Alexandre Francois

32 Pages·2005·0.23 MB·English

by  Alexandre Francois

Language Profile
A typological overview of Mwotlap,
an Oceanic language of Vanuatu
ALEXANDREFRANÇOIS
Abstract
Thetypologistreaderispresentedherewithanoverviewofthemostinteresting
characteristicsofMwotlap,anOceaniclanguageofVanuatu.Afterashortpre-
sentationofitsphonology,itsmainmorphosyntacticcategoriesaredescribed
and explored from a functional angle. The construal of noun phrases reveals
acognitiveasymmetrybetweenhumanindividualsandotherreferents.Nouns,
just like verbs or adjectives, are predicative, and are even sensitive to tense-
aspect-moodmarkersandactionality properties.Theargumentstructureofa
verbcanregularlybeaffectedbyitsmodifiers.Finally,deicticscanbeshownto
playamajorroleinthestructuringofdiscourseandcomplexsentences.When-
everrelevant,thegrammarofMwotlapisbrieflycomparedtootherlanguages,
andassessedinthelightofexistingtypologicalgeneralisations.
Keywords: actionality, animacy, aspect, clause combining, deixis, Mwotlap,
negation, number, incorporation, Oceanic, possession, predica-
tion, pronoun, referentiality, serial verbs, valency change, vowel
harmony
1. Introduction
AmongthehundredormoreOceaniclanguagesspokentodayintheRepublic
ofVanuatu,Mwotlapisstillwellalive,beingspokenbyadynamicpopulation
of2,000speakersofallages.ApartfromthosewholiveinVila,wheretheBis-
lamapidginisthreateningthevernaculars,themajorityofMwotlap-speaking
peopleresideontheirtinyislandofMotalava,inthenorthofthearchipelago.
Theirwayoflife,whichcombinessubsistenceagriculture andfishing,essen-
tiallyperpetuatesthecultureoftheirAustronesianancestorswhofirstpeopled
theserainforestislandsabout3,200yearsago.TheslowintroductionofWest-
ern education and economy has had limited impact upon daily life thus far;
LinguisticTypology9(2005),115–146 1430–0532/2005/009-0115
(cid:1)cWalterdeGruyter
116 AlexandreFrançois
butthe ancientsocialorganisationandpolitical institutions havebeenlargely
ruinedbytheChristianmissionariesoverthelast150years,tosuchanextent
thatmostoftheknowledgeregardingthetraditionalsocietynowonlysurvives
inthememoryofafew.
ThispaperaimsatprovidingtypologistswithasyntheticviewofMwotlap
grammar(François2001b,2003a).Forpresentpurposes,wewillconfineour-
selvestotheprincipalwheelsofthesystemandfocusonthecharacteristicsthat
makethislanguagetypologicallyunusual.AlthoughMwotlapobviouslyshares
a number of properties with other languagesof the Oceanic family (Lynch et
al.2002),wewillhavetokeepsuchcomparisonstoaminimum,forthismight
leadusbeyondthescopeofthispresentation.Likewise,thehistoricaldimen-
sionwillhavetobeomitted,sothatMwotlapwillonlybedescribedsynchron-
ically.Wheneveruseful,referencestootherrelevantpublicationswillbegiven.
After a review of its most salient phonological properties (Section 2), the
followingsectionswilldescribethemainregularitiesofthemorphosyntax,as
well as the semantic categoriesand functional motivations theyreveal:in the
domain of noun phrases (Section 3), in TAM-marked verb phrases and other
formsofpredicates(Section4),inthemanagingofarguments(Section5),and
inthegeneralorganisationofthesentence(Section6).
