sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ak language, Alamblak language, Awar language, Bukiyip language, Enga language, Folopa language

of 13 Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Tonya N. Stebbins

13.1. Linguistic situation in New Guinea area 239 13.2. Genetic diversity in the New Guinea area 243 13.2.1. The in New Guinea 243 13.2.2. The in New Guinea 246 13.3. Typological diversity among Papuan languages 250 13.3.1. 251 13.3.2. 252 13.3.3. 255 13.3.4. Documentation 256 13.4. Linguistic diversity and endangerment in New Guinea 256

13.1. Linguistic Situation in New Guinea Area

The New Guinea (as defi ned below) is one of the most linguistically diverse and complex areas in the world, with over 1,000 languages spoken in an area of about 900,000 square km. About three to four hundred languages spoken there belong to the Austronesian family. Other, non-Austronesian, languages are often referred to as “Papuan” (see Foley 1986: 1–3, 8; 1997a; Dixon 1991: 245). The term “Papuan” is a rough denomination subsuming over sixty language families, which are not demonstrably related, and a fair number of isolates in the area. This term is used for convenience (similarly, perhaps, to terms like “Paleo-Siberian” (§ 20.1, this volume) or “Amazonian” (§ 10.1, this volume)). The of New Guinea includes the state of and the Indonesian province of Papua (formerly known as Irian Jaya). The lan- guage area centred on New Guinea stretches from the and in the west to the in the east. Due to the limitations of space, we will be able to mention only a fraction of languages in the area, and a small portion of the varieties of genetic groupings that have been put

Our deepest gratitude goes to Les Bruce, Wiem Burung, Cathy Easton, Karl Franklin, Claudia Gerstner-Link, John Hajek, Anthony Grant, Gerd Jendraschek, Joan Kale, Ger Reesink, René van den Berg, Sheena Van der Mark, Adam Bowles, and Perihan Avdi and especially R. M. W. Dixon, for their insightful comments. Endless thanks go to Cindi and Jim Farr, Steve Parker, and René van den Berg for allowing Aikhenvald to undertake research in the SIL archives in Ukarumpa in 1997 and 2004. Abbreviations: A– of transitive ; AN–Austronesian; DS–different subject; du–dual; O–; sg–singular.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 223939 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:42:24:42 PPMM 240 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

130°E 140°E 150°E 160°E Halmahera 0 800 km 's Head 0° Equator Peninsula

WPWP Manus Cenderawasih P4P4 Bay S7S7 P2P2 S5S5 Bismarck New P3P3 S3S3 Archipelago P1P1 S1-2S1-2 S4S4 S8S8 TBTB Buru Ceram Bomberai S6S6 WP Peninsula H8H8 GorokaGoroka Bougainville Aru H5H5 H3H3 H4H4 H10H10 H7H7 B H6H6 WP H9H9 H1H1 Kai H2H2 Alor New H2H2 Port Georgia Moresby Timor 10°S The Solomon 10°S S1 Lower family Islands S2 Lower family H6 Gorokan family S3 Ndu family H7 family H1 S4 Sepik Hill family West Papuan area Angan family H8 Asmat-Kamoro Sempat H2 Binanderean family (or Asmat) family S5 Ram family P1 Border family H3 Kalam-Kobon family H9 Marind family S6 Tama family Bougainville family P2 Lakes Plain family H4 Huon family H10 Awyu S7 Sko family P3 Wissel Lakes family H5 Engan family (or Awyu-Dumut) family S8 Torricelli family Tauill-Baining family P4 Sentani family

130°E 140°E 150°E 160°E

Figure 13.1. Papuan languages of the New Guinea area and their approximate locations

forward. Figure 13.1 indicates the approximate locations of some of the major Papuan families which are referred to in this chapter. For an overview of Austronesian languages spoken in the area, see Chapter 14 by Sakiyama (this volume), and discussion in Lynch et al. (2002). The state of Papua New Guinea (independent since 1975) features over 830 languages (Grimes 2000; Nekitel 1998; Ford n.d.; Landweer 2000; Whitehead 1994 gives a fi gure of 870), with the number of Papuan languages exceeding 600 (see Foley 1986: 1–3; Dixon 1991: 245). Only about 20 per cent of the population speak Austronesian languages. The approximate numbers of languages and their speakers are given in Table 13.1 (based on Ford n.d., Nekitel 1998: 90–116, and Grimes 2000). The only language spoken by over 100,000 people is Enga (Engan family, EHP),

Table 13.1. The languages of Papua New Guinea and approximate numbers of speakers Number of speakers Austronesian Non-Austronesian Over 10,000–100,000 about 12 about 60 1,000–10,000 about 100 about 230 Over 500–under 1,000 about 30 about 105 Between 100 and 500 under 50 about 170 Fewer than 100 about 10 about 50

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224040 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:42:24:42 PPMM languages of new guinea 241

whose speakers number between 164,750 (Grimes 2000: 755) and 200,000 (Foley 2000b: 359). Indigenous languages traditionally used as lingua francas include the Austronesian languages Suau (), spoken over the south-west end of Papua New Guinea (now with only about 6,795 L1 users and about 14,000 L2 users), and Dobu (Milne Bay), spoken off the islands of Eastern Papua (now with 8,000 L1 and 100,000 L2 speakers). Kuanua (or Tolai), an Austronesian language with about 100,000 speakers, is still used as a in East New Britain (Fry 1977). (See Wurm 1977a and Foley 1986 on missionary lingua francas.) Three post-contact lingua francas dominate the linguistic scene in con- temporary Papua New Guinea. (Melanesian ) is currently the most important language spoken in most provinces (especially in the northern parts of New Guinea: see Ch. 7, this volume). The estimated numbers are 50,000 fi rst language speakers, and over 2,000,000 users (Grimes 2000). (The total population of the country is 4,600,000 people.) English was the offi cial language of the colonial administration in the southern half of the country (formerly known as Papua) from 1875 and of the northern half (formerly called New Guinea) from 1919. It is now rapidly gaining ground as a means of schooling and communication, especially in , Western province, and a number of other coastal prov- inces (see Sankoff 1980: 126–70). is a Creole based on the Austronesian language Motu (still spoken by about 14,000 people in Central province).1 It developed around 1900 as a contact language for speakers from different language backgrounds in the Motu-speaking environment around (Dutton 1997), especially members of the indigenous police (hence its alternative name Police Motu). Hiri Motu is still widely used in the southern part of country (roughly corresponding to the old administrative division of Papua, covering Central, Oro, Gulf provinces, and parts of Milne Bay, as well as of Western province), but appears to be receding under the pressure from Tok Pisin. It has hardly any mother tongue speakers. The number of second language learners reported for Hiri Motu varies from 120,000 (Grimes 2000: 276) to 200,000 (Foley 1986: 31).

1 The origin of Hiri Motu remains uncertain (Dutton 1997). Until recently, it was assumed that Hiri Motu was a continuation of a language used by the Motu on annual trading voyages, or hiri, to the , where they traded with other linguistic groups. However, present-day Hiri Motu most likely developed from a special variety of simplifi ed “foreigner talk” the Motu used with those who came to visit or trade in their own area.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224141 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM 242 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

