ‘mo ne u-­‐apesi,’ u-­‐i [‘this you do-­‐want,’ say-­‐1s] (I say: ‘I want you to do this’) In the more routinized hospitality and greeting/farewell context there is also an implication that:
‘you can feel something good because of this (because I say this)’ Commands are expressed forcefully, gruffly and with falling intonation
(11) Si
-ahe!
clear out
-IMP2p
‘Clear out of the way’. 4
4
Roberts (1990:384, 390) reports on two other Madang languages, Amele and Bargam, and Alamblak, another Papuan language with distinct forms for strong and polite imperatives. ~6~
PRIESTLEY
Added implication: ‘it will be bad if you do not do this’
Negative imperative: standard negative particle tai immediately before the verb
(12) I
sei
tai
urunu -ae.
1s
ORNT NEG think -IMP2s
‘Don’t think about me.’ (T6.4.24)
[B]
A negative imperative
I say: ‘I don’t want you to do this’ Koromu version:
[BB] ‘ne mo u-­‐apu, maikoho-­‐se-­‐r-­‐a,’ u-­‐i [‘you this do-­‐NOM not.want-­‐O1s-­‐PRES-­‐3s,’ say-­‐1s] Cessative SVC: main verb apaise ‘do.not/leave.off/stop’-IMP (cf.apaise ‘leave’‘he left the house’)
(13) Weti pa
seka
ene
ne
apais -ae.
house G/L so.much
lie.down
STAY do.not -IMP2s
‘Don’t lie around (sleep) in the house so much.’ (T1.15.9)
(14)
“Ene ne
-hera =mo. Wera -ima ani
apes -ae.
sleep STAY -F3s =BM child -P1s wake do.not -IMP1s
‘He will stay asleep. Don’t wake my child.’ (T2.24.8)
[C]
Cessative serial verb construction with final modal verb apaise ‘stop/leave off’
Cf. Mangap-Mbula cessative paarticles (Bugenhagen 1989:29-30).
I say: ‘you are doing something now I don’t want you to do this now (it is bad if you do this)’ Koromu version:
[CC] ‘apu ne na haru-­‐r-­‐i, apu ne mo u-­‐apu, maikoho-­‐se-­‐r-­‐a (‘mo na harur-­‐i uo, mo warikau) [‘now you something do-­‐2s [‘now you this do-­‐NOM not.want-­‐O1s-­‐PRES-­‐3s [(‘this thing do-­‐2s GRD, it is bad)] 6. The future tense/hortative modality overlap
Chung and Timberlake (1985: 243) “Situations in the future are inherently uncertain as to
actuality […] they are potential rather than actual”
Roberts 1990:373 “an event in future time can be located deictically on the timeline by a future
tense but it can also be categorized as irrealis since it has not been actualized in the real world”.
Koromu first person plural future inclusive V-aho/-ho (INC1p).
(15) Kainantu
aire
ta
-pe n-ia-te
Kainantu
arrive END -LTD:1p
~7~
PRIESTLEY
si
u
pate ete
-ho
=mo.
then that S/L through-INC1p=BM
‘We will arrive at Kainantu and then go through it.’ (T1.22.38)
Goddard’s (2011:339) explication of “we”: “some people, I am one of these people”5
[D]
Verb with future tense first person inclusive suffix -aho/-ho ‘we inclusive’
I say: ‘some people will do something at the same time a short time after, you are one of these people, I am one of these people’ Hortative sense with V-aho/-ho (INC1p) (cf. English ‘let’s’ in Wierzbicka 2006)
(16) Yar -aho.
go
-INC1p
‘We will go.’/‘Let’s go.’
[E]
Verb with future tense first person inclusive -aho/-ho used in a hortative manner
I say: ‘some people want to do something now at the same time, you are one of these people, I am one of these people because of this, I say: ‘I want to do this now, I want you to do the same thing at the same time’ 7. Intentions with -mpe
V -future tense first person singular/plural suffix -mpe “intentive”.
(17) Wa werai u
pa
hihike
re
-hi
-mpe …
garden small that G/L fence
PUT F1s -INT
‘I intend to fence in a small garden there.’ (T6.7.30)
Compare the simple future tense  I say: ‘I will do something’
with future-intentive combined:
[F] Verb -­‐future tense -­‐ mpe I say: ‘I want to do this’ I think about it like this: ‘I will do it at some time a short time after’ An example in first person plural
(18) …sakin
sa
-hia
word
say
-F1p
-mpe.
