APLL8 Arnold slides

Ambel: An areal perspective

Laura Arnold

8th Austronesian and PapuanLanguages and Linguistics conference

SOAS, 14 May 2016

Areal studies Ambel: Background Ambel: Data Discussion References


1. Areal linguistics in east Indonesia

2. Ambel: Background

3. Ambel: DataAlienability distinctionLexical toneNeuter gender

4. Discussion

5. References






4. Discussion

5. References


Areal linguistics in east Indonesia


Areal linguistics in east Indonesia

I Voorhoeve (1987), Reesink (1998)

I Klamer et al. (2008); Klamer and Ewing (2010): The EastNusantara linguistic area

I Schapper (2015): TheWallacea linguistic area

I Gil (2015): The Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area


Areal linguistics in east Indonesia:East Nusantara (Klamer et al. 2008)

Adapted from Klamer et al. (2008)


Areal linguistics in east Indonesia:East Nusantara (Klamer et al. 2008)

Feature Presence in Ambel

1. SVO X2. Inclusive/Exclusive distinction X3. Alienability distinction X4. P��R�P��D order X5. Clause-�nal �� X6. Lexical tone X


Areal linguistics in east Indonesia:Wallacea (Schapper 2015)

From Schapper (2015)


Areal linguistics in east Indonesia:Wallacea (Schapper 2015)


1. Semantic alignment X2. Neuter gender X3. *muku ‘banana’ X4. Synchronic metathesis X


Areal linguistics in east Indonesia:Summary


East Nusantara (Klamer et al. 2008):1. SVO X2. Inclusive/Exclusive distinction X3. Alienability distinction X4. P��R�P��D order X5. Clause-�nal �� X6. Lexical tone X

Wallacea (Schapper 2015):1. Semantic alignment X2. Neuter gender X3. *muku ‘banana’ X4. Synchronic metathesis X






4. Discussion

5. References


Ambel: Language background





Adapted from Kamholz (2014: 141)



I Phonology:I 15 consonants: /p t k b d g f s h m n l r y w/I 5 vowels: /i e a o u/I Lexical tone

I Morphology:I Largely analyticI Obligatory subject agreement on verbal predicates

(inclusive/exclusive, four numbers, animacy distinction)I Possessive morphology (inclusive/exclusive, four numbers,

animacy distinction)






4. Discussion

5. References






4. Discussion

5. References


1. Alienable/inalienable distinction

I There is a formal distinction between alienable and inalienablepossession:

(1) Alienable possession:

ni-k��1��

wáncanoe

ne��

‘my canoe’

(2) Inalienable possession:

kái-khead-1��

ne��

‘my head’

I Formal distinction:I Inalienable: Person/number/animacy of possessor marked with

pre�xes and su�xes directly on possessed nounI Alienable: Person/number/animacy of possessor marked with

pre�xes and su�xes on prenominal possessive particle na or ni



I Semantic distinction:I Inalienable:

I Most part/whole relationships (including most body part terms)I Five kin terms (‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘in-law’, ‘grandparent/grandchild’,

‘same-sex sibling’)I Some associative relationships (e.g. ‘shadow’, ‘name’, ‘footprint’)I All orientation and location relationships

I Alienable:I All other types of possessive relationships



I Present in many (but not all) Papuan languages; not typicallyassociated with non-EMP A� languages

I Alienability distinction in many A� languages spoken on andaround New Guinea thought to have di�used from Papuanlanguages (Klamer et al. 2008; Ross 2001: 122)

I At what point did the alienability distinction enter the history ofAmbel?

I Alienability has been reconstructed to Proto-SHWNG (van denBerg 2009) and Proto-Oceanic (Lynch et al. 2002: 76)

I It looks quite likely that we can reconstruct the distinction toProto-EMP (cf. van den Berg 2009: 353–355)






4. Discussion

5. References


2. Lexical Tone

I Two-way, privative tonal contrast: /H/ vs. /Ø/ (Arnold in prep.)I Domain of speci�cation is the syllable; TBU is the moraI /H/ is culminative but not obligatoryI Minimal pairs:

/H/ /Ø/tún ‘moon’ tun ‘thorn’súp ‘bathe.1��’ sup ‘repeat.1��’y-ún ‘1��-pick.up’ y-un ‘1��-know’