The 1975 constitution of Papua New Guinea gives recognition to all lan- guages, specifying that every citizen has the right to literacy in English, Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu, or a vernacular (Whitehead 1994). Traditional multilin- gualism, however, tends to be replaced by new diglossic and triglossic pat- terns with Tok Pisin and English. This, typically unstable, relationship often results in the dominance of the two lingua francas and the loss of the vernac- ular. According to materials in Sankoff (1980: 129–30), in 1971 the percent- age of Papua New Guineans aged 10 and over who were unable to speak any of the offi cial languages ranged from 5.7 per cent in to 82.9 per cent in the Southern Highlands. Now the number of people with no knowl- edge of at least one offi cial language is negligible. We return to the problems of language endangerment in Papua New Guinea in § 13.4. The Indonesian province of Papua has about 260 languages (Grimes 2000: 469; Wurm 2001), many of them non-Austronesian. Over 50 Papuan languages are also spoken in Northern Halmahera, Alor and Pantar, west of Timor, and the coastal areas and mountainous interior of eastern Timor. According to Wurm (2001: 394), at least forty-three languages in Papua are highly endangered or already extinct, and over seventy have fewer than 400 speakers. Languages in the Bird’s Head Peninsula spoken by over 10,000 peo- ple include Maybrat (Dol 1999), Hatam, and Meyah (Reesink 2002a, 2002b). The largest language in Papua is Western Dani in the Central Highlands area, with 180,000 speakers. Due to the current political situation in the Indonesian-controlled province of Papua and the compulsory spread of Indonesian and other languages (resulting from a settlement policy known as “transmigration”: Dixon 1991: 242–3), all minority languages in the area are endangered. According to Wurm (2001: 393–4), “the slide from a healthy state of a lan- guage to endangerment and extinction tends to be more rapid in Irian Jaya than is usual in Papua New Guinea” (despite the state’s obligation to sup- port the maintenance of “regional languages” proclaimed in the constitu- tion: Jones 1994). The main causes for language endangerment in Papua include migration to the centres and the impact of Indonesian-language electronic media and, especially, of compulsory Indonesian-language edu- cation (the latter contributing towards negative attitudes to the minority languages). The activities of the Summer Institute of in the domains of language documentation, literacy, and in local lan- guages are nowadays restricted, to the detriment of language maintenance (Wiem Burung, p.c.).

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224242 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM languages of new guinea 243

When the Solomon Islands became independent in 1978, English was pro- claimed its offi cial national language. The main lingua franca in the country is Solomons Islands Pidgin (or Pijin) (French 1994). Of sixty-nine living lan- guages in the state of Solomon Islands, seven are non-Austronesian. These are: Bilua, on Vella LaVella Island, with 8,000 to 9,000 speakers; Lavukaleve, on Russel Islands, with 2,000 speakers; Baniata, on South Rendova Island, with 1,480 speakers; Savosavo, on Savo Island, with 2,200 speakers; and Nanggu, with 450 speakers; Ayiwo, with 7,100, and Santa Cruz, with 5,000, on the Santa Cruz Islands. Terrill (2003: 11–12) reports that, in spite of the current number of 2,000 speakers, Lavukaleve is seriously endangered: many children grow up learning just Pijin. The same fate appears to face Bilua (Obata 2003), in spite of a higher number of speakers. Santa Cruz languages have undergone drastic simplifi cation and restructuring under the infl uence of Pijin, and are just as threatened as all the rest (see Wurm 1992). With the current political turmoil in the area the future for these languages appears grim. The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. In § 13.2, we con- sider the genetic make-up of the New Guinea languages and their major families. Some distinctive typological characteristics of Papuan languages are discussed in § 13.3. We briefl y discuss the problems of language endan- germent in Papua New Guinea in § 13.4.

13.2. Genetic Diversity in the New Guinea Area

With over sixty language families and dozens of isolates, the genetic diver- sity of the New Guinea area is without parallel. First, we briefl y look at Austronesian languages in New Guinea (§ 13.2.1). Then, in § 13.2.2, we focus on Papuan (non-Austronesian) languages.

13.2.1. The Austronesian Languages in New Guinea

The largest family of languages spoken in New Guinea is the Austronesian family. It is also one of the largest well-established families in the world, with 1,000–1,200 member languages spread from and South-East to and . The migration of into New Guinea is considered to be fairly recent (going back to approximately 4,000– 5,000 years ago: Foley 1994, 2000b).

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224343 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM 244 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

The ancestors of Austronesian languages are believed to have arrived from the west, spreading through the and to the north coast of the island of New Guinea. This hypothesis is corroborated by the distri- bution pattern of Austronesian languages: they are spoken along the north- ern and eastern coasts of the New Guinea island and neighbouring islands. Hardly any Austronesian languages are spoken inland, or along the south coast of New Guinea, from around 200 km west of Port Moresby to the west- ern tip of the island. The expansion of Austronesian languages in the islands close to New Guinea (including the , Bougainville, and Solomon Islands) resulted in the contraction and extinction of non-Austronesian languages spoken by earlier inhabitants. Nowadays, Kuot is the only non- Austronesian language spoken in New Ireland (Lindström 2002). Just two non-Austronesian languages are left in West New Britain: Anêm (Thurston 1987, 1992), on the north-west coast, and Wasi (Ata, Pele-Ata) in the Nakanai mountains. It is likely that many more non-Austronesian languages were originally spoken in these areas (see Thurston 1987, 1992: 125; Chowning 1996: 8–9); a number of non-Austronesian languages have become extinct during the past hundred years (for instance, Butam and Makolkol in East New Britain: Stebbins forthcoming). For possible effects of a non- Austronesian substratum in the Oceanic subgroup of Austronesian, see Lynch et al. (2002: 15–19). The Austronesian languages of New Guinea belong to the Central- Eastern Malayo-Polynesian subgroup—see Fig. 13.2 (Foley 2000b; Lynch et al. 2002: 4). in New Guinea (over 250) are spoken to the east of in Papua. A few Austronesian languages in Papua belong to the South Halmahera-West New Guinea branch. A small group

Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian

Central Malayo-Polynesian Eastern Malayo-Polynesian

South Halmahera/West New Guinea Oceanic

Figure 13.2. Austronesian languages and their subgroups in the New Guinea area

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224444 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM languages of new guinea 245

of languages in the in Papua are Central Malayo- Polynesian. Oceanic is one of the best-known subgroups of Austronesian, with fairly detailed reconstructions of its proto-language (see Lynch 1998; Lynch et al. 2002; Pawley and Ross 1995). Considerably less is known about the two other Austronesian groups in the New Guinea area (see Blust 1993; and a summary in Foley 2000b: 362). A state-of-the art description and study of the subgrouping, and reconstruction of Oceanic languages, is in Lynch et al. (2002). The Oceanic languages spoken in New Guinea display unusual features, due to their interaction with non-Austronesian languages (see Ross 1994, on the infl uence of the non-Austronesian substratum on the of Oceanic languages in New Ireland). Many Oceanic languages of New Guinea have lost the typical Austronesian decimal counting system (Lynch 1998: 244, 245), replacing it with quinary systems common among Papuan languages. Prolonged contact between Austronesian and non-Austronesian lan- guages often resulted in further structural changes. As an outcome of the impact of the non-Austronesian language Waskia (Ross 2001), Takia developed postpositions and verbal enclitics as clause-linking devices, and the orders - and Noun-. All Oceanic languages of the Bel subfamily in province—to which Takia belongs—have adopted verb-fi nal order and developed medial verb forms; one of these languages, Dami, has also developed a same-subject/different-subject switch reference system, typical for Papuan languages (Roberts 1997: 123, 192; Ross 1987). In a comprehensive case study of a situation in New Guinea, Thurston (1982, 1987) presents ample evidence of lexical and grammatical borrowing between Anêm, the only Papuan language of the north-west of New Britain, and the coastal Austronesian languages Kabana, Amara, Kove, and Lusi. In these languages, reciprocal is marked by a suffi x on the verb, rather than by a prefi x, as is usual in Oceanic languages, just as in Anêm (Thurston 1987: 79–80). Tense/aspect, negation, and modality are marked at the end of the verb phrase rather than with prefi xes or preverbal particles, as would be the case in other Oceanic languages outside the con- tact area with Anêm. Due to the infl uence of Anêm, or other, now extinct, Papuan language(s), the four Oceanic languages have lost prenominal arti- cles, another typically Oceanic feature, which survive only as part of a nomi- nal stem. Anêm, in its turn, acquired a number of typically Oceanic features,

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224545 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM 246 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

such as the inclusive-exclusive distinction in , and the division of into inalienably possessed and two types of alienably possessed (“edi- ble” and “neutral”) (Thurston 1987: 91). Semantic convergence between Anêm and its Oceanic neighbours resulted in a large number of shared idi- oms and semantic patterns (e.g. “my ankle” is literally “neck of my foot”, “my toenail” is “claw of my foot”: Thurston 1987: 80–7). Contacts with Papuan languages have contributed to the typological diversity of Oceanic languages, resulting in the development of unusual fea- tures. A striking example is the multiple classifi er system in Kilivila (Senft 1996), somewhat reminiscent of multiple classifi ers in Papuan languages elsewhere in New Guinea (see § 13.3.2).