2. Phonology
2.1. Phonemeinventory
TheinventoryofconsonantsisgiveninTable1.Thesystemlacksanyflapor
trill.Asforthelabialstop[p],itonlyexistsasanallophoneofthephoneme/B/
syllable-finally:e.g.,/BaBaB/‘say’isrealisedas[BaBap],andspeltvavap./G/
oftensurfacesasavelarglide[î],thatis,anunrounded[w].Theonlyvoiced
stops are prenasalised /mb/ and /nd/; this is the form taken by plain voiced
stops in loanwords: e.g., [OktOmba] ‘October’. These prenasalised phonemes
losetheiroralcomponentsyllable-finally:1e.g.,theloanword[mbElEkat](from
Englishplaycards)reduplicatesas[mbElEmlEkat];similarly[ndIjI]‘wait’be-
¯
comes[mEnjI]whenprefixedwithPerfect/mE-/.
¯
Crosslinguistically, labiovelar obstruents may consist of a combination of
velarplosivepluslabiovelarglide,as[kw],[gw]inProto-Indo-European;labial
plosive plus labiovelar glide, as [bw], [mw] in many Oceanic languages; or
> > >
labiovelarplosivewithoutglide,as[kp],[gb],[Nm]inmanylanguagesofCen-
tralAfrica.Mwotlapillustratesthemaximalcombination,withlabiovelarplo-
sive plus labiovelar glide, namely [k>pw] and [N>mw]. The now extinct dialect
ofVolowevenhadamorecomplexphoneme,aprenasalisedvoicedlabiovelar
>
stop[Nmgbw].
1.Mwotlapsyllableshavetheform(C)V(C):seeSection2.2.2.
AtypologicaloverviewofMwotlap 117
Table1. TheconsonantsofMwotlap
labiovelar bilabial alveolar velar glottal
>
voicelessstops kpw t k
prenasalisedvoicedstops mb nd
fricatives B s G h
nasals N>mw m n N
lateral l
glides w j
Vowelsformasymmetricalsystemwithsevenmembers:/iIEaOUu/,all
short. Mwotlaplackslongvowelsordiphthongs,aswellastones.Allwords,
orphrases,arestressedontheirfinalsyllable.
2.2. Mainphonologicalrules
ThephonologyofMwotlapisdominatedbyvariousformsofdistanceassimi-
lationbetweenvowels.
2.2.1. Vowel harmony. The Advanced Tongue Root (atr) feature is in-
volvedinthecontrastbetween[+atr]/i/–/u/ontheonehand,andtheir[−atr]
counterpart /I/–/U/ on the other hand. Mwotlap is developing a form of [atr]
vowel harmony (François 1999; 2001b: 94, 472), which is unusual in the
Oceanicarea.
Indeed,themorphologyofinalienablepossession(seeTable3andSection
3.2.3)involvestwostems.Stem1combineswith1sgsuffix-k,andendswitha
>
vowelotherthan/a/,e.g.,/kpwIlGE-k/‘myfather-in-law’,/mOju-k/‘myuncle’;
¯ ¯
stem2combineswith 3sgsuffix-n, andalways involvesa finalvowelthatis
>
onesteplowerthanstem1:thus/kpwIlGa-n/‘hisfather-in-law’,/mOjU-n/‘his
¯ ¯
uncle’.Now,theruleforvowelharmonyappliestothoselexemes–infactno
morethanten–whosestem1displaystwohigh[+atr]vowels/i/or/u/inthe
lasttwosyllables.Inthiscase,theloweringofthefinalvowelfrom[+atr]/i/or
/u/to[−atr]/I/or/U/contaminatestheprecedingsyllable(s).Thisamountsto
aformofleftward[atr]harmonisation,e.g.,/inti-k/‘mychild’→/IntI-n/‘his
child’;/ni-nini-k/‘myshadow’→/nI-nInI-n/‘hisshadow’;/n-ulsi/‘top(of)’
→/n-UlsI-n/‘itstop’.
Notethatthisruledoesnotoperateintheotherdirection.Forexample,the
[−atr] stem 2 /nU-GUjI -n/ ‘its root’ corresponds to a heterogeneous stem 1
/nU-GUji/‘root(of)’,no¯t*/nu-Guji/.Inotherwords,[−atr]istheactivevalue
in this pattern of vowel harmony. Mwotlap therefore contradicts the general
118 AlexandreFrançois
tendency observed in Africa (Casali 2003: 356), that a /iI E a O U u/ system
shouldtypicallyresultin[+atr]dominance.