2. Lexical Tone

I Tone not generally associated with A� languagesI Ambel is only the 19th A� language described as tonal (out of

c.1200)I Two other A� languages spoken in RA are tonal: Ma"ya (Remijsen

2001) and Matbat (Remijsen 2007)

I Tone weakly linked to Papuan languages (Foley 2000: 368)I No extant tonal Papuan language in RAI Several tonal Papuan languages on the BH (e.g. Mpur, Odé 2002;

Abun, Berry and Berry 1999)


2. Lexical Tone

I At what point did tone enter the history of Ambel?:I Remijsen (2001: 102–104): Tone developed in RA as the result of

contact with a now-extinct tonal Papuan substrateI This is based on the complexities of the tone systems of Ma"ya and

Matbat: Such complex systems do not typically occur as the resultof spontaneous tonogenesis

I Preliminary evidence from comparing monosyllabic cognates inMa"ya, Matbat, and Ambel suggests there may be tonalcorrespondences between the three languages (Arnold 2015)

I A possible scenario: Tone developed in a common ancestor toMa"ya, Matbat, and Ambel as the result of di�usion from anow-extinct Papuan substrate, and was then inherited down






4. Discussion

5. References


3. Neuter Gender

I A gender distinction is present in many Austronesian and Papuanlanguages of the region

I Nouns are typically categorised in a binary system, whichSchapper (2010) characterises as a contrast between ‘neuter’ and‘nonneuter’ gender

From Schapper (2010: 409)


3. Neuter Gender

I All nouns in Ambel are classi�ed according to whether they areanimate or inanimate

I Largely drawn along semantic lines: humans and other animalsare considered animate, and almost everything else is consideredinanimate.

I Exceptions: láynta ‘sun’, tún ‘moon’, kálo ‘star’ are animate

I Coding:I Verbal subject agreementI Alienable and inalienable possessive paradigmsI Pronouns


3. Neuter Gender

I Subject agreement:

Stative verb subject agreement Dynamic verb subject agreement-lál ‘big, large’ -katarán ‘land’

A�� I�� A�� I��3�� na-lál aN=lál na-katarán aN=na-katarán3�� ula-lál ula-katarán3�� atúla-lál si-lál atúla-katarán si-katarán3�� la-lál la-katarán


3. Neuter Gender

I Pronominal system:

PronounsA�� I��

3�� ia an=a3�� ua3�� atúa a=si3�� sia


3. Neuter Gender

I At what point did the animacy distinction enter the history ofAmbel?

I Schapper (2015: 30): Although many A� languages of the regionhave this noun class system, the systems are all very divergent,suggesting that they were not inherited from a common ancestor


3. Neuter Gender

I Comparing other nearby pronominal systems:

Ambel Ma"ya Biak3��.�� ia ia

i3��.�� an=a ana3��.�� sia si(a)/ si3N��S�.�� a=si hafat(a) na


3. Neuter Gender

I Comparing other nearby subject agreement systems:

Ambel Ma"ya Biak3��.�� n(a)-

ny- i-3��.�� aN=(n(a)-)3��.�� l(a)-

w-si-

3N��S�.�� si- na-






4. Discussion

5. References


Discussion

I Summary:

Alienability: (1) Di�used from Papuan language(s)into Proto-EMP

(2) Inherited into present-day Ambel

Lexical tone: (1) Di�used from Papuan language(s)into a common ancestor to Ma"ya,Matbat, and Ambel?

(2) Inherited into present-day Ambel?


Discussion

I Summary:

Neutergender:

(1) Distinction di�used from Papuan lan-guages into Ma"ya and Biak

(2) Distinction in 3�� pronouns di�usedfrom Ma"ya into Ambel, or inheritedfrom a common ancestor

(3) Distinction in 3�� pronouns and sub-ject agreement di�used from Biakinto Ambel

(4) Distinction in 3�� subject agreementinnovated by analogy with pronomi-nal system


Discussion


Discussion

I The data presented here show that Ambel has several typicallyPapuan features

I These features occur in Ambel (ultimately) as the result of contactwith Papuan languages

I Direct contact: Alienability distinction, lexical tone?I Indirect contact: Neuter gender

I The presence of these features in Ambel supports the hypothesisthat the region has long been an area of prolonged and intensecontact

I Further research may enable us to begin to untangle the natureand relative timescale of contact between A� and Papuanlanguages, as well as (potentially) some of the features of anysubstrate languages






4. Discussion

5. References


References I

A��, L��, 2015. Tonal phonologies of the Raja Ampat languages: Towards ahistorical perspective. Poster presented at the Second Edinburgh Symposium onHistorical Phonology, 4 December.