13.2.2. The Papuan Languages in New Guinea

The extreme genetic diversity among the non-Austronesian languages in New Guinea, with numerous families interspersed with isolates, remains a puzzle for comparative linguists. We fi rst discuss well-established genetic units, and then turn to proposals on a larger scale. A. The Sepik river basin (which includes East Sepik and Sandaun prov- inces) is the most complex linguistic area within New Guinea. It has about 200 languages, a language density unparalleled anywhere else in the world. The Sepik river basin displays cultural as well as linguistic diversity and frag- mentation, perhaps more so than other areas of New Guinea. Reasons for this include geographic diversity, inaccessible terrain, patterns of language contact, and language attitudes (see Foley 1986, 1988: 167–8; Aikhenvald 2004b). The average size of language communities is signifi cantly lower than in the Highlands. Established families in the Sepik area include (see code labels on Figure 13.1): The Lower Sepik-Ramu family. This consists of: S1. The Lower Sepik family with six languages spoken by about 12,000 people, in the Lower Sepik and the adjoining riverine and coastal , and S2. The Lower Ramu family with eight languages spoken by about 11,000 people in the lower reaches of the Ramu river. The genetic relationship of S1 and S2 was demonstrated by Foley (2000a). S3. The Ndu family with eight languages spoken by over 100,000 people along the course of the middle Sepik river and to its north (Laycock 1965; Aikhenvald 2004b, forthcoming);

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224646 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM languages of new guinea 247

S4. The Sepik Hill family with sixteen languages spoken by about 8,000 people in the foothills between the central range and the flood plain of the Sepik river, with the southernmost members extending across the central range in the Southern Highlands and the Enga Provinces (Bruce 1984: 296); S5. The Ram family with three languages spoken by about 1,200 people in the southern foothills of the in the (Feldman 1986); S6. The Tama family with four or five languages spoken by about 10,000 people in the Ambunti district of the East Sepik province and the Sandaun province, stretching into the lower foothills of the Torricelli mountains (see Foreman 1974).

An attempt has been made to establish genetic links between S3–S6, and a few other languages of the Sepik area, such as Wogamusin-Chenapian, Kwoma-Kwanga, and Abau (Foley 2000a, 2000b), grouping them into a larger Sepik family. Though some similarities in pronouns appear sug- gestive, much more comparative analysis is required, including low-level reconstructions for individual language families, before any defi nitive con- clusion can be reached. S7. The Skou family with eight quite closely related languages, spoken by about 6,000 people along the northern coast of New Guinea and the adja- cent areas of Papua (Donohue 2002a, 2002b, forthcoming). S8. The Torricelli family with about fi fty languages spoken by over 80,000 people in the area of the Torricelli mountains, between the north coast and the Sepik river, spreading to the north into coastal areas of western . The Torricelli languages share a number of highly unusual typologi- cal features, such as complex systems with largely phonological assignment, irregular plurals for nouns, and complicated pronominal cross-referencing on the verb (see Fortune 1942; Nekitel 1985; Conrad and Wogiga 1991; Dobrin 1999; a brief comparative study of Arapesh languages is in Conrad 1978). Further comparative work is required to demonstrate convincingly that these languages form a family and not just an area (Foley 1986: 241–2). B. The are home to over a dozen well-established genetic units, including: H1. Angan family, with twelve languages spoken by over 60,000 people in the mountains in the Eastern Highlands, Morobe, and Gulf provinces, and in the lowland areas of the ;

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224747 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM 248 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

H2. Binanderean family, with fourteen languages spoken by over 50,000 people in ; H3. Kalam-Kobon family, with three languages and about 15,000 speakers on the northern slopes of the central highlands in Madang and Western Highlands province; H4. Huon family, with fi fteen languages spoken by over 80,000 people on the ; H5. Engan family, with eight languages spoken by over 330,000 people in and the adjacent areas of East Sepik and Southern Highlands province; H6. Gorokan family, with eight languages spoken by over 180,000 people in the Eastern Highland province around Goroka; and H7. Kainantu family, with four languages spoken by about 40,000 people in the Eastern Highlands province. The Gorokan and Kainantu family (Foley 1986: 245–63) appear to be geneti- cally related. C. Within the southern part of Indonesian Papua and adjacent Papua New Guinea areas, the well-established units include: H8. Asmat-Kamoro-Sempat (or Asmat) family with four languages and about 50,000 speakers in southern parts of Papua; H9. Marind family, with six languages with about 20,000 speakers, in southern Papua and the adjacent areas of Papua New Guinea in the Lake Murray area of the Western province; and H10. Awyu (or Awyu-Dumut) family, with nine languages and about 20,000 speakers in the lowlands of Papua between the areas of the Asmat and Marind families. An attempt has been made to group H1–H10 and numerous other lan- guage families in the New Guinea Highlands, from the Huon Peninsula across the island (covering the area and extending probably as far as the languages of Timor and Alor), into a large genetic unit called the “Trans New Guinea” phylum.2 These languages share a number of typological fea- tures (see § 13.3), and are mostly spoken by mountain dwellers. This macro- grouping, however suggestive, has not yet been provided with systematic justifi cation following the established principles of

2 This genetic and areal unit was fi rst proposed by Wurm (1975a), who did not provide much lin- guistic evidence to justify it. The original hypothesis has been revised in the recent studies by Pawley (1995, 1998, 2000) and Ross (1995, 2000). The exact language membership and subgrouping within the putative phylum is still a matter of debate. For instance, Engan languages are treated as bona fi de Trans New Guinea languages by Pawley (2000), but only as its “likely” members by Foley (2000b).

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224848 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM languages of new guinea 249

(covering lexicon, phonology, and all aspects of the grammar including par- adigmatic correspondences). The Trans-New Guinea features suggested so far include: (a) some person markers, for instance a fi rst person in *n and second person in *k (this may well be a coincidence, given the frequency of both n and k in personal pronouns);3 (b) alternation of showing number in independent pronouns with the initial being the same, e.g. *a “singular”, *i “plural”, as in *na “fi rst person singular”, *ka “second person singular”, *ni “fi rst per- son plural”, *ki “second person plural” (Ross 1995) (which may well be an areally diffused typological feature); and (c) a small set of lexical cognates (most of which are either monosyllabic, or involve conjectural semantic and/or phonological correspondences). The Madang area includes over a hundred distinct languages forming fi ve or six large families, among them Southern and Northern Adalbert, Mabuso, and Rai coast. These have been provisionally grouped into a larger unit under the name of Madang (this also includes the Kalam-Kobon family, under H3 above). This hypothesis is currently under investigation (see Ingram in press). Other established families within Papua (not suggested for incorporation into the Trans New Guinea phylum) include (see Foley 2000a): P1. The Border family, with over twenty languages spoken by about 13,000 people in the Sandaun province and the border areas of Papua New Guinea and the province of Papua (Seiler 1985, for the Waris subfamily; see discussion by Gerstner-Link 2004); P2. The Lakes Plain family, with twenty-four languages spoken by about 5,000 people, in the northern lowlands of Papua, in the basin of the Taritatu and Tariku tributaries of the (Clouse 1997); P3. The Wissel Lakes family, with four languages spoken by over 80,000 people in the central highlands of Indonesian Papua; and P4. The Sentani family, with three languages spoken by about 10,000 people on the northern coast of Papua, to the west of Jayapura around and to its west. Reesink (1998, 2000) postulated a “West Papuan” linguistic area cov- ering up to twenty-six non-Austronesian languages spoken in the area of Indonesian Papua, from Cenderawasih Bay westward to the islands of