-INT
Yare -r
-ia
umo kaset
ia
n
-a
-te…
go
-PRES -1p but cassette
be.not STAY -3s
-DR
‘…we intended to talk. We went but the cassette was not (there)…’ (T1.20.57)
5 Interestingly, the etymology of Tok Pisin mipela ‘we’ is ‘I-­‐fellow’ (cf. Goddard 2011:339). ~8~
PRIESTLEY
[G]
First person plural intentive with –mpe (cf. Goddard’s 2011 explication of “we”)
I say: ‘some people want to do something, I am one of these people’ I think about it like this: ‘these people will do it at some time a short time after’ Restrictions to first person
Cf. Tauya (Madang language) necessitive mood for 1st and 3rd person (MacDonald 1990:213)
Cf. Ungarinyin (Australian language) intentional is “limited to cases where the subject of the
future-marked verb is a first-person one” (Rumsey 2001:355)
Intentions of someone else: framed by a light verb u with tense-subject marking
(19) …si mere
-pe
wene ni
-hi
-mpe u
-a.
then move.down -SR
food eat
-F1s -INT say(LV)-3s
‘…then she went (moved) down, she was going to eat.’ (T7.2.18)
Similar constructions in other Papuan & other languages (Reesink 1993);
Australian languages, e.g., Ungarinyin (Rumsey 2001) -to predicate intention to someone
else, a verb with future and intentive inflections is “framed by an appropriately prefixed form of
the following verb -ma, which means ‘say’ or ‘do’” (p.35)
8. V-apesi: what people want/desire, purpose and are about to do
• V–apesi represents something someone wants to do
• V–apesi is complement of a light verb u ‘say/do’
8.1 Simple desiderative: saying what someone wants with V-apesi (WANT)6
• subject person number is usually understood from the discourse or real world context
• a speaker talks about his/her own desires or asks a second person about theirs
• contrasts with V-mpe, no strong intention, plan, commitment, ability
(20)
Serip -ia.
Yar -apesi
=mo.
get.up -1p go
-WANT
=BM
‘We stood up. We wanted to go.’ (T1.1b.10)
(21)
Poho n
-e.
“He k
-apesi
tauo,” u
-i.
sit
STAY -3p return come -WANT
UNC say
-1s
‘They were sitting. “Maybe they want to come back?” I thought.’ (T1.15)
[Uncertainty is expressed by the modality particle tauo (taumo).]
(22)
“…Aine
kese baim u
-apesi.
Mo
na
mo,” u -r
-a.
7
fish
case buy do
-WANT
this thing here say-PRES-3s
‘… “(You) want to buy a case of fish. Here it is.”…he said.’ (T1.20.11)
6 The gloss for “want” is written in small capitals in italics to distinguish it as a suffix. 7 U ‘do’ can be a light verb with borrowings from Tok Pisin, e.g., baim ‘buy’ (Priestley 2008:398). ~9~
PRIESTLEY
Tense-subject person-number, e.g., third person with the light verb u ‘say/do’
(23) Wera ya
hes
-apesi
u
-a
-te
child water wash -WANT
say(LV)-3s -DR
aha
-nema te
eme
te
-pe
yare -r
-a.
mother-P3s PS
take/carry
GET -SR
go
-PRES -3s
‘The child wanted to wash (so) her mother took her and went (to the river).’ (G.E.30.3)
[H]
u-apesi
(someone) wants to do this V-apesi in sequence with another verb
• the verbs have the same subject
• the subsequent verb is fully inflected for tense-subject: person-number
• ‘someone wants to do something, because of this, this she does something else before’
• -apesi may incorporate -pe ‘same subject referent following’ and seipa ‘reason’
(24)
…koia
aiake
oro
-apesi ya
ne
-e
-te…
sweet.potato cassava
dig.up -WANT go
STAY -3p -DR
‘…wanting to dig up sweet potato and cassava they went…’ (T.2M 1.5)
(25)
sakine nokono te
-nek -apesi ka
-r
-i
=mo.
talk good give -O2p -WANT come -PRES -1s
=BM
‘Wanting to give you this good news I‘ve come.’ (Za1 Lk 1:19)
(26)
Ian
Ian
hare sai
ALOC talk
pe
her
-apesi
stand PUT -WANT
Sarere
Ihi
pa
yari -hi
=mo.
Saturday
(Ramu) Sugar G/L go
-F1s =BM
‘Wanting to send a message to Ian, I’ll go to Ramu Sugar on Saturday.’ (D10.48.2)
Clause chain: V-pe “same referent following” V-apesi
(27) Heteri -pe
usu
t
-apesi.
run -SR
pig
get
-WANT
‘He is running (because) he wants to get a pig.’