—, in prep. Lexical tone in Ambel .

�� B��, R��, 2009. ‘Possession in South Halmahera–West New Guinea:typology and reconstruction’. In: K. Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley(eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift forRobert Blust, 217–247. Canberra: Paci�c Linguistics.

B��, K�� C�� B��, 1999. A description of Abun, a West Papuanlanguage of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Paci�c Linguistics.

F��, W�� A., 2000. The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review ofAnthopology 29:357–404.

G��, D��, 2015. The Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area. In: N. J. En�eld andBernard Comrie (eds.), Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The State of theArt, 266–354. Canberra: Paci�c Linguistics.


References IIK��, D��, 2014. Austronesians in Papua: Diversi�cation and change in South

Halmahera–West New Guinea. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

K��, M�� M�� C. E��, 2010. ‘The languages of East Nusantara:an introduction’. In: Michael Ewing and Marian Klamer (eds.), East Nusantara:Typological and areal analyses, 1–24. Canberra: Paci�c Linguistics.

K��, M��, G�� R��, ��M�� S��, 2008. ‘East Nusantara andthe Bird’s Head as a linguistic area’. In: Pieter Muysken (ed.), From LinguisticAreas to Areal Linguistics, 95–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

L��, J��, M�� R��, �� T�� C��, 2002. The Oceanic Languages.Richmond: Curzon.

O��, C��, 2002. Mpur prosody: An experimental-phonetic analysis with examplesfrom two versions of the Fentora myth. ELPR Publication series A1-003, Osaka:Endangered Languages of the Paci�c Rim.

R��, G��, 1998. ‘The Bird’s Head as a Sprachbund’. In: Jelle Miedema, CeciliaOdé, and Rien A. C. Dam (eds.), Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya,Indonesia. Proceedings of the Conference, Leiden, 13-17 October 1997, 603–642.Amsterdam; Atlanta: Rodopi.


References III

R��, B��, 2001. Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages. Utrecht:LOT.

—, 2007. ‘Lexical tone in Magey Matbat’. In: V.J. van Heuven and E. van Zanten(eds.), Prosody in Indonesian languages, 9–34. Utrecht: LOT.

R��, M��, 2001. ‘Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages inNorth-West Melanesia’. In: A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Arealdi�usion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, 134–166.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

S��, A��, 2010. Neuter Gender in Eastern Indonesia. OceanicLinguistics 49(2):407–435.

—, 2015. Wallacea, a linguistic area Archipel 90:99–152.

V��, C�� L., 1987. ‘The non-Austronesian languages in the NorthMoluccas’. In: Halmahera dan Raja Empat sebagai Kesatuan majemuk, BuletinLEKNAS, volume II, No. 2, 1983; published 1987, 13–39. Jakarta: LembagaEkonomi dan Kemasyarakatan Nasional, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia.

With thanks to...I All the Ambel people I have met and

worked with so far, for their hospitality,patience, and enthusiasm. Special thanksare due to Wolter Gaman, Alfred Gaman,Darius Wakaf, Yubel Kein, KonstantinaWakaf, and my teachers, Martinus Wakaf,Korneles Fiay, and Matius Kein;

I All the sta� at the Center for EndangeredLanguages Documentation (UnversitasPapua, Manokwari), especially YusufSawaki and Jeanete Lekeneny;

I Bert Remijsen, Caroline Heycock, and RobTruswell for discussions relating to thispresentation;

I The AHRC, the British Academy, theUniversity of Edinburgh, and the HansRausing Endangered LanguagesDocumentation Programme, for theirgenerous �nancial support.

APLL8 Arnold slides

Education