3 Along similar lines, Campbell (1997: 345) criticized the proposed diagnostic trait of n “fi rst per- son” and m “second person” for the putative “Amerind” as a chance coincidence.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 224949 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:43:24:43 PPMM 250 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

Timor, Alor, and Pantar, including the Bird’s Head Peninsula and the island of Halmahera. These languages (spoken by a total number of under 200,000 people) share a number of typological features (see under W(est) P(apua), on Figure 13.1). The non-Austronesian languages of Bougainville, the Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomons present a complex picture.4 The Bougainville family (B on Figure 13.1) consists of eight languages, four in the north and four in the south of the island of Bougainville (Onishi 1994), spoken by about 40,000 people. The question of the genetic relationships between the four non- Austronesian languages in the Solomons remains open: they may well be isolates, or relics of now families. Kol and Sulka, in Central New Britain, and Kuot, in New Ireland, are also isolates. Ross’s (2000) hypothesis that Anêm and Ata in West New Britain are related requires fur- ther substantiation. The only well-established in East New Britain is the Baining family (TB on Figure 13.1), consisting of six languages (probably including the extinct Makolkol). There are over 10,000 speakers of Baining languages today. Structural and formal similarities between Taulil (and the extinct Butam) and the Baining family are equally suggestive of a distant genetic relationship and of contact. In summary: in quite a few cases in New Guinea it is premature to go beyond establishing small families. Given the time depth of human occupation of the area (estimated as about 50,000 years: Bellwood 1998; Foley 2000a), the erstwhile genetic relationships tend to be obscured by borrowing and mul- tilayered diffusion, “a major source of diversifi cation in Papuan languages” (Foley 1986: 262). Much more comparative and descriptive work is required before genetically inherited features can be usefully distinguished from typo- logical similarities or chance resemblances (see Foley 2000a).

13.3. Typological Diversity among Papuan Languages

In addition to their extreme genetic diversity, Papuan languages are typolog- ically diverse. A few Pan-Papuan tendencies are typical for the New Guinea

4 Typological similarities between these languages were investigated by Dunn et al. (2002), and Terrill (2002). For instance, in contrast to the neighbouring Austronesian languages, many have gen- ders and multiple classifi er systems. No linguistic justifi cation has been provided for grouping them into an “East Papuan” phylum (as advocated by Wurm 1975b, 1982; see extensive criticism in Terrill 2003: 8–10).

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225050 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:44:24:44 PPMM languages of new guinea 251

Highlands languages within the putative Trans New Guinea areal grouping. Exceptions occur elsewhere.

13.3.1. Phonology

Phonological systems of Papuan languages are relatively simple, usually with three places of articulation for (labial, dental/alveolar, and velar; some languages, such as Yimas, also add a palatal). Languages of the Sepik area have the same number of distinctions in place of articulation for stops and nasals, while the Highlands languages have fewer distinctions for nasals than for stops. Some Ndu (S3) languages have a series of labialized stops. In contrast to neighbouring Austronesian languages, many Papuan languages tend to have only a few and one liquid (r/l). Voiced stops tend to become prenasalized in the -initial position. Papuan languages tend to have a standard fi ve system /i, e, a, o, u/. Languages of the northern half of Papua New Guinea often have at least one non-low , for example Fore (Scott 1978) and Kewa (Franklin . 1971). A “vertical” vowel system consisting of three central vowels t, Ŝ, and a has been reported for Iatmul, a Ndu language (Staalsen 1966) (however, other have up to seven vowels: see Wendel 1993: 36; Wilson 1980; Aikhenvald forthcoming). The most complex vowel systems are found in Skou (S7) and some Waris (P1) languages. Both Skou and Dumo have seven vowels, two front, three central, and two back. In Skou, all except the high central vowel have a nasalized counterpart. In Dumo, all the vowels exist in long and short form, and all have a nasal counterpart except for the front mid-rounded vowel (Ingram 2005). The Papuan languages of the Lower-Sepik Ramu (S1–2), Torricelli (S8), and numerous families in the Sepik–Ramu area have systems. No tonal languages have been found in the languages of the Bismarck Archipelago, Bougainville, and the Solomons. is a prominent feature in numerous languages in the Trans New Guinea and West Papuan (WP) areas. In con- trast, most Austronesian languages have stress (some Huon Gulf languages are an exception: Ross 1993). Tone appears to be a family feature of Lakes Plain (P2) and Skou (S7) languages. In the Skou family, Skou has three tones (high, low, and rising: Mark Donohue, p.c.), while Dumo has high and non-high. The most com- plex tone system is found in Iau (Lake Plains family), which is said to have eight contrastive tones and up to two tones per syllable (Edmondson et al. 1992; Donohue 1997: 356). The development of these tones in Iau is most

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225151 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:44:24:44 PPMM 252 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

probably due to loss of vocalic and consonantal segments. Other languages of this family have at least high and low tone; some are reported to have four (Clouse 1997: 152). An overview of tone in New Guinea is in Donohue (1997); see a summary in Foley (2000b).

13.3.2. Morphology

In their morphological type, Papuan languages vary. Mildly synthetic lan- guages with little bound morphology include those in the West Papuan area (WP on Figure 13.1; see Reesink 1999, 2000), Lake Plains languages (P2; Clouse 1997: 151), and the Skou family (S7; Ingram forthcoming). Complex polysynthetic languages include Yimas, from the Lower Sepik subfamily (S1) of the Lower Sepik–Ramu family. Papuan languages often have complex pat- terns of pronominal cross-referencing. Marking transitive subject and object on the verb in Yimas is illustrated in (1) (Foley 1991: 291). Yimas (1) na-Ča-tmi-kwalca-t 3sgA-1sgO-say-rise-PERFECTIVE “She woke me up” (by verbal action) In contrast, Watam, from the Lower-Ramu branch (S2) of the Lower Sepik–Ramu family, has no cross-referencing on the verb (Foley 1999). Most languages from the Trans New Guinea area employ a bound pre- fi x for object and a suffi x for subject, for instance Fore (Scott 1978). So does Anamuxra, from Madang area. In Manambu, from the Ndu family (S3), suffi xes cross-reference the subject and, optionally, another constituent, provided it is topical (this second suffi x position is absent from its relatives Iatmul, Wosera, and Abelam). encode the subject with partly predictable alternations of the fi rst consonant of (a monosyllabic) verb root. The only other morphological mechanism is of the verb, to mark irrealis. Various aspectual and modal meanings are often expressed using verb serialization, a mechanism found in most Papuan languages, including Skou (S7), Lower Sepik–Ramu (S1–2), Sepik Hill (S4), and languages of the Trans New Guinea area (see Ingram 2005, in press; Foley 1991; Pawley 1993; Bruce 1984). Many heavily serializing languages have a closed class of , with fairly generic meanings. The verbal lexicon in Kalam (H3; Pawley 1993) has under 100 monomorphemic lexemes. New lexemes consist of a generic verb preceded by several verb stems (together forming one serial verb), or by one