(28)
Tamaite
man
wei
-rame
fight -person
W ANT
semta
-e.
play/gamble -3p
Yesu o
tahi
ne porone -pe
t
-apesi.
Jesus GEN clothes -P3s divide
-SR
get
-WANT
‘The soldiers gambled and divided Jesus’ clothes (because) they wanted them.’ (Lk 23:34)
[I] V-pe V-apesi someone does something at some time (because) this someone wants to do something else after ~ 10 ~
PRIESTLEY
8.2
•
•
•
V-apesi and the complement-taking light verb u
-apesi as “be about to”, prospective, imminent action
Animate/inanimate subject
Cf. generalised immediate future, Papuan languages, Ku Waru (Merlan & Rumsey 1991)
Examples with sentient subjects, distinct from direct speech in (4)
(29) Sakin ato
s
-apesi u
-r
-i.
story one say
-be.about.to say(LV)-PRES -1s
‘I am about to tell one story.’ (T1.14.1)
V–apesi with a subject not a pre-quote formula
(30) Korike
k
-apesi
u
-e
-te
men -i
Korike
come -be.about.to say(LV)-3p -SR
stay -1s
‘The Korike people were about to come so I stayed.’ (G.E.30.1)
[J]
=mo.
=BM
V-apesi u-i (Sentient subject)
someone will do something a short time after this Non-sentient subjects: no possibility of ambiguity
(31) Tiri pere -apesi
u
-a
-te
men
tree fall
-be.about.to say(LV)-3s -DR stay
‘The tree was about to fall so I stayed.’ (G.E.30.1)
-i.
-1s
Wildlife
(32) Apu uo,
atupu uo,
eti
amoko noko -apesi u
-r
-a.
now GRD b.of.p GRD skirt new dress -be.about.to say(LV)-PRES -3s
‘Now, the bird of paradise, it is about to put on its new skirts (feathers).’ (T1.5.1)
(b.of.p = bird of paradise)
[K]
V-apesi u-a (Non-sentient subject)
something will happen to something a short time after this 9. Internal and negative experience
9.1 Desires and internal experience:
A complement-taking modal verb o r u “feel like” follows a complement
• V-apu “nominaliser” (sensation inside the body)
• a noun (consumable item)
Impersonal experiencer constructions (Priestley 2008:403-423, cf. Kalam, Pawley et al. 2000,
Amele, Roberts 2001 etc)
for “physical and psychological conditions or sensations” (e.g., mahe “shame”, peraru “hunger”):
• an object experiencer
• an anonymous third person singular subject
~ 11 ~
PRIESTLEY
(33)
[L] Yakere-apu oru
-se
-r
-a.
laugh -NOM feel.like-O1s -PRES -3s
‘It makes me feel like laughing.’ (‘I want to laugh.’)
V-apu oru-se-r-a something is happening inside my body, I want to do something because of this Noun complements refer to consumable entities.8
(34) I
ya
oru
-se
-r
-a.
1s
water feel.like
-O1s -PRES -3s
‘I feel like (thirst for) water.’
9.2 Not wanting (to do) something: negative desiderative
Complement-taking modal verb maikohu “don’t want (to)”
(not restricted to internal experiences, e.g., bodily functions, involuntary conditions/sensations)
Complement V-apu
(35) Usu ho
-apu
maikohu
-neka -r
-a.
pig
butcher
-NOM
don’t.want -O3p -PRES -3s
‘They don’t want to butcher the pig.’ (‘Butchering the pig is not wanted by them.’)
(D7.1.6 – cf. T2.14.18)
[M]
V-apu maikohu-se-r-a
I don’t want to do this Complement NP
(36) Ea
-hau
wene nare maikoho
-se
-r
-a.
yesterday
-TADJ
food cold don’t.want -O1s -PRES -3s
‘I don’t want left over cold food from yesterday.’ (‘Yesterday’s cold food isn’t wanted by
me.’) (D9.7.3)
[MM] NP maikohu-se-r-a
I don’t want this Lexical exponents in other languages, e.g.:
• Tok Pisin mi les “I don’t want (to)’
• Achenese bèk ‘I don’t want/(may it not be/happen)’ (Durie, Daud & Hasan 1994:180)
• Kayardild warnaja ‘diswant/dislike/avoid’ (Evans 1994:210)
• Longgu oni ‘not want’ (Hill 1994:322)
10. Concluding Remarks
A range of constructions to express event modality
A simple metalanguage for clear formulation of meaning, testing and use with Koromu speakers
8 Ne “consume” is used for “eat” or “drink” while oru “want” is used for hunger and thirst. ~ 12 ~
PRIESTLEY
Appendix 1 Map
~ 13 ~
PRIESTLEY
Appendix 2. Semantic primes English, Koromu, Tok Pisin Exponents
• Primes exist as the meanings of lexical units (not at the level of lexemes).