2.2.2. Vowelepenthesisandvowelcopy AlsonoteworthyinMwotlapisthe
set of rules derived from phonotactic constraints. The only acceptable sylla-
ble pattern is (C)V(C). This implies that clusters of two (and no more) con-
sonantsarecommonwithintheword,butimpossibleinbothword-initialand
word-final position. Consequently, aroot whose underlyingform begins with
C C V- must undergo vowel epenthesis whenever C coincides with the
1 2 i 1
word boundary: C C V- → C VC V- / #__; e.g., #mtij → [mitij] ‘sleep’;
1 2 i 1 i 2 i
#BlaG → [BalaG] ‘run’. But this epenthesis is unnecessary when the C C V-
1 2 i
roottakesaprefixoftheformCV,likePerfect/mE-/:mE-+mtij→[mEmtij]
‘slept’;mE-+BlaG→[mEplaG]‘ran’.Acorollaryofthismechanismisitsde-
marcativefunction: ithelps locate the wordboundary, andtherefore provides
atesttodistinguishbetweencompoundwordsandphrases,aswellasbetween
affixesandclitics.Forexample,the singlephonologicalword[na-pnU] ‘a/the
village’showsthenominalarticletobeanaffix(prefixna-,seeSection3.2.1),
whereasthe sequence[nEBUnU]‘ofthevillage’mustbeanalysedastwodis-
tinctphonologicalwords,thepreposition/nE/‘of’beingaclitic.
Besidesepenthesis,themorphologyofprefixesischaracterisedbypervasive
rulesof(i)vowelelision(e.g.,/na-/+/Et/→[n-Et]‘person’;/mE-/+/ak/‘do’
→[m-ak]‘hasdone’);(ii)vowelcopy(e.g.,/na-/+/GOm/→[nO-GOm]‘sick-
ness’; /mE-/ + /GOm/ → [mO-GOm] ‘got sick’); and (iii) vowel transfer (/na-/
+ /BIhOG/ → [nI-phOG] ‘flesh’; /mE-/ + /liwO/ ‘big’ → [mi-lwO] ‘increased’).
Theserules,whichcannotbedetailedhere,arebestanalysedinamulti-linear
framework,resortingtosuchnotionsas“syllabictemplate”and“floatingvow-
els”(François2000a,2001b:96–128).
Inthefollowingsections,Mwotlapformswillbecitedemployingtheorthog-
raphy in use. The conventions include the following: e = [E]; e¯ = [I]; o = [O];
o¯=[U];y=[j];g=[G];v=[B];b=[mb];d=[nd];n¯=[N];q=[kpw];m¯ =[Nmw].
3. Themechanicsofreference
Inordertoprovideapredicatewithitsarguments,aprepositionwithitscom-
plement,orapossesseditemwithitspossessor,oneneedstorefertoentities.
Thisisdoneessentiallybymeansofpersonalmarkers(Section3.1)andnoun
phrases(Section3.2).
3.1. Pronounsandpersonalmarkers
3.1.1. The main paradigms. The distinction between inclusive and exclu-
sive 1st person, combined with the use of four numbers (singular, dual, trial,
plural),isthereasonwhyMwotlappossessesasmanyasfifteencombinations
AtypologicaloverviewofMwotlap 119
Table2. ThepersonalpronounsofMwotlap
singular dual trial plural
1inc do¯ ∼do¯yo¯ e¯nte¯l∼de¯te¯l ge¯n
1exc no∼nok kamyo¯ kamte¯l kem∼kemem
2 ne¯k ko¯myo¯ ke¯mte¯l kimi
3 ke¯ ko¯yo¯ ke¯yte¯l ke¯y
ofpersonandnumber.Nogenderdistinctionofanykindismadeinthemor-
phologyofthislanguage.Thesefifteencategoriesarethendistributedintosev-
eralparadigmsofmarkersaccordingtotheirfunction.Theprincipalsetisthat
of simple personal pronouns (Table 2), which fill the slots of subject, object,
complementofpreposition:
(1) No m-et ko¯yo¯; ko¯yo¯ m-et no.