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225252 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:44:24:44 PPMM languages of new guinea 253

or more nominal or adverbial complements. For instance, the generic verb ag “make a sound, utter” enters into the following combinations: mnm ag- (speech utter) “speak”, kmap ag- (song utter) “sing”, swk ag- (laughter utter) “laugh”, sb ag- (bowel utter) “fart” (Pawley 1993: 98). Serial verbs are absent from the languages of the south coast of New Guinea, Torricelli languages (S8; e.g. Arapesh), and most languages of the Bismarck Archipelago and Bougainville (B). Languages without extensive verb serialization tend to have complex verbal morphology (Stebbins forth- coming). There is typically no passive, but at least one causative. Grammatical relations are frequently expressed with verbal cross- referencing, as in Motuna, Anamuxra, Yimas, and numerous languages from the Trans New Guinea area. A few have core cases, e.g. Imonda (Waris: P1) and Ndu languages (S3). The marking of verbal arguments may be semantically rather than syntactically based. In Bauzi, from the Mamberamo river region of Papua (Briley 1997), a suffi x marks an agentive argument with both transitive and intransitive verbs. Similar systems are attested in a few languages from the New Guinea Highlands (e.g. Ku Waru: Merlan and Rumsey 1991: 335; Folopa: Anderson and Wade 1988). In addi- tion, Bauzi has a typologically unusual split marking of core participants conditioned by tense-aspect (the progressive/continuative aspect does not require the agentive suffi x, while the completive aspect does), and by polarity (no agentive suffi x is required in negative clauses). Papuan languages exhibit the world’s most sophisticated systems of noun classifi cation. The Lower Sepik (S1) and Torricelli languages (S8) have extremely complex systems of noun classifi cation and plural marking (Foley 1986: 222–9, 1991, 2000a; on Arapesh languages, see Fortune 1942; Nekitel 1985; Dobrin 1999). Yimas has eleven noun classes, four of which are assigned to nouns by their semantics: I—human males; II—human females; III—animals; class IV—culturally important plants. Classes V–XI are moti- vated phonologically: the agreeing constituent repeats the last consonant of the nominal root. Small gender systems are found in the West Papuan area (WP), Skou lan- guages (S7) and numerous families in the Sepik basin, and in numerous lan- guage isolates, such as Burmeso, Sulka, Kuot, Bilua, and Lavukaleve of the Bismarck Archipelago. In Alamblak (S4) and Manambu (S3), from the Sepik area, feminine gender is associated with small size, and masculine gender with large size and long shape (Bruce 1984: 9; Aikhenvald 1998). In contrast, feminine gender assignment to inanimates is associated with large size, with masculine gender assignment being linked with slender elongated objects in

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225353 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:44:24:44 PPMM 254 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

Yonggom (Ok, Western province: Christensen 1995: 9–10) and in Olo (S8: Torricelli: McGregor and McGregor 1982: 55). The Baining languages of East New Britain (TB) have two noun classifi cation systems and a three- way number contrast (singular, dual, and plural). A simple masculine, feminine, and neuter (“everything else”) gender system is used for subject cross-referencing on the verb and in possessive constructions; a more com- plex, multi-term shape- and size-based system is realized through agreement within noun phrases of other types. Complex classifi er systems in multiple environments are a feature of the languages of Bougainville (B). Nasioi (Hurd 1977) has over a hundred clas- sifi ers used in possessive constructions, with numerals, , , and verbs. Motuna, from the same language family, has fi fty-one classifi ers used in the same environments as Nasioi (Onishi 1994), in addi- tion to fi ve noun classes (masculine, feminine, diminutive, local, and man- ner) realized through agreement with articles, demonstratives, and some adjectives in a , and with a topical constituent on the verb. Anamuxra (Pomoikan, Madang province: Ingram 2003) has several dozen classifi ers as suffi xes on post-head modifi ers (adjectives, numerals, demon- stratives, articles, and the general question word), the possessive marker, the vocative, and most nouns. Unusual multiple classifi er systems are attested in Awará and Wantoat (Davis n.d; Susan Quigley, p.c.), from the Finisterre family; Angan languages, and Santa Cruzan languages in the Solomons (Aikhenvald 2000: 218) Classifi catory verbs which combine reference to the orientation of the noun and to its inherent properties are widespread in the languages of the New Guinea Highlands, especially Engan (H5), Chimbu, and East New Guinea Highlands families (Foley 1986: 89 ff.), and also languages of the Border family (P1: Brown 1981; Aikhenvald 2000: 170–1). Enga (Lang 1975; Foley 1986: 89–91) has seven classifi catory verbs. Men and other referents judged to be tall, large, strong, and powerful (such as houses and trees) are classifi ed as “standing”, while women, possums, and referents judged to be small, squat, horizontal, and weak “sit”. Protruding objects “hang”, subter- ranean creatures and objects (such as worms or sweet potatoes, as well as internal organs, such as the heart) “lie inside”. Liquids and gases “come”; crawling or aquatic creatures, as well as orifi ces and locations, “lie”, and geni- talia “carry”. Ku Waru (Merlan et al. 1997: 75) has a similar, albeit smaller, system of classifi catory existential verbs. Waris (Border family, P1: Brown 1981) has verbal classifi ers which catego- rize the direct object in terms of its shape and size, in addition to “stance”

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225454 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:44:24:44 PPMM languages of new guinea 255

classifi catory verbs used to categorize the intransitive subject as to its orien- tation in space. Prefi xed verbal classifi ers in Waris derive historically from compounded verbs (as they do in the closely related Imonda: Seiler 1985). A few languages have rather unusual evidentiality systems. Oksapmin, an isolate from Sandaun province (Lawrence 1987), distinguishes visual, non- visual, and reported information sources. The systems in Foe and Fasu, from the Kutubuan family in the Southern Highlands, are among the most com- plex in the world, with at least six distinctions (Rule 1977: 71–4; May and Loeweke 1980: 71–4; Aikhenvald 2004a).

13.3.3. Syntax

Table 13.2 features a comparison of typical syntactic features of Austronesian languages contrasted with those found in most Papuan languages (Foley 1998: 513–16). Clause chaining is a prominent syntactic property of the Papuan lan- guages. It strongly correlates with their verb-fi nal constituent order (atypical for Austronesian languages: see Foley 2000b: 385). A great number of lan- guages distinguish between independent (“fi nal”) and dependent (“medial”) verbs. Final verbs have a full range of infl ectional possibilities, such as pro- nominal agreement, tense, aspect, and mood. Medial verbs typically occur before the fi nal verbs, and have fewer infl ectional possibilities. A medial verb carries a special morpheme indicating whether its subject is the same as that of the fi nal verb, or different from it. This is known as switch reference. Medial verbs typically distinguish relative tense (sequential versus simulta- neous forms).

Table 13.2. Some syntactic features of Austronesian and of Papuan languages: a comparison Syntactic feature Austronesian Papuan Constituent order Verb medial Predominantly verb fi nal Prepositions or postpositions Prepositions Postpositions Determiners precede No determiners noun within a noun phrase Position of modifi ers Follow the head noun Either follow or precede the head noun Clause linking Coordinating or Clause chaining subordinating conjunctions

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225555 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:44:24:44 PPMM 256 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

Switch reference markers are typically suffi xed to the verb (but in a few Angan languages in the Highlands some switch reference markers are suf- fi xes, and others are prefi xes). Switch reference is found throughout the Trans New Guinea area, in numerous languages of the Sepik area and of Madang, as well as in the languages of Bougainville (Onishi 1994). It is absent from Lakes Plain (P2), Skou (S7), Lower Sepik–Ramu (S1–2), and Torricelli lan- guages (S8), as well as from most languages in the Bismarck Archipelago. And we have mentioned above that Austronesian languages from the Bel family, in Madang province, have developed the distinction between medial and fi nal verbs, and even switch reference, under the impact of neighbouring Papuan languages. No other Austronesian languages have switch reference. For an up- to-date overview of switch reference in Papuan languages, see Roberts (1997). This sample of the unusual features of Papuan languages illustrates, in a nutshell, their considerable typological diversity.

13.3.4. Documentation

The major centres for the description and analysis of languages of the New Guinea area are the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea), the Research School of Pacifi c and Asian Studies in (Departments of Linguistics and of Anthropology), the Department of Linguistics at the University of Sydney, the University of Leiden (with major concentration on the languages of Indonesian Papua and the islands off the coast of New Guinea), and the Research Centre for at La Trobe University in Melbourne. Pacifi c Linguistics continues to be the major publisher for grammars, dictionaries, and other materials on New Guinea languages. In spite of the large amount of materials produced (see the bibliography in Carrington 1996), only a few score non-Austronesian languages have been well documented. Among these are Alamblak, Amele, Arapesh, Dani, Hua, Kewa, Kilmeri, Korafe, Marind, Usan, Yimas, and a few others. Several scholars are active in the area of Skou languages, and Papuan languages of the Solomons. But the majority of languages are still in urgent need of documentation.