• Exponents of primes may be words, bound morphemes, or phrasemes.
• Exponents can be formally complex.
• They can have language-specific combinatorial variants (allolexes, indicated with ~).
• Each prime has well-specified syntactic (combinatorial) properties.
ENGLISH KOROMU (provisional) I, YOU, SOMEONE, I, NE, ATO, SOMETHING~THING, NA, PEOPLE, BODY AHAROPU, METE KIND, TOMTOM, PART MO~ASAO~-­‐NE THIS, THE SAME, MO, ATEREI, OTHER~ELSE TOMO ONE, TWO, ATEREI, AERE, SOME, ALL, ASA, NUPU, MUCH~MANY, LITTLE~FEW NUPU, WERAI GOOD, BAD ETAMAU, WARIKAU BIG, SMALL ARENE, WERAKAHUNO THINK, KNOW, URUNU, SIPAMU, WANT, NOT WANT URUNU~-­‐APESI, MAIKOHU FEEL, SEE, HEAR ORU~URUNU, WERE, ESERE SAY, WORDS, TRUE SA, SAKINE, ITINI DO, HAPPEN, HARU, AIRI, MOVE, TOUCH MOTOMOTO, MOTO BE (SOMEWHERE), MENE, THERE IS, MENE, BE(SOMEONE/SOMETHING), HAVE (SOMETHING)~BE SOMEONE’S MENE MENE~-­‐NE* LIVE, DIE ENE, EME WHEN~TIME, NOW, ENAPU~SA, APU, BEFORE, AFTER, SURUMAPA, EPONO, A LONG TIME, A SHORT TIME, SA OROHOI*, SA HANE*, FOR SOME TIME*, ATOTUHUNU PAO, MOMENT APU MOREI WHERE~PLACE, HERE, ANI~SA, MO PA, ABOVE, BELOW, NAUMPA, WARISESA, FAR, NEAR, AIAKE, WAIMESA, SIDE, INSIDE MESA, ORU PA NOT, MAYBE, IA~TAI, TAUMO, CAN, BECAUSE, IF NAUTO, U SEI, UO VERY, HEREKANI, MORE APAI LIKE UAPU ~ 14 ~
TOK PISIN (see Priestley 1999a&b, 2008 MI, YU, WANPELA, SAMTING, MANMERI, BODI KAIN, HAP DISPELA, WANKAIN, NARAPELA WANPELA, TUPELA, SAMPELA, OLGETA, PLANTI, LIKLIK GUTPELA, NOGUT BIKPELA, LIKLIK TINGTING, SAVE, LAIK, NO LAIK~LES BEL~PILIM, LUKIM, HARIM TOK, TOK, TRU WOKIM, KAMAP, I GO, I PAS I STAP, I STAP, I, I GAT I STAP (LAIP), DAI WANEM TAIM~TAIM, NAU, BIPO, BIHAIN, LONGTAIM TRU, LIKLIK TAIM, LONGTAIM LIKLIK, ?WANPELA TAIM WE~PLES, HIA, ANTAP, DAUNBILO, LONGWE, KLOSTU, SAIT, INSAIT NO, ATING, INAP, LONG DISPELA, SAPOS TUMAS, MOA OLSEM substantives relational substantives determiners quantifiers evaluators descriptors mental predicates speech action, events, movement, contact location, existence, specification, possession life death time space logical concepts intensifier, augmentor similarity PRIESTLEY
References
Andrews JR 1975 Introduction to Classical Nahuatl Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bugenhagen RD 1993 ‘The semantics of irrealis in Austronesian languages of Papua New Guinea. A crosslinguistic study’ in GP Reesink (ed) Topics in Descriptive Austronesian Linguistics Semaian 11. Leiden: Vakgroep
Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Rijksuniversiteit de Leiden. Pp. 1-39.
Bugenhagen RD 1989 ‘Modality in Mangap-Mbula: An exploration of its syntax and semantics’ Language and
Linguistics in Melanesia 20(1/2):9-39.
Chung S & A Timberlake 1985 ‘Tense, aspect and mood’ in T Shopen (ed) Language Typology and Syntactic
Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 202-258.