1sg pft-see 3du 3du pft-see 1sg
‘Isawthem,andtheysawme.’
Mwotlapfollowsastrictlynominative–accusativesyntax,withSVOastheba-
sicconstituentorder.Intheabsenceofcasemarking,thefunctionofthecore
argumentsisonlyindicatedbytheirpositioninthesentence.
Special emphatic forms, phonologically heavier (e.g., ino 1sg, ine¯k 2sg,
(i)do¯yo¯ 1inc.du),mustbeusedinthepositionsoftopic,predicate,orfocus:
(2) Et-ine¯k te, ino no ta-dam qiyig ke¯.
neg -2sg.emph neg 1sg.emph 1sg hf -follow hf 3sg
1 2 1 2
(lit.)‘It’snotyou,(it’s)me(who)willgowithher.’
There is noreflexiveor reciprocal2 pronoun. The ordinarypronouns are used
inallcases,withresultingambiguity:
(3) Ko¯yo¯ mu-wuh mat ko¯yo¯.
3du pft-hit dead 3du
(i) ‘They killedthem.’(differentparticipants)
i j
(ii) ‘They killedthemselves.’(reflexive)
i i
(iii) ‘Theykilledeachother.’(reciprocal)
Suchasentencecanbedisambiguated,atleastpartially,bythereversivemod-
ifierlok(‘back’):
2.Thereciprocalprefixve¯y-isnotsyntacticallyproductive,andisonlyattestedinahandful
oflexicalcollocations.Theresultofthisderivationisanintransitiveverb:tit‘knock(s.o.)’
→ve¯y-titit‘fight(witheachother)’.
120 AlexandreFrançois
Table3. Possessivesuffixesandstemvariation
singular dual trial plural
1inc e¯plo¯-do¯ e¯plo¯-nte¯l e¯plo¯-nge¯n
1exc iplu-k iplu-mamyo¯ iplu-mamte¯l iplu-mem
2 iplu(-Ø) iplu-mo¯yo¯ iplu-me¯te¯l iplu-mi
3 e¯plo¯-n e¯plo¯-yo¯ e¯plo¯-yte¯l e¯plo¯-y
(cid:3)
(3) Ko¯yo¯ mu-wuh mat lok ko¯yo¯.
3du pft-hit dead rever 3du
(i)??‘They killedthem back.’
i j
(ii) ‘They killedthemselves.’(reflexive)
i i
(iii) ‘Theykilledeachother.’(reciprocal)
Another set of personal markers is the list of fifteen possessive suffixes,
which combine with inalienable nouns and possessive classifiers (Section
3.2.3).Thenounappearseitherwithitsstem1oritsstem2(seeSection2.2.1),
followingsomemorphologicalvariationwhichcannotbedetailedhere.Table3
illustratestheinflectionofnounsforpossession,usingtheinalienablenouniplu
‘friend,fellow’.
Aparticularpatterninvolvingpersonalpronounsdeservesattention:the“in-
clusory” constructions,3 which are common in Oceania (Lichtenberk 2000).
In one of these structures, a first phrase referring to a single person X (noun,
proper name) is followed by a non-singular 3rd person pronoun, to refer to a
groupofpeopleincludingX:e.g.,Edgako¯yo¯ (lit.Edgarthey-two)‘Edgarand
hisfellow/hiswife/hisdaughter...’;doktake¯y(lit.doctorthey)‘thedoctorand
his team/his friends/his relatives ...’ (distinct from plural ige dokta ‘the doc-
tors’). Another inclusory structure consists of a dual pronoun to be followed
byaphrasereferringexplicitlytothesecondmemberYofthecouple:kamyo¯
welan(lit.we-twochief)‘thechiefandI’;see(36).Thesameappliesofdual
possessivesuffixes:
(4) inti-mamyo¯ welan
child-1exc.du chief
‘thesonIhadwiththechief’(lit.,thechildofus-twochief)
Finally,thecombinationofthesetwoinclusoryconstructionshaspavedthe
way for the 3rd person dual pronoun ko¯yo¯ to grammaticalise as the standard
3.TheseconstructionsweredescribedbyFrançois(2001b:384–392;477–481)underthename
“associativenon-singular”,suggestingacomparisonwithasimilarpatternknownas“asso-
ciativeplural”(Corbett2000:101–110,Moravcsik2003).