13.4. Linguistic Diversity and Language Endangerment in Papua New Guinea

We will now briefl y discuss problems of language endangerment in Papua New Guinea. There are few documented instances of the “sudden death”

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225656 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:44:24:44 PPMM languages of new guinea 257

of a language (when all the speakers are exterminated or die of a disease: Campbell and Muntzel 1989), or of “radical death” whereby a rapid language loss is associated with genocide or severe political repression.5 Sudden death of Mansim, due to disease and intertribal warfare, was discussed by Reesink (2002a). Most instances of language obsolescence are those of “gradual death”, that is, the loss of a language due to a shift to the dominant language with an intermediary stage of bilingualism, and subsequent contraction in the sphere of usage of the erstwhile vernacular. Numerous communities in the Sepik area with a small number of speakers have effectively undergone . Children tend to acquire Tok Pisin rather than the vernacular as their fi rst language, and full competence in the vernacular is only found among adults. A classic case of such shift is Taiap (an isolate spoken in Gapun village, ESP, by about 100 people) documented by Kulick (1992). Language socialization in Taiap involves the conceptual- ization of Tok Pisin as a symbol of modernity and sought-after prosperity, while the vernacular is associated with “backwardness”. A similar example is Yimas (Lower Sepik: Foley 1991: 4–6) spoken by about 250 people in two vil- lages (and further examples in Loving 1980). Languages with fewer than fi fty speakers have hardly any chance of survival (see Smith 1992, on the immi- nent extinction of Susuami, an Angan language from ). One of the reasons for the vitality of the Mehek language in Sandaun prov- ince (Bugenhagen 1980: 93) is that, with over 6,000 speakers, it is numerically the dominant language in the area. The political situation in the Indonesian province of Papua is hardly promising for the survival of the vernaculars. Processes of rapid language shift have been observed for languages with seemingly large numbers of speakers. Murik (1,200, Lower Sepik) is not being learnt by children, and neither is Abu’ Arapesh, an of over 5,000 (S8; Nekitel 1985). A similar situation has been described for Cemaun Arapesh (Lise Dobrin, p.c.) and Makopin Arapesh (Nidue 1990: 65–6) (see Aikhenvald 2004b, for further examples). Language prestige is another factor. Smith (1992)—in his discussion of the apparently healthy situation of Musom, an Austronesian language of Morobe province—stresses the importance of pride in one’s language and identity, and “an ideology that newcomers must adapt to village norms of language and culture” (1992: 119). In contrast, speakers of Kuot, which is

5 Indications are that, before European contact, intertribal warfare did result in extinction of some tribes and languages. See Harrison (1993).

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225757 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM 258 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

now endangered (Lindström 2002), do not attach any particular importance to their language. Even if the language is acquired by children, its acquisition may be incom- plete. For instance, the knowledge of a ritual “” language used by a number of peoples of the Southern Highlands province during the harvest of pandanus nuts has decreased during the past thirty–forty years, as Franklin and Stefaniw (1992) report for Kewa and Imbongu (Kewa has over 40,000 speakers, and Imbongu has 16,000; neither of these languages is in immedi- ate danger of becoming extinct). Stylistic reduction often pre-dates language obsolescence. For instance, the oratorical style sesade kwanif associated with the ritual food exchange in Abu’ Arapesh was dying out in the 1960s, long before children stopped acquiring the language (Nekitel 1985: 182). Similar observations on Ilahita Arapesh can be found in Tuzin (1976). Also see Foley (1991, 1997b) on Yimas and Watam, Ingram (2003, 2006) for Dumo and Anamuxra, and Aikhenvald (2004b) for Manambu. Balanced and stable di- or triglossia involves Tok Pisin and often also English as the languages of government, local council, missions, and schooling, with the vernacular used in day-to-day communication in other circumstances (including the domestic). The tendency towards a triglossic situation in Papua New Guinea was fi rst identifi ed by Sankoff (1980: 35). If the di- or triglossic situation is stable, the vernacular is not endangered, as appears to be the case with Kilmeri (Border family: Brown 1980 and Claudia Gerstner-Link, p.c.), and Kaki Ae (Eleman family, Gulf province: Clifton 1994). See further examples in Loving (1980). In a situation where prestige and economic opportunities come to be associated with profi ciency in Tok Pisin, diglossic relationships between lan- guages often become unstable. Wom (Torricelli family: Moeckel and Moeckel 1980) had 2,500 speakers spread over fi ve villages. Besides diglossic relation- ships with Tok Pisin, the Wom-speaking villages preserved traditional pat- terns of bilingualism in Urat (Southern Arapesh) and Bumbita Arapesh. But most speakers regard Tok Pisin and now often English as the language of economic opportunity. As a result, numerous parents preferred speaking Tok Pisin to their children—this is indicative of a tendency towards destabi- lization, at least in the long run. Destabilized diglossia is becoming the norm in many areas of Papua New Guinea, including the Sepik. This is conducive to increasing endangerment of the vernaculars. What factors enhance the vitality of indigenous languages? A well- planned and well-executed teaching programme at the primary school level is extremely important for language maintenance (Nidue 1990 considers this

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225858 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM languages of new guinea 259

crucial for the survival of Makopin Arapesh). Watam (Lower Ramu: Foley 1997b), spoken by 700 people in three villages, is used by all generations. The fact that all speakers are bilingual in Tok Pisin does not appear to affect Watam’s vitality. Indeed, the Watam community school has been opened to the children of a neighbouring Kopar-speaking village (Kopar, from the Lower Sepik family, no longer has any real speakers under 50). These chil- dren are now bilingual in Watam. Watam is thus expanding at the expense of Kopar. The Summer Institute of Linguistics is playing an important role in pro- moting literacy and enhancing the prestige of indigenous languages (see Cahill 1999), having produced literacy and other materials on over 100 lan- guages. Dixon (1991: 246–7) reports how the Urat language (Torricelli fam- ily) in the East Sepik province underwent a strong revival as a result of the work of the SIL team, Robert and Dawn Barnes. The vitality of some indigenous languages is enhanced by the main- tenance of traditional patterns of subsistence . In such cases, there is no motivation to drop the vernacular and just speak Tok Pisin and/or English (see Bugenhagen 1980: 93, on Mehek and Siliput). In contrast, communities which are dependent on economic transactions involving Tok Pisin are in danger of losing their language (cf. Landweer 2000: 15). Emblematicity of a language can enhance its chances for survival. Anêm is a case in point. This Papuan language, markedly different from Austronesian languages in the area, is a mark of ethnic distinctiveness, and is being main- tained as such (Thurston 1992). Most Austronesian languages in the area are too similar to each other to serve as proper markers of ethnicity; as a result, people have a low degree of language loyalty, and the languages are in danger of disappearing. There is additional cause for optimism in the decision of the Papua New Guinea government to support “tok ples” (lit. “language (of) village”) pro- grammes, or “vernacular based pre-primary education” (Dixon 1991: 247; Nekitel 1998: 179–80). (These programmes allow children to acquire basic literacy skills in their fi rst language before moving on to education in later primary school.) By the end of 1991, the number of pro- vincial vernacular schools amounted to ninety-four, with programmes in twenty- (Wurm 2001: 389), scattered across most provinces. Since then, more active vernacular teaching programs have been imple- mented. (The latest fi gures, for mid 2005, are of over 4,000 schools: Joan Kale, p.c.). Tok Ples Elementary programmes for children in the fi rst three

CCh13.inddh13.indd 225959 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM 260 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

years of school are now available in densely populated parts of East New Britain and across Sandaun and Madang provinces. As funding allows, this programme is being rolled out into other areas. Communities across the country have been enthusiastic in their support for this programme. Funding limitations are hampering its expansion into less developed areas. Additional complications arise in the areas where schools have to service a number of different language communities, and are compelled to choose one indigenous language over another (as in the case of Kopar and Watam mentioned above), or Tok Pisin. Establishing a comprehensive language edu- cation programme across Papua New Guinea requires a dramatic increase in the number of schools. These education programmes, together with urgent documentation of hitherto undocumented or poorly described languages, are the most compelling tasks for those who have the future of New Guinean languages at heart.