Durie, M, B Daud & M Hasan 1994 ‘Achenese’ in C Goddard & A Wierzbicka (eds) Semantic and Lexical Universals:
Theory and empirical findings Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 171-201.
Evans, N 1994 ‘Kayardild’ in C Goddard & A Wierzbicka (eds) Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and empirical
findings Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 203-228.
Foley, WA 1991 The Yimas Language of New Guinea Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Goddard C 2008 Cross-Linguistic Semantics Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
——— 2011 Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction (revised second edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——— Forthcoming ‘Have to, have got to, and must: NSM analyses of English modal verbs of “necessity”’ in M
Taboade & R Trnavac (eds) Nonveridicality, Evaluation and Coherence Relations (“Studies in Pragmatics” series
Emerald) [submitted Dec 2011].
Goddard C & A Wierzbicka (eds) 2002 Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings Volume 1
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gumperz J 1982 Discourse Strategies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, D 1994 ‘Longgu’ in C Goddard & A Wierzbicka (eds) Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and empirical findings
Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 31-329.
MacDonald L 1990 A Grammar of Tauya Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Merlan F & A Rumsey 1991 Ku Waru: Language and Segmentary Politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley, Papua New Guinea
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mithun M 1999 The Languages of Native North America Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mosel, U 1994 ‘Samoan’ in C Goddard & A Wierzbicka (eds) Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and empirical
findings Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 331-360.
Palmer FR 2001 Mood and Modality Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawley A, SP Gi, IS Majnep & J Kias 2000 ‘Hunger acts on me: The grammar and semantics of bodily and mental
process expressions in Kalam’ in VP De Guzman & BW Bender (eds) Grammatical Analysis in Morphology,
Syntax and Semantics: Studies in honor of Stanley Starosta Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Pp 153-185.
Payne TE 1997 Describing Morhphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Priestley C 1999a ‘Suggested exponents and grammar of substantives and mental predicates in Tok Pisin’
unpublished manuscript (MA course): Australian National University.
______1999b ‘Suggested exponents and grammar of some further predicates in Tok Pisin unpublished
manuscript (MA course): Australian National University.
______2002a The Morphosyntax of Verbs in Koromu (Kesawai), a Language of Papua New Guinea Unpublished MA
thesis: The Australian National University.
——— 2002b ‘Insides and emotion in Koromu’ in NJ Enfield & A Wierzbicka (eds) The Body in Description of
Emotion: Cross-Linguistic Studies Pragmatics and Cognition Special Issue 10:1/2 Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. Pp. 243-270.
~ 15 ~
PRIESTLEY
——— 2008 A Grammar of Koromu (Kesawai), a Trans New Guinea Language of Papua New Guinea Unpublished PhD
thesis: The Australian National University.
——— Forthcominga Koromu: A Papuan language of Kesawai and nearby villages Berlin: The Pacific Linguistics Series
Mouton de Gruyter. (based on 2008)
——— Forthcomingb ‘What’s in a name? Personal reference expressions, cultural values and cultural scripts in
the Papuan language of Koromu.
Reesink G 1993 ‘“Inner Speech” in Papuan languages’ Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 24:217-225.
Roberts JR 1990 ‘Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages’ Journal of Linguistics 26(2):363-401.
——— 1997 ‘Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: A preliminary survey’ in A Pawley (ed) Papers in Papuan
Linguistics No. 3 Pacific Linguistics A-87 Canberra: Australian National University. Pp. 101-241.
——— 2001 ‘Impersonal constructions in Amele’ in A Aikhenvald, RMW Dixon & M Onishi (eds) Non-canonical
Marking of Subjects and Objects Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pp. 201250.
Rumsey A 2001 ‘On the syntax and semantics of trying’ in J Simpson, D Nash, M Laughren, P
Austin & B Alpher (eds) Forty Years on: Ken Hale and Australian Languages Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Pp.
353-363.
Timberlake A 2007 ‘Aspect, tense, mood’ in T Shopen (ed) Language Typology and Syntactic Description Second edition
Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 280333.
Van Valin Jr RD 2005 Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka A 1987 ‘The semantics of modality’ Folia Linguistica 21(1):25-43.
——— 1991 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (2003).
——— 1996 Semantics: Primes and Universals Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——— 2006a English: Meaning and Culture New York: Oxford University Press.
——— 2006b ‘Anglo scripts against “putting pressure” on other people and their linguistic manifestations’ in C
Goddard (ed) Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 3163.
Z’graggen, JA 1980 A comparative word list of the Rai Coast languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea D30
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
~ 16 ~