AtypologicaloverviewofMwotlap 121
NPcoordinator(Xko¯yo¯ Y ‘XandY’),atleastwhentwohumanindividualsare
beingassociated:
(5) No m-et ve¯glal imam ko¯yo¯ tita.
1sg pft-see know father 3du mother
‘Irecogniseddadandmum.’(lit.,...dadthey-twomum)
3.1.2. Some restricted paradigms. What is particularly original among
Mwotlappronounsistheexistenceofthreesetsofmarkers,whosefunctional
restrictionsexplainwhytheyarelimitedtocertainpersons.
First,commandsmakeuseofaspeciallistofimperativepronouns,centred
ontheaddressee:Øfor2sg,amyo¯ for2du,amte¯lfor2tr,amifor2pl.Imper-
ativemodalityisthereforecodedonthepronounratherthanontheverb:
(6) a. Ko¯myo¯ hohole liwo.
2du aor.speak.dup big
‘You’respeakingloudly.’(statement)
b. Amyo¯ hohole liwo!
2du.imp aor.speak.dup big
‘Speakup!’(command)
Second, the vocative function involves three pronoun-like forms, which of
course are also reserved for the second person: yohe¯ ‘you two’, te¯lhe¯ ‘you
three’,ye¯he¯‘youguys’.Thereisnospecificformforthesingular;otheraddress
strategies are used instead, such as a proper name (except for in-laws), a kin
term,oranounlikebulsal!‘mate!’:
(7) a. E¯t! Bulsal! (Ø) van to¯ me!
excl mate (2sg.imp) aor.go polit hither
‘Hey,mate!Comehereforasecond.’
b. E¯t! Yohe¯! Amyo¯ van to¯ me!
excl du.voc 2du.imp aor.go polit hither
‘Hey,youguys!Comehereforasecond.’
A Mwotlap speaker will use the honorific dual when addressing, or talking
about,anin-law.Inthisspecificcase,asentencelike(7b)willrefertoasingle
person–aswiththeFrenchhonorificpluralvous.
Third,theparticlewo,whichservesforquotingspeechandfacialexpression,
maytakeanordinarypronounasitssubject(ke¯ wo...‘hesaid:...’).Butthe
languagealsopossessesasmallsetofquotativepronounsexclusivelyforthis
purpose,andreservedforthe3rdperson:amtan3sg,amtayo¯ 3du,etc.
(8) To¯ amtan wo “M-akteg?!”.
then 3sg.quot quot pft-do.what
‘Sohewent:‘What’sgoingon?!’.’
122 AlexandreFrançois
Thestylisticallymarkedpronounamtanispreferredtoke¯ whenspeakerswant
to make their speech more expressive or recherché, either in a literary or a
jocular context (compare English he said vs. he went). Etymologically, these
curiousformsprobablymeant‘hisface[wentlikethis...]’(cf.na-mta-n‘his
eyes’). A rarer variant amtaln¯an also includes the radical of na-ln¯a-n ‘his
voice’.
3.2. Nounsandnounphrases
ThecanonicalorderofNPelementsisstatedandexemplifiedin(9):
(9) a. article – head noun – modifying noun – adjective – purpo-
1 2 3 4
sivephrase –possessor –numeral –quantifier –locative –
5 6 7 8 9
deictic –relativeclause –discoursemarker
10 11 12
b. na -tno kikbol liwo no-nge¯n vo¯yo¯ yow no¯k
1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10
art-place soccer big poss-1inc.pl two out there
en
12
bkg
‘thesetwolargesoccerfieldsofoursoverthereseawards’
Notice that Mwotlap constitutes no exception to the typological observations
madebyGreenberg(1963):thepost-nominalpositionofadjectives,possessors,
andothermodifiersisconsistentwithitsSVObasicconstituentorder,aswell
aswiththeuseofprepositionsorclause-initiallinkers.