References Aikhenvald, A. Y. (1998). “Physical properties in a gender system: an example from Manambu, a Ndu language of New Guinea”, Language and Linguistics in , 27: 175–87. —— (2000). Classifi ers: A Typology of Noun Categorisation Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— (2004a). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— (2004b). “Language endangerment in the Sepik area of Papua New Guinea”, in O. Sakiyama and F. Endo (eds.), Lectures on Endangered Languages, v: From Tokyo and Kyoto Conferences 2002. The project Endangered Languages of the Pacifi c Rim. Suita: Osaka, 97–142. —— with Ala, Jacklyn Yuamali Benji, and Laki, Pauline L. (Forthcoming) ). The from East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Anderson, N., and Wade, M. (1988). “Ergativity and control in Folopa”, Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 19: 1–16. Bellwood, P. S. (1998). “From Bird’s Head to bird’s eye view; long term structures and trends in Indo-Pacifi c ”, in Miedema et al. 1998: 951–78. Blust, R. A. (1993). “Central and Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian”, , 32: 241–94. Briley, D. (1997). “Four grammatical marking systems in Bauzi”, in Karl Franklin (ed.), Papers in Papuan Linguistics 2. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 1–131. Brown, R. (1980). “A sociolinguistic survey of Pagi and Kilmeri”, in Loving 1980: 193–206. —— (1981). “Semantic aspects of some Waris predications”, in K. J. Franklin (ed.), Syntax and Semantics in Papua New Guinea Languages. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 93–123. Bruce, L. (1984). The of Papua New Guinea East Sepik. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 226060 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM languages of new guinea 261

Bugenhagen, R. D. (1980). “A sociolinguistic survey of Mehek and Siliput”, in Loving 1980: 79–108. Cahill, M. (1999). “From endangered to less endangered: case histories from Brazil and Papua New Guinea”, Notes on Sociolinguistics, 5: 23–34. Campbell, L. (1997). “Amerindian personal pronouns: a second opinion”, Language, 73: 339–51. —— and Muntzel, M. (1989). “The structural consequences of ”, in Nancy Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–96. Carrington, L. (1996). A Linguistic Bibliography of the New Guinea Area. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Chowning, A. (1996). “Relations among languages of West New Britain: an assessment of recent theories and evidence”, in Ross 1996: 7–62. Christensen, S. (1995). Yonggom Grammar Essentials. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Clifton, J. (1994). “Stable in a small language group: the case of Kaki Ae”, Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 25: 107–24. Clouse, D. A. (1997). “Toward a reconstruction and reclassifi cation of the of Irian Jaya”, in Karl Franklin (ed.), Papers in Papuan Linguistics 2. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 133–236. Conrad, R. (1978). “A survey of the Arapesh language family of Papua New Guinea”, Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages, 25: 57–77. —— with Wogiga, Kepas (1991). An Outline of Bukiyip Grammar. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Davis, D. R. (n.d.). Noun Class Markers in Wantoat. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dixon, R. M. W. (1991). “The endangered languages of , Indonesia and ”, in R. H. Robins and E. M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), Endangered Languages. Oxford: Berg, 229–55. Dobrin, L. (1999). “Phonological form, morphological class and syntactic gender: the noun class systems of Papua New Guinea Arapeshan”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Dol, P. (1999). “A grammar of Maybrat: A language from the Bird’s Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia”, Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden. Donohue, M. (1997). “Tone systems in New Guinea”, Linguistic Typology, 1: 347–86. —— 2002a. “Which sounds change: descent and borrowing in the Skou family”, Oceanic Linguistics, 41: 171–221. —— 2002b. Papuan Languages. Materials for the course taught in July 2002 at ALI, Macquarie University. —— (forthcoming). A Grammar of the Skou Language of New Guinea. Drabbe, P. (1955). Spraakkunst van het Marind zuidkust Nederlands Nieuw-Guinea. Studia Instituti Anthropos 11. Vienna: Missiehuis St Gabriel. Dunn, M., Reesink, G., and Terrill, A. (2002). “The East Papuan languages: a prelimi- nary typological appraisal”, Oceanic Linguistics, 41: 28–62. Dutton, T. E. (ed.) (1992). Culture Change, Language Change: Case Studies from Melanesia. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— (1997). “Hiri Motu”, in S. G. Thomason (ed.), Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 9–41.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 226161 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM 262 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

Edmondson, J. A., Bateman, J. and Miehle, H. (1992). “Tone contours and tone clusters in Iau”, BLS 18: 92–103. Feldman, H. (1986). A Grammar of Awtuw. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Foley, W. A. (1986). The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— (1988). “Language birth: the processes of pidginisation and creolisation”, in F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, iv: Language: The Socio- Cultural Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 162–84. —— (1991). The of New Guinea. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. —— (1994). “New Guinea languages”, in R. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, iii. 86–92. —— (1997a). “Papuan languages”, (www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/linguistics/ling/ research/papuan.html), 1, 2. —— (1997b). “Watam”, www.sultry.arts.usyd.edu.au/ling/research/watam.html1,2. —— (1998). “Toward understanding Papuan languages”, in Miedema et al. 1998: 503–18. —— (1999). “Grammatical relations, information structure, and constituency in Watam”, Oceanic Linguistics, 38: 115–38. —— (2000a). “Linguistic prehistory in the Sepik–Ramu basin”, paper delivered at the conference Papuan Pasts, RSPAS, ANU, Canberra. —— (2000b). “The languages of New Guinea”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 29: 357–404. Ford, K. (n.d.). “The languages of Papua New Guinea”, MS, Department of Language and Literature, University of Papua New Guinea. Foreman, V. (1974). Grammar of Yessan-Mayo. Santa Ana, Calif.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Fortune, R. (1942). Arapesh. Publications of the American Ethnological Society XIX. New York: J. J. Augustin. Franklin, K. J. (1971). A Grammar of Kewa, New Guinea. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— and Stefaniw, R. (1992). “The ‘pandanus languages’ of the Southern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea: a further report”, in Dutton 1992: 1–6. French, M. A. (1994). “Solomon Islands: language situation”, in R. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, viii. 4046–7. Fry, E. (1977). “Missionary lingue franche: Kuanua”, in Wurm 1977b: 865–74. Gerstner-Link, C. (2004). Das Kilmeri. Typologische Annäherung an eine Sprache Neuguineas. Puwani-river, Sandaun Province, Papua New Guinea. Habilitationsschrift, Lüdwig-Maximilan-Universität Munich: Institut für Allgemeine und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft. Gravelle, G. (2002). “Morphosyntactic properties of Meyah word classes”, in Reesink 2002: 109–80. Grimes, B. (ed.) (2000). , i: Languages of the World. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics International. Harrison, S. (1993). The Mask of War. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hurd, C. (1977). “Nasioi projectives”, Oceanic Linguistics, 16: 111–78. Ingram, A. (2003). “Classifi ers in Anamuxra”, Anthropological Linguistics, 45: 129–68. —— (2006). “Serial verb constructions in Dumo”, in A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial Verbs: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 202–22.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 226262 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM languages of new guinea 263

—— (In press). A Grammar of Anamuxra. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— (forthcoming). A grammar of Dumo. Jones, L. K. (1994). “Indonesia: language situation”, in R. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, iii. 1667–9. Kulick, D. (1992). Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction: Socialisation, Self, and Syncretism in a Papua New Guinean Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Landweer, M. L. (2000). “Endangered languages: indicators of ethnolinguistic vitality”, Notes on Sociolinguistics, 5: 5–22. Lang, A. (1975). The Semantics of Classifi catory Verbs in Enga and Other Papua New Guinea Languages. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Lawrence, M. (1987). “Viewpoint in Oksapmin”, Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 16: 54–70. Laycock, D. (1965). The Ndu Language Family (Sepik District, New Guinea). Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra Publications. Lindström, E. (2002). “Topics in the grammar of Kuot, a non-Austronesian language of New Ireland, Papua New Guinea” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm. Loving, R. (ed.) (1980). Sociolinguistic Survey of . Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 29. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Lynch, J. (1998). Pacifi c Languages. An Introduction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. —— Ross, M. D., and Crowley, T. (2002). The Oceanic Languages. London: Curzon Press. McGregor, D. E., and McGregor, A. R. F. (1982). Olo Language Materials. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. May, J., and Loeweke, E. (1980). General Grammar of Faso (Namo Me). Reprinted from Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 27. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Merlan, F., and Rumsey, A. (1991). Ku Waru: Language and Segmentary Politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley, Papua New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— Roberts, S. P., and Rumsey, A. (1997). “New Guinea “classifi catory verbs” and Australian noun classifi cation: a typological comparison” in M. Harvey and N. Reid (eds.), Nominal Classifi cation in Aboriginal Australia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 63–103. Miedema, J., Odé, C. and Dam, R. A. C. (eds.) (1998). Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Moeckel, B., and Moeckel, B. (1980). “A sociolinguistic survey of Wom”, in Loving 1980: 43–62. Nekitel, O. (1985). “Sociolinguistic aspects of Abu’: a Papuan language of the Sepik area, Papua New Guinea”, Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University. —— (1998). Voices of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Language, Culture and Identity. New Delhi: UBS, Publisher Distributors Ltd. Nidue, J. A. (1990). “Language use in a New Guinea village: a triglossic profi le of Makopin I”, Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 21: 47–69. Obata, K. (2003). A Grammar of Bilua, a Papuan Language of the Solomon Islands. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Onishi, M. (1994). “A grammar of Motuna (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea)”, Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 226363 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM 264 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

Pawley, A. K. (1993). “A language which defi es description by ordinary means”, in W. A. Foley (ed.), The Role of Theory in Language Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 87–129. —— (1995). “C. L. Voorhoeve and the Trans New Guinea phylum hypothesis”, in C. Baak, M. Bakker, and D. van der Meij (eds.), Tales from a Concave World: Liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve. Leiden: Leiden University, 83–123. —— (1998). “The Trans New Guinea phylum hypothesis: a reassessment”, in Miedema et al. 1998: 655–90. —— (2000). “The Trans New Guinea phylum: recent historical research and its impli- cations”, paper presented at the conference Papuan Pasts: Investigations into the Cultural, Linguistic and Biological History of the Papuan Speaking Peoples, RSPAS, ANU, Canberra. —— and Ross, M. D. (1995). “The prehistory of Oceanic languages: a current view”, in P. Bellwood, J. Fox and D. Tryon (eds.), The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra: Australian National University, RSPAS, 39–74. Reesink, G. P. (1998). “The Bird’s Head as a ”, in Miedema et al. 1998: 603–42. —— (1999). A Grammar of Hatam: Bird’s Head Peninsula, Irian Jaya. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— (2000). “West Papuan: roots and development”, paper presented at the conference Papuan Pasts: Investigations into the Cultural, Linguistic and Biological History of the Papuan Speaking Peoples, RSPAS, ANU, Canberra. —— (2002a). “Mansim, a lost language of the Bird’s Head”, in Reesink 2002c: 277–340. —— (2002b). “The eastern Bird’s Head languages compared”, in Reesink 2002c: 1–44. —— (ed.) (2002c). Languages of the Eastern Bird’s Head. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Roberts, J. R. (1997). “Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: a preliminary survey”, in Papers in Papuan Linguistics, iii. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 101–241. Ross, M. D. (1987). “A contact induced morphosyntactic change in the Bel languages of Papua New Guinea”, in D. C. Laycock and W. Winter (eds.), The World of Languages: Papers Presented to Professor S. A. Wurm on his 65th Birthday. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 583–607. —— (1993). “Tonogenesis in the North Huon Gulf Chain”, in J. A. Edmondson and K. J. Gregerson (eds.), Tonality in Austronesian Languages. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 133–53. —— (1994). “Areal phonological features in north central New Ireland”, in T. Dutton and Darrell T. Tryon (eds.), Language Contact and Change in the Austronesian World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 523–72. —— (1995). “The great Papuan hunt: recalibrating our sights”, in C. Baak, M. Bakker, and D. van der Meij (eds.), Tales from a Concave World: Liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve. Leiden: Leiden University, 139–68. —— (ed.) (1996). Studies in Languages of New Britain and New Ireland, i: Austronesian Languages of the North New Guinea Cluster in Northwestern New Britain. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— (2000). “Using pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan lan- guages”, paper presented at the conference Papuan Pasts: Investigations into the Cultural, Linguistic and Biological History of the Papuan Speaking Peoples, RSPAS, ANU, Canberra.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 226464 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM languages of new guinea 265

—— (2001). “Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in north-west Melanesia”, in A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 137–66. Rule, W. M. (1977). A Comparative Study of the Foe, Huli and Pole Languages of Papua New Guinea. Oceania Linguistic Monographs 20. Sydney: University of Sydney. Sankoff, G. (1977). “Multilingualism in Papua New Guinea”, in S. A. Wurm (ed.) New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study, iii: Language, Culture, Society and the Modern World. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 265–307. (Also in Sankoff 1980: 95–132). —— (1980). The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Scott, G. (1978). The of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Seiler, W. (1985). Imonda, a Papuan Language. Canberra: ANU, Pacifi c Linguistics. Senft, G. (1996). Classifi catory Particles in Kilivila. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, G. P. (1992). “Language obsolescence in Morobe province, Papua New Guinea: two contrasting case studies”, in Dutton 1992: 115–21. Staalsen, P. (1966). “The of Iatmul”, in Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 5. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 69–76. Stebbins, T. N. (2005). “Noun classifi cation in Mali”, Anthropological Linguistics, 47: 77–131. —— (Forthcoming). A Grammar of Mali (Baining). Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. Terrill, A. (2002). “Systems of nominal classifi cation in East Papuan languages”, Oceanic Linguistics, 41: 63–88. —— (2003). A Grammar of Lavukaleve, a Papuan Language of the Solomon Islands. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Thurston, W. R. (1982). A Comparative Study in Anêm and Lusi. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— (1987). Processes of Change in the Languages of Northwestern Britain. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— (1992). “Sociolinguistic typology and other factors effecting change in north- western New Britain, Papua New Guinea”, in Dutton 1992: 123–38. Tuzin, D. (1976). The Ilahita Arapesh: Dimensions of Unity. Berkeley, and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Wendel, T. D. (1993). “A preliminary grammar of Hanga Hundi”, MA thesis, University of Texas at Arlington. Whitehead, C. R. (1994). “Papua New Guinea: language situation”, in R. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. vi. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2924–6. Wilson, P. (1980). Ambulas Grammar. Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 26. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Wurm, S. A. (1975a). “The application of the to Papuan lan- guages: general and highlands”, in S. A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study, i: Papuan Languages and the New Guinea Linguistic Scene. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 237–62. —— (1975b). “The East Papuan phylum in general”, in S. A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study, i: Papuan Languages and the New Guinea Linguistic Scene. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 783–807. —— (1977a). “Missionary lingue franche: Kiwai”, in Wurm 1977b: 893–906.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 226565 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:45:24:45 PPMM 266 alexandra y. aikhenvald and tonya n. stebbins

—— (ed.) (1977b). New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study, iii: Language, Culture, Society, and the Modern World. Fascicle 2. Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics. —— (1982). Pacifi c . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. —— (1992). “Change of language structure and typology in a Pacifi c language as a result of culture change”, in Dutton 1992: 149–65. —— (2001). “Language endangerment in the insular Greater Pacifi c area, and the New Guinea area in particular”, in A. Pawley, M. Ross, and Darrell Tryon (eds.), The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of . Canberra: Pacifi c Linguistics, 383–97.

CCh13.inddh13.indd 226666 99/27/2006/27/2006 88:24:46:24:46 PPMM