ThepossiblefunctionsanNPcanfulfilareverbalargument(subject,object:
seeSection5),complementofpreposition(Section5.3),possessorphrase,or
predicate (Section 4.1.1). This section will focus on the internal structure of
thenounphrase,presentingthenounanditsarticle(Section3.2.1),aswellas
principles for coding number (Section 3.2.2) and possession (Section 3.2.3).
OtherelementsoftheNP,suchasdeicticsorrelativeclauses,willbediscussed
later.
3.2.1. Noun classes and the individuation scale. Mwotlap possesses two
classesofnouns,whichdifferintheirmorphosyntacticbehaviour.ClassIcon-
sistsoflexemesthatmayfunctiondirectly(thatis,withnoneedofthearticle
na-)astheheadofanNP.Semanticallyspeaking,thesenounsallsharethefea-
ture [+human]: e.g., imam ‘dad’, moyu-k ‘my uncle’, te¯yte¯ybe¯ ‘a/the healer’,
welan‘a/thechief’.TheseClassInounsfillthesameslotaspropernames,as
wellas–toalesserextent–personalpronouns.
ClassIIconsistsofthoselexemesthatneedthearticleprefixna-(∼nV-)in
order to become the head of an NP. Generally speaking, the members of this
class II are all [−human] nouns, whether animals, objects, abstract notions,
verbalnouns,andsoon:e.g.,na-bago‘shark’,ne-vet‘stone’,na-pno¯ ‘village’,
AtypologicaloverviewofMwotlap 123
no-gom‘sickness’,ne-welan‘chiefhood’(vs.welan‘chief’).Theonlyexcep-
tionstothe[−human]rulearethethreeClassIInounsn-et‘person’,na-tm¯an
‘man’,na-lqo¯ve¯n‘woman’.
Whendeprivedofitsarticlena-,aClassIIlexemedoesnotformavalidNP,
and can only function as a modifier of another head. Thus in eachof the fol-
lowingphrases,thesecondwordactsasamodifiertotheprecedingnoun:e.g.,
n-e¯m¯ vet‘astonehouse’,n-e¯m¯ gom‘asicknesshouse(ahospital)’,bo¯bo¯tam¯an
‘grandparentmale (grandfather)’, na-he et ‘a person’sname’.The unprefixed
form of the noun is also required after certain linkers, such as ne ‘of’: welan
nevo¯no¯ ‘thechiefofthevillage’.Likewise,abareClassIInounmaymodify
averbalhead,asinthecaseofobjectincorporation(Section5.2.1):tan¯tan¯ et
‘toperson-touch(tomassage)’,we¯lwe¯llo¯qo¯ve¯n‘towoman-buy(tomarry)’.In
practically all these cases, the unprefixed Class II noun appears to point to a
quality (e.g., vet ‘stony’, tam¯an ‘male’) rather than designate an autonomous
entity; and it is precisely the function of the article na- to embody this qual-
ity into a discrete, specific referent (e.g., ne-vet ‘a/the stone’, na-tm¯an ‘a/the
man’).
The formal split betweenthese two noun classescan perhaps be explained
in functional terms. The faculty of being compatible with both a referential
and a non-referential interpretation is typically a characteristic of [−human]
nouns,aswellasofthethree[+human]nounsthatarestatisticallymostlikely
to be used as a generic modifier (‘person’, ‘man’, ‘woman’). All these Class
II lexemesare thuspotentiallyambiguous onthe scaleofspecificity,andthis
makestheformalcontrast/article+N/vs./bareN/functionallymeaningfulfor
them.Conversely,thereferentialitycriterionappearstobelessrelevantforthe
nounsofClassI,becausedesignatingapersontypicallyimpliesahighdegree
ofindividuation.
3.2.2. Coding for number. The semantic feature of humanhood appears to
be the key to understanding several formal categories throughout the gram-
marofMwotlap.Indeed,besidesaccountingforthedivisionofnounsintotwo
lexical classes, the same property is also central to the mechanics of number
marking.Briefly,numberdistinctionsareformallycodedwithhumanreferents,
butareneutralisedwhenthereferentisnon-human(François2001b:360–370).
3.2.2.1. Collectives and number articles. We already mentioned the four
number categories of Mwotlap in our discussion of pronouns; indeed, per-
son marking is typically a domain where a language should be expected to
makenumberdistinctions.AsfarasNPsareconcerned,non-singularnumber
iscodedbyatripletof“collective”morphemes.
Whenusedontheirown,thesepronoun-like collectivesrefertoagroupof
people,withnootherqualificationthanthefeature[+human]:yoge‘(the)two
124 AlexandreFrançois
people’,te¯lge‘(the)threepeople’,ige‘(the)people’.Unlikestandardpersonal
pronouns,thesecollectivestypicallydesignateanewreferent(indefinite):4
(10) a. Nitog ak magayse¯n ke¯y!
proh do sad 3pl
‘Stopannoyingthem!’(personalpronoun)
b. Nitog ak magayse¯n ige!
proh do sad coll.pl
‘Stopannoyingpeople!’(collective)
Most of the time, however, these collectives are followed by some kind of
modifier, just like any NP head would be (see 9). This can be an adjective
ige qagqag ‘(the) white people’;a locative phrase ige ta-Franis ‘the French’;
a purposive phrase ige bi-kikbol (lit., people for soccer) ‘soccer players’; a
possessive classifier ige mino (lit., people my) ‘my people, my family’; or a
deictic yoge go¯h ‘these two people’. For each of these phrases, the syntactic
headisclearlythecollective.
Of course, nothing prevents this modifier from being a noun, as long as
it is [+human]: te¯lge tam¯an (lit. three-people male) ‘(the) three men’, yoge
bulsal (lit. two-people friend) ‘(the) two friends’. As a matter of fact, this
is how Mwotlap regularly forms non-singular numbers for all its [+human]
nouns, whether of class I or class II: hence na-lqo¯ve¯n ‘(a/the) woman’, yoge
lo¯qo¯ve¯n ‘(the) two women’, te¯lge lo¯qo¯ve¯n ‘(the) three women’, ige lo¯qo¯ve¯n
‘(the)women’.Noticethatinthiscase,byaneffectofstructure,thearticlena-
receivesasingularreading(whichitdoesn’tnecessarilyhavewithnon-human
nouns);andthecollective,despitebeingformallytheNPhead,couldwellbe
analysedalternativelyasakindofnumberarticle.5
3.2.2.2. Themorphosyntaxofnumber. Besidestheuseofcollectivesonthe
noun, number distinctions may be encoded by other formal clues in the sen-
tence,suchasthereduplicationofcertainnounsoradjectives6(ne¯tm¯ey‘child’
4.Inothercases,thereferentofthecollectiveisalreadytopical(definite)buthasbeentem-
porarilydeactivatedindiscourse.Thedifferencebetweencollectivesandpersonalpronouns
intermsofthecognitiveactivationofthereferent(Givón1983,Terrill2001)willappearin
(43),withte¯lge‘thethreefellows’(definite,deactivated)vs.ke¯yte¯l‘they’(definite,activated).
5.Thesingularequivalentofacollectivephraserequiresanounasitssyntactichead.When
themodifierofthecollectiveisitselfanoun,thenitmayaloneconstitutethehead:thusige
lo¯qo¯ve¯n‘women’correspondstona-lqo¯ve¯n‘awoman’.Butotherkindsofmodifiers,suchas
thosecitedabove,mustresorttothedummynounet‘person’:n-etqagqag‘aWhiteman’,n-et
ta-Franis‘aFrenchman’,n-etbi-kikbol‘asoccerplayer’,n-etmino‘arelativeofmine’,n-et
go¯h‘thisperson’.
6.Tosomeextent,reduplicationontheverbmayalsosuggestapluralargument(subjectand/or
object);butthisisjustonepossiblereadingofpluralaction–whichiswhatreduplication
reallycodesfor(François2004b).